The Maryland sniper

[Bondo]

Yes, but the more cars there are, the higher the ratio goes up because the risk increased exponentially, not linearly.  Also, if we didn't have such stupidly big cars we wouldn't have as many traffic deaths.  SUVs will probably disappear in 10 years when gas prices climb high enough that even the current SUV driving morons opt for smaller more efficient cars.  Also, maybe like the solution to SUVs, we should just make guns carry such a price that they will peter out on their own...and hey, it wouldn't be violating any rights because you could still have a gun...if you are willing to pay 1 million per bullet.  Then make having a gun a capital crime and we wouldn't have any of the gun issues you say would happen.

As for the school shootings, the school shooting in Arkansas was done with the guns owned by the shooters relations legally (I don't remember if it was a father or an uncle or what exactly).  Most of them have been guns of relatives that were legally obtained, not guns obtained illegally.  Besides, in Columbine they got them from a gun shop, not a unlicensed seller.  If the guns were taken away from the parents and gun shops they would be taken away from the kids and thus the school shootings wouldn't happen.

[Ace]

Also, maybe like the solution to SUVs, we should just make guns carry such a price that they will peter out on their own...and hey, it wouldn't be violating any rights because you could still have a gun...if you are willing to pay 1 million per bullet.

That's a fine plan in theory, but you forget that the ammunition companies would never charge 1 million dollars per bullet. That would be economic suicide. You will probably come back with "But the government can make a tax on bullets," but this is irrelevant and unconstitutional as the right to bear arms shall not be infringed.

Then make having a gun a capital crime and we wouldn't have any of the gun issues you say would happen.

Make having a gun a capital crime? Are you shitting me? Not only would this egregiously violate the second amendment, but it would blow the 8th amendment right out of the water. Last time I checked a punishment so harsh was something we would expect out of the Taliban when they were in power. Mullah Mohammed Bondo, you truly are a piece of work.

As for the school shootings, the school shooting in Arkansas was done with the guns owned by the shooters relations legally (I don't remember if it was a father or an uncle or what exactly).  Most of them have been guns of relatives that were legally obtained, not guns obtained illegally.  Besides, in Columbine they got them from a gun shop, not a unlicensed seller.  If the guns were taken away from the parents and gun shops they would be taken away from the kids and thus the school shootings wouldn't happen.

If parents leave their gun(s) around so their child can have access, that is the result of bad parenting, not bad gun laws.

Ok, fine, only militias can have it? I just made my own militia, the "I fucking hate liberals tring to infringe on my constitutional rights" militia. It's only member so far is me. My militia has never committed any crime as a whole, and none of the individual members have either. Therefore, there is absolutely no reason why members of the "I fucking hate liberals trying to infringe on my consitutional rights" militia should not be allowed to bear arms as per the constitution. So let me have my guns and get the hell out of my way.

(This doesn not mean that only militias should be allowed to have guns, I'm just playing devil's advocate for those who can't read the constitution)

[Bondo]

Make having a gun a capital crime? Are you shitting me? Not only would this egregiously violate the second amendment, but it would blow the 8th amendment right out of the water. Last time I checked a punishment so harsh was something we would expect out of the Taliban when they were in power. Mullah Mohammed Bondo, you truly are a piece of work.

Uhh, the fact that it allegedly would violate the constitution doesn't really matter as the solution (which was sarcastic) assumes they've already been banned.  But it would keep criminals from getting and using guns from other places like you always claim would happen if guns were banned.

[*DAMN Mauti]

You are always talking about your amendments like they would be the bible. I can only say the amendments were made by HUMANS and at their time they were useful. However times have changed and it would be useful to add some "rules" to the current ones: like you have to pass a difficult weapon owner test and psychology tests before you are allowed to own a weapon. Also we have a law that you are not allowed to store your weapons and ammution at the same place. You have to lock the seperatly.

Such laws wouldn't prevent the Maryland Sniper but they would reduce gun crime in general.

Yes I agree with you Ace that Bondo's ideas are too radical. However the laws could need an update.

Btw you always defend your amendments but isn't it your president who made a law that says everyone who is suspected(!!!) to be a terrorist doesn't have any rights...

Btw don't worry the US weapon lobby has  much power(money) so the weapon laws won't be changed.

[Jeb]

if I remember correctly it takes 2/3rds the states to amend the constitiution, and that doesn't happen to often.  IF you made having a gun a capital crime half the state of texas would be dead.

If you look at the constitution it says that we have the right to bare arms in order to for militcias and protect the homeland if we were invaded by another country. But sadly in  modern day no country would march into the US on horseback and take over, they would send some nukes.
If you think that higher crime and murder rates are a viable reasons for fat red necks to shoot Deer in the spring then you need a reality check. If we would even impliment stricter gun control laws it would help, but the NRA is against it because its the first step in taking the guns away. Besides, bondo if were were to ban firearms it would most likely be handguns since the majority of roberys, and other violent crimes are commited using a handgun. Simply because its easyer to march into a 7-11 with a 9 under you jacket than a rifle.
Even if guns would be banned there would be a steady stream coming into the country from canada, or mexico so it probly wouldn't work to well.

[Deadeye]

You are always talking about your amendments like they would be the bible. I can only say the amendments were made by HUMANS and at their time they were useful. However times have changed and it would be useful to add some "rules" to the current ones: like you have to pass a difficult weapon owner test and psychology tests before you are allowed to own a weapon. Also we have a law that you are not allowed to store your weapons and ammution at the same place. You have to lock the seperatly.

Such laws wouldn't prevent the Maryland Sniper but they would reduce gun crime in general.

Yes I agree with you Ace that Bondo's ideas are too radical. However the laws could need an update.

Btw you always defend your amendments but isn't it your president who made a law that says everyone who is suspected(!!!) to be a terrorist doesn't have any rights...

Btw don't worry the US weapon lobby has  much power(money) so the weapon laws won't be changed.

mauti, since you seem to be able to be rational, you deserve a good reply.  bondo, on the other hand, ignores the broader truth for his "but in this case, you would be safer".

mauti, first, the vast majority of crimes are comitted with non registered weapons, so, unfortunately, your solution wouldn't actually solve much.  what it would do is help curb some of the accidental deaths that result from the careless owners.  and, to be honest, most of us owners that are legit, are all for better education and other sane controls.  i have no issue at all with some kind of gun test to get a lisense, after all, we have driving tests.  too bad it wont stop the crooks from getting the weapons.

second, our constitution, with it's ammendments, is as important to us as the bible is to chistians, the koran to mosulems and the scrolls (don't ask me to spell tora, since i don't have a clue) are to their believers.  we patriots are believers in something, the constitution is the embodyment of our beliefs.  and better then most, it allows for it to be adjusted (those ammendments) for things that were forgotten, or that have changed.

third, bush doesn't make laws (a president isn't allowed to), nor is that the constitution.  it's the constitution that is freeing some of those people who's rights are being infringed (as challenged by the aclu, of which, i am a member).  the 20 some that were arrested here in dearborn are now being forced to have open hearings.  that is our constitution in action.  as for those being held in cuba, those are prisioners of war, not americans, so the constitution doesn't apply, and the world courts need to get involved.

i've always agreed that laws need to be updated, and there are plenty of ways to do it, without banning guns or infringing upon our rights to bear them.

bondo, you said the crime is avoided, not just the crime of murder.  also, you did not include the sociopath, because you said they either intend to kill or not, a sociopath doesn't go out intending to, they just don't care either way.  you make blanket statments that don't fit.  you ignore more violent crimes, like rape, and you make criminals sound rational, like if you do what they say, you can't get hurt, which is bullshit.  sometimes, someone will just walk in and that scares them and BOOM.  why in the hell do you say it's more likely for the owner of a gun to end up dead in those situatioins??  what in the world are you basing that from?????  and zait's numbers were bull, which was what i was pointing out.  thanks for noticing.

and, it's the ultra liberals that want guns banned bondo, and it's some of that propoganda that zaits and you have been spewing, which is what i'm arguing aganst.  remember, it was you that cast me (incorrectly) as a conservative, so you brought it up.

[Bondo]

mauti, since you seem to be able to be rational, you deserve a good reply.  bondo, on the other hand, ignores the broader truth for his "but in this case, you would be safer".

So I ignore the broader truth?  Then perhaps I'm using the narrower truth?  That would still be truth then.  Sorry Deadeye, but you continue to think that because you say I'm not rational that I'm not, that isn't for you to decide...and I've seen a handful of people in this very thread support the same basic ideas as me (including Mauti who you just called rational) which is more then enough to show that I'm not irrational like you claim I am.

Last time I looked, you have not given any documented numbers either so why should we consider your writing off of any numbers given by others as wrong.  Sorry but just saying something is incorrect doesn't make it.

Now I'll provide some
http://www.cely.com/firearms/graph10.html
This is from the World Health Organization...it lists the homicide rates (not gun homicides, just homicides in general) per 100k.  You'll see the US has 10.8 per 100k where as England has .6 per 100k.  That is quite a difference.  Something is awry to make such a great split.  Population isn't a good reason as it is a rate and more importantly, the population density in England is higher than that of the U.S. and it traditional that more crowded areas have higher crime (look at the big cities of the U.S versus rural areas if you want to see this).  If it isn't guns than what is it?  Frankly I think homicide or as can be seen in graph 11 (just change the URL) the combined homicide and suicide rates.  It doesn't really matter the affect on the rate of robbery as the main point here is to save lives.  While having or not having guns has very little impact on the suicide rate as can be seen in the second graph, it does affect homicide rates, so I think this makes it quite clear that having strict gun control or bans is an effective way to not have deaths.

[PsYcO aSsAsSiN]

Try finding something up to date Bondo...that graph is 13 years old.

[Bondo]

It doesn't matter that it is 13 years old, guns were still allowed in the US and still not allowed in England.  The comparison works just as well.

BTW, going by 1997 data it is 7 per 100k for the US and .75 per 100k for the UK.  This is based on the WHO numbers for cause of death by intentional numbers and under the assumption that there are approximately equal numbers of males to females in both (as it listed it seperately).  That can be found here http://www3.who.int/whosis/whsa/whsa_table1.cfm?path=whosis,whsa,whsa_table1&language=english.

So alas, now I'm looking at 5 years ago (the newest data they had there) and it is not quite as wide but still a huge gap.  To introduce another number, Austria was just above 1 per 100k and there according to what Mauti said long ago in this thread, the gun control is quite extensive but not completely banned like it is in England.  This would say that there isn't much change between having or not having guns if these measures are taken.  But it still shows that what the U.S has right now in terms of gun freedom, is a dangerous thing.

Oh, and according to this link (PDF file download) http://www.tdh.state.tx.us/phpep/dpn/issues/dpn56n19.pdf, Texas is over 10 as well so having more open policies have not lowered the amount of deaths, it just hasn't caused an increase.

So, with all these facts from reputable sources like the WHO and Texas government it is shown that all those saying I was wrong about not having or heavily restricting guns lowering murders are in fact going against the factual data and that I am supported by the facts.

[EUR_Zaitsev]

I have to go with Bondo on this one, I no way would it infringe on your rights to raise prices of bullets, hell thats what thier doing with ciggerettes. You simply get the certain type of metal and tax it to hell and back. Im distrought that you guys can sit at home bitching about gun laws when there is a guy shooting up the capital area. The fact is that by having a goverrnment you must give up some of your rights and maybe it is time to say that owning a gun is one of them. I choose people to live over certain constitutional rights and we all know that rule was soley in place to allow militas to form, not so that 200 years later you guys can go shoot at animals and then when someone is shooting other humans it is OK.

[|MP|Buccaneer]

I choose people to live over certain constitutional rights and we all know that rule was soley in place to allow militas to form, not so that 200 years later you guys can go shoot at animals and then when someone is shooting other humans it is OK.

I don't have time to rip on Bondo and his graphs (nice pictures, too bad they are missing a bunch of information, but I'll get to that when I have more time).

Zaitsev, that is 100% bullshit.  I don't know that the ammendment was just so we can form malitia's.  Did you even read any of the posts?  Do you even know what a Militia was back then?  The difference between them?

Zaitsev, most crimes comitted with guns aren't done with legal guns, so why in the hell would taking them away from the people that actually follow the laws do any good?  And what in the world is wrong with hunting??

Blaming the sniper that is lose killing people on the fact that he's using a gun is just stupid.  He's a fucking nut.  A loony.  If he didn't have a gun, he'd find another way to kill people, because that's what he's trying to do.  We humans have been killing each other long before guns, and will long after some other way of doing it happens.  Chaning tools wont stop the killing.  Change people, if you can.

[EUR_Zaitsev]

Whats wrong with hunting is thats were people get these assult rifles legally. IF the gun is not legal its still harder to optain one if all guns are illegal because you know that its illegal without having the possibility of it being legal. Dont take me for an idiot of course I know what militias were back then just because you dont agree with my views doesnt mean you personally assult me. The fact remains if guns were illegal or made harder to optain then there would be less murders in the United States, and thats a fact. You may say fine i dont need a gun but you want one, when you have one your putting me in more danger as well.

[Bondo]

Great, so Bucc is dissing the information supplied by the World Health Organization as wrong.  Just like he feels I shouldn't trust the UN to know better than him how to rank countries on quality of life.  So grand, especially since he doesn't have time to explain.

[Colin]

If u don't have time to post then plz don't post.  Since this is a mature (kinda) topic with a mature (sort of) debate, if u r gonna post, make a full post.

Btw, u guys need to back up ur arguement with FACTS and DATA...it seems some people r just spouting out ignorant partial-flames.  So far, i've only really seen bondo give us some proof and real facts so lets see some from the other side (not that i support the sale of guns at all).

Colin--- :DCuo

[Brain]

Whats wrong with hunting is thats were people get these assault rifles legally

correct me if i'm wrong, but i was under the impression that you couldnt obtain assault rifles legally any more.

i'd add more, but since i have no strong opinion on this issue and no unmensioned facts to support either side, i will gracefully exit at this juncture

[|MP|Buccaneer]

Colin, I had time to post, but not time to give Bondo's graphs what they deserve.  So I saved that and made a quality post.  So take it easy.

Zaitsev, yes, when you make statements like "we all know that rule was soley in place to allow militas to form, not so that 200 years later you guys can go shoot at animals..." I'll call it bullshit.  Because that's what it was.  We all don't know that the ammendment to the constitution was "soley" to allow militias to form.  I don't see it that way at all.  Neither do many people.  When you starte with a completely false statement like that, your whole argument is invalid (yes, that's what you learn in a logic class).  For your most recent post, you can't hunt with an assult rifle.  So I don't know what you are talking about.

Bondo, I'm not dissing World Health Organization at all.  I'm dissing the gay ass graphs that you posted links to that have no legend, no qualifying or quantifying information, nada, zip, zero.  That doesn't tell me if it includes guns only, or not.  If it includes suicides or not.  I can keep going on what it doesn't tell.  Hell, just give me what the axis is, that would be a start.  That graph, on it's own, doesn't say much at all.  Hell, the way I read it from your post, all those countries that are RED to the LEFT of the USA don't allow guns, but have many more deaths.  Where does that fit in the argument?  I can't tell, because there's not enough information on that page (http://www.cely.com/firearms/graph10.html).

Now, the really funny thing is that I hit the link back to the article that the graph was taken from.  Did you read that Bondo?  Here's where the link was:

If one reviews homicide and suicide data, despite high levels of gun ownership and high levels of gun control, the US fares well in comparison with many countries, even those supposedly "non-violent" nations whose gun controls the US is invited to emulate, such as Japan. How do US homicide, suicide, and intentional fatality (combined homicide and suicide) rates compare with other nations? Certainly the determinants of the levels of violence in a society are many and complex. [See Graph 10: "International Homicide Rates Comparison" and Graph 11: "International Intentional Fatality Rates Comparison"]

Now, it gets really interesting when you click on that Graph 11.  Which shows the suicide vs other homicide rates, and gun control levels that I was talking about.  Isn't that interesting.  In fact that whole page is kind of interesting, showing why the Vancover / Seattle study was such BS (I love the scientific method, which some people just don't seem to get).  I especially like that comment about violent crimes going up in Vancover after the gun ban.  That was priceless.

I don't argue where the numbers came from, or how valid they are.  What I'm "dissing" here Bondo, is the way that you present them.  Get a clue.

And yes, it is grand, now that I had time to comment like it deserved.

Also, I never said that the UN's figures were invalid.  I said to put it in perspective, look at the size of the countries and the populations.  Way to actually read there Bondo.

[Bondo]

I believe your words were, "And you trust the UN..." or something of that nature and found it funny to trust the UN.

As for the graphs, graph 11 has the legend.  Also, I posted a link to the WHO site with newer numbers as well, so you can't say that the bad graph is bad support, it was one of three things I pointed out.

As for what the person writing on the site that had the link said, that was an opinion.  Sure, some countries with stricter gun control had higher homicides, but they are also shithole countries (El Salvador?)  But when it came to countries of equivelent levels of civility (North and West Europe and Japan/Australia/Canada) they all had lower rates and as far as I know every one of them has stricter gun laws.  And with the least homicides rate was England.  As bad as the graph may or may not be (I too was questioning why it didn't write that the numbers were per 100k) my point remains very strong, having the gun control clearly is one of the key reasons they have lower rates.  I see none of the evidence that led the author to claim that the US fares well in comparison to the other countries.

I saw elsewhere, after the UK gun ban, gun crime went up 40%, but contrary to what you seem to claim with the Texas case, robbery went down 20%.  And it is too short sighted to look at only the two years after the ban (which is where the 40% was) because the number of guns avaliable are still high but after time as no one will be getting guns legally to start, the guns won't be as available to get illegally.

[|MP|Buccaneer]

Sure, some countries with stricter gun control had higher homicides, but they are also shithole countries (El Salvador?)  But when it came to countries of equivelent levels of civility (North and West Europe and Japan/Australia/Canada) they all had lower rates and as far as I know every one of them has stricter gun laws.

Look at Germany and Switzerland there.

Also, tell me why all these great countries (your opinion) have higher suicide rates then the US has in both Homicide and Suicide (look at countries like Finland, Sweeden, Austria).  What is that saying about how easy it is to kill yourself without a gun (that aimed at another time, when you said guns make suicide easier).  Also, looking at it further, I find your graphs a bit suspect, since they change order from 10 to 11, and the England number goes up sharply on 11 compared to 10 (which is what you were making your point from).  There's something still not right about that.

Now, all that aside Bondo, listen to yourself, you are almost making my point.

The gun ban doesn't effect crime.  Crime and violence will still happen, with or without guns.  It's not about the guns.  Guns are a tool, and people that don't like personal responsibility have to blame something, so they usually blame the tool.  Just like all those people that bring suit because the bar should have stopped serving them, so they aren't responsible for drunk driving and killing that mother, people don't like to take responsibility.  Guns don't kill people, people kill people.  With or without guns.  America is a violent society, yes.  It would be great if it weren't, but it is.  Change the violence, don't think that taking away ONE tool will cure it.  It wont.

[EUR_Zaitsev]

Buc suicide without a gun is totally different. And I am positive the ammendment wasnt put in place so that people could shoot at others, we were still scared sick of the Breitish and were still working on a full time army. As for assulting those countries, being an American we need to shut up because gun killings are highest in the US and so what you can commit suicide without a gunthat has nothing to do with the fact that guns make the home unsafe, not only that but the community as a whole. People still legally have assult rifles, when the law was changed they were not retracted to the government.

[Bondo]

Bucc, I never said having guns raises the suicide rate, I said it makes suicide easier, which it does.  As for graph 11 being different.  If you read, graph 11 is suicide and homicide together rather than just homicide.  If you'll also notice, practically all the deaths for the countries with gun control are suicides where as for the US it is half homicides.  Also, have you looked at the other link where the data isn't contained in a graph.  That too clearly shows a difference between the homicide rates of the two countries.  Like I said earlier, whether it slows crime is not important, what is important is that less people are killed, and from the numbers, it is evident that less people are killed in these places with high gun control.