Comments on: McCain Has Lost Second Place on my List http://www.notquitecenter.com/2007/04/16/mccain-has-lost-second-place-on-my-list/ Thu, 30 Jun 2011 16:37:51 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Shalynn http://www.notquitecenter.com/2007/04/16/mccain-has-lost-second-place-on-my-list/#comment-100 Shalynn Wed, 18 Apr 2007 04:32:49 +0000 http://www.viewfromcenter.com/2007/04/16/mccain-has-lost-second-place-on-my-list/#comment-100 Okay, I want to clarify and "alter" my opinion a little. I personally would never have a handgun in my home. But, I don't see how it's fair that a very small majority of people misuse handguns, and so the rest of us can't have one either. We are always catering to the minority. Just because one person makes an unwise decision, doesn't mean the rest of us will. So, I don't think banning guns is the answer at all. Okay, I want to clarify and “alter” my opinion a little. I personally would never have a handgun in my home. But, I don’t see how it’s fair that a very small majority of people misuse handguns, and so the rest of us can’t have one either. We are always catering to the minority. Just because one person makes an unwise decision, doesn’t mean the rest of us will. So, I don’t think banning guns is the answer at all.

]]> By: Shalynn http://www.notquitecenter.com/2007/04/16/mccain-has-lost-second-place-on-my-list/#comment-99 Shalynn Tue, 17 Apr 2007 23:37:21 +0000 http://www.viewfromcenter.com/2007/04/16/mccain-has-lost-second-place-on-my-list/#comment-99 Okay, I see your point with the handguns - and I agree with that. I thought we were talking about all guns. And I do agree that the founding father's wrote the ammendment because of different circumstances - but I believe that they had a great handle on the nature of mankind in any day and age - so I think it's still relevant today. But I never have seen a reason or justification for a handgun. Okay, I see your point with the handguns – and I agree with that. I thought we were talking about all guns. And I do agree that the founding father’s wrote the ammendment because of different circumstances – but I believe that they had a great handle on the nature of mankind in any day and age – so I think it’s still relevant today. But I never have seen a reason or justification for a handgun.

]]> By: Reluctant http://www.notquitecenter.com/2007/04/16/mccain-has-lost-second-place-on-my-list/#comment-98 Reluctant Tue, 17 Apr 2007 22:52:05 +0000 http://www.viewfromcenter.com/2007/04/16/mccain-has-lost-second-place-on-my-list/#comment-98 Ok... so the full stats show an even more interesting trend. Just looking at the countries on the bottom of the list shows a strong indication that violent crime has more to do with culture than with gun control. I know that is an assumption, but I'd say that is a pretty obvious assumption. Ok… so the full stats show an even more interesting trend. Just looking at the countries on the bottom of the list shows a strong indication that violent crime has more to do with culture than with gun control. I know that is an assumption, but I’d say that is a pretty obvious assumption.

]]> By: Centrist http://www.notquitecenter.com/2007/04/16/mccain-has-lost-second-place-on-my-list/#comment-97 Centrist Tue, 17 Apr 2007 22:20:16 +0000 http://www.viewfromcenter.com/2007/04/16/mccain-has-lost-second-place-on-my-list/#comment-97 Dan, below is the entire list of countries from the CDC report (I meant to keep the U.K.; don't know how I dropped it). The U.K. includes Northern Ireland, Scotland, and England and Wales. Since the bulk of the population is in the latter, I would call .41 a success, especially compared to the U.S. (No. Ireland is still an unusually violent place because of the sectarian violence there). As I said to Shalynn, I'm not saying tighter gun control laws would make guns disappear or never be used in crimes again; what I'm saying is it would save lives--isn't it worth that? I wonder how many of Switzerland's homicides were committed with the guns issued to the "militia"? It would be an interesting statistic. Notice that Switzerland is the 8th worst out of 36. United States 14.24; Brazil 12.95; Mexico 12.69; Estonia 12.26; Argentina 8.93; Northern Ireland 6.63; Finland 6.46; Switzerland 5.31; France 5.15; Canada 4.31; Norway 3.82; Austria 3.70; Portugal 3.20; Israel 2.91; Belgium 2.90; Australia 2.65; Slovenia 2.60; Italy 2.44; New Zealand 2.38; Denmark 2.09; Sweden 1.92; Kuwait 1.84; Greece 1.29; Germany 1.24; Hungary 1.11; Republic of Ireland 0.97; Spain 0.78; Netherlands 0.70; Scotland 0.54; England and Wales 0.41; Taiwan 0.37; Singapore 0.21; Mauritius 0.19; Hong Kong 0.14; South Korea 0.12; Japan 0.05. Dan, below is the entire list of countries from the CDC report (I meant to keep the U.K.; don’t know how I dropped it). The U.K. includes Northern Ireland, Scotland, and England and Wales. Since the bulk of the population is in the latter, I would call .41 a success, especially compared to the U.S. (No. Ireland is still an unusually violent place because of the sectarian violence there). As I said to Shalynn, I’m not saying tighter gun control laws would make guns disappear or never be used in crimes again; what I’m saying is it would save lives–isn’t it worth that?

I wonder how many of Switzerland’s homicides were committed with the guns issued to the “militia”? It would be an interesting statistic. Notice that Switzerland is the 8th worst out of 36.

United States 14.24; Brazil 12.95; Mexico 12.69; Estonia 12.26; Argentina 8.93; Northern Ireland 6.63; Finland 6.46; Switzerland 5.31; France 5.15; Canada 4.31; Norway 3.82; Austria 3.70; Portugal 3.20; Israel 2.91; Belgium 2.90; Australia 2.65; Slovenia 2.60; Italy 2.44; New Zealand 2.38; Denmark 2.09; Sweden 1.92; Kuwait 1.84; Greece 1.29; Germany 1.24; Hungary 1.11; Republic of Ireland 0.97; Spain 0.78; Netherlands 0.70; Scotland 0.54; England and Wales 0.41; Taiwan 0.37; Singapore 0.21; Mauritius 0.19; Hong Kong 0.14; South Korea 0.12; Japan 0.05.

]]> By: Reluctant http://www.notquitecenter.com/2007/04/16/mccain-has-lost-second-place-on-my-list/#comment-96 Reluctant Tue, 17 Apr 2007 21:42:35 +0000 http://www.viewfromcenter.com/2007/04/16/mccain-has-lost-second-place-on-my-list/#comment-96 Dave, your gun control statistics conveniently leave off to very important countries: The UK has some of the tightest gun control laws, yet they have a similar violent crime rate to the US. See <a href="http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs06/hosb0206.pdf" rel="nofollow">this document</a> for statistics, but a few key points: * Only 1% of violent crimes involved a firearm. * A low percentage of homicides (11% of male victims and 5% of female victims) involved firearms. Most homicides were committed with “sharp instruments.” * “Less than three per cent of firearm crimes resulted in a serious or fatal injury” * “a big increase in imitation weapon offenses… “ * 40% of the violent crimes involving firearms were with pistols, even though pistols are illegal to possess. Also, what about Switzerland? Between 1998 and 2000, they had a total of <a href="http://www.nationmaster.com/country/sz-switzerland/cri-crime" rel="nofollow">69 murders</a> which equates to murder rate of 0.00921351 per 1,000 people. In Switzerland, every male is required to own a gun. Every male is part of the militia there and is required to keep government-issued automatic rifles and semi-automatic pistols. This is more in-line with your comments about the 2nd Amendment, but the gun-control statistics are very compelling. Now, keep in mind that I'm not a huge advocate of the 2nd Amendment when it comes to handguns. But all other guns, I believe the constitution provides us that right. Dave, your gun control statistics conveniently leave off to very important countries:

The UK has some of the tightest gun control laws, yet they have a similar violent crime rate to the US. See this document for statistics, but a few key points:

* Only 1% of violent crimes involved a firearm.
* A low percentage of homicides (11% of male victims and 5% of female victims) involved firearms. Most homicides were committed with “sharp instruments.”
* “Less than three per cent of firearm crimes resulted in a serious or fatal injury”
* “a big increase in imitation weapon offenses… “
* 40% of the violent crimes involving firearms were with pistols, even though pistols are illegal to possess.

Also, what about Switzerland? Between 1998 and 2000, they had a total of 69 murders which equates to murder rate of 0.00921351 per 1,000 people. In Switzerland, every male is required to own a gun. Every male is part of the militia there and is required to keep government-issued automatic rifles and semi-automatic pistols.

This is more in-line with your comments about the 2nd Amendment, but the gun-control statistics are very compelling.

Now, keep in mind that I’m not a huge advocate of the 2nd Amendment when it comes to handguns. But all other guns, I believe the constitution provides us that right.

]]> By: Centrist http://www.notquitecenter.com/2007/04/16/mccain-has-lost-second-place-on-my-list/#comment-95 Centrist Tue, 17 Apr 2007 19:49:11 +0000 http://www.viewfromcenter.com/2007/04/16/mccain-has-lost-second-place-on-my-list/#comment-95 Dan, my #2 is Bill Richardson, but I don't think he's going to be viable. I think he'd make a killer VP (no pun intended in reference to Cheney's hunting skills). Can you imagine a black President and hispanic Veep? I can! Dan, my #2 is Bill Richardson, but I don’t think he’s going to be viable. I think he’d make a killer VP (no pun intended in reference to Cheney’s hunting skills).

Can you imagine a black President and hispanic Veep? I can!

]]> By: Centrist http://www.notquitecenter.com/2007/04/16/mccain-has-lost-second-place-on-my-list/#comment-94 Centrist Tue, 17 Apr 2007 19:46:42 +0000 http://www.viewfromcenter.com/2007/04/16/mccain-has-lost-second-place-on-my-list/#comment-94 Regarding the black market that would form around gun trafficking, I'm sure you are right. But the difficulty imposed might just give the intended murderer time enough to change his mind or give the police or family time enough to stop the shooting. I don't think outlawing handguns would eliminate them, but I think it would certainly save lives--and that's the whole point, and it's worth it. Regarding the black market that would form around gun trafficking, I’m sure you are right. But the difficulty imposed might just give the intended murderer time enough to change his mind or give the police or family time enough to stop the shooting. I don’t think outlawing handguns would eliminate them, but I think it would certainly save lives–and that’s the whole point, and it’s worth it.

]]> By: Centrist http://www.notquitecenter.com/2007/04/16/mccain-has-lost-second-place-on-my-list/#comment-93 Centrist Tue, 17 Apr 2007 19:36:30 +0000 http://www.viewfromcenter.com/2007/04/16/mccain-has-lost-second-place-on-my-list/#comment-93 I'm not talking about taking away all guns--just the ones whose only use is to kill humans. People should still have their hunting guns--just not Dick Cheney. I think there should be a waiting period of at least 14 days to buy any kind of gun, and I think handguns should be completely outlawed, except for military and police. Here are the stats from 1994: Gun Deaths per 100,000 people: United States 14.24 Brazil 12.95 Mexico 12.69 Estonia 12.26 Argentina 8.93 Countries with tighter gun control laws: Canada 4.31 Australia 2.65 Japan 0.05 Among children, the ratio of homicide deaths for U.S. vs. non-U.S. kids 0-14 was 15.7 U.S. to 1 non-U.S. The ratio for UNINTENTIONAL gun deaths among children was 9:1 (Centers for Disease Control & Prevention). I doubt the numbers have changed significantly in the last 13 years. In my opinion, the Founding Fathers put the clause in to keep the militias of the several states and the federal government from overrunning any individual state. It was also meant as a protection for a relatively weak new nation against other nations and against attacking Indians. Now that we don't have those problems, I think the Founding Fathers' correct justification for the time period has lost its applicability. There is no reason for someone to have a handgun. People cite self-defense, but I think the possibility of an unitentional shooting is MUCH higher than the possibility of ever successfully defending oneself with a handgun. It's not worth the risk to the law-abiding citizens, and it's not worth handguns being so easy to obtain by criminals. I’m not talking about taking away all guns–just the ones whose only use is to kill humans. People should still have their hunting guns–just not Dick Cheney. I think there should be a waiting period of at least 14 days to buy any kind of gun, and I think handguns should be completely outlawed, except for military and police. Here are the stats from 1994:
Gun Deaths per 100,000 people:
United States 14.24
Brazil 12.95
Mexico 12.69
Estonia 12.26
Argentina 8.93

Countries with tighter gun control laws:
Canada 4.31
Australia 2.65
Japan 0.05

Among children, the ratio of homicide deaths for U.S. vs. non-U.S. kids 0-14 was 15.7 U.S. to 1 non-U.S. The ratio for UNINTENTIONAL gun deaths among children was 9:1 (Centers for Disease Control & Prevention).

I doubt the numbers have changed significantly in the last 13 years.

In my opinion, the Founding Fathers put the clause in to keep the militias of the several states and the federal government from overrunning any individual state. It was also meant as a protection for a relatively weak new nation against other nations and against attacking Indians. Now that we don’t have those problems, I think the Founding Fathers’ correct justification for the time period has lost its applicability. There is no reason for someone to have a handgun. People cite self-defense, but I think the possibility of an unitentional shooting is MUCH higher than the possibility of ever successfully defending oneself with a handgun. It’s not worth the risk to the law-abiding citizens, and it’s not worth handguns being so easy to obtain by criminals.

]]> By: Shalynn http://www.notquitecenter.com/2007/04/16/mccain-has-lost-second-place-on-my-list/#comment-92 Shalynn Tue, 17 Apr 2007 16:48:00 +0000 http://www.viewfromcenter.com/2007/04/16/mccain-has-lost-second-place-on-my-list/#comment-92 Another thought I had is, just because we ban guns doesn't mean that people won't be able to get guns. It just becomes a black market thing, and the bad guys still have access to guns - only now, the law abiding citizens don't. Another thought I had is, just because we ban guns doesn’t mean that people won’t be able to get guns. It just becomes a black market thing, and the bad guys still have access to guns – only now, the law abiding citizens don’t.

]]> By: Shalynn http://www.notquitecenter.com/2007/04/16/mccain-has-lost-second-place-on-my-list/#comment-91 Shalynn Tue, 17 Apr 2007 16:45:17 +0000 http://www.viewfromcenter.com/2007/04/16/mccain-has-lost-second-place-on-my-list/#comment-91 But is it fair to take away the rights of the law abiding citizens, who own guns and don't go on a rampage to kill innocent people, because of a few nut jobs who do? I mean I don't want my kids gunned down at the mall or some other public place deemed to be safe, but I don't want my right to bear arms to be taken away either. There was a good reason why the founding fathers felt that we should have the right to bear arms. Guns do kill people, but so do a handful of other things when used incorrectly by people who want to harm others. But is it fair to take away the rights of the law abiding citizens, who own guns and don’t go on a rampage to kill innocent people, because of a few nut jobs who do? I mean I don’t want my kids gunned down at the mall or some other public place deemed to be safe, but I don’t want my right to bear arms to be taken away either. There was a good reason why the founding fathers felt that we should have the right to bear arms. Guns do kill people, but so do a handful of other things when used incorrectly by people who want to harm others.

]]>