Texas at it again

[BushyFromOz]

Ahhh........the joys of not living in america!

[chbare]

Asysin2leads, I apologize if I took the prior statement wrong. I wanted to emphasize the fact that I am attempting to have a professional discussion regarding this topic. I think my stance on this subject is well known; however, I hope that people who disagree will at least consider my points and realize that I do not advocate violence or vigilantism, nor am I uneducated or intolerant. If anything, I hope we can appreciate each other's views even if we disagree.

Take care,

chbare.

[CBEMT]

Ahhh........the joys of not living in america!

"I don't care who ya are, that's funny right there.

[Michael]

So's this.

[scope2776]

i don't think it's too bad... i think it will be up to the courts to determine what will be use or abuse. I do know that the law should protect people who use their weapons to lawfully protect themselves or their family.

[coolparamedic]

* In 1982, a survey of imprisoned criminals found that 34% of them had been "scared off, shot at, wounded or captured by an armed victim." (16c)

* Washington D.C. enacted a virtual ban on handguns in 1976. Between 1976 and 1991, Washington D.C.'s homicide rate rose 200%, while the U.S. rate rose 12%. (1)

* In 1986, nine states had right-to-carry laws. (14)

* As of 1998, 31 states have right-to-carry laws, and about half the U.S. population lives in these states. (3)

* Florida adopted a right-to-carry law in 1987. At the time the law was passed, critics predicted increases in violence. The founder of the National Organization of Women, Betty Friedan stated:

"lethal violence, even in self defense, only engenders more violence." (13)

* When the law went into effect, the Dade County Police began a program to record all arrest and non arrest incidents involving concealed carry licensees. Between September of 1987 and August of 1992, Dade County recorded 4 crimes committed by licensees with firearms. None of these crimes resulted in an injury. The record keeping program was abandoned in 1992 because there were not enough incidents to justify tracking them. (13)(15)

* In October of 1997, sixteen-year-old Luke Woodham stabbed his mother to death and then went to school with a rifle where he shot 9 students, killing 2 of them. Assistant Principal Joel Myrick raced to his car, retrieved a .45 caliber handgun, and used it to subdue Woodham until police arrived. (51)(53)

http://www.kc3.com/editorial/40reasons.htm

I know a few of you touched on it, but I'm going to touch on it again. If the government was to say they were going to take away all the guns, only the law abiding citizens would hand them in. Criminals pick and choose what laws they want to follow. Us law abiding citizens follow all of them.

I have a CWP (Concealed Weapons Permit), a Federal firearms license, a National Firearms Act stamp. I have gone through numerous federal and state background checks, been fingerprinted multiple times all through law enforcement agencies.

If someone goes through the hassle of getting fingerprinted, having a federal and state background check to carry a weapon or obtain one, what is the probability that they will go out and commit a crime? According to statistics, not very high.

[Asysin2leads]

* In 1982' date=' a survey of imprisoned criminals found that 34% of them had been "scared off, shot at, wounded or captured by an armed victim." (16c)[/quote']

Fallacy: Guns are not meant to be used as a deterrent. Basic Gun Safety says that guns should only be discharged at something that is meant to be killed. All of these instances were guns being used improperly. Secondly, if you want to take surveys of CRIMINALS as being the gospel truth, go right ahead.

Logical fallacy: Correlation is not causation. Saying that crime rose after guns were banned is like saying nuclear weapons were developed after we gave women the right to vote. Bewtween 1976 and 1991 violent crime rose across the country due to many factors, including racial tension and a little something called CRACK.

Yeah, places like Columbine, Colorado, lol.

I never said that people with concealed weapons commit more crimes. I stated that people with concealed weapons tend to kill others more than unarmed people.

Again, you use a gun to subdue people. You use it to kill people. This is the biggest fallacy that proponents of guns as self defense have. Guns are not a means of self defense, they are means of apply lethal force.

I know a few of you touched on it, but I'm going to touch on it again. If the government was to say they were going to take away all the guns, only the law abiding citizens would hand them in. Criminals pick and choose what laws they want to follow. Us law abiding citizens follow all of them.

I have a CWP (Concealed Weapons Permit), a Federal firearms license, a National Firearms Act stamp. I have gone through numerous federal and state background checks, been fingerprinted multiple times all through law enforcement agencies.

If someone goes through the hassle of getting fingerprinted, having a federal and state background check to carry a weapon or obtain one, what is the probability that they will go out and commit a crime? According to statistics, not very high.

Again, you are using the classic technique of arguing something different. Again, I will repeat, I never said relaxing laws on the use of firearms increases crime, I said that carrying a gun drastically increases your chances of getting shot, shooting a loved one, or going to jail. If you'd like to bring out facts to the contrary on that, please, show me. Until then, I'll look at these NUMBERS, which, at the end of the day, tell a lot more.

Take the USA, Germany, Spain, Australia, and New Zealand, all industrialized, first world nations. In terms of numbers of homicides vs. 100,000 people, the numbers look like this:

USA: 9.10

Germany: 1.65

Spain: 1.49

Australia: 1.88

New Zealand: 1.35

Adjusted for population, the United States has nine times as many homicides as the other countries. Now, why you may ask? Well, lets look at the percentage of those homicides that used a firearm:

USA: 39.5%

Germany: 28.57%

Spain: 16.41%

Australia: 16.34%

New Zealand: 13.46%

So...it seems, that while as I said before correlation is not causation, from these numbers, a lower amount of guns used in homicides coincides with a lower homicide rate. One interesting thing, as anyone might have seen, is the fact that Germany only has 11% less homicides that use a firearm but almost 6 times less homicides than the USA. Got to wonder why this is. Could it be that ambulances in Germany have physicians riding along?

[Asysin2leads]

Asys...

Talk about stereotyping!! Talk about being WRONG!!

1) I am not, nor have I ever been a member of the republican party.

2) I am not, nor have I ever been a member of the National Rifle Association.

You, sir, have just shown yourself for the ignorant ass that you must be. "Anyone that doesn't agree with me MUST be one of THEM"

As far as paranoia goes, it doesn't live here. It doesn't even vacation here! Funny how disturbed you get when people disagree with your line of thought, as rational as the "opposition" may be...

One moment, I'm just another Paramedic, the next I'm a fear-mongering, paranoid, anti-gay, anti-communist, NRA member, and... GASP... A REPUBLICAN!! Funny, I'm none of the above, not even close! Silly me, I thought this nice, respectful, little exchange of ideas was just a group of ADULT PROFESSIONALS exercising their right to free speech, their freedom of independent thought, and just basically exchanging ideas and positions. Then, BAM, out of nowhere comes one that insists on being EXTREMELY juvenile and defensive... next thing you know he starts with the libel.

I respect your right to disagree with me, as much as I appreciate being able to express my opinions and thoughts in this open forum without encountering what amounts to a personal attack.

So, grow up... just grow up...

Sorry, usually anyone who is blaming "the media conspiracy to keep guns out of our hands" has an autographed picture of Newt Gingrich somewhere. Once someone goes that route, I've already considered it devolved to a juvenile level.

[hfdff422]

Hey Asys, why don't you look at those numbers you posted again- they are actually quite telling. While the US has an exponentially higher homicide rate, the rate of gun related homicides is only a few percent less than the other nations. Thank you for making the point for us.

[Asysin2leads]

All right, pick an arguement, will you? First you say "more guns equals less crime". Then I show figures saying otherwise. Then the arguement switches too "okay, well, maybe not less crime, but see, the figures don't match up exactly so I'm right anyway. Yay guns." Its the same BS everytime. "Guns deter crime!" "Wait, basic firearm safety says that a gun is not to be used as a deterrent", "Errrr.... well, ummm.... cars and doctors kill people too..." "Yeah, but cars and doctors primary purpose isn't to kill things, a gun is. A gun isn't used for anything else except killing."

I'm still waiting for the one about how if everyone was armed then we'd all be safer. Come on, let's here that one. It's my favorite.