Ted Nugent on Gun Control

[Sheriff Gonna Getcha]

Originally Posted by jsarno

How do they not prove anything? I am all for hearing your take on this, cause it seems this argument is just about put to bed with these stats. Of course, it's hard to fully judge without a valid argument to the contrary...but so far your arguments to this have been smoke and mirrors at best. So please tell us why these stats don't prove anything.
(disclaimer, I am being 100% genuine, not sarcastic)

The stats do not prove anything because it does not establish a causal relationship between the gun laws and crime. If I told you that the SEC increased securties fraud prosecutions in 2007 and the weather in 2008 was much nicer than in 2007, would you believe that securities fraud prosecutions improve weather conditions?

Since you have decided to label my arguments "smoke and mirrors," let me just say that most of the arguments I've seen around here sound like cheap talking points of the NRA (e.g., "gun control laws only hurt the innocent").

Finally, I don't think you really want to get into a comparison between the U.S. and the U.K. with regard to gun control laws. In the U.S., it is extremely easy to gain access to firearms. In the U.K., it is difficult to gain access to firearms. The U.S. gun crime stats make us look like a third world country in the midst of a civil war when compared with U.K. gun crime stats.

[MTK]

Originally Posted by firstdown

I just don't see that agrument being made in this conversation but some people do believe that notion. I just feel we have a right to own a gun. I myself do not own a gun but if I need one for some reason I want to be able to buy one. I don't have any problem with having manditory training, back ground checks etc... but just let me have the right to protect my family.

I'm not picking on jsarno but he just said:

One of those protesters stuck out in my mind with his sign that read "I LOVE my country, but I fear my government".

If that is not evidence that we need to keep guns, then what is?

I've seen other similar opinions I just don't feel like digging through this thread right now.

I'm not trying to be a jerk I'm just curious what people are afraid of exactly regarding the gov't, and what is a gun going to do to protect yourself if the gov't was "out to get you".

[Sheriff Gonna Getcha]

Originally Posted by firstdown

I just don't see that agrument being made in this conversation but some people do believe that notion. I just feel we have a right to own a gun. I myself do not own a gun but if I need one for some reason I want to be able to buy one. I don't have any problem with having manditory training, back ground checks etc... but just let me have the right to protect my family.

That's a reasonable position. I just have serious issues with the notion that the government shouldn't be allowed to conduct background checks, must legalize fully automatic rifles, etc.

Also, there was another gun control thread in which people made impassioned posts about the possible need to rebel against the government. I was waiting for posts about how the U.N. is planning to invade our country and make us all speak Mandarin Chineses.

[jsarno]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

I'm not picking on jsarno but he just said:



I've seen other similar opinions I just don't feel like digging through this thread right now.

I'm not trying to be a jerk I'm just curious what people are afraid of exactly regarding the gov't, and what is a gun going to do to protect yourself if the gov't was "out to get you".

Just for the record, my comment about "If that is not evidence that we need to keep guns, then what is?" was about the ENTIRE post, not the guy holding the sign.
I'm not thinking the government is "out to get me", but I think the government can and does make decisions with short sighted thoughts. If people scream loudly enough, they are usually heard, but the government should be quick to look into things more thoroughly, such as how other countries have faired getting rid of their firearms, or even how certain laws being passed have affected the publics reactions. Decisions are too often made becuase of political stature, or give and take, not because the subject was debated with an open mind. Most of this problem is our governmental system, but the point still remains.

[MTK]

Originally Posted by jsarno

Just for the record, my comment about "If that is not evidence that we need to keep guns, then what is?" was about the ENTIRE post, not the guy holding the sign.
I'm not thinking the government is "out to get me", but I think the government can and does make decisions with short sighted thoughts. If people scream loudly enough, they are usually heard, but the government should be quick to look into things more thoroughly, such as how other countries have faired getting rid of their firearms, or even how certain laws being passed have affected the publics reactions. Decisions are too often made becuase of political stature, or give and take, not because the subject was debated with an open mind. Most of this problem is our governmental system, but the point still remains.

The way you worded it you seemed to be commenting on the sign and what it said as a reason to keep guns... but either way I still don't understand how that's a logical take on the topic.

[jsarno]

Originally Posted by Sheriff Gonna Getcha

The stats do not prove anything because it does not establish a causal relationship between the gun laws and crime. If I told you that the SEC increased securties fraud prosecutions in 2007 and the weather in 2008 was much nicer than in 2007, would you believe that securities fraud prosecutions improve weather conditions?

Well, your argument is apples and oranges in regards to the weather, but I do understand your point.
However, it's hard to completely ignore the direct relation here is it not?

Since you have decided to label my arguments "smoke and mirrors," let me just say that most of the arguments I've seen around here sound like cheap talking points of the NRA (e.g., "gun control laws only hurt the innocent").

Is that supposed to devalue the argument? The NRA has one goal in mind (obviously), so to use some of their arguments (not saying anyone is) is not a bad thing. Point being, it's only the validity that matters.

Finally, I don't think you really want to get into a comparison between the U.S. and the U.K. with regard to gun control laws. In the U.S., it is extremely easy to gain access to firearms. In the U.K., it is difficult to gain access to firearms. The U.S. gun crime stats make us look like a third world country in the midst of a civil war when compared with U.K. gun crime stats.

In the UK, it is only difficult to guns if you're law abiding, but yet they have more issues because of it.
I am unsure of your point with your last sentence, cause as someone just posted, the UK has MUCH worse stats than we do and they have much stricter gun laws. Their laws backfired on them. Their intent was good, sure, but the outcome was horrendous. So please explain further what you are meaning by your last sentence, cause I am not getting your intent.

[jsarno]

Originally Posted by Sheriff Gonna Getcha

That's a reasonable position. I just have serious issues with the notion that the government shouldn't be allowed to conduct background checks, must legalize fully automatic rifles, etc.

For the record, I am all for background checks, and a waiting period for any gun, rifle or not. I am against taking guns out of the hands of the innocent, and if you truly are innocent, then a background check won't hurt you.

[jsarno]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

The way you worded it you seemed to be commenting on the sign and what it said as a reason to keep guns... but either way I still don't understand how that's a logical take on the topic.

I am assuming you are still talking about my comment on the sign, so to clarify my point, the government thought they were doing everyone right by implimenting these laws, but it totally backfired on them which made the UK citizens wary of the decision makers in the country. If you watched the whole video you would have seen the man that is in jail for life because he protected himself from intruders for the 3rd time that year. So it's not like the government helped out here. If you think that protest was bad in England, try that here and see what happens. You try getting broken into 3 times, and when you finally put a stop to it, and when the dust settles, the government is pointing at you as the person that was wrong and see where you sit on the subject. (not you personally matty, just you in general) I totally understand why they are upset at the government. They made a mistake and now they need to correct it.

[steveo395]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

I'm not picking on jsarno but he just said:



I've seen other similar opinions I just don't feel like digging through this thread right now.

I'm not trying to be a jerk I'm just curious what people are afraid of exactly regarding the gov't, and what is a gun going to do to protect yourself if the gov't was "out to get you".

A gun can be used to fight back if the government becomes oppressive. This isn't happening now, but you never know what could happen sometime in the future. Thats the reason why this was put in the Bill of Rights.

How do you think Hitler rounded up all of the jews? He confiscated all of their guns so they couldn't fight back.

[Sheriff Gonna Getcha]

Originally Posted by jsarno

In the UK, it is only difficult to guns if you're law abiding, but yet they have more issues because of it.
I am unsure of your point with your last sentence, cause as someone just posted, the UK has MUCH worse stats than we do and they have much stricter gun laws. Their laws backfired on them. Their intent was good, sure, but the outcome was horrendous. So please explain further what you are meaning by your last sentence, cause I am not getting your intent.

I am too lazy to look up gun crime stats in the U.K. v. the U.S., but I can say with 100% certainty that there are far more incidents involving guns in the U.S. than in the U.K. (both in terms of raw numbers and on a per capita basis).

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by Sheriff Gonna Getcha

I am too lazy to look up gun crime stats in the U.K. v. the U.S., but I can say with 100% certainty that there are far more incidents involving guns in the U.S. than in the U.K. (both in terms of raw numbers and on a per capita basis).

Well you would also need to look up the punishment that goes along with gun crimes. I'd bet that if we looked the countries with the tougher laws also have the lower crime rates so they go hand in hand.

[GhettoDogAllStars]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

LOL where does this ridiculous fear of the government come from anyway? That's a pretty stupid reason to support the need for guns IMO.

Let's say hell freezes over and the gov't decides to take over... whatever the hell that means, what are you and your shotgun going to do anyway?

Exactly. Angry people will stop an oppressive government -- armed or not. Guns aren't necessary (or effective) for that.

I am a gun supporter. I own a handgun. I have no noble reason for owning it. I certainly didn't buy it to "protect" myself. I might not even be able to use it against someone, if the need should ever arise. My biggest fear is that it could be used against me. I would never carry it "just in case" -- it's too risky.

However, I enjoy target shooting. That's fair.

I would never support a government ban on guns. Regulation is fine. I would probably never support a government ban on anything. In my opinion, that is not within the government's rights. I don't believe they should have the power to ban something -- only regulate.

It's a dangerous situation when the government starts banning something. Just the arrogance of such a thought is disturbing. Regulation is one thing, but banning is totally different.

For the record, I support regulation.

<<waits for bashing>>

[Sheriff Gonna Getcha]

Originally Posted by GhettoDogAllStars

I would probably never support a government ban on anything. In my opinion, that is not within the government's rights. I don't believe they should have the power to ban something -- only regulate.

The government bans all sorts of things, including access to nukes, tanks, mines, crack, meth, junk, etc.

[jsarno]

Originally Posted by Sheriff Gonna Getcha

I am too lazy to look up gun crime stats in the U.K. v. the U.S., but I can say with 100% certainty that there are far more incidents involving guns in the U.S. than in the U.K. (both in terms of raw numbers and on a per capita basis).

I guess you missed this...it was already posted by someone:
http://www.sfu.ca/~mauser/papers/Lon...ime-EW.xls.pdf

I seriously doubt that the way Violent crimes went up, the gun crimes didn't. Of course that link is not gun crimes per se, but it's a fairly good stat to see what happened after the gun laws occured in the UK.

[Sheriff Gonna Getcha]

Originally Posted by jsarno

I guess you missed this...it was already posted by someone:
http://www.sfu.ca/~mauser/papers/Lon...ime-EW.xls.pdf

I seriously doubt that the way Violent crimes went up, the gun crimes didn't. Of course that link is not gun crimes per se, but it's a fairly good stat to see what happened after the gun laws occured in the UK.

That's about "violent crime," not gun related crimes. If you can show me, for example, that more people are killed per year on a per capita basis in the UK by guns than in the U.S., I'll give you a picture of me kissing my own ass.
According to sites that I don't think are very reputable (hence no links), there are about 50 gun deaths in the U.K. every year and 30,000 in the U.S. Those stats could be wrong, but I can't find any good links.

Maybe our crime rate is so much higher becaise of a-holes like this.