Do guns protect you, or simply cause violence? (Page 7)
ghostgeek: Interesting. If laws banning drugs and rape don't work, as is claimed above, shouldn't America repeal them? It would clearly be a popular move in certain quarters, so why isn't it being advocated? Why can't America live with drugged up rapists if it is perfectly happy with a hail of lead coming its way?
LiptonCambell: You ignored my arguments;
If your law is not 100% effective(which no law is), are you not simply forcing people to become victims to those who disregard the law? What proof do you have that your law would prevent dangerous people from gaining access to firearms at all? And is it ethical to endanger other people and force them to become victims because your hangups about firearms, and feel others shouldn't even be given a choice for self-defense?
Lets review the situation with Suzanna Hupp - she later in life became a right to carry advocate and politician in the house of representatives- but what drove her there is what is most interesting; She was a survivor of Luby's Shooting- where a madman ran his car into the restaurant, and began murdering people one at a time. She was there, with her parents, and managed to escape- but by this point her father attempted to stop the man, was gunned down, and her mother stayed behind to cradle her husband. The man walked up to her and shot her in the face.
It was the deadliest mass shooting in America to no take place in a school, over a period of 12 minutes.
And the biggest tragedy, and what drove her to become a politician and right to carry advocate, is the fact that she was armed- but days before, a law was passed requiring her to keep her gun in her car. Lets cut the bullshit- her government betrayed her that day, disarmed her when she needed it the most, and ended up costing the lives of the people closest to her.
This is what you are advocating for. People willing and capable of defending themselves, being cut down as a dangerous person- someone who was not deterred by laws against murder, restricting assault, but you insist somehow will be deterred by laws making weapons illegal.
ghostgeek: Lipton, may I suggest you come over to the UK where gun crime is rare. Strange as it may sound to you, people here do not get shot in their beds by strangers. A notable feature of this country, of course, is that gun ownership is tightly controlled. Now I do not know the situation where you live, but it seems in general that the US is much laxer about gun ownership than in Britain, and there is much more gun crime. Could there be a link there? It seems a definite possibility to me.
I am getting a definite feeling that gun ownership is less about self protection and more about machismo. A virility symbol for the urban male of America.
lori100: many of the shootings are created by the govt........wantoknow----A CIA document dated 10 Feb 1954  describes an experiment on the creation of unsuspecting assassins: "Miss [deleted] was then instructed (having expressed a fear of firearms) that she would use every method at her disposal to awaken Miss [deleted] (now in a deep hypnotic sleep) and failing this, she would pick up a pistol and fire it at Miss [deleted]. She was instructed that she would not hesitate to "kill." Miss [deleted] carried out these suggestions including firing the (unloaded) gun at [deleted]. After proper suggestions were made, both were awakened. Miss [deleted] expressed absolute denial that the foregoing sequence had happened." BB 36, 37
-------------------many of the mass shooters in recent yrs were baffled by their arrest and asked why they were arrested having no memory of the shooting...
LiptonCambell: >>>Lipton, may I suggest you come over to the UK where gun crime is rare.
Which is a historical fact. As in, gun crime was rare even before the landmark laws you're suggesting 'solved' the problem.
In short, you had low gun crime prior to the 1997 Firearms Act, and following the ban, you continued to have low crime. The law did not 'solve' anything, because things continued unabated.
If you like, I can sell you a rock that keeps tigers out of your backyard. I got one myself, and as you can see for yourself, I have no tigers in my backyard, so clearly it must be working.
>>>but it seems in general that the US is much laxer about gun ownership than in Britain, and there is much more gun crime.
Ah, lets review some charts on violence and gun crimes, and how they related to specific laws;
Look at that- increased homicides following increased legislation!
Want something closer to home? How about UK?
Look at that- a sharp increase shortly after the ban! And ever after the increase has subsided, UK has yet to return to pre-ban levels.
You want to paint a different picture than what actually exists. You want to act like the gun ban of 1997 has led to less homicides- but the fact remains that there has not been a year with less homicide since, well, since guns were legal.
Thats right- of the last 25 years, the safest years were years where guns were legal......
>>>I am getting a definite feeling that gun ownership is less about self protection and more about machismo. A virility symbol for the urban male of America.
Ironic, given how far off you are on the facts. Something tells me you're going to take these corrections as a shot against your manhood, and will refuse to acknowledge their accuracy....
(Edited by LiptonCambell)
Wild__: @ ghostgeek... I've read from multiple that sources that it is illegal for a woman to defend herself against a rapist with anything more that a "rape-whistle." Is that true? I mean I don't believe everything I read so I just want to know if you have further knowledge of what a woman in the UK can do to protect herself from rape.
SoulVIBE: you see brother ghostgeek, its not the laws that need to change...its the consciousness of human beings that needs to change...our awareness level is at an all time low, proof exists in the fact many people form their opinions based on the opinions of others (often presented as fact)...not the facts, not the truth...but i can not sit here and blame the media for the skewed perception we human beings commonly develop, because it always comes down to the individual choosing to know the truth...or choosing to believe lies...because, if you choose to believe all that you are told (from your preferred media outlet), without questioning/researching anything for yourself you will never have your own opinion, and you can also lose your true identity in the process...i think we have all seen evidence of this...but if you are looking for a place to point the finger for the reason violence is so prevalent here, point it where it belongs...what Eisenhower warned us about in his final message as president, it is what sets the tone...it is the example shown...im not a fan of violence but i recognize that it can save lives...and i also realize that there are many in this world who could not defend themselves from an intruder/attacker by any other means than a gun..."learn the truth and let that be all that you speak"
Geoff: @Wild - In the UK it is perfectly within the law for an individual to defend themselves with all reasonable methods - which in extremis would include killing someone - to protect yourself.
So, no - a rape whistle isn't the limit of what a woman can use to defend herself.
ghostgeek: An interesting little graph you have there Lipton, the one referring to the American homicide rate over time. I must admit it has, to a degree, baffled me though. After the "Wild West" period it shows a sudden surge in the homicide rate at the beginning of the twentieth century. This, helpfully, is labelled as when union-led gun control laws were enacted. The trouble is, this makes no sense to me, seeing that the Dick Act of 1902, also known as the Efficiency of Militia Bill H.R. 11654, of June 28, 1902, invalidated all so-called gun-control laws. Rather, it seems that the "Wild West" period was a time of gun control. You see, after the Civil War, gun laws were enacted in many Southern states to essentially prevented newly freed slaves from possessing firearms. This included prohibiting cheaper firearms, and allowing only certain firearms to be possessed, in order to indirectly keep firearms out of the hands of blacks. Now, according to your graph, when these laws were repealed the homicide rate shot up. So Lipton, could you be a darling and explain what I'm missing.
ghostgeek: I have only to read the posts of Lori to understand why Americans own something like 290 million guns. The reason is simple; paranoia.
ghostgeek: Sorry Lori but I have trouble accepting that information on the clandestine activities of your government is widely available for all to see.
Geoff: **Facepalms so hard he inadvertently de-brainwashes himself and also knocks loose the alien implant**
ghostgeek: Here's something I'd like to post:
"In 1991 there were 208 rapes in Tokyo, a city of nearly 12 million people. This is due largely to the high level of policing. Crime is on the increase, but for the time being, women can still enjoy wonderful freedom. Lesley Downer"
[ http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/women-in-search-of-safety-how-far-can-a-woman-go-to-protect-herself-fiammetta-rocco-investigates-the-legal--and-not-so-legal--options-1539293.html ]
Police on the streets. Could it be the answer to crime?
lori100: That explains so much about Geoff......but mind control is real...the movie The Manchurian Candidate was based on the actual CIA program.....---wiki-----Project MKUltra—sometimes referred to as the CIA's mind control program—was the code name given to an illegal program of experiments on human subjects, designed and undertaken by the United States Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). Experiments on humans were intended to identify and develop drugs and procedures to be used in interrogations and torture, in order to weaken the individual to force confessions through mind control. Organized through the Scientific Intelligence Division of the CIA, the project coordinated with the Special Operations Division of the U.S. Army's Chemical Corps.[1 ------------------
ghostgeek: For once Lori might be on to something. There was a United States Senate hearing on this in 1977, and the committee's findings were for sale. They can be found here:
lori100: Mind control has been posted on my CIA and conspiracy threads....thought you guys were paying attention...
lori100: : The Mind Control agenda--------------- “We need a program of psychosurgery for political control of our society. The purpose is physical control of the mind. Everyone who deviates from the given norm can be surgically mutilated. The individual may think that the most important reality is his own existence, but this is only his personal point of view. . . Man does not have the right to develop his own mind. . . . We must electronically control the brain. Someday armies and generals will be controlled by electronic stimulation of the brain.”
Dr. Jose M.R. Delgado, Director of Neuropsychiatry, Yale University Medical School, Congressional Record, No. 26, Vol. 118, February 24, 1974.
SoulVIBE: Minds are openly controlled through various/all media outlets...the fact it is done in private should come as no shock to any aware individual...and politics has now surpassed religion as the biggest tool of separation...keeping us divided and arguing among ourselves...over things that really do not matter/are not important...at all...only YOU can open your eyes, only YOU can keep them shut...time to wake up people, the dream is almost over...
LiptonCambell: That been said, I've looked around for an answer to your inquiry, and got none. The stats do seem to be accurate, but the relation of the dick act to the point relayed to 'Union-led gun controls enacted' seems to be lost...
Am I to assume that you plan on rejecting 130 years worth of data of one country because of this, as well as 20 years of data on the UK? Or do you plan to address the huge glaring issues that seem to appear with the relation of gun control and related violence in society?
Oh, and in the effort of looking for an answer to your question, I found another chart that proves my point, this time in relation to California over a 40 year period
ghostgeek: OK Lipton, let's clear one thing up. There has been no effective gun control in the US. The country has something like 290 million guns. That means its citizens, 5 per cent of the world's population, own as many as half of its privately held guns. All gun control laws have done is tinker around the edges of the problem. Basically they are political expedients, brought in when some outrage has shocked the nation. Real gun control would involve reducing the number of guns in circulation, not just making it a little harder to get hold of them. A reduction to, say, ten million would be a meaningful start. Plenty enough for an urban society like America.
ghostgeek: Now let's turn to sunny California, where the skys are blue. It seems that the per-capita homicide rate in 2013 (4.6 slayings per 100,000 population) was the lowest since 1964. I'm sure most people are glad to hear that, even if nobody can really say why. The bad news is that in 72 percent of the cases where a weapon was identified, that weapon was a gun.
Right, let's move on to the motive for those killings. Unsurprisingly, motives vary. 33 percent of killings stemmed from gang warfare; 30 percent from an argument; 9 percent from domestic violence; and 7 percent from robberies. Such figures suggest that the good upright citizens of California are much more likely to kill each other during an argument than suffer an untimely death at the hands of some low life. And when they do kill each other, they overwhelmingly use a gun.
ghostgeek: One further point about California is this, private citizens killed 33 people in cases ruled to be “justified” in 2013. That means a private citizen had next to no need for a gun.
Geoff: The bare facts of the matter is that US citizens are more likely to be killed by a legally owned gun than an illegal one.
Gun crime (house breaking and gang crime) is mostly down to poverty. Typically (at least, how it appears from the outside) the same US citizens opposed to any form of gun control are the same ones who oppose any form of sensible government policy that might alleviate poverty.