GunControl

[LaMidRighter]

150 out of how many people stunned?

numbers don't matter to the person being stunned who happens to be the one who dies

While we may not currently be able to "make any type of determination on their lethality," I think it's safe to say that their lethality is much lower than that of a firearm.

This all depends on the way you look at it, I can aim for a leg and disable someone, or make a shot to a non-vital area, there is no way to aim an electrical charge through the human body, that is the fact that makes stun guns and stun jacks more dangerous.

 

[LaMidRighter]

Stun guns can kill only if the user doesn't know how to use one and gets a little crazy with the trigger or the person getting "stunned" has some sort of cardiovascular problem.

Electricity is electricity and it can kill faster than a gunshot, look at electricians, they are trained to do their job and yet many die in a year(I bring this up to demonstrate the fact that even proper use and training cannot guarantee a certain result).

While there are upclose models(as in point blank) there are some that can reach up to 15 feet! The other advantage of a taser/stun gun/stun baton is everything is an effective target zone.

I don't know of any projectile stun guns that are made for civilian usage, besides, what happens if you miss with said projectice stun gun, you usually only have a secondary charge, meaning you get one more shot, hope it's a good one, you get eight to sixteen shots with a handgun and usually only need one with a shotgun(at mid and close combat range one shouldn't be able to miss).

 

[Busta]

"I don't know of any projectile stun guns that are made for civilian usage...."

http://www.taser.com/eStore/default.htm

 

[C.J.]

I believe in registration but not restriction.

Registration is a restriction, its also an infringment.

 

[Busta]

Registration is a restriction, its also an infringment.

I can defiantly see your point, and to an extent I may agree with you. The government knowing what you have is not a violation of your 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, 9th, or 14th, Amendment rights any more than vehicle registration.

I draw the line at restriction. Big Bro. should not restrict firearms in any way; not on rather I can carry concealed or not, loaded or not, nor rather I can bring my firearms onto school property or into a government building (except jails and prisons). Big bro. should not restrict ammunition types nor firearm capabilities. If I want an M-209 to go with my full-auto M-16A2 or M-4, there should be nothing to stand in my way but $$$. If I want to load a 12 round clip with Teflon rounds for my full-auto Desert Eagle, so be it.
I hold the same opinion when it comes to Launch weapons, explosives, Artillery, and various armored vehicles.

In a way, registration is infringement. I'll agree with that.
To a minimal extent, the government needs to be able to record a weapon the same way it needs to record a vehicle. I think that fire-arm registration, like vehicle registration, is a necessary evil.

I think that you and I would agree that, today, "Gun Controle" has gotten way out of hand.

 

[C.J.]

I can defiantly see your point, and to an extent I may agree with you. The government knowing what you have is not a violation of your 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, 9th, or 14th, Amendment rights any more than vehicle registration..

So you don't believe registration is a violation of one's much touted privacy rights, and the infringment of registration is ok, even though there were no exceptions listed in the Second?

The government is supposed to not only obey the Constitution, but enforce it.

In a way, registration is infringement. I'll agree with that.
To a minimal extent, the government needs to be able to record a weapon the same way it needs to record a vehicle. I think that fire-arm registration, like vehicle registration, is a necessary evil.

The government doesn't register vehicles, the states do, and originally that was for tax purposes, and tags were issued or registration numbers painted on the vehicle to display that the tax had been paid.

I think that you and I would agree that, today, "Gun Controle" has gotten way out of hand.

Certainly

 

[Gandhi>Bush]

numbers don't matter to the person being stunned who happens to be the one who dies

The number of gun deaths per year, no matter how low, does not matter to the person that catches the receiving end of bullet. If the likelyhood of death was greater with a stun gun than it was with a handgun, I think you would have a point, but I don't see such information.

This all depends on the way you look at it, I can aim for a leg and disable someone, or make a shot to a non-vital area, there is no way to aim an electrical charge through the human body, that is the fact that makes stun guns and stun jacks more dangerous.

There is no way, you are correct, but in the same sense you have no way of indicating how common or likely this is. If it was 150 deaths for ever 200 uses, WHAM you've got yourself a great argument. If it was 150 deaths for every 10,000 uses, WHAM you've got nothing. Since I don't think we have anyway of knowing which one is more accurate, I'll go with the one that is meant to disable something rather than the projectile weapon meant to kill something.

Electricity is electricity and it can kill faster than a gunshot, look at electricians, they are trained to do their job and yet many die in a year(I bring this up to demonstrate the fact that even proper use and training cannot guarantee a certain result).

The same could be said of police officers and their hand guns.

I don't know of any projectile stun guns that are made for civilian usage, besides, what happens if you miss with said projectice stun gun, you usually only have a secondary charge, meaning you get one more shot, hope it's a good one, you get eight to sixteen shots with a handgun and usually only need one with a shotgun(at mid and close combat range one shouldn't be able to miss).

Okay... Are we talking about protecting yourself or killing a criminal(a shotgun at mid range; I know which one I think is more likely)? I don't think they have to be the same. Honestly, I plan to own a stun gun and keep it in an accessible, safe place and a handgun in a locked gun case or what have you. Because of the chance for a "freak incident" I would like to have a real weapon around, but when it comes to standard protection, I think a stun gun will do just fine.

 

[LaMidRighter]

The number of gun deaths per year, no matter how low, does not matter to the person that catches the receiving end of bullet. If the likelyhood of death was greater with a stun gun than it was with a handgun, I think you would have a point, but I don't see such information.

True, but one of the factors that complicates this argument is that all firearm death statistics are lumped in as a sum total count, if you broke things down to each catagory of gun deaths it wouldn't look quite as bad. Unfortunately, info is just now starting to be gathered about the lethality of stun guns.

There is no way, you are correct, but in the same sense you have no way of indicating how common or likely this is. If it was 150 deaths for ever 200 uses, WHAM you've got yourself a great argument. If it was 150 deaths for every 10,000 uses, WHAM you've got nothing. Since I don't think we have anyway of knowing which one is more accurate, I'll go with the one that is meant to disable something rather than the projectile weapon meant to kill something.

Right, time will tell on the stun guns though, they are a newer technology than firearms.

The same could be said of police officers and their hand guns.

Very valid point, one just has to see the recent case of the California officers fired on by a cornered perp who fired over 150 shots and hit him once, all the while injuring innocent bystanders with crossfire.

Okay... Are we talking about protecting yourself or killing a criminal(a shotgun at mid range; I know which one I think is more likely)? I don't think they have to be the same. Honestly, I plan to own a stun gun and keep it in an accessible, safe place and a handgun in a locked gun case or what have you. Because of the chance for a "freak incident" I would like to have a real weapon around, but when it comes to standard protection, I think a stun gun will do just fine.

Fair enough, I fully support your personal choices and was playing devil's advocate.

 

[AlbqOwl]

Great discussion guys. I'll just quickly interject here that when somebody is breaking into my house or car or otherwise coming at me with intent to do me or mine bodily harm, the health and safety of the assailant is not a concern. And I don't intend to trust my self defense to a stun gun.

 

[robin]

CJ
Even if the UK has undergone an increase in gun deaths to what incidently is still no where near as many gun deaths per capita as yours, then maybe it's becuase we need to increase the sentence for illegal possesion from 5 years to 10 years.
You can say all you like about minor trends, but the obvious & none too surprising fact remains that Less guns owned per capita = Less gun deaths per capita.
If you want to argue with that you may as well argue black is white !

 

[ElGringo17]

Re: Gun Rights Infringement

Robin,

You claimed that there are 40k gun deaths in the U.s because of the availability of guns....

Are you trolling or are you really that dense?

The violence isn't because of the availability of firearms, it is the culture that glorifies violence while supressing pleasure. janet jacksoins saggy boob cause far more of a government outcry while the violence of peopel getting killed live on television on the news is acceptable....

Switzerland has about an 80-85% rate of households having a Sig select fire combat rifle with 1000 rounds of ammunition for it in their houses.....why do they not have the violence rates using guns that the U.S does if they have way more firearms of military caliber?!

Same goes for Isreali citizens...

It's the culture, stupid!

And to the moron who suggested firearms registration is no different from car registration.....last time I checked, you didn't have a constitutional right to keep and use cars.....I don't need to get permission from the friggin government to exercise my 2nd Amendment rights anymore then I do to exercise my 1st Amendment rights....

The treasonous government has never said they intended to take away all cars, they have related to firearms....so their criminal intentions are incontrovertable.

 

[C.J.]

CJ
Even if the UK has undergone an increase in gun deaths to what incidently is still no where near as many gun deaths per capita as yours, then maybe it's becuase we need to increase the sentence for illegal possesion from 5 years to 10 years.
You can say all you like about minor trends, but the obvious & none too surprising fact remains that Less guns owned per capita = Less gun deaths per capita.
If you want to argue with that you may as well argue black is white !

Sorry you missed all the points. I will list them for convenience.

1) A country with very restrictive firearms laws shows an increase in firearms crimes of approximately 30% every five years of a fifteen year study is not displaying a minor trend.

BTW I made no mention of deaths, just violent crimes using firearms.

2) A country with very restrictive gun laws has violent crime rates above a heavily armed country in almost every category. Why, because you make yourself easy prey. The increase in firearms crimes tends to show that in a restricted society, in which the law abiding's gun ownership is restricted, criminals eventually acquire them and then use them on the defenseless.

3) You can say all you like about minor trends, but the obvious & none too surprising fact remains that Less guns owned per capita = More violent crimes per capita, The British are doing a great job of proving that..

 

[robin]

Sorry you missed all the points. I will list them for convenience.

1) A country with very restrictive firearms laws shows an increase in firearms crimes of approximately 30% every five years of a fifteen year study is not displaying a minor trend.

BTW I made no mention of deaths, just violent crimes using firearms.

2) A country with very restrictive gun laws has violent crime rates above a heavily armed country in almost every category. Why, because you make yourself easy prey. The increase in firearms crimes tends to show that in a restricted society, in which the law abiding's gun ownership is restricted, criminals eventually acquire them and then use them on the defenseless.

3) You can say all you like about minor trends, but the obvious & none too surprising fact remains that Less guns owned per capita = More violent crimes per capita, The British are doing a great job of proving that..

Mate I don't know if that report was written by the gun lobby or swayed by them but we have far less gun deaths/crimes per capita in the UK than you do in the States. How many more times do I have to say it. Lets not also forget gun deaths from domestic disputes that aren't even in the figures & will also be far higher in the US than UK per capita.
Go read.....
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_mur_wit_fir_cap

 

[PhotonicLaceration]

CJ
Even if the UK has undergone an increase in gun deaths to what incidently is still no where near as many gun deaths per capita as yours, then maybe it's becuase we need to increase the sentence for illegal possesion from 5 years to 10 years.
You can say all you like about minor trends, but the obvious & none too surprising fact remains that Less guns owned per capita = Less gun deaths per capita.
If you want to argue with that you may as well argue black is white !

I strongly encourage you to compare there records of gun violence between legislative points in that country, compare it to those of other countries as well.

The U.K. has consistantly had less crime that the United States even before they had restrictive laws. In fact, to say that the Less guns owned per capita = less gun crime based off of their history would defowl everything, given that there crime per capita has been steadily on the rise throughout the last century as gun laws continued to become stricter.

Frankly looking at all countries and trying to make any sort of coorelation between the number of guns owned and the amount of violence just doesn't work. There is a larger coorelation between cars owned and violence than guns and violence.

You have countries like the U.K. and Australia, which both have low crime and strict gun control, and then you also have countries like Israel, Switzerland, and Finland, which all have extremely little gun control and low crime. In Israel, virtually everyone packs, and the swiss are issued assault rifles at their homes.

The so called "facts" that groups such as the "Brady Campaign to Stop Gun Violence" about Australia are garbage as well. Their statistics show that the number of times that GUNS are used in murder and suicide have decreased. However, those numbers (for both crime and gun crime) have been in steady decrease for almost 70 years, and in more recent years have been decellerating in the average percent change per year. Those numbers seem to imply that in this instance, guns may potentially be being replaced by other methods for suicide and murder, while the the actual number of incidence per capita remains static.

While there is NO coorelation that you can visibly make that directly links guns owned to crime, there IS a coorelation between guns owned and the SEVERITY of crimes.

For example, some guy with an Uzi (where uzi's are allowed) comes down into a crowded market place in Israel to start a "killing spree" He won't be able to get maybe more than 1 or 2 people before he gets' gunned down.

Now Replicate the same scenario in London or in Washinton D.C. with a guy with an illegally owned uzi(where virtually all guns are banned) This guy will kill 10-15 people, and seriously injure 10-15 more before he is stopped by the authorities.

Ever notice how bad School Shootings are? What do you notice about schools? Guns aren't allowed. Usually even the security guards are unarmed. Did that stop them from bringing in guns?

 

[C.J.]

Mate I don't know if that report was written by the gun lobby or swayed by them but we have far less gun deaths/crimes per capita in the UK than you do in the States. How many more times do I have to say it. Lets not also forget gun deaths from domestic disputes that aren't even in the figures & will also be far higher in the US than UK per capita.
Go read.....
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_mur_wit_fir_cap

I haven't said otherwise concerning gun deaths, or murders in general, but concerning violent crimes per capita GB takes the lead over the U.S.. I gave you the link to the report, if you would bother to read the report, the link, and the byline you would see it was from the U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, which is not part of the gun lobby, and not likely swayed by them. The report clearly shows U.S. crime rates going down and GB's going up in most areas, and GB's rates for "most" violent crimes above those of the U.S., murder being one exception, but that gap is closing, again because GB's rate is climbing and the US rate going down.

As far as domestic disputes are concerned, if a murder charge was filed, it's in the statistics, if not then someone in authority decided it wasn't a murder, therefore not part of this discussion.

 

[robin]

I haven't said otherwise concerning gun deaths, or murders in general, but concerning violent crimes per capita GB takes the lead over the U.S.. I gave you the link to the report, if you would bother to read the report, the link, and the byline you would see it was from the U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, which is not part of the gun lobby, and not likely swayed by them. The report clearly shows U.S. crime rates going down and GB's going up in most areas, and GB's rates for "most" violent crimes above those of the U.S., murder being one exception, but that gap is closing, again because GB's rate is climbing and the US rate going down.
As far as domestic disputes are concerned, if a murder charge was filed, it's in the statistics, if not then someone in authority decided it wasn't a murder, therefore not part of this discussion.

CJ
I'm all the more pleased then that we have strict gun controls & so consequently few villains are prepared to do time in prison for mere possesion of firearms.
Our rising crime levels are of concern, but are of course there is no indication that our strict gun controls are in anyway to blame & in fact the controls are likely to mitigate the impact of those crimes in terms of serious injury or death so I come to the same conclusion with even more conviction. That is.. I firmly believe in strict gun controls.

 

[C.J.]

I strongly encourage you to compare there records of gun violence between legislative points in that country, compare it to those of other countries as well.

Look at in this country, remove a half a dozen states from the stats, and the remainder have the some of the lowest firearms murder rates in the world. Realistically one could just remove a half a dozen cities from these states and those states would have some of the lowest firearms murder rate in the world. Heck just taking DC out of the stats would lower the rates. Funny thing, but of most of all of the states and cities with the highest rates, firearms laws are the strictest.

Frankly looking at all countries and trying to make any sort of coorelation between the number of guns owned and the amount of violence just doesn't work. There is a larger coorelation between cars owned and violence than guns and violence.

Good point, and along with reporting methodology, crime definitions, and an assortment of other reasons, simple comparisons of statistics are futile attempts, and I will play the game with someone trying to do so.

 

[C.J.]

CJ
I'm all the more pleased then that we have strict gun controls & so consequently few villains are prepared to do time in prison for mere possesion of firearms.

It's great that you are pleased with the way your system treats firearms, and for the most part we are pleased here also, but we do know there will always be problems needing to be addressed, as in any system including GB's.

Our rising crime levels are of concern, but are of course there is no indication that our strict gun controls are in anyway to blame & in fact the controls are likely to mitigate the impact of those crimes in terms of serious injury or death so I come to the same conclusion with even more conviction. That is.. I firmly believe in strict gun controls.

There are usually many factors involved when crime rates move either up or down. I do belive however, it's hard to avoid the obvious as at least a factor when firearms laws are strict, and firearms crime rates go up, as in GB.

Strict gun control may be the best thing in your country, but I do not believe it would be best here.

 

[KevinWan]

Strict gun control may be the best thing in your country, but I do not believe it would be best here.

I agree. If we were to have stricter gun controls... it seems like we would have another illegal drugs situation. Those who want illegal drugs find a way to get them anyway. If someone wanted a gun so bad, I'm sure they'd be able to find one.

 

[C.J.]

Someone else brought up the armed populus v the government crap. I'm not interested in all that wild conjecture... WTF

Then why did you try to lure me into it???

The issue is... THERE IS A 911 DEATH TOLL EVERY ****ING MONTH IN THE USA BECUASE OF YOUR LAX GUN CONTROLS. 40,0000 people a year dead becuase guns are so freely available in the states. You have more than ten times the death rate per capita that we have in the UK becuase we have strict gun controls but you do not.

Behind on your research??? Actually it's less than 30,000, but this includes suicides, accidents, legal interventions, and only approximately 39% were homicides. Include all these in your "death rate." I fail to see how a U.S. murder rate of .074 is ten times the GB rate of .013. You also are confusing when you conflate "murder" and "death" rates. BTW, the US rate has fallen and the GB rate has risen since the preceding figures were published.

If you want to defend your lax laws then do so, but I don't want to hear it anymore.

Sure you, and to state otherwise is dishonest.

You've gone into Iraq supposedly to fight terror, to save US lives, yet it's not the country to blame for 911, yet you defend gun laws that take a 911 death toll every month. Iraq war $250,000,000,000 cost & 1850 US soldiers dead & 13,000 wounded or maimed & 25,000 Iraqis dead. So it's not even saving US lives. It's cost 1850 US lives. You are bonkers !

That's a straw-man argument, intellectually dishonest, and a poor attempt at a third rate insult. Somehow I knew it would come to this.

If you want to save US lives then control your guns... it's that simple.

It really isn't that simple, but I can see how you believe it.

I'm not wasting anymore time on this.

Sure you will, and have, and again it's dishonest

There seem to be two types of Americans.
Type one = quite sensible & analytical & Type two = ****ing dumb !

Somehow I knew it would come to this also.

 

[Gideon]

Pretty much the standard "features",
background check etc. etc. with what you are allowed to get a license to get decided upon those things

 

[ElGringo17]

Our right to keep and bear arms is SELF EXECUTING...that means I don't need the damn governments permission aka "registration"

 

[robin]

CJ
So a gun accident is OK then ?
Less guns = less gun accidents !

 

[LaMidRighter]

CJ
So a gun accident is OK then ?
Less guns = less gun accidents !

So then, by your logic we should ban cars, bikes, trains, electricity, swimming pools, tools, knives, bats, flamable liquids, and all other items that could cause a "potentially" fatal accident. Right?

 

[C.J.]

CJ
So a gun accident is OK then ?
Less guns = less gun accidents !

I do not believe that a form of logic has been devised yet that would allow for the conclusion you are inferring from anything I have stated. Non sequitur, but I guess when logic fails one, this is one of the few things they have left.