Government

Faulty forensic test put innocents in jail over decades

A faulty forensic analysis has put hundreds of innocent people in jail over decades, according to a joint investigation by <em>The Washington Post</em> and <em>60 Minutes</em>.

A faulty forensic analysis has put hundreds of innocent people in jail over decades, according to a joint investigation by The Washington Post and 60 Minutes. Eventually found to be unreliable, it was quietly dumped four decades later without alerting those convicted.

The "comparative bullet-lead analysis" claimed to link a bullet with ones in suspects' possession. However, faulty statistical analysis of the elements contained in different lead samples resulted in false matches.

Excerpt from eFluxMedia:

The comparative bullet-lead analysis was based on the supposition that each batch of lead would have a particular, almost unique, chemical makeup. The National Academy of Sciences, however, has invalidated this claim in 2004, pointing out that FBI experts who claimed to jurors the test linked a particular bullet to those found in a suspect's gun or cartridge box were more or less misleading the jury.

Unfortunately, according to The Washington Post:

But the FBI lab has never gone back to determine how many times its scientists misled jurors. Internal memos show that the bureau's managers were aware by 2004 that testimony had been overstated in a large number of trials. In a smaller number of cases, the experts had made false matches based on a faulty statistical analysis of the elements contained in different lead samples, documents show.

The reporters have since alerted the FBI on at least 250 cases that may require closer examination. John Miller, FBI Assistant Director for Public Affairs, noted that the FBI is taking a series of steps to try to fix this snafus on cases where the conviction might have resulted from the flawed analysis.

The question remains as to why it took a media investigation for the FBI to notice and take action.

Thinking ahead, what do you reckon are the chances of flawed computer forensics resulting in a hapless computer idiot being charged for computer crimes that they did not commit.

About

Paul Mah is a writer and blogger who lives in Singapore, where he has worked for a number of years in various capacities within the IT industry. Paul enjoys tinkering with tech gadgets, smartphones, and networking devices.

113 comments
Oz_Media
Oz_Media

A growing number of people being are being released after decades in prison after being falsely accused. This has been common for a long time now, peopl ear eworngly accused all the time, a good reason not to support the death penalty. I certainly wouldn't want to be a juror who found out that someone was proveninnocent two years after I've seen them sentenced to death. Until we can get it right, we can't play God and decide who's life we can take. It is a terribly inaccurate science, despite the REAL scientific fact that is often greyed over by a slick tongued lawyer in order to see 'someone' pay for a crime. If we could be POSITIVE, as we are in a few cases (fewer than one may think) then fine, but if not, we can't take lives.

normhaga
normhaga

The standard you apply to the death sentence should be applied to all crime, not just murder because some "slick tongued attorney" may have distorted the facts to obtain a conviction or win an election. To you Oz: Please verify your facts before asserting them: Charles Manson was not convicted of murder, nor has it ever been proven that he killed anyone.

Oz_Media
Oz_Media

[i]To you Oz: Please verify your facts before asserting them: Charles Manson was not convicted of murder, nor has it ever been proven that he killed anyone. [/i] Wasn't my statement. I never mentioned Manson. Manson's edge is that he had others kill in support of him, this also makes him a direct accessory which equates to manslaughter more often than first degree murder, which is a big part/debate of the case. I'm from a family with lawyers in the mix and study violent crimes and criminal behaviour(more specifically, mass murderers), I don't think I'd make such an assertion. On that same note though,nobody convicted OJ of murder either, doesn't mean he didn't do it though.

normhaga
normhaga

It is ok. We will both probably hold different opinions on this issue for life. You did force me to drag out from memory old personal investigations from a tumultuous period of my life. One I would rather just let lie in the dust. I did read the post that you pointed to and accepted it as personal belief. No hard feelings and good memories of a worthy adversary will remain for you. Norman

NickNielsen
NickNielsen

The line that set me off, from your original post: [i]For the record, Manson was not convicted of murder, but was sentenced to death.[/i] Your current contradictory quote from Wikipedia: [i]He was found guilty of conspiracy to commit the Tate-LaBianca murders, which members of the group carried out at his instruction; through the joint-responsibility rule of conspiracy, [b]he was convicted of the murders themselves.[/b][/i] (my emphasis) :0 In addition, this from about.com: [i]On January 25, 1971 the jury returned a guilty verdict of all defendants and on all counts of first-degree murder.[/i] (http://crime.about.com/od/murder/p/charliemanson3.htm) :_| I know the feeling. Great exchange, I enjoyed it immensely. Catch ya next time. B-) Edit: speling Added: Norm, I think we were both splitting hairs here. No, Manson did not actually kill any of the Tate-LaBianca victims; he was, however, the instigator and lead conspirator. I posted this a day ago: http://tinyurl.com/2knytq

normhaga
normhaga

From Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Manson "Charles Milles Manson (born November 12, 1934) is a convict who led the "Manson Family," a commune or cult he started in the U.S. city of San Francisco in 1967.[1][2][3] He was found guilty of conspiracy to commit the Tate-LaBianca murders, which members of the group carried out at his instruction; through the joint-responsibility rule of conspiracy,[4] he was convicted of the murders themselves." While you are partially correct, the facts actually support conspiracy.

normhaga
normhaga

First, I made a mistake in quoting names. I meant "Bruce Davis" and not "Bruce Jennings." What Manson did in the La Bianca murders was to break into their home/mansion, cut a lamp cord and tie them up with it while committing a robbery/burglary. Later the Bianca's were murdered. Presumably by Manson's cohorts. This, other than the living arrangements and courtroom circus, was the only issue ever proven in court against Manson. Outside of the robbery the entire case against Manson was based on innuendo. The courtroom circus can be attributed to copy cat behavior for someone admired. Of course, this is open to interpretation. How did your expose' of the issue make you an ass? You expressed fixed opinions about something which your own position showed you lacked knowledge of. In short, you expressed an opinion of something of which you lacked even the basic knowledge of and were expressing sentiment. I respect even an incorrect assumption when you can support your position with fact, or when you clearly identify that your position is based on personal belief because not all issues are black or white. You are making an incorrect assumption with regard to my position on the death sentence, as examples: Son of Sam (50 bodies buried in his orchard) should have been executed, but was not. Ted Bundy was and should have been executed. Priscilla Ford (Schizophrenic female mass murderer - 25 people killed by driving a vehicle down Virginia St. in Reno, Nv because 'God' told her to was executed and should not have been. Gary Bishop (33 child rapes/murders in Utah) was and should have been executed. William Andrews and Pierre Dale Selby (Utah Hi-fi torture/murders) were and should have been executed. Kevin Ford (Utah State University rapes of coeds- over 30 known) should have been, but was not executed. The death sentence is a highly situation occurrence. In the Mason issue, Tex Watson, Bruce Davis, and Susan Atkins should have and did receive the death sentence which was never carried out. With Manson himself, there are to many unanswered questions to assert the death sentence. However, because of the mileage from the case, I now believe it is best that they remain in prison. Hopefully this will clear any misunderstanding on this issue. Norman

NickNielsen
NickNielsen

This line is from the chronology of the Manson saga on the University or Missouri-Kansas City Law school page: [i]January 25, 1971 The jury convicts all Tate-LaBianca defendants of first-degree murder.[/i] (http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/manson/mansonchrono.html) All Tate-LaBianca defendants were charged with both murder and conspiracy to commit murder. All were convicted. End of line.

normhaga
normhaga

While I respect your beliefs and especially respect the fact that you investigated the matter, I also believe that you overlooked several matters. Looking at the first link you gave. You overlooked the introduction which set the tone of the appellate decision: "The very nature of this case and the theory of the prosecution compel reference to circumstantial evidence of the conduct and relationship of the parties. [1] People v. Kobey (1951) 105 Cal.App.2d 548 [234 P.2d 251] confirms that such reference is proper: "Virtually the only method by which a conspiracy can be proved is by circumstantial evidence -- the actions of the parties as they bear upon the common design. It is not necessary to show directly that the parties actually closeted themselves, attained the proverbial meeting of the minds and agreed to undertake the unlawful acts." Manson was not convicted of murder, but rather he was convicted of conspiracy to commit murder. From the second link you sent: "Charles M. Manson (Manson), Susan Denise Atkins (Atkins) and Bruce McGregor Davis (Davis) were indicted by the grand jury for the murder of Gary Allan Hinman (Hinman) on July 27, 1969, in violation of Penal Code section 187 (count I); count II charged that Manson, Atkins and Davis entered into a conspiracy to commit murder and robbery on or about the "25th through the 28th day of July 1969 in violation of Penal Code section 182.1."" I have read these appeals several times in the past. My sole interest in doing my own investigation was the close association with Linette "Sqeeky" Frome in my past. Conspiracy is a strange law; if you and I discuss something illegal from a theoretical perspective and you later go and do whatever, I am guilty of conspiracy to commit whatever. This entire sub-thread reminds me of the value of the deterrent effect of prisons and propaganda. There is so much misinformation and misunderstanding that it defies belief.

Inkling
Inkling

That was my initial question. What this boils down to is your personal opinion of whether or not the death penalty is appropriate. By your own admission, the people responsible for setting the sentence seemed to think so. To me, that sounds like he was just a culpable for the crimes committed as anyone else. You are, of course, free to disagree. My assertion is still true. Manson was just as responsible for the crimes as anyone else. It is proven true by the sentence of death. How, exactly does that make me an ass? How does anything you've said, or your extensive knowledge of the subject make my assertion inaccurate?

normhaga
normhaga

So, just what do I know Manson? First: I read Helter-Skelter, which is the title of the book written by the prosecutor of the Manson case. Second: I have met and held many talks with Charles "Tex" Watson while he was incarcerated at the California Mens Colony prison facility in San Louis Obispo. At that time, he turned to religion. Whether he was sincere or it was a bid for release, I am unqualified to judge. Third: I have met and held many talks with Bruce Jennings while he was also incarcerated at CMC. The same regarding religion applies to him as to Watson. Fourth: before Sqeeky Frome became involved with Manson she baby sat me as a child. Since you are intimately familiar with the Tate-La'Bianca murders, you undoubtedly know that these are three major characters in the Manson issue you wish to argue. For the record, Manson was not convicted of murder, but was sentenced to death. His death sentence was overturned when in another case the entire nations death sentences were banned. Also for the record, Sqeeky Frome was never convicted. IMHO it is far more fitting and cruel that these individuals spend their lives in prison, rotting away in a cell. Now, unless you know more about this issue than I, shut your mouth and engage your mind before you make a bigger ass out of yourself.

Inkling
Inkling

In his multiple interviews from jail, he has never professed the slightest bit of sorrow for that, or for the other murders that came about, in large part, due to his actions. If you are at all knowledgeable about the crimes he committed and/or was involved in, you can not possibly argue that there is any doubt regarding his guilt.

Inkling
Inkling

Murder. Your entire post is worthless.

NickNielsen
NickNielsen

He was the instigator. Under the law, he becomes a conspirator and as such is just as guilty of the killings as those who actually committed them.

Oz_Media
Oz_Media

No it's not an argument, it's basic law. First degree murder and volountary/involountary manslaughter receive far different penalties. Murder defined: In common law jurisdictions, murder has two elements or parts: The act (actus reus) of killing a person the state of mind (mens rea) of intentional, purposeful, malicious, premeditated, and/or wanton. Manslaughter Defined:Voluntary & involountary. Volountary manslaughter: describes cases where the defendant may have an intent to cause death or serious injury, but the potential liability for the person is mitigated by the circumstances and state of mind. The most common example is the so-called heat of passion killing, such as where the defendant is provoked into a loss of control by unexpectedly finding a spouse in the arms of a lover or witnessing an attack against his or her child. Involountary manslaughter (also referred to as criminal negligence): Negligence consists of conduct by an individual which is not reasonable ? that is, the individual did not act with the care and caution of a reasonable person in similar circumstances. This "reasonable person" is an abstraction, reflecting the standard of conduct which society wishes to impose. Violation of this standard may lead to civil liability for the consequences of the negligent behavior. Negligence rises to the level of criminal negligence where the conduct reaches a higher degree of carelessness or inattention, perhaps to the point of indifference. To conclude, according to most laws around teh globe, there is a VERY big difference between first degree murder and manslaughter. Thus being seen as third party to murder holds a different sentence, or as you state, [b]being less responsible for the murder.[/b]

Oz_Media
Oz_Media

I assumed that was the case, I've done it dozens of times myself. I just wantd to ensure I hadn't been misunderstood, as is always very easy in these forums. You are right with respect to Manson, but it is a fine line he (his council) walks. They have dewelled on the fact that he has not been show to personally kill someone, however, his direct involvement and influence on others is hard to see past. Due to the fact that the level of direct involvement separates manslaughter from first degree murder, he has a wee lopphiole that will simply see him waste away in prision, costing taxpayers money while it is dragged out for decades. I think that, even with my utmost disagreement with inkling, I must concur with the direction of the comment. It was intended to illustrate someone who we KNOW has committed/influenced these crimes, as opposed to someone fingered for a crime and some dodgy evidence finds them convicted, only to be later overturned. Perhaps a mroe accurate analogy would be our own Clifford Olsen made your news much or not, but he's our Canadian psycho. In his case, he was convicted and then sold evidence to the courts as to how he killed and where bodies were left, so that he could cash in on his crimes. Everytime he was broke, he offered info on a few more, until they finally didn't want any more info for cash. THIS guy should just be executed, we KNOW what he did and it is uncontested.

normhaga
normhaga

No, I am not arguing one way or the other an issue that occurred in the late 60's and early 70's. In line with the post, are you willing to take a chance on a final solution with inconclusive evidence? That was what OZ_media was posting about. I have far more experience with the criminal justice system that you can imagine and am aware of what really does occur in the court room and how evidence is twisted and distorted to prove a position. I am not willing to take the chance.

Inkling
Inkling

That Manson is [i]less[/i] responsible, because he didn't participate in the murders? The bottom line is this: The world would be a better place without someone like Charles Manson in it. I say put a bullet in him, burn him and leave his ashes where they lay.

Inkling
Inkling

In the rare case (Charles Manson, etc.) that we are 100% sure someone is guilty of a capital offense, kill em. Other than that...this is, as Oz says, a great example of why it shouldn't be practiced.

Inkling
Inkling

I watched the entire 60 minutes show that covered this. Unless I'm wrong, it is misleading at best (typical, disgusting sensationalism at worst). Maybe I'm wrong, but I didn't read anything in your article or see anything on 60 Minutes that proved anyone was innocent of the crimes for which they were convicted. If I'm wrong about that, then I apologize. Having said that... I was disgusted, albeit not surprised, at the way the FBI handled this. While they may not yet have proven that someone was wrongly convicted, I think it's safe to say that they were illegally convicted. Anyone that has argued with me in the past about why we shouldn't worry about giving the government too much power...please take note!

NickNielsen
NickNielsen

In at least one case, jurors have said that the bullet-lead analysis evidence was the tipping point and they probably wouldn't have convicted without it. Go back to the original post, then read the Washington Post article.

The Listed 'G MAN'
The Listed 'G MAN'

and reduce the crime associated with them. This leads to less gun crime and therefore less need for bullet-lead analysis in the first place.

normhaga
normhaga

about restricting firearms even more than they already are. In fact, I support the second amendment as it is written, not as the courts interpreted it. "... the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." While not well publicized, every city and state that has reduced the restrictions on concealed weapons permits has seen a corresponding reduction in crime. Therefore, it just might be a deterrent to crime if the criminal does not know if he/she will get their f***ing head blown off if they try to rape, rob, burgle, etc. you, because firearms become more prevalent.

NickNielsen
NickNielsen

includes [i][b]all[/b][/i] the following text: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." If you ask me, the "well regulated militia" is the National Guard. Not in the Guard? Turn in your guns! Just MHO Now, let's get real. Do I believe all the FUD from both sides? No. Do I think there should be a complete ban on gun ownership in the US? No. Do I believe there should be unrestricted access to firearms? No. At the very least, handguns should be strictly controlled at the national level, starting from the manufacturer, and only sold after the purchaser has passed an in-depth background check. Rifles and shotguns should be sold only by registered dealers. I do believe that any [u]law-abiding[/u] gun owner should have no problem: 1. waiting for an agency check before purchasing a long gun; 2. waiting for a complete background check before purchasing a hand gun; and 3. complying with weapons safety rules, to include trigger locks and separate [b]secure[/b] storage of weapon and ammunition. According to data on NationMaster (http://www.nationmaster.com/country/us-united-states/cri-crime), the US had 12,658 murders from 1998 through 2000; 8,259 of those were firearms murders. When 65% of murders are committed with a single type of weapon, it might be time to control access to that type of weapon. And for the "cold dead hands" crowd, "control" does not equal "eliminate." Look it up! Edit: ed too soon.

JohnMcGrew
JohnMcGrew

...because we all know how concerned criminals are about breaking the law; Someone who posesses the compultion to kill someone is obviously going to be concerned about the law. Oh, and banning guns has worked just wonderfully in Britain - not.

Oz_Media
Oz_Media

Okay, this one's pretty damn easy. "The rise in UK gun crime is a long term trend that is apparently unaffected by the state of UK firearms legislation" some gun facts, sorry England didn't have enough of a problem to make the charts. http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_gun_vio_hom_fir_hom_rat_per_100_pop-rate-per-100-000-pop http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_gun_vio_hom_hom_wit_fir-crime-gun-violence-homicides-firearms "The U.S. has a high gun murder rate, whereas a country like England with strict gun controls has almost no gun murders and a very low murder rate" As for "banning guns" in the UK, nobody wanted them or lobbied for such laws. They were no more "banned" than unwanted. [b]"There is practically no organised "right to keep and bear arms" lobby in the United Kingdom, and little debate between pro-gun control and pro-gun ownership advocates.[/b] These two situations create what is believed to be some of the strictest gun legislation in the world." "In 2005/06 there were 766 offences initially recorded as homicide by the police in England and Wales (including the 52 victims of the 7 July 2005 London bombings),[15] a rate of 1.4 per 100,000 of population. [b]Only 50 (6.6%) were committed with firearms,[/b] one being with an air weapon" "By comparison, 5.5 murders per 100,000 of population were reported by police in the United States in 2000, of which [b]70% involved the use of firearms (75% of which were illegally obtained).[/b][18] New York City, with a population size similar to London (over 8 million residents), reported 6.9 murders per 100,000 people in 2004.[19]" " The number of homicides committed with firearms has remained between a range of 46 and 97 for the past decade, standing at 50 in 2005/06 (a fall from 75 the previous year). Between 1998/99 and 2005/06, there have been only two fatal shootings of police officers in England and Wales. Over the same period there were 107 non-fatal shootings of police officers - an average of just 9.7 per year.[25]" So, which piece of US pro-gun propaganda did you get your facts from? LOL :D "Oh, and banning guns has worked just wonderfully in Britain " Certainly hasn't worked as well as allowing guns in the US - NOT.

Oz_Media
Oz_Media

First of all we are discussing FIREARM crimes and homicides, not 'Selected Contact Crime'. A HIGE and very lisleading difference. Your conclusion was rash and unqualified, just a simple conclusion: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/ascii/rcp00.txt The above link shows how few such crimes are ever reported in the USA, and there are also fewer in Canada I know first hand, compared to from the UK, where most people have no issues picking up the phone and dialing 999. A fair conclusion is that 'interview' stats provided are inacurate at best, with most people ESPECIALLY wiht relation to gang related or drug crime will not speak out or report such crimes. I think there is no question that there are fewer gang/drug related crimes in the UK, and to use the same rash anaolgies as you have, therefore a greater number of REPORTED crimes. The following comment is also poorly concluded. [i]Gun crimes in England have almost doubled since 1997, when a ban on firearms began.[/i] (I assume your intention is to show that BECAUSE guns were banned such crime escalated or the ban hasn't had an effect?) In order to support such a thoery, you need to show many people would have been killed by guns is the ban WASN'T put into effect. Perhaps it is just as fair to suggest that the numbers would have escalated a lot more, if guns were NOT banned and perhaps that is exactly the motivation to start heavier legislation on guns. But the premise of your argument is moot anyway; you cannot, for a single second, think taht anyone will believe your theory that the number of gun crimes are not directly effected by legislation. Well, 'inkling' may agree with y'all, it supports his agenda afterall. Reuters, the rest of the article states: [i]The report, [b]which relied on government data, surveys and media reports to estimate the size of world arsenals, estimated[/b] there were 650 million civilian firearms worldwide, and 225 million held by law enforcement and military forces...Only about 12 percent of civilian weapons are thought to be registered with authorities." It is without contest that we know there is a a great deal more unregistered weapons in the US, than in Canada or the UK for example. Therefore such samples are not even remotely accurate, as pretty much admitted in the article. While they feel this is the most accurate tally BASED ON AVAILABLE STATISTICS, the available statistics represent about 12% of the total. Using the word estimate twice in a single sentence certainly doesn't illustrate the author's confidence in the statistics provided. It does illustrate how the author was sure the stats would be quickly contessted though, judging by the protective mature of the comment.

JohnMcGrew
JohnMcGrew

Strange; if Britian wasn't even on that list, why were they so gun-ho about banning private ownership of guns when there clearly was no problem? Don't worry. At the current rate, Britain will make the list. International Crime Victimization Surveys of 1992 and 2000: Violent crime rates were lower in the UK than the United States in 1992. (Rated in percent of those interviewed responding ''yes'' to being victimized.) Burglary with entry: UK ? 2.5% U.S. ? 3.5% Robbery: UK ? .9% U.S. ? 1.7% Sexual assault of women: UK ? .3% U.S. ? 1.5% Assault with force: UK ? 1.1% U.S. ? 2.2% The 2000 survey combined the three violent crimes of robbery, rape, and assault into one category entitled ''Selected Contact Crime.'' Here is what they report (post-ban for UK.) Burglary with entry: UK ? 2.8% U.S. ? 1.8% Selected contact crime: UK ? 3.6% U.S. ? 1.9% These two reports were done with essentially the same criteria and methods, and they clearly show that while selected violent crime rates rose 100% in the UK, they fell 65 % in the U.S. During this time, Britain outlawed private ownership of firearms, while over 70 million additional civilian firearms were sold in the U.S. (4) At the very least, a reasonable person is forced to conclude that availability of firearms to the general public is not a contributing factor to any increase in crime. These trends are confirmed by Britain?s own Home Office. (5) In the period of 1997 through 2001, homicide rose 19% in the UK while it fell 12% in the USA. (6) Violent crime incidents rose 26% in the UK while falling 12% in the USA. (7) Robbery rates rose 92% in the UK and fell 15% in the USA. (8) Here are some crime trends collected from UK police crime data for the period of 1995 to 2003. (10) Homicide rose 41%. Attempted murder rose 29%. Total Violent Crime rose 219%. Gun crimes in England have almost doubled since 1997, when a ban on firearms began. According to the Sunday Times of London, crimes in which guns were used numbered 4,671 in 2005-06. Government officials report that most gun crime is committed by children and teenagers under 18 years old. 2007 Reuters: US has 90 guns for every 100 citizens. Yemen had the second most heavily armed citizenry behind the United States, with 61 guns per 100 people, followed by Finland with 56, Switzerland with 46, Iraq with 39 and Serbia with 38. France, Canada, Sweden, Austria and Germany were next, each with about 30 guns per 100 people, while many poorer countries often associated with violence ranked much lower. Nigeria, for instance, had just one gun per 100 people. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2656875.stm And everyone knows the BBC is part of the right-wing gun nut media machine.

Tig2
Tig2

Where restrictions are the toughest. Someone bent on committing murder will take whatever means are at his disposal. Doesn't require a gun. Without a gun, how am I supposed to hunt? And if I responsibly own a gun, what is the issue with that? I purchased it legally, maintain it properly, and store it safely. Who is harmed by that?

jd
jd

Sure.. Lets punish everyone, even law abiding citizens because criminals use guns for an illegal purpose. Not that criminals would have any problem obtaining guns illegally anyway. After we do that lets limit beef consumption because people get fat eating too much beef and it offends vegetarians and PITA members. When the criminals start using propane tanks to kill people then we can ban those too.. heck with your weekend BBQ :) I'm no pro-gun nut but I just don't understand the thinking some people have. Sheesh!

Oz_Media
Oz_Media

How? If nobody has a gun, guns are not legally owned. Certainly some will be imported, from somewhere but a third of the violent crimes are from stolen, legal guns. The fact that so many Americans own guns is also a direct relation to the number of guns used in crimes. "Experts estimate that about 500,000 guns are stolen each year. Surveys of adult and juvenile criminals indicate that thefts are a significant source of guns used in crime. Roughly one-third of the guns used by armed felons are obtained directly through theft. Many guns illegally sold to criminals on the street have been stolen from homes" once again, it's not the legal gun owners, but the thieves who STEAL guns owned legally by others that equates to about a third of the guns used by armed felons. Obviously this supports the fact that many gun owners are responsible and own guns legally for purposes other than to kill people, but this isn't a problem. The problem is that these guns are stolen, less legal guns equals less stolen guns and obviously fewer armed felons. "Research and statistics have shown that [b]guns intensify crime situations, and increase the likelihood of a more violent or lethal outcome.[/b]" Taken from 'Gun politics in the United States found on Nationmaster.' So much for your assertion of less likeliness of violent crimes if people are armed vs unarmed. "Due to the lethal potential that a gun brings to a situation, the likelihood that a death will result is significantly increased when either the victim or the attacker has a gun" Didn't you just say that having a gun is more of a deterrent than not having a gun? I'd say not, so would the national crime stats.

hfsinclair
hfsinclair

When BSE was around British beef was banned. Why? Because it was bad for people. Seems reasonable. Guns don't seem too good for people either on balance. And why do you view banning guns as 'punishing people'? Should everyone have the right to carry deadly gases or bombs and regard themselves as having been punished if the government bans them?

agohige
agohige

Every county where guns are allowed crime goes down. Criminals do not want armed victims. Just like outlawing drugs does not keep them off the streets, outlawing guns only keeps them in the hands of the criminals. But remember the goverment does not want us to have guns to defend ourselves.

Canuckster
Canuckster

Toronto, Canada has the smallest fraction of the guns than any comparible city in the US. Toronto is a city of about 4 and 1/2 million people and has less than 100 murders per year. Give me a comparable stat for an american city.

Canuckster
Canuckster

do you behind behind insults? Nothing intelligent to add? From Wikipedia for Toronto, "The census metropolitan area (CMA) had a population of 5,113,149,[1] and the Greater Toronto Area had a population of 5,555,912 at the 2006 Census.[8]" What is the Mexican immigrant population of LA, San Diego, San Antonio or Cubans in Miami? Guess those immigrants mean violent crime is virtually unknown in those cities according to your lack of logic.

Inkling
Inkling

You're correct. The statement I made was absurd. That was sort of the point. Canuckster was purposefully reporting inaccurate population statistics to support his point. I simply returned the favor, by using flawed logic, to show the absurdity.

JamesRL
JamesRL

Immigrants in Toronto don't committ murders? Tell that to the people killed in the Tamil gang fights or the Carribean gang drug, or the Triad gang fights.... And of course I have seen evidence domestic murders (family, usually spousal) from all cultures in Toronto. And the city of Toronto would have a higher murder rate than the larger number that was previously quoted as the suburbs have fewer murders per capita. I do take socioeconomic factors into account - on a per capita basis Regina has a higher murder rate than Toronto. James

Oz_Media
Oz_Media

I've shown the percentages overall, and then the per capita percentages, btu still that's not enough evidence? It' snot like stats were similar or remotely close to each other, it is a MASSIVE increase when you look at the US and others. I think you can countr these stats anyway you want, it stillillustrates the same point. There is a great and rising gun problem in the USA, end of story. Similarily there is a rising problem in other countries, but only proportional to population, unlike the US where that figure has simply grown exponentially regrdless of population change. Tha inanimate object giggle was funny though, or a scary reality, one or the other. :D

TonytheTiger
TonytheTiger

there's "how many people in a given sample [/b]want[/b] to injure or kill someone?" If that number is lower in one sample, you're going to have fewer gun-crimes committed by people in that sample, regardless of how many guns are available. There's certainly a theme here... You're not responsible for making your own way in the world; and when you don't, you're not responsible when some inanimate object you happen to be holding kills someone while you're robbing them. Geesh!

Oz_Media
Oz_Media

Will show you stats of a percentage or per capita, as well as other stats that show the gun problem in the US causes a homicide rate that is close to that of Guatemala, Zimbabwe, Colombia, South America, Mexico ans Thailand. Obviously this proves just how superior the US laws have been to other countries. If you need stats, Nation master is as accurate and credible as any source. "People that have moved there for business reasons, etc. That takes about half of the people out of the picture as likely candidates to violently murder someone right off the bat." Oh, do explain. :D About half of this means about a bunch of that and that means some of this? Nice breakdown! Such a generalization, no wonder it fit your agenda. Show some numbers, statistics, proof, not just "factopinguess"

Inkling
Inkling

First of all, the [b]city[/b] of Toronto has less than three million people. Second, what are the relative socioeconomic statistics to any American city of that size? Approximately half of people claiming Toronto as home are immigrants from other countries. People that have moved there for business reasons, etc. That takes about half of the people out of the picture as likely candidates to violently murder someone right off the bat. The fact that Toronto is a great place to visit and/or live is not in dispute. Comparing this one city to cities in America, to debate gun control, is asinine unless you are willing to: (a) Use accurate statistics. (b) Answer the additional questions I stated above.

jd
jd

I'm always amazed that people can't see the truth in front of them. Criminals use guns because it gives them an advantage because most people don't have guns. If everyone had a gun then there'd be no advantage for a criminal to use one. In fact using a gun in such a situation would likely lead to a quick death for such a criminal. If by some miracle we were able to eliminate all of the guns from society.. criminals would craft their lethal weapons own using household items and construction materials

The Listed 'G MAN'
The Listed 'G MAN'

Every county where guns are allowed crime goes down - Stats?? Criminals do not want armed victims - what are the police / army who get shot at? Just like outlawing drugs does not keep them off the streets, outlawing guns only keeps them in the hands of the criminals - Total Contradiction that makes no Point!!!!!!!!! But remember the government does not want us to have guns to defend ourselves. - And? (corrected your typos as well) EDIT - Some Stats Gun violence > Homicides > % homicides with firearms (most recent) by country #1 Thailand: 79.5805 #2 South Africa: 59.2028 #3 Colombia: 45.2092 #4 Slovakia: 45 #5 Guatemala: 42.0706 #6 Zimbabwe: 39.6026 #7 United States: 39.5604 #8 Paraguay: 37.8987 #9 Macedonia: 35.6164 #10 Uruguay: 35.2941 #11 C?te d'Ivoire: 33.6982 #12 Germany: 28.5714 #13 Barbados: 28.5714 #14 Portugal: 25.3776 #15 Slovenia: 25 #16 Belarus: 24.628 #17 Mexico: 20.6051 #18 Lithuania: 18.3223 #19 Hungary: 17.6707 #20 Spain: 16.4129 #21 Australia: 16.3435 #22 Bulgaria: 15.9494 #23 New Zealand: 13.4615 #24 Czech Rep: 13.4432 #25 Estonia: 12.8049 #26 Latvia: 11.194 #27 Chile: 10.3053 #28 Azerbaijan: 7.377 #29 Poland: 7.1062 #30 Moldova: 5.4348 #31 Ukraine: 3.7682 #32 Singapore: 2.6316 Now...Which Countries above have legal firearms...?

TonytheTiger
TonytheTiger

He said "county" and you replied with "country". Now it's possible he meant "country", but I didn't take it that way. Within our "country", the "counties" with the most restrictive gun ordinances have the highest incidents of gun crimes.... because the criminals, who don't give a rat's ass about gun laws, are the only ones who have guns (besides the police, who can't be everywhere, every-when), and a criminal with a gun would likely rather enter a home where he knew there was no armed owner than one where there might be.

Inkling
Inkling

Let's ask the real questions: Which countries above have an established rule of law, specifically in the areas these murders occur? What are the populations of these countries? What is the per capita gun ownership in these countries? Need I continue? The numbers you provide, with that question at the end, tell us absolutely [b]NOTHING[/b]. You made the assertion that less guns = safer citizens/less crime/blah, blah, blah... Unless you can back it up with proof, do us all a favor and exercise your right to just keep your trap shut.

Lost Cause?
Lost Cause?

Have you ever heard the term "Standing Militia"? The citizens of the United States are the "Standing Militia". Take away the guns and we are slaves to the rest of the world that wants to invade the United States and kill every American because we have religious differences with the rest of the world. Guns make the citizens of the United States free to defend our homes, property and our country. This is why the Founding Fathers invented the Second Amendment in the first place. A gun is like a computer, it only does what it is told to do. A gun is a tool. A gun is only a killer if the HUMAN behind it is a killer. Lets place blame where it belongs. The human is the one that juries put in jail...not guns! Why do you think that is?

NickNielsen
NickNielsen

You are obviously not familiar with the origins of the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution. Go back and study up. The 2nd Amendment was intended to allow the citizens of the US to protect themselves from [u]their own government[/u]. That has, of course, been distorted in more ways than one over the centuries. Aside: I have to ask. Is "Red Dawn" one of your favorite movies?

Oz_Media
Oz_Media

Sound like it, every man for himself. The government's not here to protect us, WE MUST! To that I say, bring home the soldiers, grab your equally minded buddies and go take over in Iraq. Remember they went to 'apparently' save YOUR a$$ afterall. If they are not up to the task, [b]"get off yer sister and grab yer gun Cletis, there's sum shootin' to be done!"[/b]

Oz_Media
Oz_Media

Not the tool holding the gun. I get your point, but a gun is a tool with ONE purpose. To shoot something. Americans see so many non-destriuctive sides to something as obviously destructive as a gun, but when it comes to Saddam importing Ajax, it must be a dual purpose good being used to build WMD's. How typically hypocritical. It's not YOUR fault,per se, your government started it during WW1 and it's been that way ever since.

TonytheTiger
TonytheTiger

How can I shoot myself in the foot if I can't have a gun? :)

Canuckster
Canuckster

I am sure that the chinese government planners are sweating about the U.S. citizen militia as they plot the invasion of California. The citizen militia proves its deadly ability with every wife gunned down and every drug transaction gone bad.

Oz_Media
Oz_Media

You'd have to find someone who actually gave a damn. Secondly, we were not discussing the increase in violent crimes by women, it was in reference to your stating more women are using guns on men than men on women. "I guess you forgot that more wifes shoot their husbands than husbands gun down wifes." When you make a post, it will be in my recent posts list. There's no need to peer mail me to prompt me to read it, that's not why I have PM active. I just can't believe you took the time to keep on this, oh well, enjoy. :D

normhaga
normhaga

I have completed the research that I said I would do. I compiled six recent research studies on female violence and female domestic violence committed against males. The data and research support my initial assertion. The five of the reports were published in national and international journals. Three of those reports were reported in the International Journal of Mens Health in spring 2007. Two of the reports, which I think are trivial, were published by the National School Board. The sixth I forget whom or where, but is is a 2006 report. All are uncontradicted. Four of those reports were published by Canadian professors at the University of Vancouver or Toronto. One was published by an English Professor. All reports were concerned with United States citizens so that I kept same country demographics. I also compiled four crime statistics reports from the F.B.I. They are five and ten year crime stats, both general and by sex. A brief summary is that in general violent crime both domestic and traditional criminal is up in the females, sometimes by as much as 15 percent. I need the communities help on how to disseminate this data to those interested. The documents are in .doc format and I can compress the with either rar or zip formats. Do I: take a list of those interested and email the documents, put them on my business server and tell you where they are for you to get, or put them somewhere the community recommends? Norman

NickNielsen
NickNielsen

Seven years ago the only guns in Iraq were the property of the government. Today there is no rule of law. Also keep in mind a large percentage of deaths (both coalition AND Iraqi) in Iraq over the past 4 years have been as a result of IEDs, not firearms.

Canuckster
Canuckster

Would Iraq be better off with more weapons in more hands or fewer?

Oz_Media
Oz_Media

I believe you are referring to social-economic differences, which DO differ. However such statistics as provided here, are in fact considered fairly accurate within similar social groups, as are Canadians and Americans. We will have different stats but they will also show similar results. It most certainly isn't irelevant, unless comparng China or India with North America for example. Some of the quotes shown were directly from US sources, though there were also Canadian sources too. Your comment was also a bit vague and can be very misleading. YOu were refrring to the number of incidents REPORTED to police, not the number of incidents. It is widely known that in most cases of spousal abuse, women do NOT come forward or call in a report of such violence. It is also known that MEN will do so without a second thought, as they know defense may/will lead to THEIR conviction. So they report the abuse, as commonly done these days, in order to retain the upper hand. The stats provided were simply not relevant when it comes to REAL data of REAL crimes and unles the USA has a hidden set of stats that don't concur with any sociological or psychologiical results from around the world so far, then it is clearly the case there too. Mind you, take it out of context and your stats can prove anything you wish, don't be an 'inkling' here. :)

normhaga
normhaga

First, I am not putting forth any agenda. Simply put, do not care about the violence issue. Second, you are making a serious mistake in the reporting of your data. The material I provided was from the United State and dealt with the United States, California in particular. The data you are referring to came from Canada and is concerned with the Canadians. It is a well understood principle in sociology that the data from one country is irrelevant when applied to another county. I will leave it up to you to determine the accuracy of this paragraph. In a few days, I will log on to some proprietary DB's at the U and see if I cant obtain far more accurate data for you.

Oz_Media
Oz_Media

These reports? From Science Direct: [b]Aggression and Violent Behavior [/b] "Evolutionary pressure (the critical importance of maternal survival to females' reproductive success) resulted in females' lower threshold for fear, relative to males, when faced with the same level of objective physical danger. This adaptation inhibits women's involvement in crime, makes them more likely to be involved in property rather than violent crimes and, when direct confrontation is inevitable, causes them to use low-risk or indirect tactics. " From Canadian correctoinal services: "Overall, women are more likely to be charged with minor assaults than men. Very few are charged with robbery and fewer still sexual assault (a pattern which is similar in the USA (Reiss and Roth 1993; Steffensmeier, 1995)). Among both men and women charges for murder or manslaughter are rare, and were laid against 486 men in 1991 and 48 women." "While still a relatively small proportion of all offences, violence has increased at a faster rate than property and other offences. The increase has been slightly greater among women than men, largely because [b]the numbers of women committing violent offences is proportionately so small. "[/b] your own disilllusion: "I guess you failed to examine the results of police domestic violence calls as well, which support that more women than men start violent confrontations. " Nope, the results show the exact opposite. You simply misunderstood the facts you were putting across. The report you are referring to is with respect to police reports where mro ewomen START violent confrontations. This does not in turn mean more women use violence in confrontations. MORE facts for you form the Canada Firearms Centre: [b]Research SummaryDomestic Violence Involving Firearms[/b] "Over the past decade, three times more women than men were killed by their spouse each year. In 1996, 78% (62) of all spousal homicide victims were female and 22% (18) were male.[8]" There's more if your really interested, which I am quite sure you are not as it doesn't support your own agenda. http://www.cfc-cafc.gc.ca/pol-leg/res-eval/factsheets/domestic_e.asp

normhaga
normhaga

Per this report: http://www.census.gov/prod/1/pop/p25-1129.pdf there are between 103 and 115 million households in the U.S. I will take the median of 109 million households. Per this report: http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/13/1/15 there is an average of 8 firearms per household. 109 * 8 = 872 million firearms in American households. Supposition: there are about 200 million Chinese soldiers. Seems to me on the information publicly available Chinese soldiers are out numbered by American guns by 8:1. This is the first point. Per this report: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/ascii/hvfsdaft.txt, between 1987 and 1992 83000 Americans were domestically defended by firearms. The numbers of people and firearms are greater now, therefore the number of people defended by firearms is greater. Quoting from this report on page 22: http://ag.ca.gov/cjsc/publications/misc/why/3sec3.pdf "Izumi (1999) asserted that there is no connection between gun ownership and crime. He cited as evidence the large decreases in the violent crime rate in Los Angeles (1997 to 1998) and in California, as a whole (1996 to 1997), which occurred at the same time that there were more gun owners in the state. The author concluded that the recent decrease in the crime rate in California, and nationally, was not related to the number of guns legally owned." Continuing further down on the same page: "Declines in violent crimes in Los Angeles and in California, as a whole, occurred at the same time as there were more legally owned guns in the state. This suggests that during the period of decreasing violent crime juveniles and youth chose not to carry guns even though there were more gun owners from whom weapons could be stolen." Therefore, since a drug dealer is a member of some household and {edit-crime] firearms have no relationship to the numbers of crimes committed and that the numbers of firearms in the hands of the citizens does have a deterrent effect to foreign invasion, I have to draw this conclusion: A firearm in the hands of a drug dealer can deter a foreign invasion. Your turn.

Inkling
Inkling

I know you are but what am I! When all else fails... Oh wait, you haven't tried anything remotely resembling rational thought or logic. Why I continue to feed impotent trolls like you I will never know...

Canuckster
Canuckster

the position that the US would be invaded if the corner drug dealer didn't carry a gun.

normhaga
normhaga

Support your supposition that the Chinese government has any design on the U.S. Support your snide assertion about the citizen militia. Your dislike and fear of firearms is evident. You like FUD. I guess you forgot that more wifes shoot their husbands than husbands gun down wifes. I guess you failed to examine the results of police domestic violence calls as well, which support that more women than men start violent confrontations.

The Listed 'G MAN'
The Listed 'G MAN'

US Led invasions involving guns.... for the purpose of self interest & oil. Take away the guns and they cry slaves. Not slaves I say, but at the mercy of those who they have wronged. But don't get me wrong - it's not just the US to blame. Countries all over the world. 99% of the worlds residents are law abiding, decent & honest people. That includes some off the people wielding the guns. Guns they were forced to hold in anger at the call of the higher power. Right or Wrong.

burntfinger1
burntfinger1

If the government screws up punish the citizens. It'd be way too much to ask for some honesty from our dedicated "public servants".

Canuckster
Canuckster

is that as soon as you say something like, "Demonstrate an ability to control your temper in order to posses a gun", you get the american constitutional lawyers screaming that its a violation of everyone's right to kill their spouse, I mean to bear arms, or some similar nonsense. "Yes officer, I have four AK47's and an Uzi in the trunk because I am going rabbit hunting." You may have been taught to control your firearms and your temper but that cannot be said about most people. Can you imagine trying to get some licensing agency to accept responsibility for all gun owners actions with a firearm, even when angry/drunk/high/medicated? Dick Cheney exempted - he can shoot someone and have them apologize for getting in the way of his lead content. The wild west was never tamed, it just became part of every american's psyche.

normhaga
normhaga

In this county, the USA, not Canada, the police are often the problem. But what you wrote "shoot a cop" is not what I wrote. What I referred to has a long history in this country which dates back to the arguments surrounding the second amendment in this county. The second amendment nearly did not pass because of many of the arguments I see posted here. The kicker was that the people had a need to be able to take control of the government when it becomes out of control. So in short, that was the purpose of the post and the novel I referred to - to control government. Now, as to "shoot a cop" let me give you a true story. I used to live in L.A. in the 80's. One day I was sitting at home and the door was kicked in. What I saw was a 45 in a hand attached to an arm in a brown business suit. I picked up my 38 and shot the 'target' in the suit three times. Then I chased it out the door to finish the job. Behind the stairs another cop was hiding behind the wall waving a badge up and down, he was also in a suit. I went back inside and called the LA Sheriffs office and the LA city police. Nine moths later the issue made it to the preliminary hearing. The case was dismissed on the grounds of: No warrant, use of force which would incite fear, self defense, lying police testimony, and the fact that there were over 50 witnesses to the events. There is a lot I am leaving out for brevity, but I covered the gist. After being released from the hoosegow, I walked to a store where a friend was the manager. I noticed during my walk that a police car was following me. When I got to the store, the police came in and arrested me without cause. Gene telephoned the Sheriffs when the police arrested me because the police were outside of their jurisdiction. As the police were turning into an area where there were many abandoned buildings a call came in over the radio. The police let me go and stated that this must be my lucky day. I went back to the same store and the police came back. Gene had me step into a back room, close and lock the security door, and then called the Sheriffs Office again. When the Sheriffs arrived, I came out of the back room. The police gave the sheriff many bogus reasons why they were out of their jurisdiction arresting me. The sheriff asked me if I was the guy who shot the cop nine moths earlier. I said yes. The sheriff then told the police to beat it. We got the storage keys from Gene and I got out some cloths. The sheriffs escorted me to LAX and waited until I got on the plane. I have never been back to LA. If you PM me, I will tell you how to verify this story and it will be with government records. So, "Shoot a cop," when it is called for, yes! Shoot one for the hell of it, no. Please remember this is the country that brought you "Rodney King" and the city/state where these events occurred 15 years earlier is the same.

Oz_Media
Oz_Media

Obviously you refuse to see the point I and others are trying to make, as shown in your ridiculously defensive replies. YOu take so much out of context that it is impossible to get teh point across, you seem to simply read things that aren't there, or read too far into what people are trying to say in simple terms. Eiether way, it is not m objective to change your view, it's just that I oppose it. I don't oppose gun ownership, I also don't oppose the target range, I have won my share of marksmaship awards too (my first at age 8 then others at age 14 with the Air Training Corps in England), yes I do understand the sport or target shooting very well. I also own two crossbows and have hauled them to the range several times, mostly cmpling fun though. Your point is moot and your rash accusations are simply unqualified. As for the rest, didn't bother reading it, sorry, It's just not worth my time to go around in circles trying to make a point to someone that refuses to even try to understand it. Next

Inkling
Inkling

First of all, sympathy has more than one definition. I'm not suggesting you are expressing support of anyone due to feelings of sympathy. I'm saying your views are agreeably suited to theirs. Using that definition, you certainly are more sympathetic to the other views posted here, than you are mine. I repeat, I never called a gun a tool. Go re-read my post. If you [b]misunderstood[/b] that's your fault. [i]If target practice is NOT practicing killing, what is it? A way of improving eyesight? Just sh1ts and giggles? If the latter, buy a toy not a gun.[/i] Have you ever shot at a range? Are you familiar with the concept of cowboy-style shooting and competitions? Do you have the slightest clue as to why people do such things? Just because it isn't your choice for a hobby, doesn't mean there is something wrong with it. Your ignorance of the sport is not a logical argument against it. [i]You can't possibly try to convince me that a gun is for anything other than to kill, it is what it was designed for, why people practice shooting it and exactly why someone would use it for "protection" or hunting. [/i] Your admission that people own guns for collecting and shooting targets is proof that guns are used for things other than killing. Besides, I already stated that it was irrelevant to the discussion. The only thing it is relevant to is defending guns against people that like to use FUD, ignorance and prejudice to pass judgment on guns and gun owners. Why do I own a gun? To disable or kill another human being if I am ever put in the unfortunate situation where it becomes necessary. I never claimed otherwise. [i]I am not anti-gun ( I have owned guns but admittedly just for the purpose of killing stuff in the bushfor kicks, however I preferred my crosbows for hunting).[/i] And... [i]...in fact I am not judging at all.[/i] Let's take another look (I'm sure you'll just claim I'm misunderstanding or taking things out of context, but what the hell): [i]we may not understand tha paranoia that make syou feel you need one but it is your right[/i] Calling me paranoid for owning a gun isn't a judgment? Was there some positive definition of paranoia that I'm unaware of? Please, enlighten me. [i]To truly believe a gun has ANY other purpose than to impose deadly force, would require a completely delusional and confused person.[/i] I've stated several other purposes. You've agreed that people do, in fact, own guns as collectibles and to do nothing more than shoot at targets. And if calling me delusional and confused isn't a judgment, I must really need to brush up on my definition of the word.

Oz_Media
Oz_Media

First of all, you took that comment out of context AGAIN. Canuckster didn't say "...that its a violation of everyone's right to kill their spouse, I mean to bear arms..." as an iteration of his own ideas. It was a hypothetical, statement illustrating a backwards US law mindset. It was SUPPOSED to sound absurd: [b]"...as soon as you say something like[/b], "Demonstrate an ability to control your temper in order to posses a gun", [b]you get the american constitutional lawyers screaming that its a violation of everyone's right to kill their spouse"[/b] Sympathetic? Not me, you'll soon learn that. I sympathize with fe and only for real reasons. In this case, you had flamed someone due to misunderstanding the intent. [i]Your limited imagination of what a gun can be used for is not my problem. As I said in response to your post up above, guns can be used for sport, protection, as a deterrent, collectibles...any number of other things.[/i] Guns were invented and designed, improved over time and redeveloped to do one thing...KILL. End of story, they have no other INTENDED use. People who don't use them to kill, use them to practive killing (target practice). If target practice is NOT practicing killing, what is it? A way of improving eyesight? Just sh1ts and giggles? If the latter, buy a toy not a gun. Hunting? Er, that's killling. Protecting yourself from someone else with a gun, IF the opportunity ever arose and you were one of very few who was actually able to unlock your gun safe, remove the trigger guard, load and shoot the assailant, you'd be one in a million. And ou'd also be using your gun for teh sole purpose of killing someone, again ONE purpose. You can't possibly try to convince me that a gun is for anything other than to kill, it is what it was designed for, why people practice shooting it and exactly why someone would use it for "protection" or hunting. [i]Your limited imagination of what a gun can be used for is not my problem [/i] No, your problem is that you refuse to see that the only use for a gun is to shoot something even in practice. It's not a f***ing hammer, which can be used for many things other than hammering or a screwdriver that can be used for a dozen things other than screwing a screw in. It's a gun, it does one thing, fires a projectile at lethal velocity with great accuracy. [i]That's your bad, not mine. "Explain to me exactly how a gun is not a tool, please."[/i] No it's not "MY BAD" at all, you asked for an explanation of how a gun is not a tool. This is a CLEAR indication that you do not know that a gun is NOT a tool, otherwise you wouldn't have asked. Well it's proven, a gun is NOT a tool. Unless you consider a gun a tool for shooting a trajectory at leathal velocity. Thus your point would be moot. You made quite a few comments that do not illustrate my character at all, as most here would agree. I am not sympathetic, I am not anti-gun ( I have owned guns but admittedly just for the purpose of killing stuff in the bushfor kicks, however I preferred my crosbows for hunting). I really don't take sides here, I usually stand alone, Canadian or American makes no differece to me. I am not rushing to judgement, in fact I am not judging at all. I am merely objecting to your own rash conclusions based on a post which you took out of context, you admitted you were bothered by and got defensive against. Yes, Canuckster was obviously anxious and eager to downplay that typical American gun-slinger mindset (which is all to common these days). I also clearly disagreed with one such statement. Now you are side stepping and sidling along with more out of context comments and rash personality conclusions instead of just sitting down and realizing you were freaking out over something that was never said. Give it up, or go to the range and get it out of your system.

Inkling
Inkling

If you don't consider: [i]...that its a violation of everyone's right to kill their spouse, I mean to bear arms...[/i] Isn't comparing owning guns to killing your spouse then [b]you[/b] need the lesson in reading comprehension, not me. The problem here, Oz, is that you are sympathetic to Canuckster's views. Use the same level of criticism on his post as on mine, and you might understand mine a little better. Half the point of my post was to be absurdly offensive and make baseless judgments. Why? That was the [b]ONLY[/b] thing he did in his post. I was making a point. Your limited imagination of what a gun can be used for is not my problem. As I said in response to your post up above, guns can be used for sport, protection, as a deterrent, collectibles...any number of other things. It is [b]your[/b] limited imagination or prejudices or whatever it is, that is the problem, Oz. You're correct, Oz. I did say: "Explain to me exactly how a gun is not a tool, please." In your rush to judge, however, you assume that I called a gun a tool. Wrong. I was asking 'G-Man' to provide something other than pseudo-intellectual nonsense in support of his statements. That's your bad, not mine.

Oz_Media
Oz_Media

I must have friends who are anti-gun, don't hunt, don't need one for protection so they are against guns, as per your rash analogy anyway. I am not AGAINST guns and most Canadaians are not either, that is something you must have picked up from your deluded TV programs I guess. "That, and you just might be incredibly stupid." Canadians own more guns per capita than Americans, so to go blanket with your Antigun BS is absurd, try actually learning something about the rest of the world for once, instead of just watching American BS TV, Now the "incredibly stupid" part I will believe based on your comments that guns are inanimate objects that can be used for whatever the user intends, other than killing something of course. Completely ignoring the entire reason for the invention and develpment of guns (You can hunt with a bow too ya know, I've done it). Let's take them one at a time, shall we? (1) Equating owning a firearm to murdering your spouse How did you get THAT from the following comment? You simply do not understand what you read, comprehension inkling, comprehansion! Canuckster said "...as soon as you say something like, "Demonstrate an ability to control your temper in order to posses a gun", you get the american constitutional lawyers screaming that its a violation of everyone's right to kill their spouse, I mean to bear arms, or some similar nonsense." Canuckster did not equate owning a gun to killing your spouse, once again COMPREHENSION. [b]Incredibly stupid[/b] Yet again, you took a comment out of context, and didn't comprehend what was actually being said. Merkuns do that a lot it seems. Are you sugesting that people do NOT own AK47's or Uzi's? That they don't justify owning such for target practice? That there's never been a case of a criminal stealing such a gun and using it to commit crime? That such a weapon is needed? If so, you may want to speak to a few more TR peers, we've had them try to justify owning practically any type of firearm you can name for these exact same reasons. [b]too much of what you see on TV.[/b] Most Canadian TV channels are US channels, network and news, except we do get UK channels, Asian channel Middle Eastern etc. So we get a pretty good balance of world news and television, unlike the completely controlled and heavily censored SBG that runs most US networks. [b]similarly mindless, anti-gun friends [/b] So people that don't support guns are mindless? Shows a lot about your logical thought process, or lack thereof as demonstrated too often here. The screwdriver analogy I'll give you that one was off. It's not the screwdriver that kills, it's the user. Then again, a screwdriver wasn't designed to kill something, as is a gun. [b]"The wild west was never tamed, it just became part of every american's pysche."[/b] I agree, as do most others around the world. Many Americans simply refuse to see reality, as demonstrated here. Even many Americans agree that the States are full of red kneck yokels without a clue of what is REALLY going on in the world, besides what Bush states anyway. You did make a point though, now go roll up some paper and make a hat to fit it. Here's you calling people stupid, completely misreading what was posted (or simply misunderstanding it), then you post this?!? [i]Guns are inanimate objects. They are whatever their user intends them to be.[/i] Your priceless! That's the most retarded comment ever made on TR, followed by you calling someone stupid! LOL :D I think perhaps YOU are a tool, a pretty dangerous and useless one but a tool all the same. You also said [i]Explain to me exactly how a gun is not a tool, please.[/i] A gun is a weapon that is designed to be used for a single purpose, killing. It has no other use than to kill. In your defense, it is a TOOL of destruction. Explain to me exactly how a GUN is a tool used for any other purpose than to kill...or I guess PRACTICE killing at the target range. the following link has over 20 definitions for GUN, not one states even a remote mention of it being a tool. http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&defl=en&q=define:gun&sa=X&oi=glossary_definition&ct=title There's no possible way you can possibly claim a gun is a tool and not a weapon used for the sole purpose of shooting a projectile with lethal force. Definition of TOOL: http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&defl=en&q=define:tool&sa=X&oi=glossary_definition&ct=title Definition of WEAPON:http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=define%3Aweapon&meta= Now one thing you are somewhat clos on is that it IS atool of sort, but also defined as "A weapon is [b]a tool which is intended to or is used to injure, kill, or a person, damage or destroy property, or to otherwise render resources non-functional or unavailable."[/b] ONE USE, TO INFLICT LETHAL FORCE. I have nearly $100K worth of tools which I have collected as a mechanic for nearly 20 years, not one of them is a gun nor could I use a gun to replace any of them. You are calling people stupid? Give your head a good shake...tool!

Inkling
Inkling

I try not to resort to petty name calling, as I've done, but sometimes I just can't help myself.

Inkling
Inkling

You can not defend anything you have said, so you simply resort back to insults. I'm sure you will have rebuttals to the things I've said once you run them by your anti-gun buddies and they tell you what to say. Incidentally, never have been, nor will I ever be a NRA supporter. I like the concept of the NRA, but ultimately, they are no better than the rest of the major lobby groups. EDIT: [b]You[/b] are the one that compared shooting your spouse to owning a gun. You expect to be taken seriously after that?!

Canuckster
Canuckster

So if I understand what point you're making is, it could best be summed up by the statement, "Protect your personal freedoms, shoot a cop".

Canuckster
Canuckster

You said stupid alot so guess what you are. There, I used as much logic as you did you slave to NRA marketing. Better send them another $100.00 so they can give you another thought. As for banning guns, you should probably be the first to have theirs confiscated in the name of peace and decency.

Oz_Media
Oz_Media

And also insist that of someone has disagreed your views that they are a nutjob? So you must also feel that there is no differencebetween a vehicle and a gun...actually you already said they were inanimate objects not a killing tool, so I guess you do feel they are no different than vehicles. LOL, actually that's not funny it's the same mentality that has destroyed your country over the last 7-8 years.

Oz_Media
Oz_Media

No people drive VEHICLES, the sole intention of a vehicle is to move a person from A to B. There are many normally safe products that CAN be used to kill someone if used for something other than it was intended for. That's life and safety. A GUN cannot becompared in the same way at all. A gun's SOLE PURPOSE is to kill, it is used as a means of deadly force, no other. If you honestly feel that it is no different than a truck, you really have a lot to learn. Sure a truck CAN be used to kill someone, but that is not is purpose by design, as is with a gun. A gun, on the other hand, CAN be used for target practice, but it's sole intention is to impart deadly force or be a weapon of war. I can't see you sending tens of thousands of unarmed soldiers into Iraq with the intent on running over Iraqi's in their Hummers.

LocoLobo
LocoLobo

Lone Star Planet I think

normhaga
normhaga

Many years ago I read a Scifi/fantasy novel, I believe it was written by Piers Anthony but I am not sure. It kind of addressed this very point. In that novel, there was a planet called "New Texas." In New Texas there were no gun laws. Every one of every age could carry and use firearms of what ever design. The purpose of the weapons was to control the politicians. However, anyone could shoot another person of any rank, provided that the person was armed and had the opportunity to defend themselves. It was an exception however, to shoot a politician whether they were armed or not. It seems to me that when you wish to restrict weapons use/possession, what you are actually saying is that you wish to put the responsibility for your safety and wellbeing into someone else's hands. I would rather rather keep my wellbeing and safety in my hands.

Inkling
Inkling

reason with these nutjobs.

Inkling
Inkling

is that you believe everything that you see on television and everything that your anti-gun friends tell you. That, and you just might be incredibly stupid. Let's take them one at a time, shall we? (1) Equating owning a firearm to murdering your spouse. [b]Incredibly stupid[/b] (2) "Yes officer I have four AK47's and an Uzi in the trunk because I am going rabbit hunting." [b]Partially stupid, mostly you just believe too much of what you see on TV.[/b] (3) ...you get the american [where I come from, proper nouns are capitalized] constitutional lawyers screaming... Trivializing that which you clearly do not understand, the United States Constitution: [b]I'm guessing another mixture of stupid and too much tv.[/b] (4) Can you imagine trying to get some licensing agency to accept responsibility for all gun owners actions with a firearm,... [b]F-ing WHAT?!?!?![/b] Using your (lack of) logic, if someone is stabbed to death with a screwdriver, Craftsman should be held responsible?! [b]Stupid, stupid, stupid. And probably something that one of your similarly mindless, anti-gun friends came up with.[/b] And finally: "The wild west was never tamed, it just became part of every american's pysche." If you have a point to make, other than that you are a prejudiced dumbass, I would love to hear it. Verdict: You are mostly stupid, believe too much of what you watch on television and should find new friends (or learn to think for yourself).

jd
jd

Perhaps that person is going to the gun range to target shoot.. nothing illegal about that. Having such weapons in your trunk certainly warrants more scrutiny than normal though. People drive a 1 ton weapon every day. I don't see people out killing people in anger with their cars. Last I checked every kitchen has a knife.. no epidemic of knife killings. A very small segment of society will use weapons in anger to hurt other people; it isn't right to punish everyone because a few nut jobs/criminal types use a tool for evil. That said I think it's perfectly acceptable to have people register to buy guns and have their background checked. No matter what you do with laws people will get guns. Every state that bans guns have murders with guns, some more so than states that don't. All the anti-gun nuts come out of the woodwork trying to ban guns whenever a nut job goes on a killing spree. Imagine a society where everyone had a gun all the time... Sure there'd be a few hotheads but everyone else would be very polite and criminals would think twice when before using a gun to commit a crime since they'd likely NOT LIVE through it.

jalee1011
jalee1011

or then they start using high velocity / high density arrows... or they just learn poisions... Reducing guns isnt the answer. That only makes people look for other avenues in which to kill others...

Canuckster
Canuckster

that if you had a gun you would have used it? There's an example where reducing the number of guns works. Two minutes later you were cooled off enough that killing the person was no longer your purpose in life.

Inkling
Inkling

Any attempt to prove otherwise is simply FUD. Usually by someone with an agenda. Are guns able to shoot themselves?

joehoughes
joehoughes

That not having a gun around is what keeps you from killing someone when you are having an emotionally weak moment? Sounds like a lack of self-control and wavering moral compass to me. What's to keep you from picking up a knife?

The Listed 'G MAN'
The Listed 'G MAN'

lacking consciousness or power of motion? I give you the first but the power of motion that is debatable. The ability to fire a projectile is a power of motion. Is that the time...gotta shoot...er, I mean go.

Inkling
Inkling

This is where your personal bias against guns comes into play. Other things that could, depending on how they are used, be characterized as weapons: Dynomite Knives Any person familiar in martial arts or any other type of hand-to-hand combat ANY inanimate object that can be used in a violent manner. As I said before, regardless of what guns were created for, they are inanimate objects. **Again, I'm not talking assault rifles and/or weapons of modern warfare here.** I've stated, several times, other uses for guns besides killing another human being: Sport/target shooting Collectibles A means to feed yourself Guns are only as evil as their intended use. The vast majority of gun owners would never use them to harm another human being. The sale of guns should be closely regulated. They are... Anyone wishing to own a gun should be required to exhibit knowledge of how to handle and store one safely. While I think this needs improvement, they are... Swimming pools and cars both kill far more kids on a yearly basis, in the U.S., than guns do. The fact that they can not be classified as weapons doesn't make them any less lethal. Surely you wouldn't support making any of those things illegal, would you? If it were possible snap our fingers and make guns disappear, I would be all for it. I am not arguing that they are a necessity. The fact of the matter is, outlawing guns only guarantees three things: Law abiding citizens won't have them. Criminals will. Governments will. Again, if it were possible to make it so that the last two weren't true, I would be all for it. Until that happens, law abiding citizens should have the right to own guns as well. Thankfully, I live in a country where the right to bear arms is protected from infringement. As I've stated several times already, I respect another person's right to choose not to own a gun. I don't think any less of them for their choice. Unfortunately, some people involved in this discussion don't feel the need to respect others' personal choices. Those kind of people should, in my opinion, go live in Venezuala, or China, or Burma, or any other place where civil rights have no meaning.

The Listed 'G MAN'
The Listed 'G MAN'

Definition of Tool Tool: To travel in a vehicle; to ride or drive. An instrument such as a hammer, saw, plane, file, and the like, used in the manual arts, to facilitate mechanical operations; any instrument used by a craftsman or laborer at his work; an implement; as, the tools of a joiner, smith, shoe-maker, etc.; also, a cutter, chisel, or other part of an instrument or machine that dresses work. A machine for cutting or shaping materials; -- also called machine tool. Hence, any instrument of use or service. A weapon. A person used as an instrument by another person; -- a word of reproach; as, men of intrigue have their tools, by whose agency they accomplish their purposes. To shape, form, or finish with a tool. To drive, as a coach. It is A Weapon...! Definition of Weapon Weapon An instrument of offensive of defensive combat; something to fight with; anything used, or designed to be used, in destroying, defeating, or injuring an enemy, as a gun, a sword, etc. Fig.: The means or instrument with which one contends against another; as, argument was his only weapon. A thorn, prickle, or sting with which many plants are furnished.

Inkling
Inkling

[i]Of course not, but in the same sense you can't justify needing a gun for such either.[/i] That's the thing, Oz. No one [b]has[/b] to justify their ownership of a gun for target shooting. Owning a gun is a Constitutionally protected right. Whether you feel it's justification enough or not, doesn't mean a damn thing. Nor does your ignorance of shooting for sport give your prejudicial judgments any credence. [i]If fewer GOOD people had guns, fewer BAD people would have them[/i] Now who's delusional?! I'd love to see some factual evidence supporting that assertion. The truth of the matter is that bad people don't care about gun-control laws. Therefore, any restriction on ownership does nothing but dissuade good people from owning guns. [i]I just object to the common American stating how it is his right to brear arms andthat he should have arms for personal protectipon.[/i] Object all you like. All you prove is that you can not abide letting others live their lives of their own accord. [b]You[/b] don't feel that way, so other people shouldn't. The [b]FACT[/b] is, it IS OUR RIGHT. One that is protected by our governing document. [i]As for Gman and Canuckster, they are a little emotional in their posts...[/i] I think the word you are looking for is [b]irrational[/b]. Show me where they used anything but FUD, ignorance and prejudicial language to support their statements. [i]...but I don't se etheir posts the way you do.[/i] Clearly. This is because, by your own admission, you are [b]sympathetic[/b] to their point of view. [i]The NRA rants are old hat...[/i] I've clearly stated that I, while I appreciate some of the ideals of the NRA, I do not support them. [i]...and still used as if a way to justify Cletis owning his shotgun to keep people off his land.[/i] Again, no justification is needed. It is a Constitutionally protected right that we, as Americans, have. [i]"You live in a dangerous country where people kill for unknown motives, therefore we allow you the 'freedom' to arm yourself against these unexpected attackers?"[/i] [b]WRONG Our government doesn't "allow" us the freedom to arm ourselves. It is, simply, our right. It is protected from infringement by the Constitution of the United States of America. Far too few people understand this. The Constitution doesn't grant rights. Those rights are intrinsic to every human being. The Constitution simply protects our rights from tyrannical government.[/b] Freedom, Oz, is living your life as you choose. I don't own a gun so that I will be free. I own a gun because it is a useful tool, in addition to other things, to protect myself. I often leave the house without carrying my handgun. I don't fear for my life during those times. There is no correlation between my owning a gun and my being or feeling free. It is simply one of many choices I have made as to how I live my life. Getting robbed or having my house broken into isn't something that I think about often. I simply prefer to be prepared, to the utmost of my ability, should it happen. You are correct about one thing though, Oz. It isn't your rights that define the extent of your freedom. Freedom is defined by the amount of protection, from infringement, of your rights.

Oz_Media
Oz_Media

Well was tryig to be short, NO offense, just not an interesting subject or one I care about. But it dragged on again. anyway, I'm done with this one, it's like trying to convince an Eskimo that central heating is better than feezing your ass off in an igloo. [i]which is more realistic for defending my home from an intruder?[/i] Well SECURING your home from an intruder would be a start. After someone has given up trying to quietly break in and finds that the only way in is to smach your living room window while you are cuddled in bed in your jammies, the shotgun is a distant hope to say the very most. Your question ws as to guns being deterrentsm in actuality, a small groupd of people are more of a deterrent than one armed man, having studied security you will know that though. That's why security guards rarely need arms, and they they face far greater persoal danger in day to day life than we do. Wild animals: "It's still an option" SO is makign noise and loking bigger than the opposing animal, in most cases more than enough anyway. Anything STILL unafraid will also attacked even if shot, unless a clean kill. "Far too many people I know go hunting just to get drunk (or stoned) and sit in the woods with their guns" nuff said, there is a WAY greater chance of being shot by a drunk yahoo with a gun than being attacked by an animal. [i]Should we outlaw those simply because shooting for sport isn't a necessity?[/i] Of course not, but in the same sense you can't justify needing a gun for such either. The Catholicism comment was just WHACK!! Not even worthy of reply, sorry. Not even a remotely warm analogy there. Same with cell phones, taunting is not killing. If their sole intention was for shooting someone, then yes they would need close regulation. [i]t is the way in which guns are used that make them either bad or good[/i] BINGO!!! And it's the BAD people that steal them from teh good people. If fewer GOOD people had guns, fewer BAD people would have them and fewer PEOPLE would be shot. Not so? Unfortunately there seems to be a lot mroe bad people who have guns than good peple, agd once again for the record, I HAVEN"T SAID GUNS SHOULD BE BANNED AND I AM NOT ANTI GUNS. I just object to the common American stating how it is his right to brear arms andthat he should have arms for personal protectipon. I don't, never did when working in teh US, never thought I needed one and I was around biker gangs, heavy metal bands, drug lords, criminals etc. (goes with the territory) As for Gman and Canuckster, they are a little emotional in their posts, but I don't se etheir posts the way you do. I see it as a typically tired opnion toward an age old argument, MANY 'Yankees' want guns and don't see that guns are a major problem in the USA. The NRA rants are old hat, and still used as if a way to justify Cletis owning his shotgun to keep people off his land. YO ufeel a need to own a gun, one of your justifications of that need is for personal protection. THAT is paranoia, if you are so worried about your personal protection that you need a gun accessible as protection from intruders, then you may want to consider moving from such a dangerous place. Like it or not, that aint freedom. Freedom to me is not about my right to this or my right to that, it's about doing what I choose to and living happily without wondering if I will be robbed, have my home broken into or need to help someone from an attacker with a gun. I have yet to meet someone who thought living somewhere where you needed a gun for ANY reason would be considered living in freedom. Perhaps the fact that you have a right to bear arms is just a false sense of fredom then? "You live in a dangerous country where people kill for unknown motives, therefore we allow you the 'freedom' to arm yourself against these unexpected attackers?" Nah, no thanks.

Inkling
Inkling

[i]The mere presence of people willing to stop seomthing is a deterrent. Sorry I've studied security for a long time, guns don't that much more of an effect than ten people in uniform will.[/i] I've studied security quite a lot as well, Oz. It depends greatly on the circumstance. Also, which is more realistic for defending my home from an intruder? Ten people in uniform or a shotgun? Are you volunteering to take a watch? [i]I have lived in the BC interior...[/i] First, lucky you! Beautiful country up there. My sister is living out in the middle of nowhere in BC right now with her husband and their daughter. No running water, no electricity...they are loving it. I understand your point and agree. The case of needing a gun to protect yourself from a wild animal is, well to call it not at all likely would be an understatement. It's still an option. Also, you would never catch me in the woods during hunting season. Far too many people I know go hunting just to get drunk (or stoned) and sit in the woods with their guns. No, f-ing thanks! [i]Does this make a gun necessary? YOu are talking sport now.[/i] Nope, no more [b]necessary[/b] than a fishing pole. Should we outlaw those simply because shooting for sport isn't a necessity? [i]Does this make them tools?[/i] Nope, and if you'll go read my post below, you'll find that I never said they were tools. I was simply asking 'G-Man' to use something other than pseudo-intellectual nonsense to support his statements. [i]Misleading? What would you prefer? sorta harming, kinda killing, a little bit dangerous? No, the gun was designd with one purpose in mind, DESTRUCTION. Nothing misleading about that, if you think otherwise, than I'm afraid it is you who have been mislead.[/i] Catholicism was designed with one purpose in mind: to control the ignorant masses. Does that make it, in its current incarnation, evil? If someone uses a cell phone to make harassing phone calls to a person, does that make cell phones evil? No. It is the way in which guns are used that make them either bad or good. Regardless of the intent of it's manufacturers. **I want to qualify that statement here - I'm not talking about assault rifles or weapons of modern warfare here.*** [i]Np, Are any of those things that you've mentioned above NEEDED? Nope.[/i] Does that mean they should be outlawed? No. Remember, the person I originally replied to, thinks it does. [i][b]Now, the real question: are any of those things that I've mentioned above relevant to a discussion about gun control?[/b] You brought it up, while calling someone anti-gun, anti-American (prejudiced) etc.[/i] You're right, I brought it up...in rebuttal to someone who used anti-gun, prejudiced language, without supporting their statements with anything resembling logic. Apply the same standard to the post I replied to that you applied to mine. Ultimately, as I admitted, none of the things that I stated prior to the quote above are relevant to a discussion about gun control. That is me being realistic. How or why you are using that [b]against[/b] me, I fail to understand. [i]False sense of security. Bu the time it is unlocked from it's secure safe that all responsible gun owners use, loaded and then fired, you're dead. I have yet to meet someone who needed a gun for protection, and I've met people all over the world. Have any of your friends ever shot an intruder?[/i] I have met people that have needed and used a gun to defend themselves. Not people I would consider friends, but they do exist, Oz. I met a man that saved a police officer that was shot. The armed citizen shot and killed the man attempting to kill the cop. Is it common? Nope. Is that cop thankful that there was a legally armed citizen nearby? You bet your ass he is. [i]...it still doesn't make people ANTI-gun or prejuduced for not recognizing a need to own a gun.[/i] I never said it did, Oz. Their other language and statements, however, do. Again, apply the same level of criticism to their posts as you do to mine. They've offered no statistics to support their comments and they use quite a lot of anti-gun and prejudiced language in their posts. [i]Most peopleWITH a gun would not be prepared to use it if needed anyway, those that WOULD use it wouldn't have a chanceif responsibly stored.[/i] I freely admit that you are correct. Most people that own guns for home protection are ignorant of proper use and are more likely to harm themselves or their loved ones. I know someone that owns a .357 for home protection...That is [b]insanity[/b]. I, however, am not most people and I don't think my rights to responsibly own a gun should be taken away because of stupid people. [i] I'll give you that, there are so many Americans who feel this way that it is becoming true, for Americans anyway,[/i] Just because you would like to think this is some self-fulfilling prophecy, it isn't. There will always be people willing to do evil. Thanks to my training and the fact that I own a gun, I am more prepared to deal with them, should the need arise. [i]How about the truth instead, just once. MOST people who own guns, do so in the off-chance that they will need it. Not the other way around, you have a better likelyhood of NOT needing gun protection that you do NEEDING one.[/i] I agree, that statement goes both ways. Why you feel the need to be so argumentative, I don't know... [i]Nobody has suggested taking away your rights, unless of course they are seen to be harming other pople and removing THEIR rights. YOu just assumed that in your defense.[/i] You are very liberal with your use of the word nobody here. The two people I have been replying to, 'G-Man' and Canuckster have been doing just that. Case in point: [b]The 'G-Man': Reduce the guns available[/b] Put this together with what he has posted... Any of Canuckster's posts are examples of idiocy, anti-gun rhetoric, and prejudice. Again, apply the same level of criticism to their posts as you have to mine. [i]People DO respect your right to own a gun, we may not understand tha paranoia that make syou feel you need one but it is your right, as an Amercian, to do so.[/i] Because you don't understand it, it's "paranoia"? You insult me by calling me paranoid for exercising my rights and you wonder why I get defensive?! EDIT: I'm all for gun control, [b]IF[/b] the aim of it is to ensure responsible ownership and to keep guns out of the hands of those that would do harm with them. I will not sit idly by, however, while people use FUD and prejudicial language to denigrate people such as myself that responsibly own guns, for whatever reasons.

Oz_Media
Oz_Media

[i]The mere presence of guns may also be used as a deterrent of violence.[/i] The mere presence of people willing to stop seomthing is a deterrent. Sorry I've studied security for a long time, guns don't that much more of an effect than ten people in uniform will. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [i]They can be used as protection from any number of things: wild animals whilst hiking through the woods for example.[/i] I have lived in the BC interior, I have hiked hundred of miles (over time), I have spent months living in the woods with bears, cougars, wolves, moose, etc. I have yet to see a single animal that didn't run like mad as soon as it saw or heard an unatural noise, footstep, cough, speech etc. Yes, there are cougars and such that will eventually work towards attavking someone, not exactly a NEED to carry a gun in teh woods though. I promise you that more hunters/campers are hurt accidentally by guns than there ever are hurt by animals because they weren't armed. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Inkling
Inkling

The FUD comes in when you create a hypothetical situation, such as that mentioned above, to create fear and doubt in someone that they might actually shoot someone simply because they have a gun. The entire situation is absurd.

Inkling
Inkling

First though, you are correct: Guns would not be very useful in gardening or painting your house. Of course, I could spend several days listing things that are would be similarly useless for those tasks. The mere presence of guns may also be used as a deterrent of violence. They can be used as protection from any number of things: wild animals whilst hiking through the woods for example. They can be used for sport: shooting targets of all types. They can be used as collectibles. Also, your use of the word "destruction" and all the negative connotations that go with it, is misleading. Are any of those things that I've mentioned above bad? Now, the real question: are any of those things that I've mentioned above relevant to a discussion about gun control? Probably not. Where they are relevant is in dealing with morons like 'G-Man'. I own guns for one reason: to protect my myself, my family, and anyone else I may be able to protect should the need arise. I'm not some gung-ho jackass though, Oz. I would only ever use a firearm in self defense as a very last resort. It's better to prepared and never have to use it, than to need to use it and not be prepared. The sad truth of the matter, Oz, is that in today's society situations may very well arise where we need to protect ourselves with a gun. I wish it weren't so, but it is. EDIT: I know we got off on the wrong foot in the other thread, Oz. I apologize for my tone there. I recognize that some people feel differently than I. Some people would rather NOT own guns in the off-chance that they would need it. They prefer to live and let live. I understand and respect that. I start to get defensive when people that feel that way belittle me for my views and want to take my right to live my life the way I choose away from me. I just don't understand how some people think. I respect your (your in the general sense) right to not own a gun. Why can't you respect my right to own a gun? And not assume I'm some militant nutcase just because I do?

Oz_Media
Oz_Media

Fear Uncertainty and Doubt? That wouldn't have any effect at all. FUD is what makes people refrain from such rash solutions.

Oz_Media
Oz_Media

While you may not see a gun as a WEAPON and see it as an "inanimate object. They are whatever the user intends them to be". Errrr, aaaalrighty then. So if I was to buy a gun for gardening, it would be a suitable tool for the task. If I chose to paint my house, I could also deem a gun a paintbrush...as that's what I intend it to be and that's all it is, a inanimate object/tool that I can use for whatever I need it for?! A gun is a weapon, no more no less. It is designed for sole purpose of sending a projectile at high speed in an accurate enough path that it can be aimed directly toward the intended target. [b]Guns have a sole purpose, to destroy something by creating a deadly force.[/b] To truly believe a gun has ANY other purpose than to impose deadly force, would require a completely delusional and confused person. I think what your intention was is that Guns don't kill people, PEOPLE do. And you're right. So why let PEOPLE have guns? Because SOME or even MANY people use them responsibly? That's not enough of an excuse to permit the broad acquisition of a tool used to inflict deadly force upon another.

Inkling
Inkling

are not our fault. Guns are inanimate objects. They are whatever their user intends them to be. Explain to me exactly how a gun is [b]not[/b] a tool, please.

Inkling
Inkling

It's also complete nonsense. Just because you have no self-control, you have no right to assume others are similarly afflicted. Or maybe you were just stating a hypothetical? That's the FUD part...

jd
jd

Yeah.. that would solve everything! Not. Take away that gun and they'll use what they have available.. a knife, brick, rock, pen, whatever.

The Listed 'G MAN'
The Listed 'G MAN'

not a tool or toy. Tools help get a job done, weapons are by design....designed to kill. However a tool can be a weapon, hell even a toy can.

burntfinger1
burntfinger1

In our family we were taught from as early as I can remember that guns were a tool not a toy and whatever was done with a gun was permanent. I was also taught that just because I'm mad doesn't give me the right to kill someone. Unlike tv and video games one doesn't get do overs in real life. Maybe part of the problem is the inability to seperate real life from VR.

jalee1011
jalee1011

but then I think of all the things I can do to them online... just kidding.. but - reducing one medium opens the door for another...

Editor's Picks