Ted Nugent Jumps In On Gun Control

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(DocVijay @ Apr 20 2007, 06:43 PM) [snapback]427053[/snapback]</div>

You're totally right on, 100%, except for this.

It's actually funny that you said this though, because I was just discussing with a Deputy friend of mine today about the anti-gun liberal hypocrite's on this forum. We went into how liberals hate the 2nd Amendment, but how when someone is breaking into their house they call the POLICE.. Why? because the Police have the guns!
Then our conversation branched off into this topic.. the Police aren't here to protect you. Why would you rely on someone that doesn't even know you to protect the MOST IMPORTANT THING, your life? If you want protection, get a gun. Call the police after you've "stopped the threat" of the murder/rape/robbery attempting criminal. Protect yourself..

The Police are not here to protect you, technically, they are here to prevent, deter, investigate, and arrest. It just so happens that when they arrest someone trying to murder someone, it PREVENTS them from being murdered.

Thats the thing with liberals.. They want to rely on the government for EVERYTHING.



--Oh yeah, and Mystery Squid - I couldn't tell if you were being sarcastic or what, but you've off your rocker if you think we don't need the Constitution.

and also, yes, like efusco said, it is very possible for a group of "like-minded individuals to overthrow a terribly corrupt government, it would require not only arms, technology, brains, and wit.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Mystery Squid @ Apr 20 2007, 06:51 PM) [snapback]427058[/snapback]</div>

My friend, to them I say MOLON LABE!!!!!!!

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wiyosaya @ Apr 20 2007, 01:19 PM) [snapback]426825[/snapback]</div>

There were 43,443 car deaths in 2005 (of which 27,472 were alcohol related).
http://www.iihs.org/research/default.html

From 1990-1999 there were an average of 36,000 deaths every year from influenza (the flu)
http://www.cdc.gov/flu/professionals/diagnosis/

From 1997-2001 there were an average of 437,902 deaths annually attributable to smoking.
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5425a1.htm

In 2003 there were 685,803 deaths from heart disease.
ftp://ftp.cdc.gov/pub/ncipc/10LC-2003/PDF/10lc-2003.pdf

Also in 2003 there were 556,902 deaths from cancer.
ftp://ftp.cdc.gov/pub/ncipc/10LC-2003/PDF/10lc-2003.pdf

In 1991 there were an estimated 324,940 deaths related to obesity.
http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/282/16/1530


Except for cancer, all of these can be either eliminated or reduced to some degree. But except for smoking, I never see the passion to which people have against guns.

Oh, and BTW, in 2003 there were 28827 deaths from firearms. Of those, 11,920 were murders, and 16,907 were suicides. So when you say gun violence you need to differentiate.

So what do these numbers mean? Well depends on who you are and what you think. But the fact that all of these other causes of deaths are greater (some much more so) is interesting.

Heart disease kills over 20 times the people. Fat kills 10 times as many. Now these two figures are sure to have some level of overlap, but imagine the lives you could save if you could get everyone off their fat nice person and live healthy!

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(DocVijay @ Apr 20 2007, 09:47 PM) [snapback]427108[/snapback]</div>

Well, we're trying to eradicate the flu.

Cigarette companies are paying through the nose.

A cure for cancer and heart disease is always being worked on. And, btw, I'm sure a lot of those folks had lived a long life.

The obesity issue? Self-imposed. So is smoking. Both can be fixed, even if you've got to go to a shrink to help with the process. It ain't easy, but it's something with an obvious cause and effect.

The difference between this stuff and guns is huge. Apples and oranges.

And we've had the car discussion before in this forum, too. People die from lawn mowers and chainsaws, too. The difference is that a gun (unlike a car) is for one of two purposes: killing or maiming. Dispassionately. From a distance.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(DocVijay @ Apr 20 2007, 06:47 PM) [snapback]427108[/snapback]</div>

The primary purpose of cars is transportation. The primary purpose of guns is killing and maiming. Drivers must be licensed and insured before they are permitted to operate a car. Driving under the influence is against the law. Have you ever heard of MADD, Mothers Against Drunk Drivers?

 

If the Dems dropped or softened their stance on gun control issues they would pick up enough swing voters to control the government.
By the Dems alienating gun owners, the Republicans are allowed to win power .The result is the death of 600,000 innocent civilians in Iraq.
Drop the anti-gun stance and save lives.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(livelychick @ Apr 20 2007, 10:01 PM) [snapback]427119[/snapback]</div>

Of course these are different. My point is that there are things in this country that are 100% voluntary that kill many times more people than guns do.

And the way I see it (along with about 79,999,999 others in this country), guns are for defending yourself. From a distance. So that you are out of harms way.

And the most important difference?

My right to own a gun is protected by the Constitution.

Smoking, drinking, and driving are not, yet people never even mention banning these things. We tried with alcohol and we all know how effective that was.

Now imagine trying to do that with something that the Constitution says you have a right to.

Another thing is that Prohibition was added to the Constitution later, whereas the right to bear arms was important enough to be included in the Bill of Rights itself. Prohibition was so easily repealed because it was added later (and it was utterly useless). But to try and remove a right that is in the Bill of Rights? Might as well try and stop the sun from rising.

The greatest treasure of this country is the Constitution. Second by a narrow margin is the Bill of Rights. Third is the Declaration of Independence.

Those three pillars define and hold up this country. Try and alter one and the whole thing could collapse

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(DocVijay @ Apr 20 2007, 10:31 PM) [snapback]427130[/snapback]</div>

And just what do you think the Patriot Act does? The sun is still rising.

And, btw, the Bill of Rights is part of the Constitution. They're not separate treasures. The Declaration of Independence, while gorgeous in setting George III straight on where the country was going, and gaining the collective support for gaining our independence, is a historical treasure, but has little to do with our political system.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(livelychick @ Apr 20 2007, 09:36 AM) [snapback]426832[/snapback]</div>

Look up the story about the Appalachian Law School; the shooter was stopped by a student who ran off campus to where he parked his car, ran back, and stopped the shooter. The NY Times, NY Post, and most other mainstream media said students "swarmed the shooter". In fact, a student with a gun stopped him.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(fshagan @ Apr 20 2007, 11:48 PM) [snapback]427161[/snapback]</div>

That's true. But he was talking about what happened at Tech, wasn't he? I'll attempt to read it again...

EDIT: My fault. Read it wrong. Sorry. So, he's still f'ed up, but at least he got his fact straight.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(livelychick @ Apr 20 2007, 07:50 PM) [snapback]427164[/snapback]</div>

Don't know ... I didn't read the Nugent article. Ted's been an ardent "self sufficient" kind of guy for a long, long time, preaching that we need to assume responsibility for our own protection, learn to feed ourselves, etc. He does it from the perspective of respect for where the food comes from (he's said that he would consider himself a hypocrite if he couldn't kill an animal and butcher it, and then still ate meat; its important to know the sacrifice the animal makes before chomping into your burger). Its not my cup of tea, but he's been consistent over the years.

The gun issue is bordered with horrible stats ... Carl Bialik, who has the "The Numbers Guy" column in the Wall Street Journal, noted how some of the stats are compiled. One stat, repeated by the Brady Campaign, is that gun violence costs us over 100 billion dollars a year. He goes into how the study was done, gives the cite, but the end result is: no, it doesn't cost us that.

Now I imagined that they took a sample of the costs of the 11,000 or so murders committed by guns and extrapolated the costs. But no, the study is based on a 2001 estimate of a 1998 phone study that used "contingent valuation", where people were asked how much society should pay to reduce gun violence by 30%. Huh? Well, the answer they got was about 24.5 billion dollars. Presumably people are thinking of how much more they would have to pay police, etc. OK, so its not how much gun violence COSTS, but how much people would be willing to pay to eradicate 30% of it. They didn't ask about completely eliminating it, but figure 100 billion as a nice round number, extrapolated from the 24.5 billion at a 30% reduction.

There are all sorts of problems with this, as people's estimate of how much they would pay is hardly the same as how much it costs us. And who knows what people would have said about "eliminating all gun violence". Bialik quotes the study's authors who enumerate several drawbacks to the technique of "contingent valuation".

He tackles several other numbers myths: that the US has the highest per capita gun murders in the world (we do not, Slovakia, El Salvador, Albania, Costa Rica, Uruguay and Mexico all exceed us). The surveys the advocates cite compare only western Europe and the US, not the US and the entire world.

The stats are wrong on the other side too. Gun freedom advocates cite 2 million times a year that guns are used to avert or stop a crime in progress to support the idea of defensive use of guns. The study for that assertion did a phone survey and asked people if they owned a gun, and if they did, if they had ever used it to stop a crime or avert danger. The sample size does not appear in the article. The numbers were extrapolated to the entire gun owning population in the US. While that's an answer closer to the original question than the "gun violence costs us X" lie, it still is not a hard number.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(DocVijay @ Apr 20 2007, 07:31 PM) [snapback]427130[/snapback]</div>

That is YOUR interpretation of the constitution. This is what the Second Amendment actually says:

The right is in the context of a well regulated militia.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(desynch @ Apr 20 2007, 03:00 PM) [snapback]427012[/snapback]</div>

AR's are crap for fishing man, even the armour piercing bullets shatter within 2 ft. of the surface.

Wildkow

p.s. Dynamite now that's the ticket. Muzzle Loaders, Shotgun Slugs and Sub-sonic FMJ 9mm all do a better job.


BTW people, law enforcement is under no duty or obligation to risk their life for yours. AFAIK

 

Guns do not kill people. I have a gun in a closet, and to my knowledge it has never left the closet to go off and kill someone. People kill people, period. The Means of which it is done has no bearing on the case, whether it was with a gun, a knife, hammer or a car, it is still a killing. Anti gun laws help out greatly by giving the criminals with illegal guns free reign over all those who cannot have one. Some may argue that if guns were illegal the way they are in other countries, this would not have happened, um wrong, it would still have happened, the guns would have just been obtained through other channels. It's foolish to think that removing legal guns from those who are competent enough to take training, learn how to properly use, and store one, will cut down on crime, statistics show other wise.

I read today that a woman who was 1944 miss america defended her property by shooting out the tires on the criminals car. This was an 82 YO woman, way to go granny!

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(ACD @ Apr 21 2007, 08:06 AM) [snapback]427290[/snapback]</div>

They sure make the killing a whole lot easier and more efficient.

Guns make it possible to kill multiple people, to kill people from a distance and from secret hiding places and in many other situations where knives or hammers would not have made such murders possible. What crazy nut job would have succeeded in killing 32 people in a short span of time armed only with a knife or a hammer?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(ACD @ Apr 21 2007, 11:06 AM) [snapback]427290[/snapback]</div>

This is straight from the NRA Handbook.

Guns make it less personal--and that's the bottom line. And when it becomes less personal, it's just easier to do.

And there's a BIG difference in "anti-gun laws" which smacks of a total ban on guns, and gun regulation. I'm for better regulation, and not just on guns themselves, but on the ammunition to supply them. Psychiatric evals, training courses, and certifications...all that. If people really want to own a gun, make them work for it. We require a much more extensive certification process for driving, but not for guns? That's absolutely ludicrous, and an example of the stupidity and extent of the NRA and its coffers.

And I can hear your next argument, straight out of the NRA Handbook again--blahblahblah--only criminals will have guns if we put too much restriction on them. Bullsh++. Enact gun laws that don't mess around, smelt down the guns that are confiscated off the street...the proliferation slows, and so will the distribution.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(efusco @ Apr 21 2007, 09:11 AM) [snapback]427301[/snapback]</div>

Exactly how many nut jobs have gone on a killing spree on a high school, college or university campus, or at post office, for that matter, with a bomb?

Off the top of my head, in the last few months crazy gunmen went on mass killing sprees in Virginia Tech, Salt Lake City and Lancaster County, Pennsylvania.