Ted Nugent on Gun Control

[MTK]

Originally Posted by mredskins

FYI - Tonight 7/1 on FX Thirty Days explores gun control. those shows are are usually well done. I think it comes on at 10pm.

Definitely a great show. Should be interesting.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by jsarno

I didn't read that part apparently, but I find it hard to believe that a person that jumps off a building is less likely to die from it than a person that shoots themselves. Keep in mind plenty of people shoot themselves in places other than the head. (even shooting the head is not a guarentee of death)
I never did understand jumping off bridges. You are more likely to break bones then die. (not that death isn't a significant risk) But unless you're jumping off a tiny building, it seems that a leap would be 99.9% effective.

Oh, and as I have mentioned, using a gun is far easier and quicker, and "should be" less painful. Point is, even without a gun, suicidal people will find a way to kill themselves regardless.

MY take on the article is that people who jump from stuff or try to OD are not very successful. I could see how letting go of a ledge would be harder then pulling a trigger and I guess people who try to OD just don't take enough stuff, puke, or are found.

[mredskins]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

Definitely a great show. Should be interesting.

Two weeks ago with the hunter living with the PETA people, that even made me second guess PETA and I hate them. It was hard to see what people do to animals at times.

[Beemnseven]

Originally Posted by Sheriff Gonna Getcha

I'll take your anecdote, and raise you.

Father accidentally shoots and kills baby

Man accidentally shoots friend in head

I don't think anyone will try to argue that guns won't be used to kill innocent people, either intentionally or unintentionally.

I shudder to think what society would be like if some of the more extreme gun control advocates get their way and firearms are taken away from the law abiding.

In a free society, you have to live with the risks. If you don't want risks, there are many places in this world you can go to and be safe from everything. Personally, I'd choose the free society with all its warts over the police state.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by jsarno

That's a good valid argument.
However, the second hand smoke argument was only part of the argument (and the 2nd part at that, I just ran with it cause I wasn't expecting to see those numbers), what about the 4.9 mil that die from tobacco related deaths world wide?

Also, your argument helps my point that it's more important to stop tobacco than it is to stop guns since we are much more likely to be exposed to smoke. Let's also keep in mind the MASSIVE amount of medical assistance required by tobacco related issues that we pay for with our insurances.

ps- the guns that are locked away aren't the ones causing the problems, but they are the ones that will be taken away.


On a side note, I appreciate your candor.

I would agree with the general notion that smoking is a bigger threat to public health than guns are. If I were going through the exercise of setting the federal budget, I'd invest significantly more in stop smoking programs than I would gun control.

But as for the 4.9 million tobacco deaths worldwide, again, that's due to the massive exposure to cigarrette smoke and other forms of tobacco. Approximately 20% of Americans smoke, and the % is higher worldwide. Nowhere near that % are exposed to guns.

All this is to say that increasing exposure to guns by allowing more on the street raises the acute risk of accidental death, suicide, and homicide.

In the end, I would rather see 1000 armed muggers escape Scott-free with the wallet of an unarmed victim than see one child killed by a stray bullet resulting from a gunfire exchange between said armed mugger and an armed victim.

[Beemnseven]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

In the end, I would rather see 1000 armed muggers escape Scott-free with the wallet of an unarmed victim than see one child killed by a stray bullet resulting from a gunfire exchange between said armed mugger and an armed victim.

So you'd rather see someone robbed than someone killed? I think most people would. The problem is that of those 1000 people robbed, not all of them will escape unscathed by said armed mugger.

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

In the end, I would rather see 1000 armed muggers escape Scott-free with the wallet of an unarmed victim than see one child killed by a stray bullet resulting from a gunfire exchange between said armed mugger and an armed victim.

Which poses three questions, if the mugger's bullet killed the innocent child he (in a vast majority of cases) obtained his weapon illegally, gun control laws won't stop him.

The other question is who would you rather see die, the innocent child or the innocent mugging victim. If strict gun control laws are in place, the mugging victim won't have a firearm to protect him/herself and if he/she resists he/she would be killed by the mugger. Probably no gunfire exchange so the innocent child is safe.

The third question is sort of a follow-on to the second, say gun control laws are in place so the mugger knows most people won't have firearms to fight back and won't put up much resistance once they see his weapon, making his job easier. But what about the unarmed female who is now also a potential rape victim?

I know we can throw statistics out all day long, but at the end of the day areas which allow conceal and carry permits and have less gun regulation for law abiding citizens tend to have lower crime rates. I own firearms and although the area I live in is pretty safe, I am able to protect my family if need be, not wait for the police and morgue to show up.

[jsarno]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

I would agree with the general notion that smoking is a bigger threat to public health than guns are. If I were going through the exercise of setting the federal budget, I'd invest significantly more in stop smoking programs than I would gun control.

But as for the 4.9 million tobacco deaths worldwide, again, that's due to the massive exposure to cigarrette smoke and other forms of tobacco. Approximately 20% of Americans smoke, and the % is higher worldwide. Nowhere near that % are exposed to guns.

All this is to say that increasing exposure to guns by allowing more on the street raises the acute risk of accidental death, suicide, and homicide.

In the end, I would rather see 1000 armed muggers escape Scott-free with the wallet of an unarmed victim than see one child killed by a stray bullet resulting from a gunfire exchange between said armed mugger and an armed victim.

Well, oddly enough, I respect that opinion. Problem is, we're talking about deaths, not exposure. The deaths speak for themselves. You are 100% right about exposure, but you also have to calculate for the fact that bearing arms is constitutional right. Harming someone with a cigarette (even yourself) is not. All in all, I understand where you're coming from.

I would like to add, I am not sure I agree with your 1000 armed muggers vs 1 stray kid. First off, I am not sure of the stats, but I am assuming it's far more mugged to each stray innocent child. That being said, those mugged people become victims and very jaded after each offense, and therefore become harder individuals making society less pleasant. I'm not saying they will become hard criminals, but you can't be held up at gun point and it not change you a little. No one wants to see children die, but there are more "shaken baby" deaths than there are accidental children deaths from guns. Unfortunately there are always negatives to everything. Keep in mind, I am all for criminals not having guns, they have them illegally. If you can come up with a plan to keep guns out of their hands, I'm down. But don't take a gun out of my hand. Even if the government banned them, I'd still keep mine.
You can't stop EVERY negative, look at that kid that died by a roller coaster. There have been numerous roller coaster deaths over the years, but that doesn't mean we should overreact and ban roller coasters.

[jsarno]

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

Which poses three questions, if the mugger's bullet killed the innocent child he (in a vast majority of cases) obtained his weapon illegally, gun control laws won't stop him.

The other question is who would you rather see die, the innocent child or the innocent mugging victim. If strict gun control laws are in place, the mugging victim won't have a firearm to protect him/herself and if he/she resists he/she would be killed by the mugger. Probably no gunfire exchange so the innocent child is safe.

The third question is sort of a follow-on to the second, say gun control laws are in place so the mugger knows most people won't have firearms to fight back and won't put up much resistance once they see his weapon, making his job easier. But what about the unarmed female who is now also a potential rape victim?

I know we can throw statistics out all day long, but at the end of the day areas which allow conceal and carry permits and have less gun regulation for law abiding citizens tend to have lower crime rates. I own firearms and although the area I live in is pretty safe, I am able to protect my family if need be, not wait for the police and morgue to show up.

Exactly...very good post. You are only hurting the legal owners who don't pose a problem.

[724Skinsfan]

Originally Posted by jsarno

That's a good link.

But do you know what strikes me more than anything?
There was 31,000 gun related deaths, yet there are approx. 4.9 million tobacco related deaths in the world a year. In the US, there are 438,000 tobacco related deaths (approximately 1 in 5 deaths overall are tobacco related), and even MORE important, 38,000 (that's right 7k MORE deaths than guns) are directly related to SECOND HAND smoke. And people are up in arms about being able to defend yourself while cigarettes provide no defense.
Interesting that second hand smoke is statistically MORE deadly than guns themselves. WOW.

Tobacco-Related Mortality | OSH | CDC

I think you've just solved both issues with one post. I wonder how many tobacco farmer's own guns in which the purpose is to protect their property? I'll bet 98%. If we restrict their ability to protect their property by taking away their guns then we'd see much, much less tobacco being produced. By ensuring that tobacco farmer's have no way of defending themselves from a home invasion we can assume that their deaths will in fact save nearly 5 million lives.

[Sheriff Gonna Getcha]

Some gun enthusiasts will cite studies indicating that gun control laws embolden criminals. Those studies, however, rarely, if ever, distinguish between correlation and causation. Those studies rarely, if ever, account for other factors such as economic conditions, social changes (e.g., drug use), etc.

In any case, to me this debate fundamentally comes down to one issue. Criminals get their guns by either: (1) legally purchasing their firearms; or (2) illegally obtaining weapons that were legally procured. Some think that the way to mitigate the problem of guns falling into criminals' hands is to encourage the proliferation of weapons. Others believe that the proliferation of firearms is the problem, not the solution. I, of course, fall into the latter category.

[Beemnseven]

Originally Posted by Sheriff Gonna Getcha

Some gun enthusiasts will cite studies indicating that gun control laws embolden criminals. Those studies, however, rarely, if ever, distinguish between correlation and causation. Those studies rarely, if ever, account for other factors such as economic conditions, social changes (e.g., drug use), etc.

In any case, to me this debate fundamentally comes down to one issue. Criminals get their guns by either: (1) legally purchasing their firearms; or (2) illegally obtaining weapons that were legally procured. Some think that the way to mitigate the problem of guns falling into criminals' hands is to encourage the proliferation of weapons. Others believe that the proliferation of firearms is the problem, not the solution. I, of course, fall into the latter category.

I don't think that's a fair statement. Those who believe in gun rights don't necessarily believe the answer to solve crime is the "proliferation of weapons". Not all law abiding people have guns. Nobody believes people who don't want guns must have them. Certainly individuals with a criminal history, and those with a history of mental illness shouldn't have access to firearms. So that's quite different from believing in "the proliferation of weapons."

We believe law abiding citizens shouldn't be denied their fundamental right to defend themselves with a gun if they want one. We maintain that the problem would be much worse if the unarmed innocent have to depend on the mercy of the armed thug.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

I don't think that's a fair statement. Those who believe in gun rights don't necessarily believe the answer to solve crime is the "proliferation of weapons". Not all law abiding people have guns. Nobody believes people who don't want guns must have them. Certainly individuals with a criminal history, and those with a history of mental illness shouldn't have access to firearms. So that's quite different from believing in "the proliferation of weapons."

We believe law abiding citizens shouldn't be denied their fundamental right to defend themselves with a gun if they want one. We maintain that the problem would be much worse if the unarmed innocent have to depend on the mercy of the armed thug.

Its funny that the same people who site the constitution for other freedoms which they think are important (freedom of speech, gather etc...) seem to dismiss it for other people rights to own guns.

[Sheriff Gonna Getcha]

Originally Posted by firstdown

Its funny that the same people who site the constitution for other freedoms which they think are important (freedom of speech, gather etc...) seem to dismiss it for other people rights to own guns.

It's equally funny that people who so easily dismiss issues like wiretapping, gitmo, etc. get so upset when people discuss taking away their guns.

[Hog1]

Originally Posted by firstdown

Its funny that the same people who site the constitution for other freedoms which they think are important (freedom of speech, gather etc...) seem to dismiss it for other people rights to own guns.

I have often found it curious (and some other things) that many people seem unconcerned when freedoms go away, if the enjoyment of that freedom is not important to them directly.
It is another freedom gone...........