Gun Control

[Janus1]

Falk, a .22 will kill a man just as much as any other gun will. the difference again, being the stopping power. id like to see you in a situation threatened by a gun, and think “gee, its only a .22, what am i afraid of?” 1) most people would not concieve that it is only a .22, or even that a .22 is a weaker caliber
2) even if they did, i would bet most people would still be afraid of the man with the gun.

[Guerrilla Guy]

alright chaps… look at this hot off the press…

http://story.news.yahoo.com/fc?cid=34&tmpl=fc∈=US&cat=Gun_Control_Debate

GG

[Guest]

From the above mentioned article:
"The CDC said the report suggests more study is needed, not that gun laws don’t work. But the agency said it has no plans to spend more money on firearms study.

… In fact, since a 1996 fight in Congress, the CDC has been prohibited from using funds to press for gun control laws. "

[sherman28]

Why would the Center for Disease Control need to study firearms?

Gee I wonder why their funding got cut off!

[cystic crypt]

@sherman28:

Why would the Center for Disease Control need to study firearms?

Gee I wonder why their funding got cut off!

I don’t think it’s at all inappropriate.
We (the medical/scientific community) study diseases in other contexts. Viruses, smoking, cancer, heart disease (as well as ITS antecedents - blood pressure, cholesterol, genetics, DM, homocysteine, etc.) as well as millions of other “determinants of health” and reasons for people to show up in the hospital. Why not study firearms? A gunshot to the abdomen requires an emergency laparotomy. If it doesn’t kill someone, it requires that the patient be in hospital for a minimum of 3 days. Why NOT study the proliferation of firearms, within the context of gun control legislation? Why look at seatbelts in car accidents, the effects of smoking and legislation that way, child health in the context of child abuse, etc.?
If we study these things in the context of health, why not gun control? Unless, of course, there is political pressure driving by powerful pro-killing-devices to NOT study the ramifications on public health by these devices. I mean, of everything in the environment, few things are as effective at determining someone’s health than a gunshot.
The CDC is not just about Lhassa feber, Ebola, HIV, but it is about health and disease control. We need these things looked at. It falls under epidemiology, and pressure to ignore findings concerning the health of a population, pressure to terminate funding based on these findings should be considered by anyone concerned with acheiving health of a population, as being very worrisome.

[cystic crypt]

@sherman28:

F alk and Crypt:

Crypt I find that story about your couisin extremely interesting.
Would you mind (if it isn’t too personal) posting more about it?
Maybe send a private message? I DESPISE intolerance such
as that you are describing and am very interested in what you
can relate -again only if you are comfortable describing the situation.

i’m not ignoring you. I’m awaiting the word on the results of his appeal. (the ironic thing is that he is possibly the most intelligent person i know - he’s 6 years younger than me - as well a very compassionate person with a passion for medicine)

[sherman28]

Ok CC- When you are ready to, thant’s cool-

And yes my feelings were getting hurt! (just kidding! )

Still disagree with you on the CDC- but I see where you are coming from.

[Darrigaaz]

I’m still i high school student, so I wont pretend to be the smartest person in the world. Hunting is big in my family, and it always will be. Stricter gun control will make life harder fo the average joe who doesn’t plan on knocking over a seven eleven. While i agree that Ownership of things like an AK-47 or a Thompson’s sub machine gun SHOULD be more carefully watched. Even semi-auto sidearms need to be more carefully monitored.
However, this will be like the prohibition: people WILL find a way. As an American, i know from experience that we are a hard bunch to lick (i hate that expression). They’re trying to control drugs, arent they? not going to well, if i say so myself.

[Guerrilla Guy]

@Darrigaaz:

I’m still i high school student, so I wont pretend to be the smartest person in the world. Hunting is big in my family, and it always will be. Stricter gun control will make life harder fo the average joe who doesn’t plan on knocking over a seven eleven. While i agree that Ownership of things like an AK-47 or a Thompson’s sub machine gun SHOULD be more carefully watched. Even semi-auto sidearms need to be more carefully monitored.
However, this will be like the prohibition: people WILL find a way. As an American, i know from experience that we are a hard bunch to lick (i hate that expression). They’re trying to control drugs, arent they? not going to well, if i say so myself.

Dargaaz, a Shotgun is potentially more dangerous then a Thompson…

[Darrigaaz]

POTENTIALLY

in the hands hands of a skilled shot a .308 hunting rifle can be very dangerous, but a shotgun- like the hunting rufle- has practical purposes…

[Janus1]

personally, id be more afraid of a lunatic with a thompson than a shotgun. chances are said lunatic would be in a public place, and while the shotgun would could potentially do more damage to each individual target, hes probably more dangerous with a thompson sub-machine gun, since he can lay down a lot more fire a lot faster than with a shotgun.

[Guest]

@Darrigaaz:

…However, this will be like the prohibition: people WILL find a way. As an American, i know from experience that we are a hard bunch to lick (i hate that expression). They’re trying to control drugs, arent they? not going to well, if i say so myself.

I think this argument is flawed.
Drugs harm yourself, weapons harm others. Still you propose to keep weapons free, and pull the “failed” “drug control” as a reason for that. Wouldn’t that imply that you support free drugs for everyone then as well?
For me, it does, even though you probably don’t want that.

[Darrigaaz]

not at all, and i dont see where your aguements coming from.

what i said is just because gun control laws become stricter doesnt mean that they will stay out of the hands of the bad guys. Just like drugs are supposedly a controlled substance, yet we have dozens of durggies in my school alone.

understand me now?

[cystic crypt]

@Darrigaaz:

not at all, and i dont see where your aguements coming from.

what i said is just because gun control laws become stricter doesnt mean that they will stay out of the hands of the bad guys. Just like drugs are supposedly a controlled substance, yet we have dozens of durggies in my school alone.

understand me now?

but perhaps fewer bad guys will have access to guns. As will fewer careless people who leave them around for children to kill themselves and each other with. And fewer people who tend to be quite careful but tend to get robbed . . . .
The drug argument is flawed - and not for just the reason that F_alk stated. True, people will find ways to smuggle drugs into the country, and into the hands of users. Drugs are not guns tho’. Control for the 2 work differently.

[Guest]

@Darrigaaz:

not at all, and i dont see where your aguements coming from….
understand me now?

I understand you, i think. And if i understand you correctly, then just do the follwoing.
Why gun control if even drug control doesn’t work … (that is your argument)
Now think one step ahead…

if drug control doesn’t work, why waste ressources on that???
that would follow that argument, and is the reason why i called it flawed.

[Guerrilla Guy]

actually I would rather have a guy with a tommy the A Shotgun… a shot gun does nt have to be aimed to kill it’s victim(s)… more likely with an “s” on the end of that word… a thompson must be aimed… I’ve held a tomy and it is more bulky and harder to aim with then a shot gun… with a tommy you probably have time to take cover… with a Shotgun, no… I know a .308 hunting Rifle is dangerous just as a .22 or any other gun is… that isn’t the point… the point is should they be grabbed from everybody’s hand, from irresponsilble people’s hand or should they be free…

[Guest]

and i say, they should be taken from irresponsible people…. thus nearly everyone :)

[Guerrilla Guy]

@F_alk:

and i say, they should be taken from irresponsible people…. thus nearly everyone :)

People are not that irresponsible!

[Darrigaaz]

@F_alk:

if drug control doesn’t work, why waste ressources on that???
that would follow that argument, and is the reason why i called it flawed.

Did i say that? did i even imply that? NO

CC, i dont see how control of the two is different.

Guns would be just as easy to smuggle in as anything else, drugs, people, you name it.
Yes perhaps fewer bad guys would have guns, but the good guys would be getting screwed over and having our rights taken away from us. People who leave their guns lying around and a kid kills themselves? Charge the parents with manslaughter for being so careless. You may as well leave nitroglycerin hanging around. Guns are bangerous in the hands of those who dont know how to use them or those who dont respect them. Nearly any tool is; hammers, saws, drills. Because thats what a firearm is: a tool.

Any adolecent who fools around with a gun and kills himself or a friend, grew up not respecting the gun. Parents actually need to get off their asses and make sure their kids understand the responsibility involved when firearms are present. Growing up in a hunting family, i have always respected the rifles and shotguns my father owns. I have never been tempted to go and look at them, or to show them off to my friends.

[Guerrilla Guy]

agreed Darigaaz… I don’t think anyone would argue… Both my Grandfather and My Uncle hunts and I always think of gun safety now when we go to a range and would do even away from one…