Ten Paces then DRAW!

Hard-Luck Henry

Council Member
Feb 19, 2005
2,194
0
36
Re: RE: Ten Paces then DRAW!

Nascar_James said:
Reverend Blair said:
Sounds like crap to me, James. Either guns make things safer or they make them more dangerous.

... that's why in places with a high percentage of "legal" gun owners, crime rates are low.

Sounds like crap to me, James. The U.S.A. has a high percentage of "legal" gun owners, but crime rates are not "low".
 

Jay

Executive Branch Member
Jan 7, 2005
8,366
3
38
Re: RE: Ten Paces then DRAW!

Nascar_James said:
Reverend Blair said:
Are you intimating that law abiding citizens wouldn't protect George Bush if somebody was trying kill him? I know the man's not popular, but surely somebody would try to save him.

That's silly. The risk factor of a hired killer would be too great to allow anyone with guns in the white house (except Secret Service and/or the military/police).

Don't worry Nascar, he isn't being serious. He just likes the sound of the idea.
 

Colpy

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 5, 2005
21,887
848
113
70
Saint John, N.B.
Hey Nascar

Google "Morton Grove Gun Ban" See what comes up. I just did it. This happened in 1981.

I would publish a link, but I am TOTALLY computer illiterate. I just learned to cut and paste, I have yet to figure out how you guys do the quotes in boxes, and I'm getting my daughter to post a picture of me as my icon.

Guess I belong in the 19th century in more ways than one. :)
 

Hard-Luck Henry

Council Member
Feb 19, 2005
2,194
0
36
Re: RE: Ten Paces then DRAW!

Colpy said:
Hey Nascar

Google "Morton Grove Gun Ban" See what comes up. I just did it. This happened in 1981.

I would publish a link, but I am TOTALLY computer illiterate. I just learned to cut and paste, I have yet to figure out how you guys do the quotes in boxes, and I'm getting my daughter to post a picture of me as my icon.

Guess I belong in the 19th century in more ways than one. :)

Well, gee, thanks colpy; I did just that, and here's what came up:

"Data from a US mortality follow-back survey were analyzed to determine whether having a firearm in the home increases the risk of a violent death in the home and whether risk varies by storage practice, type of gun, or number of guns in the home. Those persons with guns in the home were at greater risk than those without guns in the home of dying from a homicide in the home (adjusted odds ratio = 1.9, 95% confidence interval: 1.1, 3.4). They were also at greater risk of dying from a firearm homicide, but risk varied by age and whether the person was living with others at the time of death. The risk of dying from a suicide in the home was greater for males in homes with guns than for males without guns in the home (adjusted odds ratio = 10.4, 95% confidence interval: 5.8, 18.9). Persons with guns in the home were also more likely to have died from suicide committed with a firearm than from one committed by using a different method (adjusted odds ratio = 31.1, 95% confidence interval: 19.5, 49.6). Results show that regardless of storage practice, type of gun, or number of firearms in the home, having a gun in the home was associated with an increased risk of firearm homicide and firearm suicide in the home."


http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/160/10/929
 

Nascar_James

Council Member
Jun 6, 2005
1,640
0
36
Oklahoma, USA
Re: RE: Ten Paces then DRAW!

Hard-Luck Henry said:
Nascar_James said:
Reverend Blair said:
Sounds like crap to me, James. Either guns make things safer or they make them more dangerous.

... that's why in places with a high percentage of "legal" gun owners, crime rates are low.

Sounds like crap to me, James. The U.S.A. has a high percentage of "legal" gun owners, but crime rates are not "low".

The USA also has many convicted felons who by law are prohibited from owning guns and yet still do.

My post above was meant in the context of individual cities. In places like LA or Chicago, you will not have a high enough ratio of legal gun owners vs illegal gun owners, thus the high crimes. In a city like Kennesaw where 100% of households own guns, the crime rate is virtually non-existant.

In summing up, the point I'm trying to get across is ... for each city, the level of crime is directly proprotional to the ratio of illegal gun owners versus legal gun owners. If the legal gun owners vastly outnumber the criminals with guns, crime will be low. If the criminals outnumber the legal gun owners, crime will be higher.
 

Nascar_James

Council Member
Jun 6, 2005
1,640
0
36
Oklahoma, USA
Re: RE: Ten Paces then DRAW!

Colpy said:
Hey Nascar

Google "Morton Grove Gun Ban" See what comes up. I just did it. This happened in 1981.

I would publish a link, but I am TOTALLY computer illiterate. I just learned to cut and paste, I have yet to figure out how you guys do the quotes in boxes, and I'm getting my daughter to post a picture of me as my icon.

Guess I belong in the 19th century in more ways than one. :)

Looks like the gun ban in Morton Grove isn't really a ban, Colpy. It's more a symbolic statement than aynthing else ...read on ...

http://publicrights.org/Kennesaw/NewsMax2001.html


United Press International:

Here is a tale of two cities: one that banned handguns and one that required guns. Guess which town enjoyed a plunge in crime.

In June 1981, Morton Grove, Ill., a northern suburb of Chicago, passed an ordinance banning handguns. In reaction, Kennesaw, Ga., a northern suburb of Atlanta, passed an ordinance requiring heads of households "to maintain a firearm" and ammunition "to provide for the civil defense" and "protect the general welfare of the City and its inhabitants."

"Some people seem to think our residents are not armed," Morton Grove Police Chief George Incledon, told United Press International on Tuesday. The chief pointed out that the law did not prohibit ownership of shotguns or rifles, and that gun collectors were exempt.

Many citizens prefer shotguns to handguns for home defense. Incledon did not define "gun collector." Morton Grove residents could store their handguns outside the village limits or at a licensed gun club.

Moreover, Incledon recalled, out of a population of 25,000, only "a few people, maybe 10," surrendered handguns to police in the months after the law went into effect.

Similarly, Kennesaw's law provides so many loopholes that, in effect, no one is compelled to obey it. Convicted felons are, of course, excluded. Also exempt are those "who suffer a physical disability [undefined] which would prohibit them from using such a firearm" and those who "conscientiously oppose firearms as a result of religious doctrine or belief [also undefined]." Inhabitants may claim exemptions for moral or financial reasons, said Detective Cpl. Craig Graydon, a Kennesaw Police Department spokesman, in a phone interview Tuesday.

According to a National Rifle Association document, the law was not expected to increase gun ownership. "It was expected that publicity surrounding the ordinance would warn criminals that residents were capable of protecting themselves and their community and would do so with the government's blessing," the document said.

The results?

Not much of anything in Morton Grove. "We were fortunate to have a low rate of violent crime before the ordinance was passed, and we are fortunate now that the rate is still low," Incledon told UPI.

back to top

But Kennesaw's crime rate plummeted. In fact, the number of some crimes declined amid soaring population growth. For example, in figures the city provided to the FBI Uniform Crime Report, Kennesaw had 54 burglaries in 1981 – the year before the gun ordinance – with a population of 5,242. In 1999, with a population of 19,000, only 36 burglaries were reported.

The rate of violent crime is approximately four times lower than the state and national rates, Kennesaw's Crime Statistics Report said. "Violent crime is almost nonexistent in residential neighborhoods," Graydon told UPI. The detective, who has been with the police department since 1986, said the isolated exceptions take place in motels or in commercial areas.

Graydon said he has lived in the area since 1979 and has heard no open opposition to the gun law. This remains the case even though most of Kennesaw's newcomers are from northern states.

Asked whether the ordinance has attracted new people to Kennesaw, Graydon said: "Not specifically the law itself, but quite a few people cite the low crime rate, which a lot of people do attribute, at least in part, to the gun law."

The detective said Kennesaw used state criteria for carrying a concealed handgun. "It's not that difficult" to get the license, he said. Unlike some other jurisdictions, Georgia does not require permit holders to submit the serial numbers of their handguns to the police. "We don't register firearms down here," Graydon said.
 

Colpy

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 5, 2005
21,887
848
113
70
Saint John, N.B.
Hey Nascar.

This is great stuff.

You must be condemned for disturbing the anti-gunners though.

They've already made up their minds. Why would you confuse them with the facts? :)
 

Nascar_James

Council Member
Jun 6, 2005
1,640
0
36
Oklahoma, USA
Unfortunately, the anti-gun lobby will ignore the facts, Colpy. They don't care about our US constitution, nor do they care about our individual freedoms, one of which is to own guns.

Luckily the NRA here is doing a great job of keeping the gun control lobby under control. It also helps that the Republicans are in power.
 

Reverend Blair

Council Member
Apr 3, 2004
1,238
1
38
Winnipeg
How come the gun nuts never responded to this:
"Data from a US mortality follow-back survey were analyzed to determine whether having a firearm in the home increases the risk of a violent death in the home and whether risk varies by storage practice, type of gun, or number of guns in the home. Those persons with guns in the home were at greater risk than those without guns in the home of dying from a homicide in the home (adjusted odds ratio = 1.9, 95% confidence interval: 1.1, 3.4). They were also at greater risk of dying from a firearm homicide, but risk varied by age and whether the person was living with others at the time of death. The risk of dying from a suicide in the home was greater for males in homes with guns than for males without guns in the home (adjusted odds ratio = 10.4, 95% confidence interval: 5.8, 18.9). Persons with guns in the home were also more likely to have died from suicide committed with a firearm than from one committed by using a different method (adjusted odds ratio = 31.1, 95% confidence interval: 19.5, 49.6). Results show that regardless of storage practice, type of gun, or number of firearms in the home, having a gun in the home was associated with an increased risk of firearm homicide and firearm suicide in the home."

Your risk of a firearm homocide goes up when there's a gun in the house. Doesn't sound like it makes you safer to me.
 

Jay

Executive Branch Member
Jan 7, 2005
8,366
3
38
Probably because it isn't the issue. The take away your rights nuts want it to be...but it isn't.

You know I bet if we tied everyone’s hands behind their backs, there wouldn't be a homicide rate at all. So why don't the take away your rights nuts talk about that?
 

Hard-Luck Henry

Council Member
Feb 19, 2005
2,194
0
36
The gun nuts seem to think their right to shoot stuff is more important than other peoples' right to remain breathing.
 

peapod

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 26, 2004
10,745
0
36
pumpkin pie bungalow
Jay,
As far as I can see, the rev's post was polite, articulate, and logical. Is there some reason why you have to answer his post with childish name calling. ie..take away your right nuts! Grow up or go play on the childern's site.
 

Jay

Executive Branch Member
Jan 7, 2005
8,366
3
38
peapod said:
Jay,
As far as I can see, the rev's post was polite, articulate, and logical. Is there some reason why you have to answer his post with childish name calling. ie..take away your right nuts! Grow up or go play on the childern's site.


Reverend Blair said:
How come the gun nuts never responded to this:

Jay said:
Probably because it isn't the issue. The take away your rights nuts want it to be...but it isn't.

Hard-Luck Henry said:
The gun nuts seem to think their right to shoot stuff is more important than other peoples' right to remain breathing.
 

Cosmo

House Member
Jul 10, 2004
3,725
22
38
Victoria, BC
Hard-Luck Henry said:
The gun nuts seem to think their right to shoot stuff is more important than other peoples' right to remain breathing.

Ummm ... :oops: ... I'm one of those "gun nuts", BigH. I promise you, though, I have never shot another person. In fact the biggest mammal I've ever shot was a gopher (with a Sten gun, btw ... was pretty cool).

I just hate the government having the right to come into my home at any time. I have no weapons in my home at this time, but because of what I write on line, they would have every right to come in and search the place. Just seems wrong that they can do that because of my opinions. History bears out the abuse of that kind of power.

I don't think we're asking for the right to shoot people, but the right to bear arms. Believe me, if I lived in New Orleans I'd feel much safer with a rifle than a promise from the government to protect me. Should there be a natural disaster, I want to be able to look after me and mine. Unless the government can promise me that, they ought to leave me alone.

I think if we're going to debate possessing things that harm others, we have to look at autos. Check the stats ... way more people killed in cars than by guns! ;)
 

Reverend Blair

Council Member
Apr 3, 2004
1,238
1
38
Winnipeg
Probably because it isn't the issue. The take away your rights nuts want it to be...but it isn't.

Nobody is taking away your rights, Jay. The Second Amendment to the US Constitution does not apply in Canada...not in the spirit it was written and certainly not in the bastardised version that the NRA and survivalists push.

What you are suggesting is that you have a right to infringe on our right to safety because the country next to us has a certain culture of accepting gun violence. You have no such right in Canada and if you feel you deserve it, then you know where the border is.
 

Jay

Executive Branch Member
Jan 7, 2005
8,366
3
38
I don't agree with you about having no rights on the subject.

If we don’t voice our concerns and make a point of doing so, the rights will vanish.
 

Hard-Luck Henry

Council Member
Feb 19, 2005
2,194
0
36
Chill guys; "nut" simply refers to an enthusiast, a buff, one who is ardently absorbed in an interest or pursuit - calling me such is no skin off my nose. I'm not a take your rights away nut, though, in fact I'm just the opposite, but some long entrenched rights are damaging to society and should be modified to reflect changing conditions. The right to bear arms is one of them - the devastation caused by guns outweighs their utility, in my view.

Of course not everyone wants to shoot people, but clearly they get used for that all too often. Gun laws are much tighter over here and, going by what people here say, I feel a hell of a lot safer for that. I think the argument that owning a gun makes you feel safer is something of a non sequitur.
 

Cosmo

House Member
Jul 10, 2004
3,725
22
38
Victoria, BC
Hard-Luck Henry said:
I think the argument that owning a gun makes you feel safer is something of a non sequitur.

Perhaps, BigH, but it's true for me. Guns were always a part of my life growing up. We relied on them to protect our animals from predators, to hunt for meat, as a kind of "rite of passage" in our family. Learning to shoot was a big deal. When you are exposed to that philosophy your entire childhood, it does leave an impression and I think that is a valid consideration when discussing the laws. How many coyotes or badgers did your family have to shoot to protect your dogs and chickens while you grew up, BigH? In England I doubt it was many so you and I share a diverse history on the subject. Doesn't make either of us wrong, but it does make for differing view points. :)