Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

Wha? Ok, I need to check your profile, because your making rural america out to be like the fucking wild west or something. We live in the country, 10 miles away from the nearest town, which then only has a population of a thousand (at the most, prolly high hundreds). We have completely adequate police protection. We don't need to fend for ourselves...!

Okay Red_Skunk here's a little more to my profile. I grew up about 1.5 hours from St. Louis, Missouri in a town of 1,100. My soon to be ex-wife lived about 2 miles from Arkansas and about 20 miles from the nearest settlement. In her class of 6 there is 1 MD, then my ex who will be a MD in 2 yrs, and a pharmacist. Then 2 of the remaining 3 have gone to college. I have lived far out in the country where there was basically no police protection. I have a BA and have taken some Masters classes in Strategic Intelligence/Counter-Terrorism.

I have shot a variety of firearms from high-powered hunting rifles to assault rifles such as the M-16, AK-47 and Uzi. I have also shot handguns and competitve air-rifle.

Now I am not saying that the country/rural America is the Wild West and we're just a bunch of rednecks. What I am saying is that in these areas almost everyone has a gun and that this is a deterent to violent crime. Conversely, if you look at Urban areas I bet you would see a higher per-capita rate of violent crime (sexual assault, murder, etc.) than in rural areas. The point I'm making is a area with more guns has a smaller crime rate than a area with less guns.

Earlier I wrote that gun show purchased guns are used in less than 0.5 percent of crimes involving a gun. I was off by .02 percent, the actual number is 0.7 percent. Which means out of 1000 gun crimes, 7 involved guns purchased at gun shows. That statistic is from 1997, when firearm use in crimes was higher than it is now (though dropping dramatically.) The number comes from the bureau of justice.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/ascii/fuo.txt

People are alwasys surprised when the ones that are always picked on finally snap. Why? No one knows. But guess who gets blamed.

nice little response -

At 1/9/04 01:49 AM, TheMason wrote: I have lived far out in the country where there was basically no police protection.

Ok, I've lived in rural areas nearly my whole life also, first in Vermont, on the top of a mountain, probably something like 20 miles away from the nearest town, on a road that the road crew determined to not be a road, so they didn't have to plow it in the winter. My parents oftentimes had to hike up teh mountain, in the winter, with me strapped to their backs (I lived here from birth to around 6-7). During the summers, the rednecks liked to race past our house in their trucks, and shoot our cats. This, understandably, frightened my mother (even though we had a firearm in the house, it would have been stupid to 'escalate the conflict,' if you will, by standing around outside with aforementioned firearm). We moved to another rural area over the border in NY, where, although closer to town and slightly less red, the sound of [fully] automatic gunfire before, during, and post hunting season is heard. It's easy to find rednecks 'trolling' in their pick-ups on the road, watching for deer.

I have a BA and have taken some Masters classes in Strategic Intelligence/Counter-Terrorism.

Yes, all very impressive, I'm working on acouple BA's myself. My age has limited the amount of study that I've been able to complete thus far.

I have shot a variety of firearms from high-powered hunting rifles to assault rifles such as the M-16, AK-47 and Uzi. I have also shot handguns and competitve air-rifle.

I shot a shotgun with the help of my father 5 or so years ago, and then my interest in destroying things waned.

Now I am not saying that the country/rural America is the Wild West and we're just a bunch of rednecks. What I am saying is that in these areas almost everyone has a gun and that this is a deterent to violent crime.

Irregardless, I don't find having a gun in the household makes me sleep any easier at night. Having a gun in the house was not an effective deterent for my mother twenty years ago, since rednecks generally aren't impressed with 'some hippies with a single shotgun.'

I'm, again, not for some widespread ban of firearms, I just believe that the current laws either don't work or are not adequetely enforced.

Conversely, if you look at Urban areas I bet you would see a higher per-capita rate of violent crime (sexual assault, murder, etc.) than in rural areas. The point I'm making is a area with more guns has a smaller crime rate than a area with less guns.

And the point I already stated, is that there are too many factors to consider comparing rural and urban areas, and coming to the conclusion of "more guns=less crime" is absurd if your only comparing the amount of weaponry located in each area.

At 1/10/04 11:30 PM, neocaleb wrote: Earlier I wrote that gun show purchased guns are used in less than 0.5 percent of crimes involving a gun. I was off by .02 percent, the actual number is 0.7 percent.
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/ascii/fuo.txt

thanks for the source.

and, it should be further noted, that there has been adequete police protection in both of the places we've lived; we have had no problems in NY, and when we filed a complaint with the police in Vt, they refered my parents to the game warden, since the rednecks were shooting our cats. The game warden, understandably, couldn't do anything because it was not his problem. The local police were just as red as the fucks who were shooting cats, and did not want to bust their friends..

.. Ok, they were inadequete, but not for lack of manpower or remoteness.

Red_Skunk,

I must say I enjoy reading your posts more than others. You at least present coherent arguments from, maybe not the other side, but a third side. I guess we've just had different experiences. Most of the rural places I've lived in, if someone was going to rape/murder/assault outside of city limits one was on their own because the police forces just couldn't get to many places in time to stop violent crime. Most of the occurences of violent crime that do not end with the victim raped or murdered was because they had a firearm. Those who were not so lucky usally did not.

My point is most modern gun control seems to be based upon a lack of understanding of the reality of the situation. Ppl see pics of AK-47s, M-16s & UZIs (most of the time fired at full-auto) and think that they are the problem and do not understand that these are not the weapons used in crimes and furthermore the variants of these guns the see on the news are not legal for people who do not have thousands of disposable dollars to spend on the liscensing and guns. In fact most ppl seem to not understand that the AKs, M-16s & UZIs on the civilian market do not meet the Dept. Of Defense's definition of an assault rifle. I hate laws made out of emotion, no matter what the topic this leads to an erosion of freedom.

I am for enforcement of pre-Clinton gun laws. In fact in some ways I think Clinton made buying guns too easier. Now all it takes is a 15 minute wait for a background check to buy any gun. I can remember when it took seven days to buy a handgun and you had to go through the sheriff. So I'm in favor of the background check as well as a waiting period for handguns.

I would also like to see stricter enforcement of laws in regards to violent crime (no matter what weapon is used).

At 1/12/04 02:58 AM, TheMason wrote: Most of the rural places I've lived in, if someone was going to rape/murder/assault outside of city limits one was on their own because the police forces just couldn't get to many places in time to stop violent crime.

Ok, I do see the point, want to note that indeed almost anywhere police might not get to the scene of the crime 'in time' to prevent it. There is of course a case to be made for owning a firearm for self-defense. Personally I'd start out with a can of mace or a stunner.

My point is most modern gun control seems to be based upon a lack of understanding of the reality of the situation... ...I hate laws made out of emotion, no matter what the topic this leads to an erosion of freedom.

Agreed. Issues like gun control (abortion) are extremely devisive, and get greatly exagerated, over-simplified, etc. etc.

I am for enforcement of pre-Clinton gun laws. In fact in some ways I think Clinton made buying guns too easier. Now all it takes is a 15 minute wait for a background check to buy any gun. I can remember when it took seven days to buy a handgun and you had to go through the sheriff. So I'm in favor of the background check as well as a waiting period for handguns.

I don't know how the Clinton administration (with the Gingrich controlled-congress) changed existing laws, and also with state laws that vary so widely.. I haven't done any extensive research, nor have much first-hand knowledge. But yes, I'm generally in favor of background checks, waiting periods etc. Things like mandatory locks seem infantile, since, obviously, one could simply choose to leave their gun unlocked (much better IMO- optional but free gun locks. Read of such a program in Maine). Stricter enforcement of violent crimes I'd have to check out =P

-

so, I totally forget the original post, but- a question:
That one source that someone brought ( http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/ascii/fuo.txt ), showing how little gun show guns are involved (or carried) in crimes, also showed the main sources: 'friends or family' (39.6%) and 'street/illegal' (39.2%)

Now it's been highly publicised (mainly by Bowling in Columbine) how the ammo (at least some) used in the Columbine massacre was purchased from a K-Mart. Now, they've stopped selling that kind of ammo (they still sell hunting firearms and the appropriate ammo, although the K-Marts around here usually don't sell anything bigger than paintball and bb guns). I don't know if the kids who did the massacre bought some, all, or none of the ammunition themselves (I haven't really looked into any of those incidents at all, beyond the tv / newspapers), but Michael Moore was apparently able to walk away with "1,000 rounds of 9mm and .38 special ammunition" after asking for "all the ammunition you have" ( http://www.freep.com/money/business/kmart29_20010629.htm ).

Now, someone previously was talking about needing a permit to buy ammunition. I don't know how it works in their area, whether you need a seperate permit for ammo, or need to flash your own gun permit, but.. If some sort of ID was required (probably photo), would this help to solve or abate anything? Remember the first source that said the majority of crime is committed with either a friend/family-members gun, or one purchased illegally on the street. Thoughts?

Thanks for the heads up on K-mart Skunk. Personally I don't think I'll shop there anymore. It is obvious that K-mart is not a responsible seller of ammo. You have to be 18 to purchase rifle ammo and 21 to purchase handgun ammo. Those kids in Columbine broke the law with the aid of an adult. I hope that adult is in jail, wasn't it a girlfriend or aqaintance of one of the kids?

As for the quantity of ammo purchased, this seems as if it is a publicity stunt by Moore. On the one hand, many people will purchase a 1,000 rounds or more at a time because it is cheaper in quantity. Furthermore, if you are a serious shooter it is easy to go through 500-1,000 rounds a day at the range. When I was competing in air rifle I would shoot about 300 rounds M-F for practice.

However, walking in and asking for "all the ammo you have" (not a direct quote) would seem to me to be highly suspicious. As a clerk I would have sold them the ammo, but called the cops as soon as they left my counter. Why? Because K-mart is not a retailer that would give a quantity discount on ammo. Stores such as Wal-Mart and K-mart, their prices are not really negotiable.

The one thing that scares me every time I do it is purchasing ammo over the internet. Its cheaper and easier, all you have to do is wait and all you need is a credit card and an IP. I think that this is proof that Micheal Moore is more after publicity and making a name for himself than addressing real problems. K-mart is inconsequential compared to other ways of obtaining ammo.

At 1/12/04 02:50 PM, TheMason wrote: As for the quantity of ammo purchased, this seems as if it is a publicity stunt by Moore.

Yes, it was definitely a publicity stunt..

The one thing that scares me every time I do it is purchasing ammo over the internet. Its cheaper and easier, all you have to do is wait and all you need is a credit card and an IP. I think that this is proof that Micheal Moore is more after publicity and making a name for himself than addressing real problems. K-mart is inconsequential compared to other ways of obtaining ammo.

Well, who knows about Michael Moore. He isn't especially my hero. But hmm, yes, buying ammo over the internet seems particularly easy. But then, before the internet, there was probably mail-order, still with no human interaction or real safeguards.

bah, who needs guns??? go find something else to do besides shooting animals and sometimes people in a blind rage. I say ban all guns. How could you disagree? Even if hunting is your thing, do you REALLY NEED a gun to hunt? Do it like the Native Americans, bow and arrow style. I think it would be more challenging anyway ... to easy to kill stuff with guns.

At 1/13/04 12:13 AM, PretzelLogic88 wrote: Even if hunting is your thing, do you REALLY NEED a gun to hunt? Do it like the Native Americans, bow and arrow style. I think it would be more challenging anyway ... to easy to kill stuff with guns.

Meh, as far as hunting goes, I'd rather you used a rifle. Yes, I know some people are very adept at bow hunting, but really. The chances of killing the animal instead of just wounding it are much greater with a firearm. Wounding the animal and then not being able to find it, etc., is even worse than just killing the damn thing in the first place.

but with a gun there is absolutely no sport to it whatsoever ..... any idiot who can pull a trigger can certainly kill an animal. It requires no skill at all.