Violence will never go away.  It is human nature to commit violent acts.

Violence was around before firearms and will still be around even if all the firearms magically disappeared.

The point of owning and possessing firearms is not to reduce violent acts, but to prevent violent acts from happening to YOU.

-934

Edit to add:  The best way to determine future results is to look at past events.  Throughout history, men have killed each other.  Whether it was the stick, the spear, arrow, rocks, bombs, guns, etc.  Legislating objects will not deter those wish to harm others.  Only those who have malice in their heart commit violent acts - the tool is of no consequence.

Sure - while you are trying to prove to the state that you aren't a threat to society and waiting to get your gun - I will smash your head in with a brick.  Good thing I didn't have a gun, right?

How do you suggest we keep violent predators from getting weapons?  I have an easy suggestion.  Pretty much follows the same logic I posed above - past behavior will indicate future behavior.  Lock them up.  Prison is not about rehab, job training or punishment.  It is about keeping those who are violent out of society.

-934

The only viable response to the unchecked aggression of the criminal mind is to overwhelm it with a superior determination to live.

If you must shoot, you shoot to live, not to kill.

Most of the time you have to answer violence with violence.

I, for one, am so sick of all the talk about "violence" I'm ready to do some meself.    

T.V. commercials now inundate us with crap like, "Violence is no solution.  Violence is NEVER the answer."

BULLSHIT!  Violence often times is the ONLY answer that works.  

Until mankind is magically transformed into some Star Trek-like race without the will or ability to harm other humans/creatures, violence will often be the only effective response to those who wish to do evil against other innocents.  

And I'm not only talking about self-defense in the face of imminent bodily harm.  Look at the various (just) wars we have fought.  One could make the argument that WWII was fought not to preserve out own hides but on more "moral" grounds (and to protect our interests abroad after the shakeout of the inevitible).  

I say violence IS an answer.  Not the only answer for all situations, but perhaps the best and singly effective one in certain situations.  

Sometimes, the only thing the enemy understands is raw, hard-core, savage violence.  In the face of a zealous enemy bent upon the destruction of your culture, no amount of diplomacy will suffice.  The only response is the sure and brutal killing of as many of the bastards as possible before your own destruction takes place.  

Whether the "enemy" is the Islamo-fascists, the Communists, Nazis, or the meth head down the street intent upon burglarizing your home for his next fix, you may just have to take the fight to them or suffer the consequences.  

Tell the kid who is being bullied and robbed of his lunch money on a daily basis that violence is NEVER an answer.  

the retaliatory amount of violence should be ten-fold; swift, unfair and delivered in such a manner that the enemy will not even think twice to repeat what he started.  there are no second chances.

So, you are using your own limited experience with gunowners as being the rule, not the exception.  I would love to see the statistics and interviews with 80mill gun owners in the US to back that statement up.

Please show me the FACTS not your own perception that anti-social people are violent.  Violent people *may* be anti-social but correlation does not equal causation.

The largest mass murders in the US were not commited with firearms.

-934

Taking a page out of the Imbrog play book are you...

Violence is part & parcel with the human experience.

Cain killed Abel.

Animals kill each other all of the time...and not always for food.

No matter how you slice it, violence is part of human nature. We maybe able to place self/society impossed constraints on it, but it will never be completely removed from our nature. Besides, I thought that conventional Constitutional wisdom says that the Bill of Right merely enumerates some of our God-given rights, thus spelling out what is persona non grata for the gubermint to molest/regulate/tax/restrict/ad nausem.

Have you been hangin' out @ DuH to much?

[;)]

More Violance??

#1 Morals; The way things look today are much different then 10 years ago. Most people don't have any morales or a good understanding of what good morales are.
#2 Discipline; I was taught to behave as a child and if I were to act up I knew what the consequences were (my dad with a can of whoop ass).
#3 Honor; This is something most men (or women) do not even know or live by.
#4 Religion; Most religions are respectable. They teach the above 3.
With the above four most violence could be erased. But what about necessary violence? In my opinion most violent crimes are committed by the local crack head or the local 17 year old wannabe bad ass. I say hang the crack head and beat the crap out of the wannabe bad ass.
Just my 2 pennies
Samuel  

First off, nice devil's advocate job. [:)]

Regarding the original question, access to firearms is now more restricted than ever before in our history. Gun production and legal ownership continues to increase annual regardless. Yet a cursory examination of Bureau of Justice records shows that violent crime - with or without use of firearms - has ebbed and flowed in cycles. You would think, if there *was* a direct correlation between simple ownership and violence, that a steadily increasing gun-owner population would result in steadily increasing violence. That's not the case.

A closer look at state-by-state crime rates and gun ownership rates provides equally interesting numbers. You would think that looser gun laws would be tied to higher rates of violence. And sometimes it is. But sometimes it isn't. Some very anti-gun states have *low* crime rates. But so do some very pro-gun, "cash and carry" states. Then again, D.C. has banned guns but has a horrifyingly high rate of violent crime. So does pro-gun Louisiana. Hard to find the connection.

Another concise example: Historically speaking, crimes rates were far lower in the 40s and 50s, when a teenager could purchase a semi-automatic pistol or rifle at Sears, paying cash and without any background check. Where were the Columbines then?

If my facts are wrong or you have evidence that access to firearms is directly related to violence, I'd appreciate the clarification. I pride myself on being willing to change my opinions when presented with documented facts to the contrary or if I find my conclusions are based on faulty information.

Regarding your followup questions, I'm tired, really hungry and burned off my brain-fuel typing the above. Hopefully, what I've said shows that there isn't much connection between violence and gun ownership. That just leaves the question of why violence won't go away. The only thing I can come up with right now is that there are far too many reasons for it and not all can be addressed legally.

Some folks are just "ornery". Some people have chemical imbalances. Some are frightened. Some have only seen and been met with violence, so they don't know there are alternatives. It's best to understand why someone is acting violently - when there's time.

Frequently, your first warning is an attack on your person. At that point, if you or someone in your immediate proximity isn't willing to counter with enough force (not necessarily violence), all the theorizing or understanding in the world will be useless.

I *really* need to eat now. Please pick apart my position. I like having stuff to think about.

Keith C.

P.S. - I'd also like to know why you believe most gun owners are antisocial. Is it from personal exposure? They can't be *that* antisocial if they socialize enough for you to notice that.

Does most violent crime occur in poverty stricken areas? What is the #1 cause?
Samuel

This is true, but not only for the stated reason.  However, I believe that before the solution can be found, the problem must be adequately defined.  "Violence" covers many "things".  I would assume that one act of violence to be solved is the unlawful taking of another life.  But are we also including violent emotional outbursts where nobody is harmed (maybe someone beats me in a game of pong, and I throw the Atari across the room)?



I don't believe that this would be an issue for either side of the group.  I believe that both sides of the pro-freedom/anti-freedom argument would agree that guns are not the cause of violence, but are sometimes used in acts of violence.



I cannot say that violence will never go away, but at the moment I assume it will not.  There are many things that cause violence (remember the above question regarding the definition...for now I'll assume a definition of the unlawful or generally-assumed immoral taking of another life).  Lack of resources is one such problem, which can be found in areas such as Africa.  Previous aggressions is another cause, as seen in Israel.  There are other factors, probably many that I can't think of.

Some people are sheltered from the natural order of things, having been raised to believe that they will be protected or cared for.  However, the natural order shows us that one must provide for themself, protect themself, etc....  One must always be prepared to face an adverse situation.  Even then, it should not be assumed that preparation will be adequate to prevent negative events from occurring.

What is your answer to violence?

Same as the question, Do you feel lucky; Punk?

1GR

Hee. I snarfed down a rotisserie chicken and wanted to check back.



If I knew how to prevent all crime, I'd be a wealthy man! Restricting guns, in fact, would *not* reduce the lethality of crime. Criminals, by job description, don't obey laws. Current restrictions would leave their tools virtually untouched. No real solution there, interim or otherwise. If said restriction was to, for example, make any crime using a firearm punishable by a mandatory 15-year sentence, you wouldn't need to restrict ownership. Misuse leads to harsh punishment. Actually, I support that.



If there is no connection, *why* restrict them? Most crime is one-on-one. Against a person ill-equipped to counter violence, any object or fighting ability *could* add a deadly factor. Should we restrict martial arts training? Add background check requirements to the schools?



Do we really have them already? Again, according to government sources, so-called "assault rifles" make up fewer than 2% of confiscated weapons. Not those used in crimes, mind you, just confiscated. And, again, why not? You haven't told me why a teen toting an M1 Garand in the 1950s wasn't dangerous but one toting an AK47 today is. If we could identify that, perhaps *that* would be a good first step to reducing crime and violence.



If you don't care about any cause-effect relationship, then you aren't sincerely looking for a solution to crime. You're simply looking for justification for restricting legal gun ownership. And the deadliness of gun vs no-gun  *is* deniable. It's the criminal's intent that make the situation deadly. I'd rather face a disinterested gunman than an enraged knifeman.



How expensive and guaranteed *is* the solution of restricting guns? What effort and expense would it take to further restrict new gun purchases and further document and somehow restrict ownership of the 250 million guns currently in circulation? Un-inventing them is not an option. By the way, what "restrictions" do you recommend that would result in a drop in crime? I suppose it's a moot point, since you don't care about whether there's a cause-effect relationship.



I'm happy for you, but I beg to differ to an extent. I was born and raised in the Bronx. It was a pretty lousy and violent neighborhood. I didn't have a gun but I managed to survive easily without one. I now live in a semi-rural part of Colorado with very low crime. I own several guns. There's much less violence here, so I can't support your premise. Besides, if there's no cause-effect relationship, you don't really know how safe you *are*, do you? You might be stabbed tonight or your neighbor, the 5th degree black-belt, might develop a brain tumor, go snapperhead and decide to attack your family.



Frankly, no. Please refer back to the chicken. [:)]



Understandable. However, you need to be careful about what you read. If you look back in the older archives of any major paper, you'll find many things reported as "fact" that have since been dispelled as sensational rumor. The sinking of the U.S.S. Maine resulted in headlines of sabotage - now in question, but enough to launch a war back then. Phrenology was considered science. Let's not even talk about editorials against women's suffrage, downplaying civil rights as supporting Communism, etc.

Perhaps if, instead of relying on the reporting of others, you took some time to become involved in our community, you might find that we aren't quite so scary. For that matter, you might find a number of anti-gun types that are even *more* frightening. It's about people, not objects, in the end.

Why would you restrict guns? We don't have a gun problem, We have a people problem.

I have a Samiri sword and a bolo machete,also a firearm which would you prefer to be used on you should you attack my home or my loved ones?
 I would think the firearm?  No?

 Bob  [:D]