A question of guns

BanningZ · 04-22-2009, 07:01 AM

Originally the question was posed why an American might have a gun or more specifically a concealed gun.

EDIT: Thank you to Semtex who allowed this discourse to transpire in his thread without calling quits to it.

the conversation started like this:

Quote:

Originally Posted by nogoodname007

why are u carry a weapon in the 1st place....lol

EDITED

The responses result as thus:

Quote:

Originally Posted by wstar

People in very liberal places (like Canada, California, and NYC) don't really have the same grasp on this issue as those of us in the rest of the US, you'll have to allow some room for being in a vastly different environment. In TX, citizens are encouraged by law enforcement officers (the good ones anyways) to own and carry guns (although carrying must be concealed, and requires a license issued by the state). I've actually gotten out of speeding tickets because the officer liked my carry piece (we're required to disclose the carry license when asked for a driver's license) and we got into a firearms conversation, etc. It's a different world down here than where you're at.

Armed citizens reduce crime, the statistics are clear. There are now few states left in the US that don't have shall-issue concealed carry licenses, and the number continues to drop. (shall-issue means they can't deny you arbitrarily as long as you meet all the basic requirements: take training, pass a shooting test, no felony record, no higher-level misdemeanors within X years, no record of mental health issues, no restraining orders, etc, etc... it's actually quite an extensive list of checks).

BanningZ · 04-22-2009, 07:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wstar

Armed citizens reduce crime, the statistics are clear.

First off more half of my state is liberal, we have concealed weapon permits here, I have my own guns that are registered and I have absolutely no reason to uses them other than to go out and have fun shooting a a stump or set of targets.

Please don't lump Oregon in to the places you claim are so different then Canada. Canadians are not a different species from a strange planet. Have you been there? I have many times both, East coast, West coast, and in the middle. Also lots of people in Canada own guns. I support the NRA and the right to bear arms but out of control, rampant violence does not exist in my state or for that matter any state (at least that I'm aware of).

Making comments like that give people from other countries the opinion that we are ALL gun toting rednecks. Most U.S. gun owners are responsible people who aren't running around afraid of the government and crazy criminals.

The violence in our country is in no way to a point, nor has it been, where we all need guns to fight off the hordes of criminals.

Secondly where are you getting your statistics for violence reducing when more people have guns?

BTW A statistical analysis of statistical analysis said that 70% of statistics are always wrong. Wrap your brain around that. lol. Most statistical evidence is swayed or improperly recorded when doing studies. Think I'm wrong ask a sociologist.

.

BanningZ · 04-22-2009, 07:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wstar

Well, this isn't the thread to debate this, but (a) I didn't say anything about Oregon, (b) I disagree with you on many other points above, and (c) I take offense at you calling people who carry guns rednecks.

If you want to start a new thread, I'll be happy to supply statistical data on the subject and engage in this debate

Quote:

Originally Posted by semtex

Okay, can we not turn this thread into a debate on gun control/ownership? Eh, on second thought, have at it. It'll be entertaining.

I'm only going to say one thing on this. I never answered Nogood's question on why I carry, so here's my answer. I carry a sidearm for the same reason I wear my seatbelt -- just in case. When I drive, I don't expect to get into an accident, nor am I one of those people who drives around all nervous and fearful that I'm about to get into a wreck. But accidents do happen, often due to circumstances beyond our control, so I wear my seatbelt. Likewise, I do not live in constant fear of crime. I do not walk around expecting to get attacked at any moment, and if I have my way I will never get into a violent confrontation with anyone over anything. But just as accidents do happen, so too does violent crime. Whether we like it or not, all of us as individuals could one day find ourselves in the wrong place at the wrong time and need to use deadly force. And it's not just crime that I'm thinking of. I was walking my dog one day and a really vicious rottweiler broke out of a neighbor's yard and came at us, teeth bared and about to attack, with its owner chasing it and screaming for the dog to stop. Luckily there was a pickup truck close by so I threw my dog into the bed and jumped in. The rottweiler's owner regained control of the dog and profusely apologized. Okay, no harm no foul -- this time. Had that pickup truck not been there, and had the rottweiler's owner been nowhere in sight, I wouldn't have hesitated to shoot that dog. Anyway, I'm digressing. My point is simply that to me, carrying a sidearm is no different than wearing a seatbelt, or using smoke detectors for that matter. In the metro-Atlanta area, 1 out of every 10 cars has a gun in it. I'm not sure what the statistic is for on-person concealed carry. But either way, I'm surprised more people don't carry sidearms. It's just so basic to me. (Like wearing a seatbelt.)

Edit: Just to make sure there's no misunderstanding, I'm not trying to imply that if one chooses not to carry a sidearm that s/he's dumb or irresponsible or anything like that. It's a choice, and I completely respect someone choosing not to carry as much as I respect someone for choosing to carry. To each his own.

.

BanningZ · 04-22-2009, 07:04 AM

Okay, A: when you lump places like California, and NYC together as "very liberal" you lump the rest of the country into the other category ie. Oregon.
My home is not vastly different than NYC, California, Canada or any other state for that matter. I would argue that Texas isn't that much different either. I've been there and I like it. Houston is a great city.

B: Its okay to disagree. It would be a pretty boring place if people didn't.

C: Don't take offense as I was not calling anyone a Gun toting redneck. I was saying that certain comments can make people in other countries who are viewing our country from the outside in think that we are gun toting rednecks. Stereotypes are real and most often incorrect. The world stereotypes Americans as fat, lazy, uneducated and gun crazy. We need to take caution when addressing issues like this because we want to remove stereotypes not reinforce them.
When you make a comment like: It gives the outside world the impression that our country is taken over by criminals and gun toting rednecks. It wasn't an attack and if it was it would be pretty hypocritical because as stated before I am a gun owner.

P.S.: Thanks Semtex for allowing debate in your thread.

BanningZ · 04-22-2009, 07:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wstar

I specifically spelled out California and NYC because those localities have gun laws on the books that would never fly in most of the rest of the country (for that matter, Chicago and Washington, DC are the other two big names on that list). AFAIK, Oregon doesn't have bad gun laws. Bad gun laws do come from the liberal side of the fence. So from my perspective, my short list of "places with bad gun laws and generally bad attitudes towards guns", which also happens to be a pretty concise list of "the most liberal places in the country" is pretty ok.

First off, let's cover the "redneck" issue. It's basically the equivalent of the N-word, but it's for poor white people. Believe me, if you threw around the black equivalent as casually as you have "redneck" so far, you'd be banned in a heartbeat. It's an offensive race/class-slur, do you get that?

Second, I think it's actually *you* who are advancing the idea that anyone who carries a gun in this country and isn't a cop is either a criminal, or a "fat, lazy, uneducated redneck", and/or "running around afraid of the government and crazy criminals". You also imply that carrying a wepaon is irresponsible. You're painting a very nasty picture of people who choose to carry here, and it's irrational and baseless. Licensed concealed carry permit-holders, regardless of the state they live in, tend to be among the most upstanding and responsible citizens in their area. They're professionals, they've never committed major crimes, they've subjected themselves to extensive background checks, etc. I feel comfortable speaking on their behalf because I'm one of these many upstanding citizens.

Now, on to your specific misstatements about guns in the US..

Copied from the gun facts page at: QUICK GUN FACTS:

FACT: Every day, 550 rapes, 1,100 murders, and 5,200 other violent crimes per day are Prevented just by showing a handgun. In less than 0.9% of the time is the gun ever actually ever fired.

* Gary Kleck, Criminologist, Florida State Univ.

FACT: Every year, people in the United States use a gun to defend themselves against criminals an estimated 2,500,000 times- more than 6,500 people a day, or once every 13 seconds.

* Fall 1995, Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology

You don't think the use of a gun every 13 seconds on average to prevent a crime indicates a crime level that justifies carrying a gun?

FACT: When citizens are allowed to carry concealed weapons:

* Murder rates drop 8%

* Rape rates fall 5%

* Aggravated assaults drop 7%

More to the point, crime is significantly higher in states without right -to -carry laws.

TYPE OF CRIME HOW MUCH HIGHER IN RESTRICTIVE STATES

Violent Crime ……………………81% higher

Murder ………………………….. 86% higher

Rape …………………………… 25% higher

Assault…………………………… 82% higher

Robbery………………………….. 105% higher

Auto Theft……………………….. 60% higher

* John Lott, David Mustard: This study involved county level crime statistics from all 3,054 counties in the U.S. from 1977 through 1992. During this time, ten states adopted right-to-carry laws. It is estimated that if all states had adopted right-to-carry laws, in 1992 the U.S. would have avoided 1,400 murders, 4,200 rapes, 12,000 robberies, 60,000 aggravated assaults- and would have saved over $5,000,000,000 in victim expenses.

I could go on with the quotes, but it will get long-winded. If you want more data, head to GunCite: gun control and Second Amendment issues, and check out the statistics info on the right-hand side of the page (the left side is mostly about constitutional and legal issues). Specifically, these are good ones:

GunCite-Gun Control-How Often Are Guns Used in Self-Defense?

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdgeff.html

.

BanningZ · 04-22-2009, 07:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wstar

I specifically spelled out California and NYC because those localities have gun laws on the books that would never fly in most of the rest of the country (for that matter, Chicago and Washington, DC are the other two big names on that list). AFAIK, Oregon doesn't have bad gun laws. Bad gun laws do come from the liberal side of the fence. So from my perspective, my short list of "places with bad gun laws and generally bad attitudes towards guns", which also happens to be a pretty concise list of "the most liberal places in the country" is pretty ok.

A.) All those places have exceptionally high crime rates especially D.C. They are not enacting gun laws because liberals hate guns. People have a knee jerk reaction to violent crime. They need something to scapegoat (Marilyn Manson, video games, gang culture, etc.) People call their congress person because they want something done about it. They call their friends and because its on the back of lets say a dead child, it makes it hard to argue against. Generally gun laws aren't being enacted because people hate guns, its because they hate dead kids.

B.) Why do you think I am against people that carry concealed gun permits?

Quote:

Originally Posted by wstar

First off, let's cover the "redneck" issue. It's basically the equivalent of the N-word, but it's for poor white people. Believe me, if you threw around the black equivalent as casually as you have "redneck" so far, you'd be banned in a heartbeat. It's an offensive race/class-slur, do you get that?

C.) Wow I never thought of rednecks necessarily as "poor" but thanks for defining the term you refer to as offensive. Also you think that redneck is equivalent to the N word.
You are welcome to your opinion but I think there are many that would disagree and I am one of them.
Lets see: Comedy central constantly airs "The redneck comedy tour". In fact the guys in it proudly say they are rednecks and named the tour. My big fat redneck wedding is another example. There is no N-word comedy tour that I am aware of, neither is there a "My big fat N-word wedding". The African American community(for the most part) has embraced the N-word in order to change its meaning and slowly disassemble its negative connotation within their community. They are allowed to use the word.
I'm not rollin' in the cash, and I'm one of the palest people I know, but I am not able to use the term redneck? What if I want to turn it into a positive like Ron White or Jeff Foxworthy? I don’t see a lot of picketers outside of their shows being reported on.

Quote:

Originally Posted by wstar

Second, I think it's actually *you* who are advancing the idea that anyone who carries a gun in this country and isn't a cop is either a criminal, or a "fat, lazy, uneducated redneck", and/or "running around afraid of the government and crazy criminals". You also imply that carrying a wepaon is irresponsible. You're painting a very nasty picture of people who choose to carry here, and it's irrational and baseless. Licensed concealed carry permit-holders, regardless of the state they live in, tend to be among the most upstanding and responsible citizens in their area. They're professionals, they've never committed major crimes, they've subjected themselves to extensive background checks, etc. I feel comfortable speaking on their behalf because I'm one of these many upstanding citizens.

I never implied that carrying a gun is irresponsible. It was your response to Nogood that I disagreed with. I am an advocate for concealed gun permits and have never said I wasn't, yet some how you conjured that out of my statement earlier. Can you elaborate on how I reinforced negative stereotypes of Americans with the comment that said it is a common opinion of people living outside the U.S.A.? I don't like the mentality of out of sight out of mind(i.e.: if I don't listen to it, it doesn't happen).

Quote:

Originally Posted by wstar

Copied from the gun facts page at: QUICK GUN FACTS:

FACT: Every day, 550 rapes, 1,100 murders, and 5,200 other violent crimes per day are Prevented just by showing a handgun. In less than 0.9% of the time is the gun ever actually ever fired.

* Gary Kleck, Criminologist, Florida State Univ.

FACT: Every year, people in the United States use a gun to defend themselves against criminals an estimated 2,500,000 times- more than 6,500 people a day, or once every 13 seconds.

* Fall 1995, Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology

You don't think the use of a gun every 13 seconds on average to prevent a crime indicates a crime level that justifies carrying a gun?

Statistical analysis is constantly being revisited, because as months, years and decades move on, these studies become irrelevant because society changes. That's why studies are constantly being performed, and every once in a while they will release a study in the media and people go, "Didn't they already show that in a study a couple of years ago?" One year statistics say eggs are bad, the next year they "find" that eggs are good for you, (other examples include: coffee, wine, etc.) most likely these are due to inside interest contaminating the study.

When you live in a nation of over 300 million citizens, violence occurs. Ever seen a cage full of rats? Higher populations in cities means more violence. The Cities like D.C. that have stricter gun laws, are attempting to prevent a naturally occurring tide.

I support responsible gun ownership. I think responsible gun owners should treat the second amendment like a privilege not a right. Rights can be abused, so can privileges but the problem with rights is they tend to be more abused than privileges. People that are given something that they earn are generally more appreciative of the gift, than people that are handed that gift. Drivers licenses are a privilege, and because its a privilege people are more likely to be responsible because that privilege can be taken away. Don't get me wrong there are plenty of crummy drivers out there but generally people that are in charge of dangerous things are required to have training and pass some form of requirement in order to operate that piece of equipment.

All in All that's okay though. I agree to disagree. I try to find a happy medium between being a responsible gun owner and my second amendment right to own a gun. The problem is I think far too few try to do the same thing. When you lump 90% of the country into one group I disagree with that, especially when people from other countries may be viewing you as a a representative for our country. I don't wish to attack you and I think you get that impression. I enjoy argumentative discourse and I prefer to to remain civil.

Cheers!

antennahead · 04-22-2009, 07:45 AM

A better question is: Do you own a Z? Do you ever intend to own a Z? What's with the name "BanningZ"? Do you want to ban the Z? Ban gas powered automobiles? You have over 500 posts, and almost all of them are in the Lounge (off topic). If you are not a Z owner, don't intend to buy a Z, or are not a sports car enthusiast, why did you join this site? To stir debate on hotly contested topics?

John

BanningZ · 04-22-2009, 08:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by antennahead

A better question is: Do you own a Z? Do you ever intend to own a Z? What's with the name "BanningZ"? Do you want to ban the Z? Ban gas powered automobiles? You have over 500 posts, and almost all of them are in the Lounge (off topic). If you are not a Z owner, don't intend to buy a Z, or are not a sports car enthusiast, why did you join this site? To stir debate on hotly contested topics?

John

Those are fair questions.

My middle name is banning.
I intend to order or buy in June.
I post in the lounge a lot because there are a lot of fun people that frequent there.
I have over 500 posts because I have an A type personality, it is fun to discuss issues and random BS with others, I have met others on here with similar interests/slash humor.

It is also difficult to answer a general/engine/interior question when I don't have one in my possession and I've only been on two test drives. I love the new Z design and because there is an off-topic lounge I like to comment in there because other than school, remodeling a house I own, dealing with tenants, and taking care of 6 animals, I have a lot of free time. Plus I'm an insomniac.
I'm not sure why you have such hostility? Many of the Z owners only recently got their Z's I just happen to be one that joined the site earlier and haven't purchased one since its 4 month introduction.

None the less Cheers on your new ownership of the 370Z.

BTW I created this thread so wstar and I didn't clutter up anymore of Semtex's thread on why some officers were maddoggin' him.

Lug · 04-22-2009, 10:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BanningZ

Secondly where are you getting your statistics for violence reducing when more people have guns?

.

The only stats I've looked at involved Florida and Texas after passing concealed carry. In both cases, the crime rates dropped after but not to a great degree. This is only ancillary data at best but it did answer the charges that crime would skyrocket or nearly cease to exist that both sides were claiming before the new laws were passed. It was close enough to a wash to tell me that that issue had little bearing on what actually happens. My take is that if you assume most people are law-abiding, the government has no business telling us whether we can possess guns or not. They certainly do need to take care of the few bad apples out there that abuse the right. Plainly, this is how the founding fathers viewed the government, a restricted entity the worked for the people and didn't control them. If enough people decide that guns and society just don't mix, there is a perfectly acceptable way to achieve that. It's called a Constitutional Amendment and bears as much weight as the rest of the Constitution.

wstar · 04-22-2009, 11:41 AM

FWIW, copying this to a new thread after the fact kinda screwed up the quoting that was in my first lengthy response, which made it clear which of your statements I was referring to, but whatever...

Quote:

Originally Posted by BanningZ

A.) All those places have exceptionally high crime rates especially D.C. They are not enacting gun laws because liberals hate guns. People have a knee jerk reaction to violent crime. They need something to scapegoat (Marilyn Manson, video games, gang culture, etc.) People call their congress person because they want something done about it. They call their friends and because its on the back of lets say a dead child, it makes it hard to argue against. Generally gun laws aren't being enacted because people hate guns, its because they hate dead kids.

Yes, everyone hates dead kids. However, these knee-jerk reaction gun laws don't help the situation, they hurt it. Time and again, it has been shown that increased gun laws = increased crime, including gun crime. It's hard to do any kind of rational, factual evaluation of the available academic literature on the subject and not come to that conclusion.

If the politicians in those areas had *any* real interest in preventing gun crime, at some point during the years they would have read the available academic literature and realized that their own attempts at gun control were helping to feed the skyrocketing crime rates, and they would have repealed them.

They use crime scares as a crutch for banning guns. The high end liberal politicians actually do have an active goal of trying to remove every gun from the face of the planet, as ridiculous and impossible as that sounds. Here's a direct quote from Dianne Feinstein, (D) CA, author of the original Assault Weapons Ban, when she appeared on CBS: "If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them, Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in, I would have done it." In context here, she's referring to every gun in the country. Only politics prevents her from reaching her goal.

It is not "hard to argue" against gun laws being knee-jerk enacted in reaction to some stupid gun death news story being pumped. All it takes is a few facts.

Here's the facts on accidental gun deaths (in all age ranges, compared to other sources of accidental death): GunCite-Gun Accidents Looks like child<->gun accidents are actually a bit overblown by the media.

Homicide rates: GunCite: Gun Control - Gun Homicides

School Gun Violence: Schools and Gun Violence

I can keep posting these links, or you can go to guncite and read the available literature for yourself before you come back to this thread, choice is yours.

Quote:

B.) Why do you think I am against people that carry concealed gun permits?

Because of your statements in your first response. I'll quote you *again*, from the first response:

Quote:

Making comments like that give people from other countries the opinion that we are ALL gun toting rednecks. Most U.S. gun owners are responsible people who aren't running around afraid of the government and crazy criminals.

The position you are clearly espousing here that people who carry (as opposed to "regular" gun owners who just keep it locked up at home) are irresponsible "gun-toting rednecks" who run around afraid of the government and crazy criminals.

Quote:

C.) Wow I never thought of rednecks necessarily as "poor" but thanks for defining the term you refer to as offensive. Also you think that redneck is equivalent to the N word.
You are welcome to your opinion but I think there are many that would disagree and I am one of them.
Lets see: Comedy central constantly airs "The redneck comedy tour". In fact the guys in it proudly say they are rednecks and named the tour. My big fat redneck wedding is another example. There is no N-word comedy tour that I am aware of, neither is there a "My big fat N-word wedding". The African American community(for the most part) has embraced the N-word in order to change its meaning and slowly disassemble its negative connotation within their community. They are allowed to use the word.
I'm not rollin' in the cash, and I'm one of the palest people I know, but I am not able to use the term redneck? What if I want to turn it into a positive like Ron White or Jeff Foxworthy? I don’t see a lot of picketers outside of their shows being reported on.

Well, you have to take into account that race doesn't exist on the internet (nobody knows what your skin looks like, dude), and you also have to remember that even moreso than the black equivalent, "redneck" is a class slur as much as it is a racial one. White people do get offended at being called a redneck by other white people who are richer than them.

Of course, because it's against whites instead of a real "minority" (I put that in quotes because whites in some areas (where they are actively called rednecks and crackers), are the minority), it doesn't get the attention of other slurs, or the sensitivity from bleeding heart equality types. A slur is a slur. If you'd like to read up on the history of "Redneck" and what it means: you can find it here: Redneck - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. It's an offensive, racist, classist term, and you were using it to demean people who carry.

Quote:

I never implied that carrying a gun is irresponsible.

You did. I quoted it earlier...

Quote:

It was your response to Nogood that I disagreed with. I am an advocate for concealed gun permits and have never said I wasn't, yet some how you conjured that out of my statement earlier.

Alright, if you insist, one more time, I'll re-quote you, this time with more context

Quote:

Please don't lump Oregon in to the places you claim are so different then Canada. Canadians are not a different species from a strange planet. Have you been there? I have many times both, East coast, West coast, and in the middle. Also lots of people in Canada own guns. I support the NRA and the right to bear arms but out of control, rampant violence does not exist in my state or for that matter any state (at least that I'm aware of).

Making comments like that give people from other countries the opinion that we are ALL gun toting rednecks. Most U.S. gun owners are responsible people who aren't running around afraid of the government and crazy criminals.

The violence in our country is in no way to a point, nor has it been, where we all need guns to fight off the hordes of criminals.

Quote:

Can you elaborate on how I reinforced negative stereotypes of Americans with the comment that said it is a common opinion of people living outside the U.S.A.? I don't like the mentality of out of sight out of mind(i.e.: if I don't listen to it, it doesn't happen).

First off, domestic policy should not be determined by an exterior popularity contest. If France thinks we're losers for doing the right thing, who gives a crap? You are participating in a debate on domestic US gun policy, and you're citing external popularity as reason to (putting your arguments in the best possible light) suppress saying the truth about the situation just because it "looks bad". I really don't think we want to drag this debate all the way to geopolitics, although it could be taken there by bringing in the UN Small Arms Treaty.

Basically, I don't accept "I don't want to scare the foreigners" as an acceptable basis for any argument. If that somehow changes what you would say, you're a coward. If it doesn't, then just speak your mind without using the shield of "I just said it because of the foreigners".

Quote:

Statistical analysis is constantly being revisited, because as months, years and decades move on, these studies become irrelevant because society changes. That's why studies are constantly being performed, and every once in a while they will release a study in the media and people go, "Didn't they already show that in a study a couple of years ago?" One year statistics say eggs are bad, the next year they "find" that eggs are good for you, (other examples include: coffee, wine, etc.) most likely these are due to inside interest contaminating the study.

Ah yes, the classic retreat in the face of overwhelming statistics: "Statistics suck anyways". What do you suggest then? We roll the bones? Ask a Ouija board? Consult the Oracle at Delphi? This is how we do things in the modern world: we conduct science and analyze statistics. It's the best we've got to go on, and while individual studies can be flawed, the aggregate of scientific knowledge tends to work out pretty well.

Quote:

When you live in a nation of over 300 million citizens, violence occurs. Ever seen a cage full of rats? Higher populations in cities means more violence. The Cities like D.C. that have stricter gun laws, are attempting to prevent a naturally occurring tide.

Enacting stricter gun laws only serves to accelerate the rising crime rate. The facts have been out there for years. Either every politician in those areas are morons, or they're being disingenuous about their motives.

Quote:

I support responsible gun ownership. I think responsible gun owners should treat the second amendment like a privilege not a right.

Hang on right there. The Second Ammendment is in fact a Right. That's why it's part of a document called the Bill of Rights. In this country, you have (among others) a right to free speech, a right to legal representation, a right to keep your mouth shut on the witness stand (against yourself), and a right to keep and bear arms. It is not a privilege. It is a right. This is not debatable, it's pretty straightforward.

Quote:

Rights can be abused, so can privileges but the problem with rights is they tend to be more abused than privileges. People that are given something that they earn are generally more appreciative of the gift, than people that are handed that gift. Drivers licenses are a privilege, and because its a privilege people are more likely to be responsible because that privilege can be taken away. Don't get me wrong there are plenty of crummy drivers out there but generally people that are in charge of dangerous things are required to have training and pass some form of requirement in order to operate that piece of equipment.

I don't know what kind of fascist utopia you're shooting for with that line of reasoning... repeal the bill of rights? I don't think you've thought this argument through...

Quote:

All in All that's okay though. I agree to disagree. I try to find a happy medium between being a responsible gun owner and my second amendment right to own a gun. The problem is I think far too few try to do the same thing. When you lump 90% of the country into one group I disagree with that, especially when people from other countries may be viewing you as a a representative for our country. I don't wish to attack you and I think you get that impression. I enjoy argumentative discourse and I prefer to to remain civil.

Cheers!

I lumped 90% by landmass (but far less by population) into the group of areas that don't have excessively strict gun laws. NYC, Chicago, DC, and California have unreasonably strict gun laws. Oregon, Texas, and everywhere else generally don't. It's a fair way to split the country when discussing this issue. I'm sorry if it offends some friend of yours in Spain or whatever that you live in a State that allows guns to be owned and carried, but that's no reason not to discuss facts as they are.

arcticreaver · 04-22-2009, 03:19 PM

is it just me or am i the only one that thinks that guns should be banned from the hands of civilians? should only be allowed for police officiers and military personnel.

i know this will probably never happen in the USA since it's a HUGE industry, but personally, i don't think owning a gun automatically means = safe.

a lot of foreign countries actually think we are like barbarians. i remember a friend going to japan as an exchange student. first day with the japanese family, the father asked my buddy "do all americans have guns because it is not safe there?" i personally believe japan has the best gun policy in the whole world - "No-one shall possess a fire-arm or fire-arms or a sword or swords', and very few exceptions are allowed"

theDreamer · 04-22-2009, 03:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arcticreaver

is it just me or am i the only one that thinks that guns should be banned from the hands of civilians? should only be allowed for police officiers and military personnel.

i know this will probably never happen in the USA since it's a HUGE industry, but personally, i don't think owning a gun automatically means = safe.

a lot of foreign countries actually think we are like barbarians. i remember a friend going to japan as an exchange student. first day with the japanese family, the father asked my buddy "do all americans have guns because it is not safe there?" i personally believe japan has the best gun policy in the whole world - "No-one shall possess a fire-arm or fire-arms or a sword or swords', and very few exceptions are allowed"

I completely disagree with this, I look at most people being responsible citizens and if they are one of the select few who can carry concealed they have earned that. People are meant to protect each other, not just went those who we think should (police, military, etc.). Many of my co-workers have guns, some are working & taking the class for their concealed license and they feel honored to be allowed to carry and help if the time ever occurred if needed.

scorpion90 · 04-22-2009, 03:30 PM

If you are a law abiding citizen, this is factual information you need to know.

PEOPLE ASK WHY CARRY A GUN?

My old grandpa said to me, "Son, there comes a time in every man's life
when he stops bustin knuckles and starts bustin caps and usually it's
when he becomes too old to take an *** whoppin. I don't carry a gun to
kill people. I carry a gun to keep from being killed.

I don't carry a gun to scare people. I carry a gun because sometimes this
world can be a scary place.

I don't carry a gun because I'm paranoid. I carry a gun because there are
real threats in the world.

I don't carry a gun because I'm evil. I carry a gun because I have lived long
enough to see the evil in the world.

I don't carry a gun because I hate the government. I carry a gun because I
understand the limitations of government.

I don't carry a gun because I'm angry. I carry a gun so that I don't have to
spend the rest of my life hating myself for failing to be prepared.

I don't carry a gun because I want to shoot someone. I carry a gun because
I want to die at a ripe old age in my bed, and not on a sidewalk somewhere
tomorrow afternoon.

I don't carry a gun because I'm a cowboy. I carry a gun because, when I die
and go to heaven, I want to be a cowboy.

I don't carry a gun to make me feel like a man. I carry a gun because men know
how to take care of themselves and the ones they love.

I don't carry a gun because I feel inadequate. I carry a gun because unarmed and
facing three armed thugs, I am inadequate.

I don't carry a gun because I love it. I carry a gun because I love life and the people
who make it meaningful to me.

Police Protection is an oxymoron. Free citizens must protect themselves. Police do
not protect you from crime, they usually just investigate the crime after it happens
and then call someone in to clean up the mess.

**********************************************

A LITTLE GUN HISTORY

In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
------------------------------

In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
------------------------------

Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.
------------------------------

China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves,
were rounded up and exterminated
------------------------------

Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
---- ------------- -------------

Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
------------------------------

Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million educated people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
-----------------------------

Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million.
------------------------------

It has now been 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced by new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by their own Government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more than $500 million dollars. The first year results are now in:

List of 7 items:

Australia-wide, homicides are up 3.2 percent.

Australia-wide, assaults are up 8.6 percent.

Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent)!

In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up 300 percent. Note that while the law-abiding citizens turned them in, the criminals did not, and criminals still possess their guns!

While figures over the previous 25 years showed a steady decrease in armed robbery with firearms, this has changed drastically upward in the past 12 months, since criminals now are guaranteed that their prey is unarmed.

There has also been a dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults of the ELDERLY. Australian politicians are at a loss to
explain how public safety has decreased, after such monumental effort, and expense was expended in successfully ridding
Australian society of guns. The Australian experience and the other historical facts above prove it.

You won't see this data on the US evening news, or hear politicians disseminating this information.

Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws adversely affect only the law-abiding citizens.

Take note my fellow Americans, before it's too late!

The next time someone talks in favor of gun control, please remind them of this history lesson.

With guns, we are 'citizens'. Without them, we are 'subjects'.

During WWII the Japanese decided not to invade America because they knew most Americans were ARMED!

If you value your freedom, please spread this anti-gun control message to all of your friends.

The purpose of fighting is to win. There is no possible victory in defense. The sword is more important than the
shield, and skill is more important than either. The final weapon is the brain. All else is supplemental.

SWITZERLAND ISSUES EVERY HOUSEHOLD A GUN! SWITZERLAND 'S GOVERNMENT TRAINS EVERY ADULT THEY ISSUE A RIFLE TO. SWITZERLAND HAS THE LOWEST GUN RELATED CRIME RATE OF ANY CIVILIZED COUNTRY IN THE WORLD!!!
IT'S A NO BRAINER! DON'T LET OUR GOVERNMENT WASTE MILLIONS OF OUR TAX DOLLARS IN AN EFFORT TO
MAKE ALL LAW ABIDING CITIZENS AN EASY TARGET.

Think about it, there's only one reason the government
wants to rid the country of guns,
and that reason is to leave all of it's citizens defenseless.
It has nothing to do with crime. Criminals don't obey the law.

chubbs · 04-22-2009, 03:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by antennahead

A better question is: Do you own a Z? Do you ever intend to own a Z? What's with the name "BanningZ"? Do you want to ban the Z? Ban gas powered automobiles? You have over 500 posts, and almost all of them are in the Lounge (off topic). If you are not a Z owner, don't intend to buy a Z, or are not a sports car enthusiast, why did you join this site? To stir debate on hotly contested topics?

John

Lay off my mate, pal.

As for guns, I'd like to uninvent them because I find them attractive.

wstar · 04-22-2009, 04:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arcticreaver

is it just me or am i the only one that thinks that guns should be banned from the hands of civilians? should only be allowed for police officiers and military personnel.

i know this will probably never happen in the USA since it's a HUGE industry, but personally, i don't think owning a gun automatically means = safe.

a lot of foreign countries actually think we are like barbarians.

In some sort of weird theoretical sense, it almost makes sense to uninvent the gun. But things can't be uninvented, and when you try to control inventions by law, only outlaws have those inventions. Attempts to disarm the criminals ends up only disarming the victims. It just doesn't work.

Beyond that, I wouldn't want guns uninvented even if it were possible. Guns are a great force equalizer. Think about when a 25 year old male, 6'1", 250 lbs, all muscle, decides to rape a 5'4" 37 year old office worker late one night. In a traditional struggle, she has no chance, as he has an extreme power advantage over her. Guns are force equalizers in violent situations. If both persons in that situation are armed, the playing field is greatly leveled. Guns empower the weak to stand up to the strong.

The standard anti-gun responses to this are these:

1) But that's the police's job! Call 911! Doesn't work. The average violent confrontation ends, one way or another, much faster than the average police response time. In the vast majority of actual cases of violence, police show up after the fact to do the reporting and aftercare. Direct police intervention in an ongoing violent struggle between two citizens is rare. As well-intentioned as they are, it is statistically silly to rely on the police to save you from violence.

2) But... the woman will just have her gun taken and used against her! Wrong, the statistics bear this out. The number of violent crimes prevented by the defensive use of a handgun outweigh the number of actual handgun crimes committed succesfully by more than an order of magnitude.

Quote:

i remember a friend going to japan as an exchange student. first day with the japanese family, the father asked my buddy "do all americans have guns because it is not safe there?" i personally believe japan has the best gun policy in the whole world - "No-one shall possess a fire-arm or fire-arms or a sword or swords', and very few exceptions are allowed"

From another source of gun data:

MYTH: Japan has strict gun control and a less violent society.

FACT: In Japan, the murder rate is about 1 per 100,000. In the U.S., there are about 3.2 murders per 100,000 each year by weapons other than firearms.

* United Nations data

The point being made here is that guns aren't the issue in the murder rate discrepancy between Japan and the US. Even if you eliminate all gun murders in the US from the equation (in reality, many of those murders would have been accomplished with other weapons, lacking a gun), the US has 3 times the murder rate of Japan. The problem isn't the guns, the problem is that we're a more murderous society to begin with.

04-22-2009, 07:04 AM	#4 (permalink)
BanningZ A True Z Fanatic Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: nowhere Posts: 5,478 Drives: 06' Nismo Frontier Rep Power: 28	Okay, A: when you lump places like California, and NYC together as "very liberal" you lump the rest of the country into the other category ie. Oregon. My home is not vastly different than NYC, California, Canada or any other state for that matter. I would argue that Texas isn't that much different either. I've been there and I like it. Houston is a great city. B: Its okay to disagree. It would be a pretty boring place if people didn't. C: Don't take offense as I was not calling anyone a Gun toting redneck. I was saying that certain comments can make people in other countries who are viewing our country from the outside in think that we are gun toting rednecks. Stereotypes are real and most often incorrect. The world stereotypes Americans as fat, lazy, uneducated and gun crazy. We need to take caution when addressing issues like this because we want to remove stereotypes not reinforce them. When you make a comment like: It gives the outside world the impression that our country is taken over by criminals and gun toting rednecks. It wasn't an attack and if it was it would be pretty hypocritical because as stated before I am a gun owner. P.S.: Thanks Semtex for allowing debate in your thread. __________________ Become a Premium Member: Click HERE MB 06' Nismo VQ40DE Last edited by BanningZ; 04-22-2009 at 07:11 AM.

04-22-2009, 03:19 PM	#11 (permalink)
arcticreaver Track Member Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Arcadia, CA Posts: 769 Drives: 2009 Z34 7AT PG Rep Power: 924	is it just me or am i the only one that thinks that guns should be banned from the hands of civilians? should only be allowed for police officiers and military personnel. i know this will probably never happen in the USA since it's a HUGE industry, but personally, i don't think owning a gun automatically means = safe. a lot of foreign countries actually think we are like barbarians. i remember a friend going to japan as an exchange student. first day with the japanese family, the father asked my buddy "do all americans have guns because it is not safe there?" i personally believe japan has the best gun policy in the whole world - "No-one shall possess a fire-arm or fire-arms or a sword or swords', and very few exceptions are allowed" __________________ http://www.facebook.com/arcticreaver - FaceBook http://www.linkedin.com/pub/sam-yang/a/832/325 - LinkedIn Profile

04-22-2009, 03:30 PM	#13 (permalink)
scorpion90 Base Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Akron, Ohio Age: 76 Posts: 109 Drives: 370Z Base 7AT+Sports Rep Power: 283	Many Have Sacrificed to Protect the Constitution If you are a law abiding citizen, this is factual information you need to know. PEOPLE ASK WHY CARRY A GUN? My old grandpa said to me, "Son, there comes a time in every man's life when he stops bustin knuckles and starts bustin caps and usually it's when he becomes too old to take an * whoppin. I don't carry a gun to kill people. I carry a gun to keep from being killed. I don't carry a gun to scare people. I carry a gun because sometimes this world can be a scary place. I don't carry a gun because I'm paranoid. I carry a gun because there are real threats in the world. I don't carry a gun because I'm evil. I carry a gun because I have lived long enough to see the evil in the world. I don't carry a gun because I hate the government. I carry a gun because I understand the limitations of government. I don't carry a gun because I'm angry. I carry a gun so that I don't have to spend the rest of my life hating myself for failing to be prepared. I don't carry a gun because I want to shoot someone. I carry a gun because I want to die at a ripe old age in my bed, and not on a sidewalk somewhere tomorrow afternoon. I don't carry a gun because I'm a cowboy. I carry a gun because, when I die and go to heaven, I want to be a cowboy. I don't carry a gun to make me feel like a man. I carry a gun because men know how to take care of themselves and the ones they love. I don't carry a gun because I feel inadequate. I carry a gun because unarmed and facing three armed thugs, I am inadequate. I don't carry a gun because I love it. I carry a gun because I love life and the people who make it meaningful to me. Police Protection is an oxymoron. Free citizens must protect themselves. Police do not protect you from crime, they usually just investigate the crime after it happens and then call someone in to clean up the mess. ******************************************** A LITTLE GUN HISTORY In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. ------------------------------ In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. ------------------------------ Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated. ------------------------------ China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated ------------------------------ Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. ---- ------------- ------------- Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. ------------------------------ Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million educated people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. ----------------------------- Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million. ------------------------------ It has now been 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced by new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by their own Government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more than $500 million dollars. The first year results are now in: List of 7 items: Australia-wide, homicides are up 3.2 percent. Australia-wide, assaults are up 8.6 percent. Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent)! In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up 300 percent. Note that while the law-abiding citizens turned them in, the criminals did not, and criminals still possess their guns! While figures over the previous 25 years showed a steady decrease in armed robbery with firearms, this has changed drastically upward in the past 12 months, since criminals now are guaranteed that their prey is unarmed. There has also been a dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults of the ELDERLY. Australian politicians are at a loss to explain how public safety has decreased, after such monumental effort, and expense was expended in successfully ridding Australian society of guns. The Australian experience and the other historical facts above prove it. You won't see this data on the US evening news, or hear politicians disseminating this information. Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws adversely affect only the law-abiding citizens. Take note my fellow Americans, before it's too late! The next time someone talks in favor of gun control, please remind them of this history lesson. With guns, we are 'citizens'. Without them, we are 'subjects'. During WWII the Japanese decided not to invade America because they knew most Americans were ARMED! If you value your freedom, please spread this anti-gun control message to all of your friends. The purpose of fighting is to win. There is no possible victory in defense. The sword is more important than the shield, and skill is more important than either. The final weapon is the brain. All else is supplemental. SWITZERLAND ISSUES EVERY HOUSEHOLD A GUN! SWITZERLAND 'S GOVERNMENT TRAINS EVERY ADULT THEY ISSUE A RIFLE TO. SWITZERLAND HAS THE LOWEST GUN RELATED CRIME RATE OF ANY CIVILIZED COUNTRY IN THE WORLD!!! IT'S A NO BRAINER! DON'T LET OUR GOVERNMENT WASTE MILLIONS OF OUR TAX DOLLARS IN AN EFFORT TO MAKE ALL LAW ABIDING CITIZENS AN EASY TARGET. Think about it, there's only one reason the government wants to rid the country of guns, and that reason is to leave all of it's citizens defenseless. It has nothing to do with crime. Criminals don't obey the law.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Question about oem ECU	Black kNight	Tuning	9	07-13-2009 11:08 AM
Pricing question	g35300mm	Canada	3	04-10-2009 08:04 AM
Question about rim size	armensti	Wheels & Tires	3	04-09-2009 02:42 AM
Question???	Xavier Raymond	Nissan 370Z General Discussions	1	03-31-2009 10:01 AM
7AT Question	sbkim	Engine & Drivetrain	5	03-06-2009 02:22 PM

04-22-2009, 07:45 AM	#7 (permalink)
antennahead A True Z Fanatic Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Charleston, SC Posts: 15,181 Drives: '07 Z4 "M" Roadster Rep Power: 57	A better question is: Do you own a Z? Do you ever intend to own a Z? What's with the name "BanningZ"? Do you want to ban the Z? Ban gas powered automobiles? You have over 500 posts, and almost all of them are in the Lounge (off topic). If you are not a Z owner, don't intend to buy a Z, or are not a sports car enthusiast, why did you join this site? To stir debate on hotly contested topics? John