The Thread Formerly Known As: Kerry Found...

[Adron]

In 2003, there were 195 murders, manslaughters or assaults resulting in deaths in Sweden.

[hismajesty]

In 2003, there were 195 murders, manslaughters or assaults resulting in deaths in Sweden.

Where did you find that information? I'd like to get an exact number for the US. But, that's besides the point; it's now clear why you have the stance you do on what Hazard has been saying. With that low of crime rate in Sweden it's not really a big problem as it is in America where there are more than that many murders per 2 days.

[Grok]

How many murders happen in Sweden per year? Just out of curiousity. From what the biased liberal media has shown me, it's far greater than that of the United States. If that's true then perhaps that is why you don't see the need for protection of that level in America.

I'm curious where you get the idea of "biased liberal media"?  I won't tell you why until you answer.

[hismajesty]

I got the term from another post, I beleive Hazard's. It seemed to fit so I used it, since I felt it described what I was trying to say pretty well. Most media is going to tell the public what they want to hear, what the current public opinion is. The current position on gun control is more against than for, in my opinion. And from what I've seen, in my home town anyway, more news stations seem to be more liberal than conservative. From what I can tell I can only find more conservative leaning news programs on conservative networks. It may be because I live in a more liberal town and such, I'm not sure. I'm also not sure how gun control is portrayed in Sweden. However, I personally feel that the media is biased towards public opinion, which is the point since it helps it sell, and usually states (or comes off) as being liberal. Of course, you could say that I only used that term because Hazard did, which would destroy the validity of my previous post(s).

[Hazard]

-No empirical study of the effectiveness of gun laws has shown any positive effect on crime. To the dismay of the pro hibitionists, such studies have shown a negative effect. That is, in areas having greatest restrictions on private firearms ownership, crime rates are typically higher, because criminals are aware that their intended victims are less likely to have the me ans with which to defend themselves.

What empirical evidence do you have?

Hazard's root argument seems to draw validity from his perceived right to protect himself by firearm is more important than society's right to protect itself from permeation of firearms.  Unless I misunderstand?

This is impossible. You can't stop criminals from using guns. Why don't you get that? If the criminals have them shouldn't a law abiding citizen be permitted to protect himself?

I do wish Hazard would respond directly to Adron's points with counterpoints.  My impression so far has been Adron responds reasonably directly to Hazard's points, but Hazard responds to Adrons with something not comparable.  Particularly with quoting U.S.-only statistics is not a controlled way of studying.  Without a control, it is generally accepted that measurements cannot be trusted.

How much more directly would you like me to respond without getting mean about it?

No, I'm saying that I have never personally seen it. Of course I have heard of violent crimes where guns were used, just like I have heard of cannibals who killed and ate their victims. What I mean is that they are unfrequent enough that you can live for 26 years without seeing them. With any luck, I should be able to live my whole life without seeing a violent crime commited with the use of guns.

I've never seen a person kill another in cold blood. So I've never seen a murder, therefore I have never seen a gun used to kill another person, therefore I should think guns are wrong?

In 2003, there were 195 murders, manslaughters or assaults resulting in deaths in Sweden.

Differences in the structure of society. You can't compare a small country like Sweden to a larger country or the world.

To put it simply, if you'll forgive the pun: Guns in the hands of civilians are overkill. The only reason you'd need one is if the other guy has one. It's just a lot simpler if no one has them, which is why I support heavy gun control - it prevents, or at least seriously impedes, guns from being a problem in the first place.

Guns in the hands of civilians are not overkill for the reasons you stated yourself! Civilians need guns because people hell bent on hurting them have them! How many times do you see a crime in which guns were legally obtained? Not very often. You can't stop criminals from having guns!

Spouting statistics doesn't really help your argument either:

A gun kept in the home is 22 times more likely to kill a family member or a friend than it is to be used against an intruder. (Office of Statistics and Programming, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, CDC. Data Source: NCHS Vital Statistics System for numbers of deaths.  1998 data.)

Guns kept in homes are 22 times more likely to be involved in unintentional shootings, criminal assaults, homicides and suicide attempts than to be involved in injuring or killing in self defense. (Kellermann AL, et al. Injuries and deaths due to firearms in the home. Journal of Trauma, 1998; 45 (2): 263-267)

All those facts prove only one thing, and it is something I have never condemnd anywhere in this thread nor in my experiences. I have never, ever, said that proper training and schooling is NOT neccessary for the owners of firearms.

In 1996, handguns were used to murder 2 people in New Zealand, 15 in Japan, 30 in Great Britain, 106 in Canada, 211 in Germany, and 9,390 in the United States. (Embassies and foreign crime-reporting agencies/FBI Uniform Crime Report, 1995.  The number for Germany represents total murders by firearms.)

Every two years more Americans die from firearm injuries than the total number of American soldiers killed during the 8-year Vietnam War. In 1999, the total number of people killed by guns in the United States was 28,874,a 6% decrease from 1998 figures. (Based on data from CDC National Center for Health Statistics report "Deaths: Final Data for 1999." Vol. 49, No.

Please look back on the evidence I have offered based on the studies of many criminologists. Criminologists agree that there is no evidence so far that gun control laws will have any positive effect on crime.

--

This is the basic fact of the matter. Criminals will always have guns. You have a HUMAN RIGHT to protect the life of yourself, your family, and others. You can claim all that you want that violent crime would be lowered without weapons, but there is absolutly no proof of that. You have to protect yourself in this day and age. You have to protect your family. You cannot depend on a miniscule minority to be able to protect the vast majority. You have to defend yourself, and a trained firearm owner can do so, and he will. These are the facts of the case, and they cannot be disputed.

[Banana fanna fo fanna]

By the way, the unemployment rate right now is the same as it was under Clinton in 96.

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/moran200403040834.asp

[hismajesty]

I haven't read the entire thread but are Hazard, St0rm, and I the only Republicans that have posted?

[Hazard]

It would seem that the people who tend to be attracted towards posting on these forums are liberals and Democrats. Unfortunatly, the liberals and the Democrats whose policies would plunge the nation into chaos are the majority, which is obviously why so much of the society, including the media, is dominated by liberal ideals and beliefs. I'm proud to stand with the minority who have the freedom and liberties of people as a priority. Liberals and Democrats alike these days seem to despise actions that would bring freedom and equality to all people. Some things the left tend to not tell you: high taxes and tight restrictions keep minority upstarts down, and the fact that only 62% of Democrats supported the Civil Rights act compared to the 92% of Republicans.

The other dominant trend in this country is for the "majority" to say NO to war, unless of course a Democrat is President. This is of course due to the fact that Democrats outnumber Republicans in this country, so of course, the majority objects to a war that their party doesn't support. It is unfortunate that there are those who cling to the hope that everything can be settled diplomatically, and that nothing is worth sacrificing lives. I'm reminded of the words of John Stuart Mill: "War is an ugly thing but not the ugliest of things; the decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feelings which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."

[muert0]

hismajesty I think you mixed up your words. DId you mean to say sweden has far less murders than america. I say they shut down the gun factories and melt down all the guns and make something useful out of them that way no one can have guns.
We live in a time where you don't have to kill your food to eat it and the reason there are so many gun crimes//accidents is because every moron in america is walking around with a gun. Knives are illegal if the blade is over 3.5 inches I believe it is. And people who have guns to "protect" themselves would shoot people for taking replaceable everyday items.

http://www.nra-kkk.org/

[Banana fanna fo fanna]

I'm not a republican per se, but I agree with most republican ideas, so I guess you could call me one.

Mostly, I'm just sick of intolerant liberals plugging their ears and preaching their ideas.

[Hazard]

I say they shut down the gun factories and melt down all the guns and make something useful out of them that way no one can have guns.

Yes! We should all hold hands and sing camp fire songs! And we can tell stories of sunshine and lollipops! Wrong. So the use of weapons to defend your freedom is wrong? You shouldn't fight for what you believe in? Your idea is ludicrous and impossible.

the reason there are so many gun crimes//accidents is because every moron in america is walking around with a gun

Wrong. You don't have a scrap of evidence to support that.

Knives are illegal if the blade is over 3.5 inches I believe it is.

Wrong again. Where the hell are you getting this stuff?

And people who have guns to "protect" themselves would shoot people for taking replaceable everyday items.

Your life is not a replacable item.

http://www.nra-kkk.org/

There is nothing the National Rifle Association hates more than the Klan. The Klu Klux Klan were those who began talk of gun control in the United States, in order to disarm law abiding african-americans.

Mostly, I'm just sick of intolerant liberals plugging their ears and preaching their ideas.

Amen to that Brother!!!

[hismajesty]

hismajesty I think you mixed up your words. DId you mean to say sweden has far less murders than america

Isn't that what I said?

the reason there are so many gun crimes//accidents is because every moron in america is walking around with a gun

I know plenty of morons who do not carry a gun.

[muert0]

What freedom do you have to fight for that a gun would help? I didn't say take your rights to guns away. I said destroy all of the guns...
On the second note believe whatever you want I could hunt and list facts all day, but your stuck in your ways.
Knives above a certain length are considered a deadly weapon, one of my best freinds is a traveling kid and I've had to bail him out of jail for having a knife. So, go tell the New Orelans police its not illegal.
If your life wasnt at stake and 2 guys were loading your 40+" tv up in the back of their truck you wouldn't shoot at em?

[Hazard]

What freedom do you have to fight for that a gun would help?

Two words, American Revolution. Owned.

On the second note believe whatever you want I could hunt and list facts all day, but your stuck in your ways.

Show me your hard evidence that gun control will lower violent crime. God forbid I'm stuck on freedom and liberty.

Knives above a certain length are considered a deadly weapon

Knives of any size are considered deadly weapons. It doesn't mean you cant carry them.

one of my best freinds is a traveling kid and I've had to bail him out of jail for having a knife

What crime was he commiting that got him caught? A cop cant just stop and search you because he thinks you have a knife.

If your life wasnt at stake and 2 guys were loading your 40+" tv up in the back of their truck you wouldn't shoot at em?

No. Thats irresponsible and against the rules of engagment. The best course of action would get a description of the perpetrators and their truck and alert the authorities of the crime in progress. If they threatened me, I would draw my weapon. If they made a move, I'd end it then and there.

[Adron]

In 2003, there were 195 murders, manslaughters or assaults resulting in deaths in Sweden.

Where did you find that information? I'd like to get an exact number for the US. But, that's besides the point; it's now clear why you have the stance you do on what Hazard has been saying. With that low of crime rate in Sweden it's not really a big problem as it is in America where there are more than that many murders per 2 days.

You won't be able to find a number for the US from the same source I'm afraid. I found the information for Sweden at www.scb.se, but they're a Swedish statistics gathering agency.