Text 10842, 128 rader
Skriven 2008-02-09 10:50:22 av Jeff Smith (1:14/5)
  Kommentar till text 10801 av Michiel van der Vlist (2:280/5555)
Ärende: Shootings in USA
========================
Hello Michiel.

09 Feb 08 11:44, you wrote to me:

 MV> Hello Jeff,

 WD>>> Nevertheless, the fact is undeniable that easy access to
 WD>>> fire-arms increases the mortality rate.

 JS>>      Ok, but at what point does a government deny people the
 JS>> ability to own, possess, or carry a gun? Someone who owns a gun
 JS>> and was a peacefull law abiding citizen yesterday might turn
 JS>> killer tomorrow.

 MV> Exactly. So do not give them guns. Why does a law abiding citizen need
 MV> a gun in the first place?

     What justification does the government use to deny them the freedom to
own a gun? Remember Michiel that here the right to bear arms is considered
one of our basic rights. I consider myself a law abiding person. And yet I
own close to a dozen guns of various types (handguns, rifles, and shotguns).
Do I need all or them? Probably not but aquired them one by one over the
years and I have gotten rid of several too. Why do I have them? Some I use
for birds (Ducks, Etc.) while others I use for small game hunting and others
for big game. Some are strickly for use on the firing range. Each type of
gun has an intended purpose. Whether you agree with their use or not.

 JS>> Is the solution to ban guns completely?

 MV> Simply look at the statistics. In countries where guns are limited to
 MV> police and the military far less people get killed in violent
 MV> incidents.

    Then why Michiel does study after study show that increasing gun control
laws leads to more crime rather than less crime?. More often than not when
you see higher crime levels you also see people crying for tighter gun control
laws. Such was the cry in Australia by gun control lobbiests. They claimed
higher death rates related to gun availability and ownership. But when the
actual statistics are examined. The numbers are not as they claimed them to be.
Based in part on they chose to come up with their results.

    Gun control. Like that is the magic cure for higher crime levels when in
fact the relationship isn't that strong. I think that part of the push by
some is simply to apply more control over people. The claim of higher crime
is often used as an excuse.

    If you stop and consider that if you take the right to own guns away from
the average citizen. You only fill the criminals with more confidence since
they don't have to fear people being able to protect themselves. If we make
life for the criminal less dangerous there are bound to be more criminals.
A result just the opposite of the one you suggest.

    In an attempt to look at both sides I notice that the groups,
organizations ,and coalitions for gun control spout one set of statistics
while groups for no or fewer gun laws come up with a differant set of
numbers. The truth of matter IMO is that both sides pad the numbers to be
in their favor and neither is quite as they say.

    For us here the botton line is to balance one's percieved loss of
freedom and more government control versus the need to be responsible
in the use and management of firearms in this country. I think that the
freedom should be maintained. BUT, along with that freedom comes a
responsibility. Responsibility in the form of who is allowed to own or
possess a firearm.

 JS>> My opinion is if guns were banned then only the criminals would
 JS>> have guns.

 MV> That would make it a lot easier for the police to tell law abiding
 MV> citizens from criminals wouldn't it?

     But at what cost to the rights of the average citizen? I think part
of our disagreement stems from our view of whether people should be allowed
to own, carry guns. You probably look at "Guns" from a differant perspective
thay they are viewed here. I don't judge either as being wrong or right just
differant.


 JS>> If I didn't own or have a gun and decided to end someone. Getting
 JS>> a gun wouldn't be much of a problem at all.

 MV> But that is no the problem. If someone decides to kill someone, there
 MV> is not much anyone can do about it. He/she will find a way.

     True. But how would banning guns make any differance then? Those so
inclined will aquire guns either way if desired.


 MV> But look at the statistics.

     Statistics as they apply to there or here?

 MV> Most people that get killed in shooting
 MV> incidents get killed not because they were the victim of a
 MV> predetermined homicide, They get killed because of a shoot out that
 MV> was never planned but that just happened because everyine has guns. A
 MV> burglar gets caught and there is a shootout. Things like that.

 MV> And why do burglars have guns? Because they know th ehouse owners have
 MV> guns.

     Or because they want to be able to control and overwhelm the
victim.

 MV> Here burglars do not normally carry guns. They know that when they get
 MV> caught with a gun the penalty is much higher than without.

     As it should be IMO. I don't have a problem with tougher laws for those
that commit a crime while using a gun. Make the criminal less willing to
choose to use a gun.


 JS>> But as I have stated guns will always be illegally available to
 JS>> those that desire them.

 MV> When guns are banned there will be far less people desiring them. You
 MV> may say statistics lie, but in this case they do not. Less people get
 MV> killed by guns in countries where guns ar banned.

 MV> Cheers, Michiel

 MV> --- GoldED+/W32-MINGW 1.1.5-b20070503
 MV>  * Origin: http://www.vlist.org (2:280/5555)

Jeff

--- GoldED+/W32-MINGW 1.1.5-b20070503
 * Origin: Twin_Cities_Metronet - region14.us (1:14/5)