[Trailboss60]

Are they playing in your area?

The radio stations in the Phoenix area are playing them non-stop..."use a gun in a crime, go to prison" is basically what the message is, so I guess that if you use a knife, bat, or numchuks you are a kind'er gentler criminal?
All of the commercials focus on the gun as the common denominator in these senseless acts of violence, and the Bush administration has funneled 1.5 billion dollars to pound that message into the public mind...

http://youtube.com/results?search_query=project+safe+neighborhood&search=Search

Man, this stuff get's my goat!

 

[Guest]

Haven't heard those, but it doesn't seem to be exactly anti-gun. More anti criminal.

 

[kjhof]

I'm fine with the idea of spreading a message of intolerance for violent crime (more than fine with it, really), but what I don't have any patience for is treating "gun violence" as being somehow worse than other kinds of violent crime--focusing on the instrument, rather than the crime.

 

[Trailboss60]

I don't have any patience for is treating "gun violence" as being somehow worse than other kinds of violent crime--focusing on the instrument, rather than the crime.

Which is exactly how the radio ads come across..

 

[Bob Reed]

I'm fine with the idea of spreading a message of intolerance for violent crime (more than fine with it, really), but what I don't have any patience for is treating "gun violence" as being somehow worse than other kinds of violent crime--focusing on the instrument, rather than the crime.

Amen!

 

[Im Neero]

I think I may be in the minority here, but I am a big fan of this kind of thing. I think that owning guns is a huge responsibility as well as a right. A gun is a tool that is capable of more destruction than most other weapons, and should be treated as such. If you use a gun in a crime then you have abused that responsibility and committed a more grievous crime by abusing that right. If you use a gun in a crime, then I support harsher punishments.

What I do not agree with is the anti's tendencies to try and punish law abiding gun owners for things that criminals have done. Seung-Hi Cho killed 32 people on April 16, and for this reason some people believe that I should be punished. That is foolish, illogical thinking, but that is what people think. I think the appropriate response to gun crime is to punish the criminal rather than law abiding citizens, and that is what this laws that increase penalties for gun crimes do.

That is just my opinion though, and it's worth exactly what you payed for it.

 

[SistemaTodd]

I think I may be in the minority here, but I am a big fan of this kind of thing. I think that owning guns is a huge responsibility as well as a right. A gun is a tool that is capable of more destruction than most other weapons, and should be treated as such. If you use a gun in a crime then you have abused that responsibility and committed a more grievous crime by abusing that right. If you use a gun in a crime, then I support harsher punishments.

What I do not agree with is the anti's tendencies to try and punish law abiding gun owners for things that criminals have done. Seung-Hi Cho killed 32 people on April 16, and for this reason some people believe that I should be punished. That is foolish, illogical thinking, but that is what people think. I think the appropriate response to gun crime is to punish the criminal rather than law abiding citizens, and that is what this laws that increase penalties for gun crimes do.

That is just my opinion though, and it's worth exactly what you payed for it.

I think you've been bamboozled by the media.
They want you to equate the crime with the instrument, not the criminal.
I'm sorry, but there's no such thing as "gun crime". Guns are incapable of committing crime. You don't call bludgeoning someone with a Louisville Slugger "bat crime" do you? Of course not! that would be absurd, as is the former.
When one assaults another, it's the assault at issue, not the instrument of use.
The malice and disregard for life, not the tool used to effect said malice.

 

[lance22]

That's why you need to have a retention strap over the top of the gun. That way it's strapped in and can't get out when it feels like rampaging or holding up a 'stop n rob' convenience store. Naturally the ACLU knows it's not your fault but a lot of ignorant people in the jury will be blaming you.

Over in England I know they have 'knife culture' and 'knife crime' so somewhere in the evolutonary chain the 'violence gene' got in their knives and in our guns.

 

[Paul H]

The crazy thing is that when they started airing these commercials in my town, local criminals turned in their firearms:

"Seriously? Well I don't wanna go to jail... I had better start assaulting people with a crossbow instead."

The police were stunned when injuries and deaths from broad-tip arrows and edged-weapons skyrocketed.

There is currently a radio campaign to reduce tomahawk and blow-gun crime.

Paul

 

[Im Neero]

I think you've been bamboozled by the media.
They want you to equate the crime with the instrument, not the criminal.

No I haven't. It's easier to kill someone with a gun. That's why I carry one. Judging by the fact that you are on a progun forum I suppose that you to realize that a gun gives one a distinct advantage in a violent encounter. In my opinion if you abuse that, there should be a penalty. If you abuse your right to drive a car responsibly by drinking and driving, there are harsher penalties than there are for regular drunken bufoonery.

Do I think that the penalty for murder should be different if you use a gun? Nah, murder is murder. Do I think that carrying a gun with you while you rob a gas station should have a harsher penalty? Yes, I do.

I am a firm second amendment proponent and am firmly opposed to the government taking away any rights from law abiding citizens, but when criminals abuse those rights, there should be harsh penalties. I do not believe the existence of privately owned guns leads to gun crime, but to ignore the existence of gun crime because it is not convenient is a distinctly liberal way of viewing things.

 

[kjhof]

Do I think that carrying a gun with you while you rob a gas station should have a harsher penalty? Yes, I do.

I still can't figure out why robbing a gas station with a knife or a baseball bat is less wrong than doing so with a gun.

I do not believe the existence of privately owned guns leads to gun crime, but to ignore the existence of gun crime because it is not convenient is a distinctly liberal way of viewing things.

Violent crime is violent crime--the concept of "gun crime" is an artificial one. That's why no one refers to people being pushed out of windows as "pushing crime," and why no one refers to people being strangled with bikini tops as "bikini top crime," etc.

By the way, if lawmakers do decide to ban bikini tops, I guess I won't complain (and I'll be spending a lot of time poolside) .

 

[Im Neero]

Gun Crime = Crime Committed With a Gun.

Robbing a convenience station with a gun is much easier than doing so with a knife or a baseball bat. As I mentioned earlier, the reason I carry a gun is because it is much more effective than a knife or a baseball bat when it comes to injuring someone else, and since guns do not have consciences, they give that same advantage to bad guys too.

If you look at the statistics, a disproportionate number of murders are committed with guns. I think the reason why is obvious, but that doesn't matter. Is banning guns the solution? No, just ask England how it is working for them. Is getting tough on gun crimes the answer? I think so.

I am somewhat confused at the resistance to this idea, as I hardly every see anyone getting upset about harsher penalties for drunk driving. Banning alcohol is not the answer, but harsher penalties for driving drunk seem to be working, at least in my neck of the woods they do. We see the same thing happening in Arizona where they have a big illegal immigrant problem. They get tough on the crime, and the problem is improved.

If bikini tops were the most common murder weapon, then I would be all for harsher penalties on bikini top crime. I also would be in favor of banning them altogether, but that's where the similarities to my views on guns don't line up.

 

[SistemaTodd]

Gun Crime = Crime Committed With a Gun.

Robbing a convenience station with a gun is much easier than doing so with a knife or a baseball bat. As I mentioned earlier, the reason I carry a gun is because it is much more effective than a knife or a baseball bat when it comes to injuring someone else, and since guns do not have consciences, they give that same advantage to bad guys too.

If you look at the statistics, a disproportionate number of murders are committed with guns. I think the reason why is obvious, but that doesn't matter. Is banning guns the solution? No, just ask England how it is working for them. Is getting tough on gun crimes the answer? I think so.

I am somewhat confused at the resistance to this idea, as I hardly every see anyone getting upset about harsher penalties for drunk driving. Banning alcohol is not the answer, but harsher penalties for driving drunk seem to be working, at least in my neck of the woods they do. We see the same thing happening in Arizona where they have a big illegal immigrant problem. They get tough on the crime, and the problem is improved.

If bikini tops were the most common murder weapon, then I would be all for harsher penalties on bikini top crime. I also would be in favor of banning them altogether, but that's where the similarities to my views on guns don't line up.

Sorry, but your drunk driving analogy doesn't wash.
DWI is a crime in and of itself to begin with, unlike owning a gun.
By "harsher penalties", I assume you mean as opposed to killing someone in a non-DWI accident. Difference is, one is an accident, the other, driving drunk, is done with malice aforethought.
Someone lost their life as a result of the drunk doing something which was against the law in the first place.
And yes, I think the drive-by media has gotten to you in spades. You use one of their buzz words:"gun crime", which has no actual meaning. just like "saturday night special" and "cop killer bullets".
These are media creations for the purpose of demonizing an inanimate object.
Same reason that if a murderer kills with anything other than a gun, they are simply called "the killer", if a gun was used, however, they are referred to as a "gunman".

 

[kjhof]

Gun Crime = Crime Committed With a Gun.

Robbing a convenience station with a gun is much easier than doing so with a knife or a baseball bat. As I mentioned earlier, the reason I carry a gun is because it is much more effective than a knife or a baseball bat when it comes to injuring someone else, and since guns do not have consciences, they give that same advantage to bad guys too.

So armed robbery, when the armament is not a gun, is more acceptable than armed robbery with a gun, because the robber has to work harder? Don't get me wrong--I admire a strong work ethic myself, but that's stretching things to the breaking point.

 

[Im Neero]

And yes, I think the drive-by media has gotten to you in spades.

Limbaugh much? I see someone isn't influenced by the media at all.

Guns are dangerous. They are. Especially in the hands of criminals. A criminal with a gun is capable of more damage than a criminal without a gun. You might not agree, that's your right.

Gun Crime = Crime Committed With a Gun

They happen, do you really deny the fact that criminals use firearms?

 

[EvenStephen]

DWI is a crime in and of itself to begin with, unlike owning a gun.

By "harsher penalties", I assume you mean as opposed to killing someone in a non-DWI accident. Difference is, one is an accident, the other, driving drunk, is done with malice aforethought.

The analogy is fine. Owning a gun isn't a crime. Owning both a bottle of liquor and a car isn't a crime. It's what you do with them that's a crime. Taking away guns is like taking away cars. How about just cutting off everyone's trigger finger to prevent gun crime?

Driving drunk is done with malice aforethought? You're saying that people drive drunk to hurt other people intentionally? When you're drunk, you don't have that much thought about anything.

When you cause an accident, you've pretty much always broken a law. If you weren't drunk driving, you blew a stop sign, drove to fast for conditions, speeding, reckless driving, etc.

 

[sevenL4]

"Guns are dangerous. They are."

Man, am I glad I read that. I'll be a lot more careful opening my safe in the future. And I won't run while carrying scissors. By the way, is there a way to tell which of my guns is most likely to attack? I have a very threatening looking AR. Would it calm down if I painted it pink?

Gun crime = preaching that guns,to the exclusion of any other instruments, are inherently dangerous and that special laws are required to punish those who misuse them.

 

[SistemaTodd]

Driving drunk is done with malice aforethought? You're saying that people drive drunk to hurt other people intentionally? When you're drunk, you don't have that much thought about anything.

No, I'm saying that one who drives drunk has made a decision to do so. I know, I've done it.
The beer didn't force it's way in my mouth and my keys in my hand.
In the same manner, a murderer makes a decision to murder, with whatever instrument they use to commit murder.
Murder with a gun is no more wrong, and the person is no more dead, than with any other tool.
The whole "gun crime" thing is an anti-gunner tactic meant to demonize a tool they particularly despise.
It's a shifting of blame for convenience, and it is nonsense. They ask for stiffer penalties for "gun crime" because they see, and want others to see, anyone who would own or use a gun, a "gunman" as far more evil than a "batman" or a "knifeman"(funny, you never hear those terms...hmm).

 

[kjhof]

I think what proponents of stiffer penalties for "gun crime" fail to realize is that those of us who don't like the idea being discussed here aren't advocating going easy on criminals who use guns--we're advocating getting tougher on all violent criminals, their choice of weapon notwithstanding.

 

[SistemaTodd]

Limbaugh much? I see someone isn't influenced by the media at all.

Difference being, that the term is accurately descriptive, and isn't a favorite tool of my enemy.


And of course I realize that criminals use guns. The crime would remain the same, however, regardless of the tool used.
I think it quite disingenuous to shift the focus, and therefore a good portion of the blame, to an inanimate object.
Of course, disingenuous is quite descriptive of our common enemy.