Ted Nugent on Gun Control

[saden1]

Did someone just use Hitler and Genocide to support their affinity for the right to bare arms?

[724Skinsfan]

Here's an article that talks about gun related crime in the UK. Gun related crime actually increase and higher now than 10 years ago. Surprisingly, there were only 49 gun related deaths last year there.

Here's the full report by the British government.

[steveo395]

Originally Posted by Sheriff Gonna Getcha

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.

It doesn't really matter if it is a gun crime or not. Violent crime increased (which may not all be with guns) because the criminals know that people don't have guns to defend themselves. If you were going to rob somebody, wouldn't you rather do it in England because you know whoever you are going after doesn't have a gun to defend themselves. If you thought they had a gun, you wouldn't rob them.

[Sheriff Gonna Getcha]

Originally Posted by steveo395

If you thought they had a gun, you wouldn't rob them.

I guess you don't live near a high crime area. A lot of gun-toting drug dealers get robbed, murdered, beat down, etc. I would venture to guess that many young male victims of crime in high crime areas have weapons.

There goes that theory.

[steveo395]

Originally Posted by Sheriff Gonna Getcha

I guess you don't live near a high crime area. A lot of gun-toting drug dealers get robbed, murdered, beat down, etc. I would venture to guess that many young male victims of crime in high crime areas have weapons.

There goes that theory.

I'm talking about a criminal going after an average citizen, not drug dealers going after each other. If your going to rob someone, you would go after the guy without a gun over the guy with a gun.

[GhettoDogAllStars]

Originally Posted by Sheriff Gonna Getcha

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

I realize government bans lots of things. I just don't really support the idea. Extreme regulation is acceptable for me. If I want to own a tank, I should be allowed to. Sure, I'd have to prove my competence, and I probably wouldn't have any legal place to drive it (other than my own land), but I don't think the government has the right to say I can't buy one -- or build one myself.

The bottom line is, I think the government has the authority to impose restrictions to protect the people, and facilitate commerce. Beyond that, they have no just reason to impose a law. So, unless they could prove that me owning a tank would threaten the safety of others, I don't think they have any right to prevent me from doing so.

[jsarno]

Originally Posted by Sheriff Gonna Getcha

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.

Why are you so focused on gun related DEATH, and could care less about gun related CRIMES? I felt the need to capitalize death and crimes cause you apparently have been missing it. I don't recall, and I don't feel like reading through my posts, but I thought I said of course the deaths here would be higher since they have much stricter gun laws, but gun crimes have gone up considerably and that has already been proven.
So is it safe to assume you could care less about robberies, and muggings and anything related to people using guns in relation to crimes??? Cause I thought the whole point of gun control is to stop gun related CRIMES, not just gun related DEATHS?
To me, it's much more important to stop ALL gun related crimes. Stopping gun related deaths is just a part of stopping all gun related crimes. However, no person here has come up with any good solution to stopping the gun related crimes, just a lot of speculation, and it's clear that getting the guns out of the hands of the innocent is a bad idea and it INCREASES gun related crime. So if you can come up with a solution to stop gun related crimes, I'm all ears.

[Sheriff Gonna Getcha]

Originally Posted by jsarno

Why are you so focused on gun related DEATH, and could care less about gun related CRIMES? I felt the need to capitalize death and crimes cause you apparently have been missing it. I don't recall, and I don't feel like reading through my posts, but I thought I said of course the deaths here would be higher since they have much stricter gun laws, but gun crimes have gone up considerably and that has already been proven.
So is it safe to assume you could care less about robberies, and muggings and anything related to people using guns in relation to crimes??? Cause I thought the whole point of gun control is to stop gun related CRIMES, not just gun related DEATHS?
To me, it's much more important to stop ALL gun related crimes. Stopping gun related deaths is just a part of stopping all gun related crimes. However, no person here has come up with any good solution to stopping the gun related crimes, just a lot of speculation, and it's clear that getting the guns out of the hands of the innocent is a bad idea and it INCREASES gun related crime. So if you can come up with a solution to stop gun related crimes, I'm all ears.

Where exactly did you, or anyone else, prove that any changes in gun laws led to an increase in crime? You seem to have an awfully hard time distinguishing between causation and correlation.

[Finslady]

Originally Posted by Sheriff Gonna Getcha

Where exactly did you, or anyone else, prove that any changes in gun laws led to an increase in crime? You seem to have an awfully hard time distinguishing between causation and correlation.

First, I have to acknowledge that I have not read this entire thread, but I have read some interesting arguments.

In response to Sheriff's quote, here is an excerpt from an article about gun control:

If gun control laws have any effect, it may be to increase crime. For instance:19

* New Jersey adopted what sponsors described as "the most stringent gun law" in the nation in 1966; two years later, the murder rate was up 46 percent and the reported robbery rate had nearly doubled.

* In 1968, Hawaii imposed a series of increasingly harsh measures and its murder rate, then a low 2.4 per 100,000 per year, tripled to 7.2 by 1977.

* In 1976, Washington, D.C., enacted one of the most restrictive gun control laws in the nation. Since then, the city's murder rate has risen 134 percent while the national murder rate has dropped 2 percent.

If anyone is interested in reading the article, the link can be found here:
NCPA - Policy Report 176 - Myths About Gun Control

As for my own opinions about gun control, here goes. I own two handguns. I own a blue card (licence to purchase a handgun). I am well trained in gun safety and a good shot on a gun range. I do keep a gun in my home for protection (I don't have kids, and if, for instance, my nephews were coming over, the clip would be removed and the gun locked up.)
Recently, there was an incident at my home where someone wasn't satisfied in attempting to get my attention by screaming outside of my house and decided to open my bedroom window. I didn't shoot him. I screamed bloody murder for him to leave and filed a complaint. However, had this not deterred him, I take comfort in the fact that I have the ability to protect myself.
As for the issue of the average citizen being able to carry a concealed weapon, I disagree. I believe anyone applying for a permit to carry should go through rigorous safety, ability, and accuracy training (as is required in Rhode Island). Otherwise, any idiot is more likely to blow their own foot off rather than actually have to defend themself.

That's just my 2 cents.

[jsarno]

Originally Posted by Sheriff Gonna Getcha

Where exactly did you, or anyone else, prove that any changes in gun laws led to an increase in crime? You seem to have an awfully hard time distinguishing between causation and correlation.

Did you not watch the youtube link about the UK gun laws?

I am unsure of why you are failing to make the connections, so I will bow out of this discussion as there is no more I can say, or anyone can say that will show you this direct relation.

I will leave you with this: I emplore you to read the link just posted by finslady.

(I would also suggest you not leave negative rep to someone with solely a differing opinion than you, but I might be barking up the wrong tree there)

[jsarno]

Originally Posted by Finslady

First, I have to acknowledge that I have not read this entire thread, but I have read some interesting arguments.

In response to Sheriff's quote, here is an excerpt from an article about gun control:

If gun control laws have any effect, it may be to increase crime. For instance:19

* New Jersey adopted what sponsors described as "the most stringent gun law" in the nation in 1966; two years later, the murder rate was up 46 percent and the reported robbery rate had nearly doubled.

* In 1968, Hawaii imposed a series of increasingly harsh measures and its murder rate, then a low 2.4 per 100,000 per year, tripled to 7.2 by 1977.

* In 1976, Washington, D.C., enacted one of the most restrictive gun control laws in the nation. Since then, the city's murder rate has risen 134 percent while the national murder rate has dropped 2 percent.

If anyone is interested in reading the article, the link can be found here:
NCPA - Policy Report 176 - Myths About Gun Control

As for my own opinions about gun control, here goes. I own two handguns. I own a blue card (licence to purchase a handgun). I am well trained in gun safety and a good shot on a gun range. I do keep a gun in my home for protection (I don't have kids, and if, for instance, my nephews were coming over, the clip would be removed and the gun locked up.)
Recently, there was an incident at my home where someone wasn't satisfied in attempting to get my attention by screaming outside of my house and decided to open my bedroom window. I didn't shoot him. I screamed bloody murder for him to leave and filed a complaint. However, had this not deterred him, I take comfort in the fact that I have the ability to protect myself.
As for the issue of the average citizen being able to carry a concealed weapon, I disagree. I believe anyone applying for a permit to carry should go through rigorous safety, ability, and accuracy training (as is required in Rhode Island). Otherwise, any idiot is more likely to blow their own foot off rather than actually have to defend themself.

That's just my 2 cents.

Outstanding post. Good research.

[Sheriff Gonna Getcha]

Originally Posted by jsarno

Did you not watch the youtube link about the UK gun laws?

I did and it didn't convince me.

Originally Posted by jsarno

I am unsure of why you are failing to make the connections, so I will bow out of this discussion as there is no more I can say, or anyone can say that will show you this direct relation.

I have seen nothing that demonstrates that gun control laws result in an increase in gun crimes (or any crimes for that matter). Many of the "studies" I have read in this thread do not prove that gun control laws result in an increase in crime. They simply say, "X gun control measure was passed and, thereafter, crime rates increased." That is quite different from proving, "X gun control measure was paased and, therefore, crime rates increased." But, I will bow out of this discussion as there is nothing further I can say to illuminate the difference between correlation, coincidence, and causation.

Originally Posted by jsarno

(I would also suggest you not leave negative rep to someone with solely a differing opinion than you, but I might be barking up the wrong tree there)

First, I did not give you a negative reputation point for disagreeing with me. I gave you negative reputation points because, with all due respect, I have found some of your posts in this thread lacking in substance and smelling of arrogance. Second, I should note that I have not given anyone negative reputation points for having a different opinion. Third, I believe you have given me reputation points because I disagreed with you (but maybe it's because you think my posts lack substance or stink of arrogance).

In any case, I'm done with this thread. You have your opinions and I have mine, we disagree, and neither of us is likely to persuade the other to change his opinion.

PS - I can't wait for training camp to start so we can discuss real football events instead of politics/news.

[saden1]

Oh Ted, if nothing else your lunacy is entertaining:

[firstdown]

Well to be fair he is just repeating what Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, D-Mont said.

"Too often, much of late, the last couple three years, the mal-distribution of income in American is gone up way too much, the wealthy are getting way, way too wealthy and the middle income class is left behind," he said. "Wages have not kept up with increased income of the highest income in America. This legislation will have the effect of addressing that mal-distribution of income in America."

[saden1]

Anyone going to Ted Nugent "Trample the Weak, Hurdle the Dead" tour this summer?