|
Post by truth1 on May 8, 2005 11:55:56 GMT -5
Turid,
I said: "Like a murderer would decide not to shoot someone because they dont want to get arrested for having an illegal gun! If there were no guns, they would use knives, or shanks, or something similar. A gun makes murder convenient, it is still possible by other means." Then, you said I was trying to put words in you mouth. I was making a statement explaining that there would still be the same amount of murders even if 10 million people had guns, and you automatically thought I was saying you said otherwise. See what I mean about reading and understanding before you post. I know you are trying, but come on!
|
|
Turid
New Arrival
Posts: 3
|
Post by Turid on May 9, 2005 6:40:37 GMT -5
I never thought that a murderer would decide not to shoot someone because they don't want to get arrested for having an illegal gun, and I never thought so either.
Do you seriously believe that the murder rate wouldn't significantly decrease if it was harder to get a hold of guns?
Of course. It is still possible. It makes it less likely though - and more difficult as you say yourself. That woud in fact spare a few lives.
So what you say, is that the murder rate would be the same whether there were 10 million guns or 70 million guns? This statement is totally illogical, insane and anyone in their right minds wuold understand this is B.S.
No. I'm not even trying hard. Your statements are just bogus.
Turid
|
|
Turid
New Arrival
Posts: 3
|
Post by Turid on May 9, 2005 7:16:30 GMT -5
It is like I am in an elementary school debate. Is this the respect you agreed to when the board accepted you? By the way: Since you suggest that if it weren't for guns, people would have been killed as easily with knives, etc., I have this little piece for you taken from the Gun Regulation Report, which makes your statement void: With the exception of tobacco, guns are the only consumer products that are not regulated for health and safety standards, despite the fact that they are the second leading cause of traumatic death in the United States. If you can't discuss in a respectful manner, I suggest you don't. Turid
|
|
|
Post by truth1 on May 9, 2005 7:17:06 GMT -5
There was an error on my part. I did not mean to say the murder rate would not not change. I meant to say that the murder rate would not drastically change. My statements are bogus? What intelligent data do you have to support that? I mean real data, not, "well it is what I see and hear". What do you know? If I am correct, you do not even live in the U.S. It is obvious that you are not trying hard. You are become fixated on certain elements of the debate where you MAY have a valid point. I told told you repeatedly that I did not read the book, but you kept asking me if I had read it. Pay attention. If you choose to debate further, please keep up. It is really annoying when I have to tutor you.
|
|
|
Post by CCADP on May 9, 2005 7:27:27 GMT -5
c'mon guys....play nice; lets just debate the issues without getting personal - better not to answer a person if their way of arguing annoys - lets just stick to the issues for all to read without getting personal about it....
|
|
Turid
New Arrival
Posts: 3
|
Post by Turid on May 9, 2005 7:29:28 GMT -5
Why can't you respond to what I ask rather than take the entire post and make as you're responding to it all?
Here's what the Gun Regulation Project has to say about the matter:
With the exception of tobacco, guns are the only consumer products that are not regulated for health and safety standards, despite the fact that they are the second leading cause of traumatic death in the United States.
Is that an elementary school discussion too? "DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE THEY (GUNS) ARE THE SECOND LEADING CAUSE OF TRAUMATIC DEATH IN THE UNITED STATES.
Is that too what I think and what I belive???
Turid
|
|
|
Post by truth1 on May 9, 2005 7:49:54 GMT -5
No one is arguing that guns are not vehicle of murder. I am arguring that crimes usually carried out with guns would not vanish if guns were illegal. The key word in the statement you made was "traumatic" death. That pretty much leaves everything else out! Check out the leading causes of death in the U.S.: Rank1 Causes of death Number Deaths per 100,000 population All causes 2,416,425 848.5 1. Diseases of heart 700,142 245.8 2. Malignant neoplasms (cancer) 553,768 194.4 3. Cerebrovascular diseases 163,538 57.4 4. Chronic lower respiratory diseases 123,013 43.2 5. Accidents (unintentional injuries) 101,537 35.7 6. Diabetes mellitus 71,372 25.1 7. Influenza and pneumonia 62,034 21.8 8. Alzheimer's disease 53,852 18.9 9. Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis 39,480 13.9 10. Septicemia 32,238 11.3 11. Suicide 30,622 10.8 12. Chronic liver disease and cirrhosis 27,035 9.5 13. Homicide 20,308 7.1 14. Hypertension and hypertensive renal disease 19,250 6.8 15. Pneumonitis due to solids and liquids 17,301 6.1 All other causes 400,935 140.8 1. Rank based on number of deaths. Source: U.S. National Center for Health Statistics, National Vital Statistics Report, vol. 52, no. 3, Sept. 18, 2003. Web: www.cdc.gov/nchs . It sounds more impressive and shocking when you say second leading cause of {traumatic} death. Here, homicides are #13. Do you believe this data or do you think the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention are sponsored by the gun lobby?
|
|
Turid
New Arrival
Posts: 3
|
Post by Turid on May 9, 2005 8:08:55 GMT -5
Which means what exactly? You did not mean to say that the murder rate wuld not change. You meant to say that the murder rate would not DRASTICALLY change?!? What am I supposed to make out of that???
Exactly. Explained above. Among other places.
OK. I'll give you some real data which comes from people who knows what they're talking about.
You started out saying the world would be a safer place if the "good guys" had more guns and the "bad guys" less. My response was that you could not tell who the "good guys" were as opposed to the bad guys". This article shows that I'm not alone in what you call "well, it is what I see and what I hear".
Please read the following. When you've finished it, you can tell me how those selling those weapons can tell where it ends up and how the **** you would make your ideas work; saying the world would be safer if the good guys had more guns and the bad guys less
=====================
"FORT WORTH -- Firearms follow varying paths into the hands of criminals, but the route almost always starts with a legal sale.
"Most of the guns used in crimes originated as legally sold items," says Steve Steel of the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms office in Dallas.
A gun often passes through many hands and crosses a sometimes murky barrier where its change of ownership and its use break the law. The ATF traces about 70,000 guns each year at the request of local law enforcement agencies. Almost 50,000 of those involve weapon offenses, many of which are never prosecuted.
The rest are recovered during investigations of the crimes that worry people most: 5,000 in homicides and an equal number in assaults; 2,000 in burglary and almost that many in robberies; 10,000 in drug-related offenses.
Many of them are in the hands of young people who can't buy guns legally. The Youth Crime Gun Interdiction Initiative, a recent ATF study, found that one out of 10 guns used in a crime and recovered by police came from someone 17 or younger. When the ages of 18 to 24 are included, that number rises to four out of 10.
While the guns traced by the ATF may be used for villainous deeds by minors or others ineligible to buy them, the weapons are mostly legal.
"About the only things that are illegal in this country are machine guns, sawed-off shotguns or sawed-off rifles," Steel says.
The illegality more often lies in the use of the weapon and its most proximate source. Sources fall into three categories: stolen guns; guns provided by "straw" purchasers (a legally qualified buyer who purchases for another person, or a person who falsifies identification to purchase a gun from a dealer); and dealers who knowingly sell guns illegally.
The ATF enforces laws against illegal sales, but agents acknowledge the limits of their success. The largest U.S. seizure of illegal guns came to a head this summer in the Los Angeles area when Hammond Ku pleaded guilty to importing 2,000 AK-47 automatic weapons from China.
Federal agents posed as gun buyers in a sting operation for 18 months, eventually arresting Ku and seven others. Four of Ku's cohorts were tried and sentenced in China. Ku could get a 40-year sentence and $2 million in fines. His second in command, Richard Chen, also pleaded guilty to smuggling in the United States and may get a similar term.
Ku's case is the exception, not the rule. Unlike Ku, most illegal gun runners deal in less volume. Also unlike Ku, many of them are not caught.
About 12,000 firearms possession cases are filed each year in the United States. No one knows how many guns are sold without detection, or how many are in circulation.
Almost certainly, the 2,000 guns confiscated in the California bust comprise only a small percentage. Thousands more weapons are bought illegally and quietly, mostly by individuals. Just about anyone qualifies to buy one. Those who are prohibited include convicted felons (unless they have been pardoned); drug addicts; the mentally unstable; illegal immigrants or those who have renounced citizenship; and minors.
A legal sale can fall into a gray area, however, as Steel and others with the ATF explain.
"A federally licensed firearms dealer has to fill out paperwork and submit forms to us," Steel says. "They can make illegal sales and, obviously, some do, but they run the risk of getting caught and we usually catch up with them."
Most licensed dealers who sell illegally do so in large quantities and attempt to mask their sales. ATF records show that most of the recovered guns that have obliterated serial numbers and that were used in crimes originated from an illegal sale by a licensed dealer.
Dealers with no license usually don't go to that much trouble. They leave no paper trails and just how far within the law they operate is unknown In states such as Texas, where there are no civil restrictions on gun sales, the question rarely arises.
There is no law against the sale of firearms between individuals. State laws may require a sales tax, but federal regulations on such sales are nonexistent, Steel says. A person may sell any number of firearms to another individual without the supervision of any agency. It is only when the seller derives a livelihood from those sales that it is a violation.
"That's where the flea markets come in," Steel says. "If it's just an individual selling a few guns, there's no violation. When you see a guy sells 20 or 30 a day, day after day, you know that's how he's making a living."
The limited forms of gun control in effect today -- registration by purchasers and waiting periods -- have mixed effect. Police largely scoff at them as "feel good" legislation. In years past, many police officers were themselves licensed dealers, buying firearms for other officers. Their number, along with the number of licensed gun dealers nationwide, decreased over the past three years after application requirements became stricter and fees rose.
Still, many officers decry gun laws, and only a few seem to feel those laws have accomplished anything.
Texas' "conceal and carry" law, allowing civilians to obtain a license to carry a handgun if they successfully complete a shooting course, also has brought mixed reaction from police.
"If criminals want guns, they're going to get them," says Dorcia Meador, range master for the Fort Worth Police Department. "Police try to be where they're needed, but we're simply not always there when you need us."
Mike Manning, head of Fort Worth's SWAT team, represents what may be the consensus of most officers. "I guess I'm kind of neutral about gun control," Manning says.
"Normally, when we run a search warrant, we invariably find weapons and, almost invariably, it's impossible to tell where they came from. Many of them are stolen, but almost nobody keeps the serial number of a gun after they buy it and, when it's stolen, it's gone and that number never gets entered anywhere.
"As far as illegal guns go, about the only way to prevent those would be to prevent all guns, and I don't see that happening."
Not for the time being. No. I have lived in the United States though.
|
|
|
Post by truth1 on May 9, 2005 8:23:29 GMT -5
I do not think my statements are bogus. I think they are credible. The problem is I think you are either not receptive enough or not intellectually capable to understand them. I NEVER referred to this book as though I had read it. I said I had used his number of 70 million. AND I TOLD YOU THAT EARLY ON IN THE CONVERSATION. See what I mean about becoming fixated on one thing? I am not trying to be arrogant. It is just that I think I am in a debate with a child.
|
|
|
Post by CCADP on May 9, 2005 8:33:21 GMT -5
ENOUGH - truth1 - I've asked everyone on this thread to refrain from personal attacks - there are a bunch of them in that last post.
NO MORE PERSONAL ATTACKS ! Number one; it doesn't add anything to the argument for the many people reading it on the board; and number two - we have asked not for agreement here but for RESPECT. and I am sure an educated person such as yourself will not try to claim that last post showed one iota of respect for your opponent in the argument.
Thats it.
Be nice or don't post. You can debate all you want but there will be no rudeness tolerated here. You are a definate minority in your opinions here; and you are never treated with less than respect; so please extend the same courtesy to others. That way people can consider your opinions instead of completely discounting them.
|
|
|
Post by truth1 on May 9, 2005 8:49:04 GMT -5
You are right. I admit that the last post was shy of respect. For that, I am wrong. You have been reading the posts, right? I am trying to debate this on an academic level, but it is getting harder and harder to do so. I used the author's number of 70 million people owning guns, and she said the guy was sponsored by the gun industry. She never even read the book. I believe she said she looked it up, but that was after she made the incredulous accusation. I do admit I was out of line, but it is very frustrating explaining everything to her only to find out that she keeps making the same comments. I also apologize for my dogmatist assumption that Turid is a female. So, Turid, if you are male, please accept my apologies.
|
|
|
Post by oztash on May 9, 2005 9:03:23 GMT -5
Turid, Truth
It took my many many years to finally realize that we as humans, with minds of our own, cant agree on everything, and personally Iam glad we dont, cause I think it would get a bit boring after awhile, if we all thought alike... Another thing I have learnt, is that when I couldnt win a arguement and believed I was right, I woul regreatably make personal attacks..
Guys its ok to disagree, it dosnt matter if others dont get the point were trying to make.... A few weeks ago in church my minister said during a sermon, that if we cant get allong on earth, how are we going to get along when were all in heaven? I think this says it all...
Cheers Tasha
|
|
|
Post by truth1 on May 9, 2005 9:20:20 GMT -5
Tasha, I am not looking for Turid to agree with me. I would like her to read what I am posting without making incorrect assumptions. I have made general comments and was accused of "putting words in her mouth". I think Turid is compassionate and exceptionally forgiving. Those are very covetable traits. There is no doubt in my mind that Turid is a "good" person (please, I do not want people to get in the debate of what a "good person" means, again ).
|
|
|
Post by oztash on May 9, 2005 9:51:28 GMT -5
Truth Yes I agree, I dont want to debate about what a good/bad person is...lol Tasha
|
|