Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )



Reply to this topicStart new topicStart Poll

> Gun Control, who's for it?
Bookmark and Share
Nova Scotian 
Posted: 23-Jan-2007, 06:33 AM
Quote Post

Member is Offline



Celtic Guardian
Group Icon

Group: Scotland
Posts: 916
Joined: 09-Mar-2005
ZodiacRowan

Realm: Tampa Florida

male





QUOTE (Dogshirt @ 22-Jan-2007, 08:47 PM)
It is "hypocritical to defend ANY of the ammendments and then turn around and attack another! They ALL stand or they ALL fall! You can't pick and choose!


beer_mug.gif

My point exactly Dog. It makes me sick.


--------------------
ALL4114Christ!

343 Their blood cries out! NEVER FORGET 9/11!

The 2nd Ammendment. The original Homeland Security!

"To those who would follow laws; laws need not apply. Those who would not follow laws; laws will have no affect upon."

Plato

I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.
C. S. Lewis
PMEmail Poster                
Top
maisky 
Posted: 23-Jan-2007, 09:37 AM
Quote Post

Member is Offline



King of CelticRadio.net Jesters
Group Icon

Group: Founder
Posts: 4,631
Joined: 17-Nov-2003
ZodiacVine

Realm: Easton, PA

male





This from the conservative republicants who disdain ALL of the rest of the Bill of Rights? Rofl!

Just for the sake of clairity, I dont favor gun control. I DO favor tormenting my "right leaning" collegues. biggrin.gif


--------------------
"If you want to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first create the universe."
Carl Sagan
PMEmail PosterUsers Website               
Top
John Clements 
Posted: 23-Jan-2007, 10:36 AM
Quote Post

Member is Offline



Celtic Guardian
********

Group: Celtic Nation
Posts: 1,466
Joined: 26-Oct-2005
ZodiacElder


male





People, this horse died a long time ago. It’s simple. If one person is allowed to own a gun, then everyone is allowed, even it’s only to shoot your self with. That being said, I may just go and do that.

By the way, Costa Rica was fantastic, except for having to fend off a Great White, with only a bottle of Dewar’s. (One good shot in the nose, and he swam away smiling.)

PS. This could very well be my last post on this subject.

Thank you all,
JC



--------------------
We’re all poets, only some of us write it down. JC 9/27/08

Anyone who has the courage to disagree, deserves all do respect. JC 4/28/08

Life is a loosing battle, so you might as well live it up.
J.C. 3/29/08

Life should be like skiing, you have the most fun on the way down. J.C. 8/17/07

Take their word for it, and that’s just what you’ll get.
J.C. 3/19/07

Only the truth is worth the ultimate sacrifice.
J.C. 1/26/06

Compared to the far right, the far left is somewhere in the middle. J.C. 2/22/06

I’ll be the first to apologies, as long as I get one back.
J.C. 3/7/06

It’s a happy man, who can laugh at himself.

If you’re looking for a new experience, don’t hire someone with a lot of it. J.C. sometime in 1990
PMEmail Poster               
Top
Nova Scotian 
Posted: 23-Jan-2007, 10:46 AM
Quote Post

Member is Offline



Celtic Guardian
Group Icon

Group: Scotland
Posts: 916
Joined: 09-Mar-2005
ZodiacRowan

Realm: Tampa Florida

male





What ever maisky! Glad you had a good time in CR JC. Speaking of great whites, did you hear about the guy in Australia who was partially swallowed by a great white? I thought it was you until I saw it was in Australia. laugh.gif laugh.gif laugh.gif
PMEmail Poster                
Top
Nova Scotian 
Posted: 23-Jan-2007, 12:43 PM
Quote Post

Member is Offline



Celtic Guardian
Group Icon

Group: Scotland
Posts: 916
Joined: 09-Mar-2005
ZodiacRowan

Realm: Tampa Florida

male





Here are the 10 MYTHS of gun control. They,ve all have been spoken in here over time but here they are in a nut shell.


Ten Myths vs. Reality
Gun control is an issue surrounded by (some would say submerged in) myth and misunderstanding. We present here ten myths that are most frequently raised . . . and, from our perspective, most commonly misunderstood.

Myth No. 1: Guns cause crime. A review of the academic literature shows that there is no relationship between the number of guns and the amount of crime in the United States. Criminologists Gary Kleck and E. Britt Patterson reported in 1993 their finding that gun ownership had no significant effect on the rates of murder, assault, robbery, or rape in the U.S. Between 1973 and 1992, the rate of gun ownership in the U.S. increased by 45 percent (from 610 guns per 1,000 people to 887). The homicide rate during that period fell by nearly 10 percent (from 9.4 homicides per 100,000 people to 8.5).

Myth No. 2: Gun control laws reduce crime. Firearms have been regulated with increasing stringency in the United States for most of the past thirty years. Nevertheless, the number of firearms in private hands has increased continuously by many millions per year; handguns have become an increasing proportion of privately owned firearms; and rates of crime, violent crime, and homicide have shown no relationship to the passage or enforcement of gun laws. In their 1993 research, Kleck and Patterson analyze the impact of 19 gun control measures on six categories of violence. In ninety of the resulting 102 relationships, they found no significant correlation between gun laws and violence.

Myth No. 3: Gun control laws stop friends from killing friends. Most murderers and most victims of homicide have criminal records. They are likely to have other criminals as friends and acquaintances. So while it is true that in many cases of homicide the offender and victim are known to each other, it is not true that these "friends killing friends" are the plain ordinary folks often portrayed in anti-gun propaganda. "It is not a slander on the few truly innocent and highly sensationalized victims," writes Dr. Edgar A. Suter and his colleagues, "to note that the overwhelming predominance of homicide victims' are as predatory and socially aberrant as the perpetrators of homicide." Indeed, according to City of Chicago data, the largest and fastest-growing category of relationship between killer and victim is "non-relative, non-friend acquaintance."

Myth No. 4: Gun control laws keep criminals from obtaining guns. In surveys of prisoners, a majority report that they had owned a handgun prior to their imprisonment. But only 7 percent of criminals' handguns are obtained from legitimate retail sources. Three-fourths of felons surveyed report they would have no trouble obtaining a gun when they were released, despite legal prohibitions against firearms ownership by convicted felons.

Myth No. 5: Required waiting periods would prevent some of the most vicious crimes. The Brady waiting period law imposes waiting periods on handguns--the least-deadly type of firearm--while imposing no such restriction on much more deadly, substitutable weapons such as rifles or shotguns. While handguns are preferred by criminals because of their portability and concealability, not every criminal who planned to use a handgun will abandon his criminal plans when confronted by a waiting period. Indeed, for reasons discussed in more detail below (see "Why Waiting Periods Fail"), it is entirely possible that waiting period laws could increase the number of both killings and nondeadly woundings.

Myth No. 6: Guns don't work as self-protection against criminals. In fact, guns are about as valuable to civilians as they are to police officers, and for the same reason. According to criminologists Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz, every year adults use guns for protective purposes 2.5 million times. As many as 65 lives are protected by guns for every life lost to a gun. Each year, potential victims kill between 2,000 and 3,000 criminals; they wound an additional 9,000 to 17,000.

Moreover, mishaps are rare. Private citizens mistakenly kill innocent people only thirty times a year, compared with about 330 mistaken killings by police. Criminals succeed in taking a gun away from an armed victim less than 1 percent of the time. The real utility of defensive firearms, moreover, must surely be far greater, and would be measured not by how many people were shot or even how often a gun was fired, but rather by the deterrent effects of a civilian being armed.

Myth No. 7: Guns aren't needed as self-protection. About 83 percent of the population will be victims of violent crime at some point in their lives, and in any given year serious crime touches 25 percent of all households. The odds are not likely to improve; there is only one police officer on patrol for every 3,300 people. And the courts repeatedly have ruled that government has at most a limited duty to protect individual citizens from crime.

An illustrative case is Warren v. District of Columbia, in which three rape victims sued the city under the following facts: Two of the victims were upstairs when they heard the other being attacked by men who had broken in downstairs. From an upstairs telephone, the two roommates made several calls to the police. Half an hour passed and their roommate's screams ceased; they assumed the police must have arrived. In fact, however, their calls had been lost in the shuffle while the roommate was being beaten into silent acquiescence. When her roommates went downstairs to see to her, as the court's opinion describes it, "For the next fourteen hours the women were held captive, raped, robbed, beaten, forced to commit sexual acts upon each other, and made to submit to the sexual demands" of their attackers.

Having set out these facts, the District of Columbia's highest court nevertheless exonerated the District and its police, noting that it is

a fundamental principle of American law that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any individual citizen.
Myth No. 8: Gun control laws are especially needed to prevent the purchase of Saturday Night Specials and "assault weapons." Inexpensive handguns are involved in only 1 to 3 percent of violent crimes; criminals generally prefer larger caliber and more expensive handguns. Moreover, in the past fifty years no civilian has ever used a legally owned machine gun in a violent crime. And despite their repeated use by drug dealers on television and movies, no Uzi has ever been used to kill a police officer in the United States. Even some gun control advocates concede that so-called assault weapons play a minor role in violent crime. In 1991, 1992, and 1993 combined, there were more than 2,500 criminal homicides in the City of Chicago--only three of which were perpetrated with a true, military-style, "assault weapon."

Myth No. 9: Gun control laws are especially needed to prevent gun accidents in the home. "Gun-control advocates have sought to create the impression that firearm accidents involving children are a large and growing problem," writes the Independence Institute's David Kopel. "Many people mistakenly conclude that children die frequently in gun accidents and that sharp restrictions on gun ownership are necessary to address the problem." In fact, however, the number of gun accidents involving both children and adults has fallen dramatically.

In 1970, 2,406 Americans died from firearms accidents. By 1991, that number had fallen to 1,441--even as the number of guns increased dramatically. Between 1970 and 1991, the annual rate of fatal gun accidents was cut in half, from 1.2 to 0.6 per 100,000 Americans. The death rate from firearms accidents is lower than that from accidental drowning (1.6 per 100,000 in 1991), inhalation and ingestion of foreign objects (1.3), and complications from medical procedures (1.0).

Myth No. 10: Gun ownership is not a constitutional right. The Second Amendment reflects the founders' belief that an armed citizenry (called the general militia ) was a necessary precaution against tyranny by our own government and its army. The idea that government has a constitutional right to disarm the general citizenry is totally foreign to the intent of the Constitutional framers. Samuel Adams, for example, expressed in the Massachusetts convention his intention that "the said Constitution be never construed . . . to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms." David Kopel summarizes the legal scholarship on this issue:

In the field of legal scholarship, the primary question has been answered: the Second Amendment was plainly intended to guarantee a right of individuals to possess arms. The essential purpose of this guarantee was not to protect sporting uses of guns, but to facilitate resistance to criminal governments, which were seen as simply a larger case of resistance to individual criminals.
PMEmail Poster                
Top
stoirmeil 
Posted: 23-Jan-2007, 03:00 PM
Quote Post

Member is Offline



Celtic Guardian
********

Group: Celtic Nation
Posts: 3,581
Joined: 07-Nov-2004
ZodiacBirch

Realm: New York







QUOTE (Dogshirt @ 22-Jan-2007, 08:47 PM)
They ALL stand or they ALL fall! You can't pick and choose!


beer_mug.gif

Dogshirt, you are one of my favorite people on this site, and I hate to disagree with you. But it's just not true that one amendment is the same as any other, or if you agree with one you have to agree with all of them. And the all-or-nothing approach is dangerous.

NS, will you please stop spewing out lengthy, repetitive posts that display your general position, just as a conservation measure? tongue.gif (Or are you also going to uphold your first amendment rights while you are at it, and which I'm afraid I too have to uphold, even if it permits you to be an interminable bore?) The question was not asking for yet another dose of dogmatic canon about why guns are good and non-gun-lovers are bad -- the question was: why is it "hypocritical" for the ACLU to disagree with one amendment while upholding others? It's a misuse of the word "hypocritical."
PMEmail Poster               
Top
Nova Scotian 
Posted: 23-Jan-2007, 05:43 PM
Quote Post

Member is Offline



Celtic Guardian
Group Icon

Group: Scotland
Posts: 916
Joined: 09-Mar-2005
ZodiacRowan

Realm: Tampa Florida

male





QUOTE (stoirmeil @ 23-Jan-2007, 03:00 PM)
QUOTE (Dogshirt @ 22-Jan-2007, 08:47 PM)
They ALL stand or they ALL fall! You can't pick and choose!


beer_mug.gif

Dogshirt, you are one of my favorite people on this site, and I hate to disagree with you. But it's just not true that one amendment is the same as any other, or if you agree with one you have to agree with all of them. And the all-or-nothing approach is dangerous.

NS, will you please stop spewing out lengthy, repetitive posts that display your general position, just as a conservation measure? tongue.gif (Or are you also going to uphold your first amendment rights while you are at it, and which I'm afraid I too have to uphold, even if it permits you to be an interminable bore?) The question was not asking for yet another dose of dogmatic canon about why guns are good and non-gun-lovers are bad -- the question was: why is it "hypocritical" for the ACLU to disagree with one amendment while upholding others? It's a misuse of the word "hypocritical."

REALLY unsure.gif Storimeil! I thought this post was the discussion of gun control and who was for or against it. That is why I started it. Not how hypocritical the ACLU is. I post things on here for information only. If you don't like it? Well, no one says you have to come in and read it. As for your question. My agreement with Dog was more or less my answer. It's my opinion and the opinion of MANY others that the ACLU is hypocritical if it stands up for some rights but not all as they like to say. If it's not hypocritical then what is? Please tell us. I will continue with the long post if I want. I don't want to or wish to impress you if you think I'm a bore. You can harass me all you want if it make you feel good but it won't stop me. thumbs_up.gif
PMEmail Poster                
Top
Antwn 
Posted: 23-Jan-2007, 05:45 PM
Quote Post

Member is Offline



Celtic Guardian
********

Group: Celtic Nation
Posts: 1,409
Joined: 18-Apr-2005
ZodiacBirch

Realm: UDA ond o linach Cymry

male





Since some posts discuss what the ACLU thinks on this issue rather simplistically, I thought I might actually post their point of view:

http://www.aclu.org/police/gen/14523res20020304.html

Before a charge of hypocrisy is made, perhaps one might deign to examine their actual reasoning on the subject......




--------------------
Yr hen Gymraeg i mi,
Hon ydyw iaith teimladau,
Ac adlais i guriadau
Fy nghalon ydyw hi
--- Mynyddog
PMEmail Poster               
Top
Nova Scotian 
Posted: 23-Jan-2007, 07:09 PM
Quote Post

Member is Offline



Celtic Guardian
Group Icon

Group: Scotland
Posts: 916
Joined: 09-Mar-2005
ZodiacRowan

Realm: Tampa Florida

male





QUOTE (Antwn @ 23-Jan-2007, 05:45 PM)
Since some posts discuss what the ACLU thinks on this issue rather simplistically, I thought I might actually post their point of view:

http://www.aclu.org/police/gen/14523res20020304.html

Before a charge of hypocrisy is made, perhaps one might deign to examine their actual reasoning on the subject......

Lets look at what happened in New Orleans after hurricane Katrina. Guns were confiscated from law abiding citizens and the state as well as many others say their constitutional rights were violated. Right now the city is in a law suit as a result. Where is the ACLU for this? Oh but they'll be right on it when it comes to the 10 commandments , that have been displayed in a court house for 100 years, having to be removed. They'll go out of their way to make a political case about a high school student mentioning Jesus in a graduation speech. But when it comes to gun rights? Hummmmm. Why are so many people so afraid of guns anyway? I've read what the ACLU says about guns and it only tells me that they don't stand up for all the rights. I think they are deep in the pockets of gun grabbers. I personally think a lot of you have never been involved in a violent crime. I believe what I believe when it comes tothe facts of gun rights. I'll NEVER trust the ACLU. I thank God I live in a state that recognizes my right to arm myself to protect myself, my family and other fellow americans. Even ACLU members and anti gun folks.
PMEmail Poster                
Top
stoirmeil 
Posted: 23-Jan-2007, 11:11 PM
Quote Post

Member is Offline



Celtic Guardian
********

Group: Celtic Nation
Posts: 3,581
Joined: 07-Nov-2004
ZodiacBirch

Realm: New York







QUOTE (Nova Scotian @ 23-Jan-2007, 05:43 PM)
REALLY unsure.gif Storimeil! I thought this post was the discussion of gun control and who was for or against it.

No, that's what the whole THREAD is about, but not the post I referred to. And I am coming in and reading it because, although you started the thread, it is not yours to commandeer and mandate the direction of the discussion. Otherwise you have no for and against. You just have you talking to yourself. (Again. smile.gif )

Now -- you still haven't used "hypocritical" correctly in the context, in my opinion. You can call the ACLU or anyone else who does not share your opinion inconsistent for not taking the amendments for stone tablets that must never be shattered, as if they came down from Sinai. (I s'pose I don't need to remind you what Moses did with the first set when he saw the people misbehaving -- not a bad model for the ages.) But I don't see where that's hypocritical, if such lack of monolithic and rigid consistency as you deplore is expressed openly and aboveboard, with no intent to deceive.

And now you can also stop whinging about being harassed. I'm just a silly, unarmed little old lady -- unless the pen really is mightier than the sword, or the barbed wire fence, or the AK 47 in the hands of a child soldier. I have my doubts in my darkest hours, but I'm hoping for a resurgence of precise and intelligent use of language with the approaching American regime change, along with a few other improvements.
PMEmail Poster               
Top
maisky 
Posted: 24-Jan-2007, 07:20 AM
Quote Post

Member is Offline



King of CelticRadio.net Jesters
Group Icon

Group: Founder
Posts: 4,631
Joined: 17-Nov-2003
ZodiacVine

Realm: Easton, PA

male





QUOTE (stoirmeil @ 23-Jan-2007, 10:11 PM)
I'm hoping for a resurgence of precise and intelligent use of language with the approaching American regime change, along with a few other improvements.

Since when has precise and intelligent use of language been part of the Conservative arsenal? This is one weapon at their disposal that isn't loaded. rolleyes.gif

The ACLU doesn't NEED to help protect the right to bear arms. The Arms industry has that topic well funded.
PMEmail PosterUsers Website               
Top
Nova Scotian 
Posted: 24-Jan-2007, 09:09 AM
Quote Post

Member is Offline



Celtic Guardian
Group Icon

Group: Scotland
Posts: 916
Joined: 09-Mar-2005
ZodiacRowan

Realm: Tampa Florida

male





QUOTE (stoirmeil @ 23-Jan-2007, 11:11 PM)
No, that's what the whole THREAD is about, but not the post I referred to. And I am coming in and reading it because, although you started the thread, it is not yours to commandeer and mandate the direction of the discussion. Otherwise you have no for and against. You just have you talking to yourself. (Again. smile.gif )

Now -- you still haven't used "hypocritical" correctly in the context, in my opinion. You can call the ACLU or anyone else who does not share your opinion inconsistent for not taking the amendments for stone tablets that must never be shattered, as if they came down from Sinai. (I s'pose I don't need to remind you what Moses did with the first set when he saw the people misbehaving -- not a bad model for the ages.) But I don't see where that's hypocritical, if such lack of monolithic and rigid consistency as you deplore is expressed openly and aboveboard, with no intent to deceive.

you still haven't used "hypocritic, in my opinion. . al" correctly in the contextI'm just a silly, unarmed little old lady -- unless the pen really is mightier than the sword, or the barbed wire fence, or the AK 47 in the hands of a child soldier. I have my doubts in my darkest hours, but I'm hoping for a resurgence of precise and intelligent use of language with the approaching American regime change, along with a few other improvements.

You just have you talking to yourself. (Again. smile.gif )
Well, just because people don't reply doesnt mean they arn't reading what I post.

it is not yours to commandeer

I could close it. Not that it would matter to you or anyone else.

you still haven't used "hypocritical" correctly in the context, in my opinion.

If it's not hypocritical then what is it? You still havn't answered that.

I'm just a silly, unarmed little old lady --


Old? How old are you? Early 50s? THAT is NOT old. Give your self a little more credit tongue.gif
PMEmail Poster                
Top
Ignaty 
Posted: 24-Jan-2007, 09:31 AM
Quote Post

Member is Offline



Peasant
*

Group: Celtic Nation
Posts: 5
Joined: 03-Mar-2005
ZodiacVine


male





True Gun Control = teach your 7 year old gun safety and regularly take your child to the range to target practice. Give your child a full understanding of the destructive nature of any weapon and never, under any circumstances, allow “normal” television in your home. “Normal” television teaches irresponsibility and decreases the ability of a child to succeed.
Don’t tell me it does not work. I have an 11 year old and a 17 year old, both sons; neither miss television; both know gun safety.
PMEmail PosterUsers Website               
Top
stoirmeil 
Posted: 24-Jan-2007, 11:07 AM
Quote Post

Member is Offline



Celtic Guardian
********

Group: Celtic Nation
Posts: 3,581
Joined: 07-Nov-2004
ZodiacBirch

Realm: New York







QUOTE (Nova Scotian @ 24-Jan-2007, 09:09 AM)

it is not yours to commandeer

I could close it. Not that it would matter to you or anyone else.

you still haven't used "hypocritical" correctly in the context, in my opinion.

If it's not hypocritical then what is it? You still havn't answered that.


No, you can't close it. We went through this recently with a thread initiator who decided to close her thread when it apparently went in a direction she did not contemplate, but there was too much thoughtful input from too many other people involved, so it was reinstated. And this one is far bigger.

I DID suggest a word you could use, if you wanted to: "inconsistent". Personally, I would say that examining a single amendment apart from the others to see if it remains current and relevant, and criticizing it if it is not, is prudent, and on the other hand the word for someone who wants to go all or nothing is "inflexible", maybe even "threatened" or "defensive". The amendments were adjustments to a Constitution that was already showing signs of needing tweaking to fully cover cases and keep up with the times. Why should an amendment be any more unassailable than the original document?

I give myself all the credit that is due me, young man -- no more, but not one drop less. flex.gif
PMEmail Poster               
Top
John Clements 
Posted: 24-Jan-2007, 11:35 AM
Quote Post

Member is Offline



Celtic Guardian
********

Group: Celtic Nation
Posts: 1,466
Joined: 26-Oct-2005
ZodiacElder


male





I give myself all the credit that is due me, young man -- no more, but not one drop less. flex.gif[/QUOTE]
Very nice…
PMEmail Poster               
Top
0 User(s) are reading this topic (0 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

Reply to this topicStart new topicStart Poll

 








Celtic RadioTM broadcasts through Live365.com and StreamLicensing.com which are officially licensed under SoundExchange, ASCAP, BMI, SESAC and SOCAN.
©2014 Celtic Radio Network, Highlander Radio, Celtic Moon, Celtic Dance, Ye O' Celtic Pub and Celt-Rock-Radio.
All rights and trademarks reserved. Read our Privacy Policy.
Celtic Graphics ©2014, Cari Buziak


Link to CelticRadio.net!
Link to CelticRadio.net
View Broadcast Status and Statistics!

Best Viewed With IE 8.0 (1680 x 1050 Resolution), Javascript & Cookies Enabled.


[Home] [Top]

Celtic Hearts Gallery | Celtic Mates Dating | My Celtic Friends | Celtic Music Radio | Family Heraldry | Medival Kingdom | Top Celtic Sites | Web Celt Blog | Video Celt