Russia Has Far Fewer Guns than the US, but Far More Homicides

[CRUE CAB]

Sure, I completely agree.

However, that's the basis for a 'want' as opposed to a need. If the gun lobbies were simply honest with themselves and everyone else, they could make a much better argument.

"We want our guns, and there's no reason to deny us of this."

What's the problem with simply stating that?

The gun lobby is honest. You seem to be forgetting, we have the right to own them. No rationale needed, no reasons, no excuses. Its a right.

 

[Starbuck]

The gun lobby is honest. You seem to be forgetting, we have the right to own them. No rationale needed, no reasons, no excuses. Its a right.

I agree that we have the right to own firearms, I own one personally.

However, the argument that people need guns is flawed and what gets the gun lobby into trouble.

There is a want and a right, that is all that is necessary. I just don't understand why people keep running through the whole "we need our guns" notion, it's tired and disingenuous. I need my gun, like I need my gas-guzzeling car.

However, I want both of these things and that should be all that matters in the United States.

 

[CRUE CAB]

There is a want and a right,

No, there is a right. Everything else is a distant second.

 

[tech30528]

Aside from hunting or limited self-defense, there really isn't much practical use for firearms.

For me though, it's not about practicality. Just like anything else, I think that people wanting to own a firearm should be sufficient reason to have relaxed laws surrounding guns.

I'm a target shooter. I find it to be a very relaxing discipline, like Yoga.

BTW I own a business and I don't need a smart phone. Cell phones have been responsible for 44,000 car accidents a year in this country. I don't need one of these dangerous devices and neither do you. Or anybody else for that matter. Let's outlaw them. It's for the children.

 

[Starbuck]

I'm a target shooter. I find it to be a very relaxing discipline, like Yoga.

I've always liked target shooting, although I don't know that I place it on the same level as yoga.

BTW I own a business and I don't need a smart phone. Cell phones have been responsible for 44,000 car accidents a year in this country. I don't need one of these dangerous devices and neither do you. Or anybody else for that matter. Let's outlaw them. It's for the children.

Listen, you're barking up the wrong tree.

I think guns are great, and I don't see why anyone should be barred from owning one.

My whole point, is that the gun lobby is wholly misguided. They should be framing their argument around the want. . . not the need.

 

[TurtleDude]

I agree those are all valid reasons to own or want to own a firearm. However, like I've said they aren't the most practical reasons.

I could by an old Corvette, because I like to drive fast, participate in car shows and want to have a specific year. However, these are all wants as opposed to the practical reasons that might drive me to otherwise purchase a 2006 Toyota Camry.

For me though, simply wanting something should be reason enough to justify owning it. . . in the United States anyway. I just don't understand why the 'pro-gun' people don't look at it from that angle. Every time they say we 'need' our guns for some practical reason, people blow holes in their story.

It's hard to dissect a 'want' however.

people like me say need has no relevance to constitutional rights. The anti gun scum bags in power claim that people don't NEED "assault weapons". I say so what, need has no relevance. And if these same scum bag politicians claim that their minions need such weapons for self defense against criminals, that alone justifies otehrs having them

 

[tech30528]

I've always liked target shooting, although I don't know that I place it on the same level as yoga.




Listen, you're barking up the wrong tree.

I think guns are great, and I don't see why anyone should be barred from owning one.

My whole point, is that the gun lobby is wholly misguided. They should be framing their argument around the want. . . not the need.

Yeah I didn't make that quite clear. I gathered from your post that you were not against firearm ownership. But yes, I've done both so the comparison is valid. We're not talking bench rest here, this is non supported standing, seated and prone positions. Lots of breathe control, a lot of emphasis on muscle control (or lack of it, the whole idea is to eliminate muscle from the position). That and nothing mellows me out like sending a few well placed rounds downrange.

 

[tech30528]

people like me say need has no relevance to constitutional rights. The anti gun scum bags in power claim that people don't NEED "assault weapons". I say so what, need has no relevance. And if these same scum bag politicians claim that their minions need such weapons for self defense against criminals, that alone justifies otehrs having them

This is the major difference between liberals and conservatives. Conservatives prefer their government limited and the people have liberty, liberals prefer the opposite. Our founders wrote the Constitution to limit government, which is why liberals hate, ignore and distort it.

 

[TurtleDude]

This is the major difference between liberals and conservatives. Conservatives prefer their government limited and the people have liberty, liberals prefer the opposite. Our founders wrote the Constitution to limit government, which is why liberals hate, ignore and distort it.

liberals tend to be two types

people who want to be perpetual children and those who want to be their permanent parents

the third group is more understandable. people like m brother who are well educated free thinkers who have reached the breaking point of being told by bible thumpers what they should do. That I can understand

 

[Starbuck]

I say so what, need has no relevance.

So we are in complete agreement.

My point is that many in the pro-gun camp make absurd arguments that they "need" the guns as justification. I think this strategy is counterproductive, allowing for holes to be found in their story.

I like your view, which is the same is mine.

 

[Starbuck]

But yes, I've done both so the comparison is valid. We're not talking bench rest here, this is non supported standing, seated and prone positions. Lots of breathe control, a lot of emphasis on muscle control (or lack of it, the whole idea is to eliminate muscle from the position). That and nothing mellows me out like sending a few well placed rounds downrange.

Most of my time with firearms has been work related, so there wasn't much bench rest. Lots of prone, kneeling and combat courses, which introduce an element of stress not found in yoga. . . or at least that's my impression.

In the beginning I did spend a lot of time with breathing control and slow fire. And to you're point, I did find it very relaxing.

For me though, I found the other stuff much more exciting. Some of the training, especially combat courses and simunition training, was very active. For me, I always enjoyed the movement and the challenge of complex actions (fast reloads, clearing malfunctions and flashlight shooting).

It's been years since I've done any of that stuff, but the muscle memory is still there.

When I need relaxation I go for hiking. . . a total absence of human interaction.

 

[LaMidRighter]

People tend to not think about this with the Russian murder rate, there is still an old black market mentality, the Russian mafia is among the more brutal organized crime syndicates in the world. A lot of the people who learned corruption during the Soviet years didn't exactly change to fit the new privatized Russia after the Soviet Block decentralized so there is an old order crime hangover. It's not all that different from gangland America, prohibitions of various kinds have driven U.S. black markets for over a century. There are high crime areas in most large countries and Russia has that problem, it actually is logical if not preferable.

 

[Wiseone]

From the NPR, oddly enough:

So, Russia's homicide rate is 4 times that of the US per capita with one tenth of the guns in private hands. And Russian gun laws are very strict. Guns are registered there even to the extent of filing ballistic fingerprints on all guns in private hands.

So, why is NPR breaking from the preferred anti-gun narrative? Because the Russians insulted Pres. Obama, of course.

Alexander Puskov of the Russian Parliament tweeted:

And some countries have more guns per capita than the United States and have a higher murder rate. So what's your point? If you look at a single piece of data, "# of guns vs. number of murders" and then only look at a single piece of that data "Russia" and then draw a major conculsion from that data, you'll end up somewhere funny

 

[Wiseone]

This is the major difference between liberals and conservatives. Conservatives prefer their government limited and the people have liberty, liberals prefer the opposite. Our founders wrote the Constitution to limit government, which is why liberals hate, ignore and distort it.

Except if you're gay, and except if you're a women seeking an abortion, and except if you're a state legislator who wants to nullify Federal Law then who cares about the Constitution, and except if you're a legal citizen without a form of ID than you cannot vote, and except if the President is Bush and under takes one of the largest expansions of Presidental power since the Civil War.

Dems aren't perfect either, not by a long shot, but this kind of stupid comments deserves to be slapped down.

 

[LowDown]

And some countries have more guns per capita than the United States and have a higher murder rate. So what's your point? If you look at a single piece of data, "# of guns vs. number of murders" and then only look at a single piece of that data "Russia" and then draw a major conculsion from that data, you'll end up somewhere funny

It must not be the availability of guns, then. No correlation.

 

[LowDown]

Except if you're gay, and except if you're a women seeking an abortion, and except if you're a state legislator who wants to nullify Federal Law then who cares about the Constitution, and except if you're a legal citizen without a form of ID than you cannot vote, and except if the President is Bush and under takes one of the largest expansions of Presidental power since the Civil War.

Dems aren't perfect either, not by a long shot, but this kind of stupid comments deserves to be slapped down.

Ah yes. The "freedom" to kill little babies. The "freedom" to commit voter fraud with impunity. The "freedom" to nullify the 10th Amendment. And the "freedom" to be a blithering hypocrite when it comes to Presidential authority.

 

[Crimefree]

It must not be the availability of guns, then. No correlation.

Exactly what relevance does the number of guns have and to what? Does anyone know what the heck they are talking about or has somebody here proven that guns cause something? What do guns cause that numbers makes the slightest difference? Anybody know?

Surely if you don't know then you do not justify anything based on the number of guns or who owns them if you cannot show why it is important?

Lets start there. Who's first to present some verifiable proof?

 

[LowDown]

Exactly what relevance does the number of guns have and to what? Does anyone know what the heck they are talking about or has somebody here proven that guns cause something? What do guns cause that numbers makes the slightest difference? Anybody know?

Surely if you don't know then you do not justify anything based on the number of guns or who owns them if you cannot show why it is important?

Lets start there. Who's first to present some verifiable proof?

The whole basis for the idea of gun control is that fewer guns in the hands of private people will mean less gun crime. It's not true, of course, but there it is.

Yes, it's true that in Britain few people have guns and the murder rate is low. In Japan the people have few guns and the murder rate is low.

But in Switzerland everyone has a gun as required by law, and the murder rate is very low. Same with Norway, I believe.

And in Russia there are few guns in private hands, and yet the murder rate is 4 times that in the US. It's the same in Mexico, only worse.

So there must be something else going on.

 

[Crimefree]

The whole basis for the idea of gun control is that fewer guns in the hands of private people will mean less gun crime. It's not true, of course, but there it is.

Yes, it's true that in Britain few people have guns and the murder rate is low. In Japan the people have few guns and the murder rate is low.

But in Switzerland everyone has a gun as required by law, and the murder rate is very low. Same with Norway, I believe.

And in Russia there are few guns in private hands, and yet the murder rate is 4 times that in the US. It's the same in Mexico, only worse.

So there must be something else going on.

Yes gun control has us discussing the merits of gun control.

What you say is true, gun control is based on a lie but why is the lie being debated and given merit and credence?

Cross country comparisons are not valid and there is no evidence that the number of firearms has any negative influence on our safety, freedom or health. The causal factor has defied all examination for the past 200 years why are we still debating it? We know it exists but have just not found it yet?

If we have a problem of gun control indoctrinating citizens including firearm owners with lies. Why are we sitting on our bum watching it instead of making sure people hear and know the truth? Why are we playing along with this ridiculous time wasting endless debate instead of educating people and demanding schools, government structures and the media print the truth?

Are there not enough us? We don't want to? We don't like it? We could not be bothered? We don't value our rights. We think promoting, supporting and selling guns and services is better? Ah!! somebody else will do it for us. ;-) yeah!! right!! How's that plan working so far?

 

[cpgrad08]

Yeah and with ours.....hence the very same division within. Then there is that point of government being an entity in itself. Which it will strive to protect itself using all means. Which again goes back to the power issue and keeping that government up and running. Despite its people deciding they wanted it out and changed up.

In Democracy.....he who has the Mob. Controls the Flow of the Spice.

So the sleeper has awoken?

 

[LowDown]

Yes gun control has us discussing the merits of gun control.

What you say is true, gun control is based on a lie but why is the lie being debated and given merit and credence?

Cross country comparisons are not valid and there is no evidence that the number of firearms has any negative influence on our safety, freedom or health. The causal factor has defied all examination for the past 200 years why are we still debating it? We know it exists but have just not found it yet?

If we have a problem of gun control indoctrinating citizens including firearm owners with lies. Why are we sitting on our bum watching it instead of making sure people hear and know the truth? Why are we playing along with this ridiculous time wasting endless debate instead of educating people and demanding schools, government structures and the media print the truth?

Are there not enough us? We don't want to? We don't like it? We could not be bothered? We don't value our rights. We think promoting, supporting and selling guns and services is better? Ah!! somebody else will do it for us. ;-) yeah!! right!! How's that plan working so far?

On the one hand we have academe and the news media clearly biased in favor of the gun control agenda. This means that they just don't tell the whole truth about guns, they won't look into it, they accept gun control rhetoric uncritically. And they are abysmally ignorant about guns, thinking, for example, that "assault weapon" has a specific meaning. You can get the Ruger Mini 14 with a standard wooden stock or done up with the tactical rifle look. The two versions are identical in their capabilities as semi-automatic rifles but those idiots would call the latter an assault rifle and the former they'd call a proper sporting rifle.

The mainstream media and academe still have enormous clout in our society.

On the other hand the word is still getting out. There's no support for gun control, and the politicians won't touch it. The power of alternative sources of information is increasing in large part because a growing number of people turn to it as a first resort for information.

 

[Crimefree]

On the one hand we have academe and the news media clearly biased in favor of the gun control agenda. This means that they just don't tell the whole truth about guns, they won't look into it, they accept gun control rhetoric uncritically. And they are abysmally ignorant about guns, thinking, for example, that "assault weapon" has a specific meaning. You can get the Ruger Mini 14 with a standard wooden stock or done up with the tactical rifle look. The two versions are identical in their capabilities as semi-automatic rifles but those idiots would call the latter an assault rifle and the former they'd call a proper sporting rifle.

The mainstream media and academe still have enormous clout in our society.

On the other hand the word is still getting out. There's no support for gun control, and the politicians won't touch it. The power of alternative sources of information is increasing in large part because a growing number of people turn to it as a first resort for information.

Oh wow!! Here I was thinking the media were businesses who could not afford to piss of large segment of society because they would stop supporting those who slandered them and falsely accused them of crimes, bad behaviour and being a danger to society. I guess I was wrong unless the media is right. People buy and demand gun control garbage. Would that indicate a large portion of the public support gun control? It certainly must be true because those who don't support gun control would be in the streets objecting to bad gun control laws because they know what these laws mean.

On the other hand Galop and dozens of other polls indicate around 50% of US citizens support more strict gun control laws. Somebody must have an incorrect view because no politician in his right mind would introduce a law that will see them out of a job.

That 50% public support is down from the 60% of the 1990's which saw the introduction of a host of gun control laws. There must be something important about this public support firearm owners are missing. Support is also down due to absolutely no effort of firearm owners or organisations which points to the futility and in-correctness of firearm organisations strategy assuming they have one. Do firearm organisations have a strategy? I know what gun controls strategy is though and it involves public support.