Political Crossfire Forums

[Lucky Luke]

Boneman wrote: Lucky Luke wrote: OneZero wrote: Otacon wrote: Guns are also used for sport. The Olympics have ranged shooting events. Guns aren't just for killing.

yeah well in Britain their Olympic team has to go out of country to practice.

A small price to pay if you ask me, are you asking me now that I am here?

:-D
:-D
A small price to pay for an increase in gun crime?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1440764.stm

Your research is commissioned by the Countryside Alliance's Campaign for Shooting Boneman, wake up!

:-D
:-D

[Boneman]

Quote: The Centre for Defence Studies at Kings College in London, which carried out the research, said the number of crimes in which a handgun was reported increased from 2,648 in 1997/98 to 3,685 in 1999/2000.

So what if it was commisioned by the CA? Last time I checked, Universities and colleges were pretty independant. If the BBC uses it as a source, Im sure its good enough for you LL.

[Lucky Luke]

Boneman wrote: Quote: The Centre for Defence Studies at Kings College in London, which carried out the research, said the number of crimes in which a handgun was reported increased from 2,648 in 1997/98 to 3,685 in 1999/2000.

So what if it was commisioned by the CA? Last time I checked, Universities and colleges were pretty independant. If the BBC uses it as a source, Im sure its good enough for you LL.

The BBC is not using it as a source, the BBC is reporting the fact that a research, commissioned by the Countryside Alliance's Campaign for Shooting, has concluded that existing laws are targeting legitimate users of firearms rather than criminals then added the comment of the Metropolitan police saying the contrary.

:-D
:-D

[Blinky]

thintheherd wrote: Blinky wrote: The reason cars are not banned is obvious. They are a form of transport, not a weapon.
No? -

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/02/15/1044927854202.html

Yours, is an argument of convenience.

No it isn't. A car is a mode of transport.
Guns are designed as weapons, cars are not.
How many cases per annum like the article you quoted are recorded?
Now take that number and figure out what it is as a percentage compared to the number of intentional shooting deaths each year.

[Blinky]

Onevote wrote: Blinky wrote: Onevote wrote: Blinky wrote: Onevote wrote: Blinky wrote: OneZero wrote: www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,202810,00.html

Quote: If current trends hold, tobacco will kill a billion people this century, 10 times the toll it took in the 20th century, public health officials said Monday.

hmmm yes guns are a huge problem, the greatest health risk, hmmmm......

LL and co, would you rather ban guns or ciggarettes? why?

Ideally, both. But I would rather ban guns because smoking hurts the smoker only (except with pasive smoking which is a seperate issue).
I couldn't care less who decides to give themselves cancer. Onezero, you have my permission to lock yourself in your bedroom and smoke five thousand packs a day.
I would care though if someone I knew was accidentally shot by some moron "defending freedom".


PS: If the gun-nuts had legitimate arguments for guns being good, they wouldn't have to resort to showing how other things are bad too.

Would you care if someone you knew was killed by a drunk driver? Would you think a ban on automobiles would be the answer to stop drunk driving?

Yes, I would care. But fortunately, the law already covers that. It is illegal to drive a car while drunk. Here at least, it is a criminal offence - if caught you will appear in court and possibly serve jail time.

It is also illegal to carry a gun without a permit in most places. It is also illegal to shoot someone unless you are defending your life. In fact it is illegal to even point a gun at someone unless you are defending your life. The penalty( if convicted) in Florida is a minimum three years in prison for pointing a gun at someone without good cause. The penalty for drunk driving is far less. And quite honestly the potential for killing someone while driving drunk is far greater and happens far more often than do gun accidents. So I'll ask you again would a ban on Cars to stop drunk driving deaths be the proper response?

Illegal to carry a gun without a permit in most places? What about the 'other' places?
There is the potential to kill someone with a car when you are stone-cold sober too. The reason cars are not banned is obvious. They are a form of transport, not a weapon. The other places are private property. The fact that they are a form of transportation is of no consequence. Deaths involving motor vehicles far outnumber gun deaths. And owning a car is not a requirement for you to live to live your life.So since I'm far more likely to die in a car crash, I hear by declare all private automobiles should be made illegal, except the police or military, they will need cars. As dumb as that may sound to you. It's the same thing I hear when you say guns are responsible for murder. At least in the case of murder it requires a conscience decision to harm someone. Both guns and cars are only as dangerous as the person behind the wheel!
:shock:
Are you seriously trying to suggest that it is as easy to kill someone with a car as it is a concealed firearm? :!:

[Blinky]

OneZero wrote: Blinky wrote: The only people smokers kill are themselves. Good luck to them.

No, secondhand smoke can and does kill others. Also, children of a smoker are more likely to become smokers themselves than children of a non-smoker.

True. And, for the third time, a seperate issue. Do try to keep up.

[Blinky]

Wolverine wrote: Blinky wrote: Wolverine wrote: Blinky wrote: Wolverine wrote: Blinky wrote: The only people smokers kill are themselves. Good luck to them.
Then why are thier smoking bans in the name of public safety eh?

Read my first post in this topic. The part about passive smoking and how it is a seperate issue.
What do you care anyway Wolverine, your government says you can't smoke tobacco even if you want to. Better take out the president - your "freedom" is at stake!
Bah, its a state and county issue, if you knew anything about American politcs you would have known that already.

Quote:

Thats because those things (cars, swimming pools, bicycles) are not designed for killing Wolverine. You can argue that anything can potentially be lethal. Heights kill people everyday Wolverine - When people fall from them. Let's ban heights!
Oh yeah...physics. Damnit!
Try again.
Guns that are not "readily adapted for sporting purposes" are already banned, so please, try again.

Blinky wrote: Otacon wrote: Guns are also used for sport. The Olympics have ranged shooting events. Guns aren't just for killing.

I have no problem with people wanting to shoot targets at a range for sport.
When people start taking their guns to their homes in the suburbs, and carrying them to the store when they're buying milk, people start dying. Not a theory - a reality in the USA.
:lol:
Oh yes, the streets are running with blood in CCW states.


Compared to here - yes, they are.
:rofl:
Ignoring the fact they actually have lower murder rates.

Not lower than here, mate.

[OneZero]

Blinky wrote: OneZero wrote: Blinky wrote: The only people smokers kill are themselves. Good luck to them.

No, secondhand smoke can and does kill others. Also, children of a smoker are more likely to become smokers themselves than children of a non-smoker.

True. And, for the third time, a seperate issue. Do try to keep up.

No, this is the issue we were talking about.

[Blinky]

OneZero wrote: Blinky wrote: OneZero wrote: Blinky wrote: The only people smokers kill are themselves. Good luck to them.

No, secondhand smoke can and does kill others. Also, children of a smoker are more likely to become smokers themselves than children of a non-smoker.

True. And, for the third time, a seperate issue. Do try to keep up.

No, this is the issue we were talking about.

Quote: Ideally, both. But I would rather ban guns because smoking hurts the smoker only (except with pasive smoking which is a seperate issue).
I couldn't care less who decides to give themselves cancer. Onezero, you have my permission to lock yourself in your bedroom and smoke five thousand packs a day.

Besides, progressive and socially responsible governments have already begun to deal with the problem of pasive smoking Onezero.

[Onevote]

Blinky wrote: OneZero wrote: Blinky wrote: OneZero wrote: Blinky wrote: The only people smokers kill are themselves. Good luck to them.

No, secondhand smoke can and does kill others. Also, children of a smoker are more likely to become smokers themselves than children of a non-smoker.

True. And, for the third time, a seperate issue. Do try to keep up.

No, this is the issue we were talking about.

Quote: Ideally, both. But I would rather ban guns because smoking hurts the smoker only (except with pasive smoking which is a seperate issue).
I couldn't care less who decides to give themselves cancer. Onezero, you have my permission to lock yourself in your bedroom and smoke five thousand packs a day.

Besides, progressive and socially responsible governments have already begun to deal with the problem of pasive smoking Onezero. Don't you mean Socialist Governments?

[Onevote]

Blinky wrote: Onevote wrote: Blinky wrote: Onevote wrote: Blinky wrote: Onevote wrote: Blinky wrote: OneZero wrote: www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,202810,00.html

Quote: If current trends hold, tobacco will kill a billion people this century, 10 times the toll it took in the 20th century, public health officials said Monday.

hmmm yes guns are a huge problem, the greatest health risk, hmmmm......

LL and co, would you rather ban guns or ciggarettes? why?

Ideally, both. But I would rather ban guns because smoking hurts the smoker only (except with pasive smoking which is a seperate issue).
I couldn't care less who decides to give themselves cancer. Onezero, you have my permission to lock yourself in your bedroom and smoke five thousand packs a day.
I would care though if someone I knew was accidentally shot by some moron "defending freedom".


PS: If the gun-nuts had legitimate arguments for guns being good, they wouldn't have to resort to showing how other things are bad too.

Would you care if someone you knew was killed by a drunk driver? Would you think a ban on automobiles would be the answer to stop drunk driving?

Yes, I would care. But fortunately, the law already covers that. It is illegal to drive a car while drunk. Here at least, it is a criminal offence - if caught you will appear in court and possibly serve jail time.

It is also illegal to carry a gun without a permit in most places. It is also illegal to shoot someone unless you are defending your life. In fact it is illegal to even point a gun at someone unless you are defending your life. The penalty( if convicted) in Florida is a minimum three years in prison for pointing a gun at someone without good cause. The penalty for drunk driving is far less. And quite honestly the potential for killing someone while driving drunk is far greater and happens far more often than do gun accidents. So I'll ask you again would a ban on Cars to stop drunk driving deaths be the proper response?

Illegal to carry a gun without a permit in most places? What about the 'other' places?
There is the potential to kill someone with a car when you are stone-cold sober too. The reason cars are not banned is obvious. They are a form of transport, not a weapon. The other places are private property. The fact that they are a form of transportation is of no consequence. Deaths involving motor vehicles far outnumber gun deaths. And owning a car is not a requirement for you to live to live your life.So since I'm far more likely to die in a car crash, I hear by declare all private automobiles should be made illegal, except the police or military, they will need cars. As dumb as that may sound to you. It's the same thing I hear when you say guns are responsible for murder. At least in the case of murder it requires a conscience decision to harm someone. Both guns and cars are only as dangerous as the person behind the wheel!
:shock:
Are you seriously trying to suggest that it is as easy to kill someone with a car as it is a concealed firearm? :!: Not at all. My point is, far more people die in auto accidents than are killed by firearms. You stand a far greater chance of being hit by a drunk driver than shot by a gun.

[OneZero]

Onevote wrote: Not at all. My point is, far more people die in auto accidents than are killed by firearms. You stand a far greater chance of being hit by a drunk driver than shot by a gun.

you also stand a higher risk of being injured while playing badminton than hunting.

gun-related injuries are seriously a non-issue.

[alclarkey]

Blinky wrote: Wolverine wrote: Blinky wrote: Wolverine wrote: Blinky wrote: Wolverine wrote: Blinky wrote: The only people smokers kill are themselves. Good luck to them.
Then why are thier smoking bans in the name of public safety eh?

Read my first post in this topic. The part about passive smoking and how it is a seperate issue.
What do you care anyway Wolverine, your government says you can't smoke tobacco even if you want to. Better take out the president - your "freedom" is at stake!
Bah, its a state and county issue, if you knew anything about American politcs you would have known that already.

Quote:

Thats because those things (cars, swimming pools, bicycles) are not designed for killing Wolverine. You can argue that anything can potentially be lethal. Heights kill people everyday Wolverine - When people fall from them. Let's ban heights!
Oh yeah...physics. Damnit!
Try again.
Guns that are not "readily adapted for sporting purposes" are already banned, so please, try again.

Blinky wrote: Otacon wrote: Guns are also used for sport. The Olympics have ranged shooting events. Guns aren't just for killing.

I have no problem with people wanting to shoot targets at a range for sport.
When people start taking their guns to their homes in the suburbs, and carrying them to the store when they're buying milk, people start dying. Not a theory - a reality in the USA.
:lol:
Oh yes, the streets are running with blood in CCW states.


Compared to here - yes, they are.
:rofl:
Ignoring the fact they actually have lower murder rates.

Not lower than here, mate.

What is your total violent crime ranking? In Vermont-- a state where no permit is required to carry concealed, they have a violent crime ranking of 112 per 100,000 people. Also the issue here is that our crime rates were higher when we did not allow people to carry concealed. They dropped when we did. And for the umpteen millionth time, our high crime rates have nothing to do with the availabilty or lack of firearms.

[Blinky]

Onevote wrote: Blinky wrote: OneZero wrote: Blinky wrote: OneZero wrote: Blinky wrote: The only people smokers kill are themselves. Good luck to them.

No, secondhand smoke can and does kill others. Also, children of a smoker are more likely to become smokers themselves than children of a non-smoker.

True. And, for the third time, a seperate issue. Do try to keep up.

No, this is the issue we were talking about.

Quote: Ideally, both. But I would rather ban guns because smoking hurts the smoker only (except with pasive smoking which is a seperate issue).
I couldn't care less who decides to give themselves cancer. Onezero, you have my permission to lock yourself in your bedroom and smoke five thousand packs a day.

Besides, progressive and socially responsible governments have already begun to deal with the problem of pasive smoking Onezero. Don't you mean Socialist Governments?

No.

[Blinky]

Onevote wrote: Blinky wrote: Onevote wrote: Blinky wrote: Onevote wrote: Blinky wrote: Onevote wrote: Blinky wrote: OneZero wrote: www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,202810,00.html

Quote: If current trends hold, tobacco will kill a billion people this century, 10 times the toll it took in the 20th century, public health officials said Monday.

hmmm yes guns are a huge problem, the greatest health risk, hmmmm......

LL and co, would you rather ban guns or ciggarettes? why?

Ideally, both. But I would rather ban guns because smoking hurts the smoker only (except with pasive smoking which is a seperate issue).
I couldn't care less who decides to give themselves cancer. Onezero, you have my permission to lock yourself in your bedroom and smoke five thousand packs a day.
I would care though if someone I knew was accidentally shot by some moron "defending freedom".


PS: If the gun-nuts had legitimate arguments for guns being good, they wouldn't have to resort to showing how other things are bad too.

Would you care if someone you knew was killed by a drunk driver? Would you think a ban on automobiles would be the answer to stop drunk driving?

Yes, I would care. But fortunately, the law already covers that. It is illegal to drive a car while drunk. Here at least, it is a criminal offence - if caught you will appear in court and possibly serve jail time.

It is also illegal to carry a gun without a permit in most places. It is also illegal to shoot someone unless you are defending your life. In fact it is illegal to even point a gun at someone unless you are defending your life. The penalty( if convicted) in Florida is a minimum three years in prison for pointing a gun at someone without good cause. The penalty for drunk driving is far less. And quite honestly the potential for killing someone while driving drunk is far greater and happens far more often than do gun accidents. So I'll ask you again would a ban on Cars to stop drunk driving deaths be the proper response?

Illegal to carry a gun without a permit in most places? What about the 'other' places?
There is the potential to kill someone with a car when you are stone-cold sober too. The reason cars are not banned is obvious. They are a form of transport, not a weapon. The other places are private property. The fact that they are a form of transportation is of no consequence. Deaths involving motor vehicles far outnumber gun deaths. And owning a car is not a requirement for you to live to live your life.So since I'm far more likely to die in a car crash, I hear by declare all private automobiles should be made illegal, except the police or military, they will need cars. As dumb as that may sound to you. It's the same thing I hear when you say guns are responsible for murder. At least in the case of murder it requires a conscience decision to harm someone. Both guns and cars are only as dangerous as the person behind the wheel!
:shock:
Are you seriously trying to suggest that it is as easy to kill someone with a car as it is a concealed firearm? :!: Not at all. My point is, far more people die in auto accidents than are killed by firearms. You stand a far greater chance of being hit by a drunk driver than shot by a gun.

Do you have figures for that?

[Blinky]

alclarkey wrote: Blinky wrote: Wolverine wrote: Blinky wrote: Wolverine wrote: Blinky wrote: Wolverine wrote: Blinky wrote: The only people smokers kill are themselves. Good luck to them.
Then why are thier smoking bans in the name of public safety eh?

Read my first post in this topic. The part about passive smoking and how it is a seperate issue.
What do you care anyway Wolverine, your government says you can't smoke tobacco even if you want to. Better take out the president - your "freedom" is at stake!
Bah, its a state and county issue, if you knew anything about American politcs you would have known that already.

Quote:

Thats because those things (cars, swimming pools, bicycles) are not designed for killing Wolverine. You can argue that anything can potentially be lethal. Heights kill people everyday Wolverine - When people fall from them. Let's ban heights!
Oh yeah...physics. Damnit!
Try again.
Guns that are not "readily adapted for sporting purposes" are already banned, so please, try again.

Blinky wrote: Otacon wrote: Guns are also used for sport. The Olympics have ranged shooting events. Guns aren't just for killing.

I have no problem with people wanting to shoot targets at a range for sport.
When people start taking their guns to their homes in the suburbs, and carrying them to the store when they're buying milk, people start dying. Not a theory - a reality in the USA.
:lol:
Oh yes, the streets are running with blood in CCW states.


Compared to here - yes, they are.
:rofl:
Ignoring the fact they actually have lower murder rates.

Not lower than here, mate.

What is your total violent crime ranking? In Vermont-- a state where no permit is required to carry concealed, they have a violent crime ranking of 112 per 100,000 people. Also the issue here is that our crime rates were higher when we did not allow people to carry concealed. They dropped when we did. And for the umpteen millionth time, our high crime rates have nothing to do with the availabilty or lack of firearms.

When was CCW introduced in Vermont?

[Otacon]

Blinky wrote: Onevote wrote: Blinky wrote: Onevote wrote: Blinky wrote: Onevote wrote: Blinky wrote: Onevote wrote: Blinky wrote: OneZero wrote: www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,202810,00.html

Quote: If current trends hold, tobacco will kill a billion people this century, 10 times the toll it took in the 20th century, public health officials said Monday.

hmmm yes guns are a huge problem, the greatest health risk, hmmmm......

LL and co, would you rather ban guns or ciggarettes? why?

Ideally, both. But I would rather ban guns because smoking hurts the smoker only (except with pasive smoking which is a seperate issue).
I couldn't care less who decides to give themselves cancer. Onezero, you have my permission to lock yourself in your bedroom and smoke five thousand packs a day.
I would care though if someone I knew was accidentally shot by some moron "defending freedom".


PS: If the gun-nuts had legitimate arguments for guns being good, they wouldn't have to resort to showing how other things are bad too.

Would you care if someone you knew was killed by a drunk driver? Would you think a ban on automobiles would be the answer to stop drunk driving?

Yes, I would care. But fortunately, the law already covers that. It is illegal to drive a car while drunk. Here at least, it is a criminal offence - if caught you will appear in court and possibly serve jail time.

It is also illegal to carry a gun without a permit in most places. It is also illegal to shoot someone unless you are defending your life. In fact it is illegal to even point a gun at someone unless you are defending your life. The penalty( if convicted) in Florida is a minimum three years in prison for pointing a gun at someone without good cause. The penalty for drunk driving is far less. And quite honestly the potential for killing someone while driving drunk is far greater and happens far more often than do gun accidents. So I'll ask you again would a ban on Cars to stop drunk driving deaths be the proper response?

Illegal to carry a gun without a permit in most places? What about the 'other' places?
There is the potential to kill someone with a car when you are stone-cold sober too. The reason cars are not banned is obvious. They are a form of transport, not a weapon. The other places are private property. The fact that they are a form of transportation is of no consequence. Deaths involving motor vehicles far outnumber gun deaths. And owning a car is not a requirement for you to live to live your life.So since I'm far more likely to die in a car crash, I hear by declare all private automobiles should be made illegal, except the police or military, they will need cars. As dumb as that may sound to
you. It's the same thing I hear when you say guns are responsible for murder. At least in the case of murder it requires a conscience decision to harm someone. Both guns and cars are only as dangerous as the person behind the wheel!
:shock:
Are you seriously trying to suggest that it is as easy to kill someone with a car as it is a concealed firearm? :!: Not at all. My point is, far more people die in auto accidents than are killed by firearms. You stand a far greater chance of being hit by a drunk driver than shot by a gun.

Do you have figures for that?

They exist, i'll look. Besides, that's kind of a no brainer.

[OneZero]

Blinky wrote: alclarkey wrote: Blinky wrote: Wolverine wrote: Blinky wrote: Wolverine wrote: Blinky wrote: Wolverine wrote: Blinky wrote: The only people smokers kill are themselves. Good luck to them.
Then why are thier smoking bans in the name of public safety eh?

Read my first post in this topic. The part about passive smoking and how it is a seperate issue.
What do you care anyway Wolverine, your government says you can't smoke tobacco even if you want to. Better take out the president - your "freedom" is at stake!
Bah, its a state and county issue, if you knew anything about American politcs you would have known that already.

Quote:

Thats because those things (cars, swimming pools, bicycles) are not designed for killing Wolverine. You can argue that anything can potentially be lethal. Heights kill people everyday Wolverine - When people fall from them. Let's ban heights!
Oh yeah...physics. Damnit!
Try again.
Guns that are not "readily adapted for sporting purposes" are already banned, so please, try again.

Blinky wrote: Otacon wrote: Guns are also used for sport. The Olympics have ranged shooting events. Guns aren't just for killing.

I have no problem with people wanting to shoot targets at a range for sport.
When people start taking their guns to their homes in the suburbs, and carrying them to the store when they're buying milk, people start dying. Not a theory - a reality in the USA.
:lol:
Oh yes, the streets are running with blood in CCW states.


Compared to here - yes, they are.
:rofl:
Ignoring the fact they actually have lower murder rates.

Not lower than here, mate.

What is your total violent crime ranking? In Vermont-- a state where no permit is required to carry concealed, they have a violent crime ranking of 112 per 100,000 people. Also the issue here is that our crime rates were higher when we did not allow people to carry concealed. They dropped when we did. And for the umpteen millionth time, our high crime rates have nothing to do with the availabilty or lack of firearms.

When was CCW introduced in Vermont?

1903.

Quote: In 1903, the Supreme Court of Vermont tossed out a prohibition on concealed carry, finding "a person... may carry a dangerous or deadly weapon, openly or concealed, unless he does it with the intent or avowed purpose of injuring another..."

[OneZero]

OneZero wrote: Blinky wrote:
When was CCW introduced in Vermont?

1903.

Quote: In 1903, the Supreme Court of Vermont tossed out a prohibition on concealed carry, finding "a person... may carry a dangerous or deadly weapon, openly or concealed, unless he does it with the intent or avowed purpose of injuring another..."

EDIT: Actually I can see that's not true, 1903 was just when the VTSC protected it; I guess CCW was always allowed in VT.

[Blinky]

My mistake - I meant to ask when it was introduced in MI.
Do you know when?
I'm trying to verify if the violent crime rate went down after its introduction as alclarky claims...