Is anyone upset by the band's anti-gun position?

[U2Bama]

Originally posted by dream wanderer:
but then they reported on an incident that happened less than five miles from where I live ( the dad shot to death an armed intruder).

...but in the interest of fairness I just wanted to say the armed citizen protecting himself is not a myth...it does happen.

The other times you haear about these stories is when the assailant (or his/her survivors) turns around and tries to file charges or a lawsuit against the defendor. After all, if the intruder was "only" going to rob, rape or harm the family, maybe he shouldn't have been shot!

~U2Alabama

[LeftyEdge]

I have NEVER heard of a scenario where a crime was prevented due to a gun. I have NEVER read any article where a person said, "Thank God I had my gun, otherwise..."

You haven't, doctorwho? Well, here are a bunch of them for you! Scroll down about 3/4 and look for the "Most Recent Armed Self-defense News Stories" header.

------------------
Lefty Edge's Link of the Day!

[Klodomir]

No problem, 80s. Happened to me just the other day, remember?

[U2Bama]

I would expect U2 to have an anti-gun position, and although I disagree with parts of it, I don't have a huge problem with them having that position.

But there are MANY cases of law-abiding, gun-owning citizens defending themselves witht their legally-owned guns. These cases usually don't make it to the media because tragedy is averted: there is no murder, and usually the attacker is not even shot. And it is all settled in a police report and non-jury trial and the assailant pleads guilty and goes to jail.

But I have a terrible suspicion, which I hope isn't true, that some parts of the alleged "anti-gun" movement do not have a problem with potential robbers and such having guns, just as long as the "law-abiding" types do not have guns. Maybe as a method of redistribution of the wealth?

~U2Alabama

[erok]

My two cents:

It's not about guns, it's about our society.
Without the freedom to bear arms, we would still be and English colony. Without our constitution, we would not have freedon of speech and freedon of religion. If they take away our right to own guns, will they take away or freedom of speech and religion too?

I grew up in a household where we always had guns. They weren't even locked up. I was free to use them as I pleased. It was my parents who instilled upon me the proper mindset and responsibility regarding guns. The fact is, it is the degradation of the American family that is to blame for the violence in America. I've been whitness to too many parents who just don't give a shit about their children to instill individual responsibility.

If crimials want a gun, they'll get a gun. No matter if they have to go through legal channels or not.

My motto is: "it's not our constitution that's obsolete, it's our society that's obsolete".

The family in America is in danger. And, with it, so is our freedom.

[Cow of the Seas]

personally, ive become very wary of big issues like this. so, since to my knowledge none of us have much power in government, why dont we wall try to make the world a better place, in any way we know how.

try it, it starts with the little things.

this DOES have to do with this thread.

------------------
-death bear

[80sU2isBest]

Originally posted by zoomerang II:

I'm bored with this. I thought the human race had evolved to the point where a man was big enough to use his brain to get a message across without hiding behind a lethal weapon. Suppose we're not there yet.
[This message has been edited by zoomerang II (edited 07-22-2001).]

You're right we're not there. And we never will be. As long as evil exists, we're gonna have to deal with it.

[LeftyEdge]

There are several references to self defense in the bible. Surely you theists know this.

------------------
Lefty Edge's Link of the Day!

[pub crawler]

There are people who grow up with guns in their house and are taught how to use them properly and taught gun safety, and then there are the kids in the inner city (and suburbs, for that matter) who grow up in material or emotional poverty or relative poverty and are looking for a way out. For the latter, violence becomes a means to an end. They don't have guns sitting on a gun rack on their wall. They go get the guns they need, by any means necessary. This is problematic.

[zoomerang II]

I suppose we all have the right to carry some semtex as well just in case we need to defend ourselves against a revolution or some army that may come along.

I'm bored with this. I thought the human race had evolved to the point where a man was big enough to use his brain to get a message across without hiding behind a lethal weapon. Suppose we're not there yet.

[This message has been edited by zoomerang II (edited 07-22-2001).]

I don't have much time to respond at the moment, but I'll say this and I have said it before, an average of 10,000 AMERICANS are killed every year from gun violence compared to only 50 in the UK. The UK has 1/5 the population of the USA so the death rate from guns in the USA should only be 250, it it was just as good as the UK! BUT ITS 10,000! Clearly the UK system for gun control is far superior to the USA!
Oh, and Lefty Edge, the area's that you mentioned in the USA that have the highest death rates from gun violence also have the highest poverty rates! Its the not the fact that they have more gun control that makes things worse. There is little to begin with and the second and real problem is poverty. Area's that have little gun violence have little poverty. Its not because more people have guns!

[80sU2isBest]

Originally posted by STING:
I don't have much time to respond at the moment, but I'll say this and I have said it before, an average of 10,000 AMERICANS are killed every year from gun violence compared to only 50 in the UK. The UK has 1/5 the population of the USA so the death rate from guns in the USA should only be 250, it it was just as good as the UK! BUT ITS 10,000! Clearly the UK system for gun control is far superior to the USA!
Oh, and Lefty Edge, the area's that you mentioned in the USA that have the highest death rates from gun violence also have the highest poverty rates! Its the not the fact that they have more gun control that makes things worse. There is little to begin with and the second and real problem is poverty. Area's that have little gun violence have little poverty. Its not because more people have guns!

Comparing the U.S. to the low guns/low crime societies of the United Kingdom or Canada is one of the most common arguments among gun control advocates. In rebuttal, gun control opponents typically reference high guns/low crime nations such as Switzerland and Israel. However, these comparisons miss the mark. The futility of pairwise comparisons between nations’ crime rates relative to their gun ownership becomes apparent once one realizes that there are countries with every permutation: the US (high guns/high crime); Switzerland and Israel (high guns/low crime); Japan (low guns/low crime); and Mexico (low guns/high crime). Any two countries can be compared or contrasted to make any point desired.

A simple thought experiment will illustrate this point: Three countries, X, Y and Z have very strict anti-gun laws. Should we assume their homicide rates to be very low? In fact, X, Y and Z have homicide rates 100-150 percent greater than the U.S. (compare the U.S. homicide rate at 9.5 people killed/100,000 to X’s 19.7/100,000 in 1993). Should we suppose that X, Y and Z have one common feature that is responsible for their homicide rates? Since X, Y and Z are low guns/high crime societies, should we assume that guns are not causing the homicides? If so, why not?

X, Y and Z are actually Russia, Taiwan and South Africa, respectively. But which one characteristic, the same in Russia, Taiwan and South Africa throughout the past and present, is responsible for their homicide rates? Attempting to distill the cause of homicide down to one factor such as guns, in each of these very diverse countries, is difficult if not impossible.

Gun control advocates claim that the crime rate is low in the UK because the British have fewer guns than Americans. But European countries have always had lower violent crime rates than the US, even before strict gun control laws were passed. Moreover, many violent crime rates in Europe and elsewhere are increasing faster than in the U.S. right now.

Furthermore, the logic of the low guns/low crime rate fails when one considers that the UK’s homicide rate is lower for non-gun homicides as well. Clearly, fewer homicides committed with knives, sticks, etc. cannot be attributable to gun control.

Very little can be concluded from international studies focused on the guns/crime relationship. Not surprisingly, most of the research is technically weak. The best available homicide and suicide data collected from 36 countries by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, when analyzed by Gary Kleck, demonstrates that there is no significant correlation between gun ownership and homicide.

To summarize, there is no consistent global correlation between gun availability and violent crime rates.

I find it amazing what gun advocates will do to dispute the facts. Lets take some of these cases where violent crime or homocide with fire arms is higher than in the USA according to your data. Russia, is a country that is suffering very much from poverty, crime, civil war, and other problems. How there could be reliable gun ownership data, when the location of many Russian military weapon systems is in question, is crazy. Gun Advocates probably took gun ownership Data from the old Soviet Union and applied it to the Russia from the early 90s to make a point. The Russia of the 1990s is far different from the Soviet Union and much equipment from the vast stockpiles the Soviet Army had has been taken or purchased by civilians or organized crime. So that example is wrong.
Gun ownership is high in Switzerland because nearly all males are considered part of the Military Reserve and required to train at certain time during the year. The weapons that people have are for military use for the nation and NOT individual security or use!
Israel is a nation that is almost in a constant state of War. The country was attacked and fought 5 major wars in its first 34 years! The weapons that everyone has again are for the security of the nation against attack and not individual use unless your a settler on the West Bank or Gaza.
South Africa is another country where there is much poverty and political upheaval. Not a good comparison.
Among developed Industialized nations at peace, though only possible exception you might have is Switzerland. Again, this is a unique case due to the countries military policies. Although, I have not researched it, I'm sure the laws about when and where the citizens can use those weapons are very strict and would make the NRA red with anger if imposed in the USA. I also think that most of the weapons will be rifles and not hand guns.
Countries like the UK, Ireland, Canada, and Australia are good comparisons to the USA because they both have similar standards of living. Crime occurs in all those countries, but the death rates in places like the UK and Canada are amazingly smaller. Why? In those countries gun access is very restricted while in the USA its not.
Also it is not simply that more people die in the USA than in the UK from gun violence. ITs the Degree to which more do. 10,000 to 50! 50% more people have been killed in Cincinnati in the last 3 months than in all of the United Kingdom last year!
Ever wonder why the military often confiscates the weapons of civilians when they move into a newly conquered area during a war. Its for security reasons and everyone including the civilians are safer because of it.
Guns should only be in the hands of the Military, Police and other law enforcement. USAs current system does not work. How could anyone argue that, with 671,000 gun deaths in the USA since 1980, are system is a success. That total is more than all the USA deaths from World War I, World War II, Korean War, Vietnam War combined! It is clear that the American system of gun control has FAILED! It is time to try something new! The NRAs main concern is the "rights" of gun owners! It is not the massive death rate that we have in the USA relative to other countries from such weapons. One also knows there are problems when the Police force in Seattle is out gunned by two bank robbers and a person like David Koresh is able to stock pile a vast numbers of weapons.
The USA needs to radically change its gun control policy in order to reduce the number of deaths in the USA. Crime often occurs where poverty exist, but deaths from crime increase rapidly when guns are more available. If the UK were suddenly flooded with weapons, the death rate from crime would go up rapidly. Thats why the government keeps strict gun control laws. In the USA, the gun "rights" lobby has prevented meaningful gun control laws from being passed which is why it is very difficult to improve the situation. Individuals simply cannot be trusted like members in the Military and Police force. Hopefully something can be done with campaign finance reform to reduce the influence of the NRA on are elected leaders.
I've disagreed with U2 in the past on somethings, but this is one thing I agree with them.

[pub crawler]

One reason people so rabidly defend "The Right To Bear Arms" is that it's nice to be able to protect oneself from the riff raff of society. You know, the criminals (who are often black and hispanic, aren't they?? pub crawler asks this question facetiously and sarcastically. Pub is trying to bait gun ownership advocates into having an honest discussion about this issue.)

)

[80sU2isBest]

Originally posted by pub crawler:
One reason people so rabidly defend "The Right To Bear Arms" is that it's nice to be able to protect oneself from the riff raff of society. You know, the criminals (who are often black and hispanic, aren't they?? pub crawler asks this question facetiously and sarcastically. Pub is trying to bait gun ownership advocates into having an honest discussion about this issue.)

Okay, I'll take the bait. Your statement infers something horrible about gun advocates. Pub, that's just damned offensive to anyone who cares about this issue but may be on the opposite side of you.
I've NEVER heard a gun advocate say that guns are nice to protect themself from ANY minority. People for the right to bear arms are interested in teh right to protect themself from anyone (white, black, yellow, red, purple, orange, blue) that would pose a serious threat themselves or their family.
As for what you call "Riff Raff" - I consider Riff Raff anyone who would murder, molest or rape anyone. My definition of riff raff has absolutely NOTHING to do with race or socio-economic status.

[dream wanderer]

The post also implies that only white people have the guns...everyone has the guns over here...

Dream Wanderer

[radiodivision]

Originally posted by STING:
I don't have much time to respond at the moment, but I'll say this and I have said it before, an average of 10,000 AMERICANS are killed every year from gun violence compared to only 50 in the UK. The UK has 1/5 the population of the USA so the death rate from guns in the USA should only be 250, it it was just as good as the UK! BUT ITS 10,000! Clearly the UK system for gun control is far superior to the USA!
Oh, and Lefty Edge, the area's that you mentioned in the USA that have the highest death rates from gun violence also have the highest poverty rates! Its the not the fact that they have more gun control that makes things worse. There is little to begin with and the second and real problem is poverty. Area's that have little gun violence have little poverty. Its not because more people have guns!

I've never thought I would agree with you STING, but on this one I do! Like I said in my previous post, I do think the issue of gun violence has a lot to do with poverty and the growing gap between rich and poor.

[bonofnattic]

Balance! Is there an answer that includes balance? I dunno. I know that I live alone in a large city & want a new gun (I have protection albeit old) for self-defense. In that respect, why shouldn't I be allowed a gun? I don't like them, & like nuclear weapons, wish they'd never been made (although they were used in the Revolutionary War & largely are why I live in the US. Go figure). My problem is with so many "assault" and "automatic" weapons. I don't think they're used to hunt Bambi & put food on the table.

Anyway, I have no answers but think we need balance. I also think that if we had more of a sense of COMMUNITY in America, then "loners" & the "unstable" might be able to go to others for help instead of doing something really stupid. It all comes down to family & love (to be trite).

my 2 cents.

dave

[Autumn454]

I just wonder if most Europeans are aware that there are places in America like the Appalachian mountains and the great plains and Rockies where a large percentage of the population carries guns, yet there has never been a murder in the history of the town. Maybe everyone is afraid because everyone else is armed. Or maybe all the crazies live somewhere else. I'm tired of the media portraying us as a bunch of gun weilding maniacs who must be stopped. Sure there are that type out there but it's not fair to label everyone like that. If these idiots didn't use a gun it would be another weapon.

True it would be another weapon, but the chances of survival for the victim would greatly increase!