Woohoo, Uzi's are legal again!

[nfotiu]

What a positive development for Americans!

:unsure:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/09/12/gun.ban.ap/index.html

[Tron_fdc]

I remember reading somewhere that one of the banned weapons is a shotgun named the "Street Sweeper". What in gods name do you need a gun like that for? Those lazy hunting days of Fall when the duck population overruns city streets?

I just don't get the fascinaton with these weapons.

[Cowperson]

In 2002, 16,204 Americans were murdered, 71% by gunfire or about 11,000.

An average, non-descript year.

Unbelievable these weapons would be allowed back.

Cowperson

[sbailey924]

I don't think the original ban was enough, since there were so many loopholes with it.

Shameful.

The cnn.com poll on that article was 74% pro-ban, 26% anti-ban. I know this isn't representative of the whole population, but still an indicator of the general consensus since it is pretty overwhelming. Way to represent the people, Congress.

[Cube Inmate]

Originally posted by Cowperson@Sep 13 2004, 09:32 AM
In 2002, 16,204 Americans were murdered, 71% by gunfire or about 11,000.

An average, non-descript year.

Unbelievable these weapons would be allowed back.

Cowperson

Guns don't kill people...people kill people

[calgaryred]

Charlton Heston is dancing in the streets!!!!! Load your weapons cause it's your right!!!!

[troutman]

FROM MY COLD DEAD HANDS!

[Agamemnon]

Wow. You can now legally buy an AK-47 for 'defense'. I hate guns. I want an AK-47. I'm torn.

[Cowperson]

Originally posted by troutman@Sep 13 2004, 05:26 PM
FROM MY COLD DEAD HANDS!

Great Post!!!

Cowperson

[CaramonLS]

You know being that I live in Alberta, I am also very opposed to gun legislation/registry in Canada.

This on the other hand.. is too much. AK-47s and UZIs allowed to be sold again, what do you honestly need them for? (stores aren't allowed to sell them as Full-Autos, but as these weapons are generally known to be full autos, the firing pin can be removed easily, making them Fully Auto again).

[Agamemnon]

Originally posted by Cube Inmate@Sep 13 2004, 05:11 PM
Guns don't kill people...people kill people

I had to do a study in my lameo "Information Technology and Society" class, where we tried to figure out if Guns were inherently neutral or not. I mean, a gun is just a hunk of metal, with no desire to kill anyone. People technically DO kill people, placing the blame entirely in their hands.

Of course, a gun is only value-neutral (not bad or good) if no one knows what it does. If you don't know what a gun is, you can't shoot someone w/ it (or at least, you'd probably shoot yourself well before then). The gist is that if you make an object that already has a specific, well known use w/in society, then that object is no longer value-neutral, and, in fact, it is well known that guns _will_ be used to kill people, probably Americans.

Super-interesting debate though, I'm sure there are good arguments that suggest guns ARE value-neutral. Lets hear 'em

[Cowperson]

Originally posted by Agamemnon+Sep 13 2004, 05:31 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Agamemnon @ Sep 13 2004, 05:31 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Cube Inmate@Sep 13 2004, 05:11 PM
Guns don't kill people...people kill people#

I had to do a study in my lameo "Information Technology and Society" class, where we tried to figure out if Guns were inherently neutral or not. I mean, a gun is just a hunk of metal, with no desire to kill anyone. People technically DO kill people, placing the blame entirely in their hands.

Of course, a gun is only value-neutral (not bad or good) if no one knows what it does. If you don't know what a gun is, you can't shoot someone w/ it (or at least, you'd probably shoot yourself well before then). The gist is that if you make an object that already has a specific, well known use w/in society, then that object is no longer value-neutral, and, in fact, it is well known that guns _will_ be used to kill people, probably Americans.

Super-interesting debate though, I'm sure there are good arguments that suggest guns ARE value-neutral. Lets hear 'em [/b][/quote]
Some would argue that in a society where guns are restricted, that knives and other such instruments might be used instead, perhaps giving a greater survival rate to the victims.

Restricting guns may not restrict the need to engage in violence, but the lethality of the event might be diminished.

Cowperson

[Agamemnon]

Originally posted by Cowperson@Sep 13 2004, 05:36 PM
Some would argue that in a society where guns are restricted, that knives and other such instruments might be used instead, perhaps giving a greater survival rate to the victims.

Restricting guns may not restrict the need to engage in violence, but the lethality of the event might be diminished.

Cowperson

Really. Would you argue that? I doubt that if they banned guns south of the border, the US would have a roughly equal amount of murders, w/ knives taking up the slack. Not a chance. I'm pretty sure the 'need' to engage in violence is a bigger part of the problem than what type of weapon to use to satisfy this 'need'. I doubt violence is necessary in over 90% of shooting deaths.

[Cube Inmate]

Originally posted by Cowperson@Sep 13 2004, 11:36 AM
Some would argue that in a society where guns are restricted, that knives and other such instruments might be used instead, perhaps giving a greater survival rate to the victims.

Restricting guns may not restrict the need to engage in violence, but the lethality of the event might be diminished.

In a society where guns are restricted, the criminal element flouts the restriction and gains an advantage. I'd say this is the American point of view ... let everyone get the biggest gun they can, and you'll have mutual deterrence.

On the other hand, let's pretend we're in a society in which guns don't exist; would there be fewer fatalities related to conflict? Somebody's just going to carry a bigger knife! In serious conflicts -- serious enough that someone ends up shot -- I'd say the stakes are high enough that someone ends up dead no matter what weapon is used.

....

I don't actually believe what I'm saying...just debating for fun. Obviously my last paragraph doesn't account for things like drive-by shootings, sniper killings, etc. Looking at things like this, guns are bad simply because they make killing easier for the nutcases.

[calculoso]

Originally posted by Agamemnon@Sep 13 2004, 11:46 AM
I doubt violence is necessary in over 90% of shooting deaths.

Don't stop there...

I doubt violence is necessary in 90% of all violent cases, whether it be shootings, knifings, bar brawls, road rage, etc, etc.

[calgaryred]

I just think how many Americians buy guns for protection? I would love to know how many of those that do buy weapons for protection actually ever use them at a shooting range, or do they just leave them sitting in their dresser drawers. A gun is used for one purpose to kill or seriously injure. It can't be used for anything else. Why would anybody need to own an UZI besides the army. I don't understand the logic.

[Cowperson]

Originally posted by Agamemnon+Sep 13 2004, 05:46 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Agamemnon @ Sep 13 2004, 05:46 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Cowperson@Sep 13 2004, 05:36 PM
Some would argue that in a society where guns are restricted, that knives and other such instruments might be used instead, perhaps giving a greater survival rate to the victims.

Restricting guns may not restrict the need to engage in violence, but the lethality of the event might be diminished.

Cowperson

Really. Would you argue that? I doubt that if they banned guns south of the border, the US would have a roughly equal amount of murders, w/ knives taking up the slack. Not a chance. I'm pretty sure the 'need' to engage in violence is a bigger part of the problem than what type of weapon to use to satisfy this 'need'. I doubt violence is necessary in over 90% of shooting deaths. [/b][/quote]
I think we're on the same page. I said "some would argue" that if you took guns out of the picture, actual incidents might remain the same - since the motivation would be there, whether a planned murder or a dispute at a traffic light - but the death rate might actually fall quite a bit.

As an example, instead of reaching into the glove box for your pistol to settle a traffic dispute, you might simply have a fist fight.

Cowperson

[Agamemnon]

Originally posted by calgaryred@Sep 13 2004, 05:55 PM
I just think how many Americians buy guns for protection? I would love to know how many of those that do buy weapons for protection actually ever use them at a shooting range, or do they just leave them sitting in their dresser drawers. A gun is used for one purpose to kill or seriously injure. It can't be used for anything else. Why would anybody need to own an UZI besides the army. I don't understand the logic.

Well, if we're to believe anything said in Bowling for Columbine, guns don't just kill and injure, they also protect from other guns that kill and injure. For a lot of rural, North Western Americans I bet the idea of the military having a monopoly on guns is a pretty scary thought, leaving them wide open to domination by the federal government. Of course... that shouldn't be a problem... since they're part of the federation

[Agamemnon]

Originally posted by Cowperson@Sep 13 2004, 05:58 PM
I think we're on the same page. I said "some would argue" that if you took guns out of the picture, actual incidents might remain the same - since the motivation would be there, whether a planned murder or a dispute at a traffic light - but the death rate might actually fall quite a bit.

As an example, instead of reaching into the glove box for your pistol to settle a traffic dispute, you might simply have a fist fight.

Cowperson

Right, I hear what you're saying. Though I'd assume that even violent conflicts might go down, as quite often a gun could be compensating for cowardice. Anyone ever watch "Swingers"? When one of the main character's 'posse' is shoulder-bumped by another guy in a parking lot, a shouting match ensues. The 'posse' member easily wins the argument by whipping out his gun and waving it in the other 'posse's faces. I've a feeling that that type of situation, especially among younger males, is a pretty common occurence, to prevent someone from 'fronting' you or whatever lingo kids use. If the guy hadn't had a gun, it seems doubtful that he would've had the guts to even open his mouth, let alone fight or stab the guy.

I guess the next step would be to see how many violent actions per capita there are in the UK, and compare that w/ the US. If the UK's is similar in occurences, than we can suggest gun violence would be replaced by other types. If violence in the UK occurs less, per capita, then I'd assume guns are probably a decent part of the problem (but not all, got to be some cultural stuff there too).

[Lurch]

This goes to an interesting policy debate I was once involved in for a class in public health issues. Just b/c I am the type that likes to stir the pot, I did my research paper on the premise that seat belts and airbags should be banned on the basis that they are dangerous to public health. Note that I am not bright enough to come up with this idea on my own - it is actually a long-standing debate in economics called the offset theory.

The gist of the research is that seat belts and airbags have had no statistical benefit in terms of fatality crashes to vehicle occupants. In essence, the number of fatalities per km driven has been pretty steady over the last 50 years. However, the number of pedestrian fatalities has increased quite substantially. The premise is that people drive faster and more recklessly now b/c the inherent safety of vehicles is higher, rendering safety improvements neutral. However, since pedestrians have not seen an increase in safety equipment, there are more fatality incidents involving pedestrians. Taken to its extreme, the theory says that to make driving as safe as possible, we should increase the lethality of crashes to drivers since people will change their behaviour to compensate.

In terms of guns, my take is that the number of intentional murders would not change substantially if guns are taken out of the equation. However, accidental killings would fall dramatically b/c the lethality of accidents would be much lower.