Gun Control

[ChibiHorsewoman]

[color=darkviolet]Do you think the laws in your country considering guns are too leniant or too stringent? How much do you know about them in the first place? And oh, I don't know comments.

I decided to post this topic after reading the posts in the Neighborhood topic. So many people just sound so trigger happy it's almost scary. :eek:

I was raised around guns, my dad owns a few and would take me out on weekends when he went rabbit hunting and such. I learned how to shoot a rifle when I was twelve.

My dad always keeps his guns locked in his guncase with trigger locks on them as well. The ammo is kept in a separate area and his keys are always on his keychain.

My stand on gun control is that the United States needs to do more on gun control laws. It's still too easy to go out and purchase a gun. Heck, all you need to do in the state of New York is be able to afford the liscence for the gun, be over sixteen, and usually provide a background check. Of course, sometimes that's not always necessary and the city I'm from has had a big problem with illegal weapons.

Well, there's my start on the topic, hopefully someone can do a better job than me on this for a start, but hey at least I tried right?[/color]

[Kunai]

I am "0 Canad girl" and guns are not an issue up here. A book I have read is called Anne of Green Gables vs. G.I. Joe and it had an article in it saying in the U.S. parent sued the school system for not letting children bring "Daddy's Gun" to school and at the same time in Canada parent signed a petition to ban guns from spelling tests.

Would someone care to set me straight about guns in the U.S.?

[slasher]

Im not trigger happy....Okay not that trigger happy. I only shoot at targets, never a person, unless he threatens me or my family.

[Guest ScirosDarkblade]

Well let me start off by saying that I'm very much against guns.

I think that the U.S. laws concerning ownership of firearms are unbelievably lenient, as well as horribly enforced. The safeguards against guns falling "into the wrong hands" may as well not exist. There are enough gun-related accidents/suicides/homicides to easily outweigh any "entertainment" or "protection" guns provide for the average citizen, and their number keeps rising every year.

I understand that the U.S. Constitution protects the individual's right to bear arms, but for a long, long time now that right has caused nothing but harm to the American populace (mostly because people are allowed to own them, but also because guns are too easy for anyone to acquire). Gun shows are barely monitored. The new concealed-carry law (Ohio) is just insanity. Eh, I can start a rant about this, and I'll have more than enough statistics to back me up, but trust me: U.S. laws concerning firearms are ********. Our lawmakers are too concerned with the politics of guns than with anything pertaining to them.

[Kunai]

The US constitution is quite outdated. I belive when it was created "bearing arms" was just shooting wild game. Technology today can define arms as heavier artilery, more firepower then needed to shoot a turkey for dinner.

[Transtic Nerve]

Gun Control does not exist in America, you can see that plainly by looking at the death rates involving guns of countries that do have gun control. In 2001, America has over 11,000 deaths involving firearms, England had approx. 20. Let see which option is better?.... yeah I think it's quite obvious.

Gun control should exist because guns are like drugs, they serve no purpose what-so-ever and we have no problem banning drugs.... And before one of you idiots that defend the second amendment come blabbering in, take into consideration that the high powered weapons of today did not exist in the late 1700s. If you would like, i would be more than happy to support your right to carry an 18th century musket, but any other gun, sorry.

I believe the US government should ban bullets. This would easily solve the gun problem without having to make Billy Bob over there give up all his precious weapons. Guns are for people who can't fight anyway... they are a p----y weapon.

Guns serve one purpose, to kill. As Americans, we're trying to cut down on that, therefor there seems to be only one reasonable outcome for guns, yet... still it hasn't happened.... what exactly goes through the minds of americans? I can't figure out how so many people in one country can be so incredibly stupid.

[Harry]

I think the current laws should be actually enforced but I don't want guns to be banned completely. The last thing I want is something to be banned because it could be dangerous.

[Guest ScirosDarkblade]

[quote name='Harry']I think the current laws should be actually enforced but I don't want guns to be banned completely. The last thing I want is something to be banned because it could be dangerous.[/quote]

I think it's a great reason to ban private ownership of firearms. They are dangerous to not only the people that own them (although they are the majority of casualties), but to everyone else. [i]That's[/i] why guns shouldn't be privately owned. Something being dangerous is a pretty decent reason to ban it. It's only if it would be less dangerous to keep it [i]not[/i] banned that it would be an unwise action.

[Harry]

[quote name='ScirosDarkblade]I think it's a great reason to ban private ownership of firearms. They are dangerous to not only the people that own them (although they are the majority of casualties), but to everyone else. [i]That's[/i] why guns shouldn't be privately owned. Something being dangerous is a pretty decent reason to ban it. It's only if it would be less dangerous to keep it [i]not[/i'] banned that it would be an unwise action.[/quote]
I don't like throwing away freedoms other people use just because I don't like them. Many things in this world are dangerous. If you let the politicians take away one right, they'll come back with another one to take away also.

[Guest ScirosDarkblade]

[quote name='Harry']I don't like throwing away freedoms other people use just because I don't like them. Many things in this world are dangerous. If you let the politicians take away one right, they'll come back with another one to take away also.[/quote]

That's not an entirely sound way of looking at things, because say shoplifting wasn't illegal. And the government decided to make it illegal. Sure, people could say "if you let the politicians take away one right, etc. etc.," but those people would be... um... most likely shoplifters. The government doesn't go around just taking away rights. When the sale of alcohol was outlawed by the Constitution, the U.S. did not start some spiral into totalitarian government. Same goes for every other law that restricts what people can do. There is no precedent here that shows that when one "right" is restricted, others become restricted as well.

This apparent distrust of the government you have, while I cannot criticize completely because yes, many Congressmen and other gov't officials are absolutely untrustworthy, I think is not wise to consider in a case such as this.

[Fall]

I'm sorry to butt in, though I would like to put in my say.

I don't think the private ownership of a firearm should be banned. There are many reasons a gun is needed, not particularly as much as living in town as to living out of town. Protection, farming, etc. As long as the weapon is safely locked up, away from harms' way, and not loaded when not in use, I think it's not unsafe at all to have a weapon under your ownership.

I know here, every second or third month, a police group come out to our property to check up on the maintenance of the three guns we own, and make sure that the gun cabinent and safety procedures are all in line. If one little thing is out of whack, they'll take the guns for good, and dad will never get his license back.

That's how it should be all over the country, and enforced over the world if you ask me.

[Guest cloricus]

I support the weapon laws in Australia though there are some issues I'd like to get pissed off at the general whole of them are acceptable. I cannot personally own a firearm now and to own and store one would be rather expensive to set up so I doubt I would be doing that in the short term or long term. Despite this I have probably used more rifles than most Americans who despise other countries that have strict laws.

I have had professional training in the use of a .22, .303, .303 target rifle, aus-styer77 in simulated and live fire situations and a mixture of other weapons. Each weekend I can walk up to my local firing range and sign two pieces of paper and pay $8 for 50 rounds and either do scored shooting or silhouette shooting or both with a heap of other people.

So really I see no real argument against strict weapon control laws as I still can have a lot of exposure to firearms if I want without the risk of people coming into my house with a hand gun, I could probably do more damage to you with a base ball bat than I could with a low powered rifle anyway.

[Boba Fett]

[quote name='Transtic Nerve']Gun Control does not exist in America, you can see that plainly by looking at the death rates involving guns of countries that do have gun control...[/quote]

[color=green]Gun control does exist in America, and is pretty much in line with the rest of the world in this regard. In fact, there are more guns per capita in Canada than there are in the United States. However, there are fewer gun deaths per year per capita in Canada than there are in the United States. (This statistic is from [u]Bowling for Columbine[/u] by Michael Moore)

It sounds cheesy, but guns don?t kill people, people kill people.

Our Problem is not with gun control, but with gun education. American society, for whatever reason, is more violent than other countries. We need to better educate the public about safe gun use, and the consequences of gun use.[/color]

[quote name='Transtic Nerve']Gun control should exist because guns are like drugs, they serve no purpose what-so-ever and we have no problem banning drugs.... And before one of you idiots that defend the second amendment come blabbering in, take into consideration that the high powered weapons of today did not exist in the late 1700s. If you would like, i would be more than happy to support your right to carry an 18th century musket, but any other gun, sorry.[/quote]

[color=green]Guns do serve a purpose. Gun ownership is protected in the Constitution as a method of self-defense. While it is obvious that the Founding Fathers of our nation couldn?t have imagined our high-powered automatic weapons of today, controls and restrictions are [I]already in place[/I] to prevent combat weapons from being owned by private citizens. Take the assault weapons ban for instance, and bans on highly dangerous types of ammunition (explosive bullets, etc.)

So I guess by quoting one of the most heralded documents of the free world, I?m now an idiot in your book TN?

If you have an issue with gun ownership, call your local representatives. They?ll listen.[/color]

[quote name='Transtic Nerve']I believe the US government should ban bullets. This would easily solve the gun problem without having to make Billy Bob over there give up all his precious weapons. Guns are for people who can't fight anyway... they are a p----y weapon.[/quote]

[color=green]If you?re going to ban bullets, but not guns, that?s silly. You either allow gun (and bullet) ownership, or you take both of these rights away. There?s no middle ground.

Gun?s are for people who can?t fight? I agree with you on this one. For the physically handicapped, who cannot defend themselves physically if assaulted, guns are their only effective method of self-defense.

I?d think this issue would hold special significance to you, as a gay man. Unfortunate as it is, there are bigots out there who would beat up and possibly kill gay people. Take the Matthew Shepard case, for instance. He wasn?t a large man, and was beat up and killed by several more physically able persons. If he had carried a gun, he?d have been able to save his life.

Guns aren?t ?p---- weapons?, they?re a method of self-defense for people who aren?t able to defend themselves in other ways.[/color]

[quote name='Transtic Nerve']Guns serve one purpose, to kill. As Americans, we're trying to cut down on that, therefor there seems to be only one reasonable outcome for guns, yet... still it hasn't happened.... what exactly goes through the minds of americans? I can't figure out how so many people in one country can be so incredibly stupid.[/quote]

[color=green]I?ve already explained why guns are necessary.

I hope that you?ll consider my arguments?[/color]

[Guest cloricus]

[quote name='Boba Fett][color=green']Gun ownership is protected in the Constitution as a method of self-defense.[/color][/quote]
I'm not even American and I know this is incorrect. Your constitution allows for weapon owner ship to maintain a militia; this is very different to what most Americans think it means and in fact most like you just did only use the first few words and ignore the rest.

You must remember at that time America did not have a static defence force as it had just ripped it's self in half and other countries were circling for land grabs so they needed to secure that there would always be a defence force of some description.

[Brasil]

[quote name='cloricus']I'm not even American and I know this is incorrect. Your constitution allows for weapon owner ship to maintain a militia; this is very different to what most Americans think it means and in fact most like you just did only use the first few words and ignore the rest.[/quote]
I'm not even Australian and I know this is incorrect. Cloricus, read the entire Amendment.

[url="http://www.archives.gov/national_archives_experience/bill_of_rights_transcript.html"]http://www.archives.gov/national_archives_experience/bill_of_rights_transcript.html[/url]

[i][quote]Amendment II[/i]

[i]A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.[/quote][/i]

I'll spell it out for you, just so it's perfectly clear and you can't possibly misinterpret it.

"A well regulated Militia" - Simple enough, a coherent and organized armed forces.

"being necessary to the security of a free state" - This ties in with the idea of a need to protect oneself. The threat can either be foreign (like Britain) or domestic. "Security of a free state" is not limited to protection from outside invaders, Cloricus. And we can even get technical, and say that anyone whom you do not know is an outsider. This all is self-defense.

So, when in the presence of an outsider who does indeed pose an immediate threat, your security is threatened, no matter if it's a global superpower or just a random loon down the street. While the [i]literal[/i] meaning was certainly pertaining to the larger scope (International threats), one should not write-off the smaller scope, simply because one is unable to effectively read between the lines.

"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms" - What would a protective army be without weapons? They might as well just be using rolled-up magazines and naughty language. In order to have a beneficial defensive force, whether comprised of civilians or officers, must be able to defend themselves appropriately. I certainly would not advise going up against the Redcoats or a rival gang with just a knife, especially when the enemy has firearms.

"shall not be infringed" - Speaks for itself. This is a right that will not be stripped away. However, do not think that this right is something that can be flaunted. The authors of the Bill of Rights never had that in mind when writing it. They were concerned with the protection, safety and well-being of their young nation, and to be able to protect that young nation that did not possess extravagant monies to fund and arm an army, they allowed the civilian to own a weapon. It just makes sense. The founding fathers certainly did not intend this amendment to become what it has today, where psychotics, essentially, can claim the second amendment so they can own multitudes of heavy firearms.

I am positive that when Boba said, "Gun ownership is protected in the Constitution as a method of self-defense," he was [i]not[/i] supporting the NRA lunatics, which I get the feeling that's what you're trying to spin it into.

Simply, the founding fathers' message about guns could be said like this:

"Guns in moderation and maturity."

[Guest ScirosDarkblade]

Wait, let me get this straight. Is this an argument over whether the Constitution protects the ownership of firearms for self-defense?

Well, what the Constitution does is protect the ownership of firearms, really. The [i]reason[/i] is that "a well-regulated militia" is "necessary for the security of a free State." At this point that is quite a shaky reason, and of course it has to be very liberally (not liberal in the political sense) interpreted in order to be regarded as a valid reason today. Which is exactly what the courts have always done. You can disagree with their decision to do so, but the Constitution has been and always will be open to interpretation (albeit sometimes extreme and quite questionable interpretation).

The thing is, saying that the Constitution's writers didn't envision today's society when they wrote the Bill of Rights is not a very solid argument for gun control or banning guns altogether. Why? Because nobody's going to argue with you on that. Of course they didn't envision today's society. And it's pretty clear that had they been living in today's world, their reason not to infringe on the right to bear arms would not be "a well regulated militia...." The true reasons for gun control are [i]common sense[/i] reasons, such as the fact that many Americans can't be trusted to own a gun worth crap.

About guns being used for self-defense... well, I completely disagree that [i]that[/i] is a good reason to allow gun ownership. Why? Because first of all, there are more gun suicides out there than gun homicides (that's a pretty well-known statistic). Second, many gun homicides, especially those where the victim is female, involve a gun owned by the female's household or intimates. Additionally, of all homicides that occur every year, something really small (maybe 2%) is "justifiable" homicides. For every woman who kills in self-defense, something like 200 women are murdered. So the "self-defense" argument is really weak when it comes to justifying ownership of firearms. Studies find that if you own a gun in your home you are 3 times more likely to ket killed by one (obviously as individuals you might not worry about that, but it's a scary generalization).

EDIT: Concerning the banning of assault weapons. Well, the assault weapons ban the U.S. has (I think it's been extended for another 10 years recently) been ridiculously easy to get around for gun vendors. You will have [i]no trouble[/i] acquiring "sporterized" versions of AK-47s, etc., at gun shows. A good number of police officers killed in the line of duty are killed by assault weapons. Yes they're not acquired legally, but they are acquired nevertheless.

[Ani_Freak]

[color=sienna]Gun adquisition, for self defense or not, legally or ilegally, will always be a serious problem we all have to face. Alcohol and Tobacco is regulated, and still, people die of cancer and alcohol abuse. It will always find a way into the hands of the public and into the wrong hands as well.

Gun control is being enforced, to the best of the abilities of say, Federal and State law enforcement Departments. The FBI and ATF have been rulling many new ways to verify and check the adquisition and use of firearms. Many acts and laws are being ruled to protect the public against unlawful use of firearms.

We have here a family business and we too are firearms dealers, and the FBI and ATF are very strict in what they let the Firearms licencees do or not do. They are doing the best they can to serve and protect, but as one of you said earlier, the problem is not with guns itself, but with gun education to the people that owns them and also, knowing the person who buys them, as is my case. We don't sell guns to everybody, because we do 2 checks, the mandatory FBI check and a more personal check with neighbors and such.

Of course, this doesn't say that the person is 100% legit, but we are doing what we personally think is best for others to protect them. I beleive that guns should be available for people's self defense only, even though I have guns and I'm, thanks to God, physically able to defend myself. But people have strange hobbies and many of them, are very dangerous for others, close ones or not.[/color]

[Panda]

Let me start out with a little background as to why I hold the beliefs that I do. I grew up in a farming community. It is a very rural area where everyone and their dog has at least one gun. If you want to get a heated debate going just say the words "gun control" in the grocery store and watch the sparks fly! My dad had guns for hunting. They were always kept locked up in a safe. Hunters in our area always asked for permission to hunt on land before going out. The people in my community are very responsible. Hunter's education is a very popular course to take in the community.

If everyone were like this, there would be no problem with having guns. Unfortunately there are the others who aren't responsible that we hear about. The person who leaves a loaded handgun in a nightstand draw so their child can get to it. The criminal faction that use the weapons to commit crimes against society. They are the irresponsible group that ruin it for the rest.

In my opinion making guns illegal will take the guns out of the hands of the responsible gun owners and those "bad apples" will still have theirs. They will just find a way to get a gun. The criminals will always find ways around the law. I see it like saying we should outlaw all cars since so many people are killed by them every year. Some drivers speed, drink and drive or are just not paying attention. They kill hundreds of people. Not everyone is a bad driver, but the few ruin it for the rest. I am sure all the responsible drivers would be very upset if they had to give up their cars because of the irresponsible ones. I know I would!

I agree that there needs to be very strict laws on owning a gun and those rules must be inforced. I don't think people need to have the high powered military grade guns, there isn't a need for that so I see no problem banning them. Responsible hunters, sport shooters and the like should be able to have their guns for their activites.

I believe strict gun control and care should be inforced. Banning guns I don't think is the right answer to the problem.

[Guest ScirosDarkblade]

[quote name='Panda']In my opinion making guns illegal will take the guns out of the hands of the responsible gun owners and those "bad apples" will still have theirs. They will just find a way to get a gun. The criminals will always find ways around the law. I see it like saying we should outlaw all cars since so many people are killed by them every year.[/quote]

The biggest problem with what you are saying is this: the criminals aren't the main source of gun-related deaths! Yeah, it's hard to believe, but if you look at my previous posts, I've pointed out that there are more gun-related suicides than homicides, and many gun-related deaths are accidents as well (in some states the number rivals that of car-related deaths, actually). So it's not just an issue of taking the guns away from the criminals and murderers; it's an issue of preventing unnecessary loss of life. I mean, it's a bit ironic that people buy a gun to protect themselves but more often than not end up just shooting themselves or someone they love.

Now, hunting, etc., that's the only decent reason (or excuse) for owning a gun as far as I'm concerned. The thing is, owning a hunting rifle isn't exactly the same thing as owning a beretta. It's not like hunting rifles are responsible for all the gun-related deaths out there, or even a significant portion of them. The people that hunt for sport, although also among those that die from gun-related accidents, aren't really part of the problem (or not that significant a part) I believe.

So if gun sales were restricted to hunting rifles (and also not too-high-powered ones at that), and strictly monitored/enforced, then I think we'd see a decent drop in gun-related deaths. And also, criminals [i]would[/i] have a tougher time getting handguns if they become illegal. Especially those retards that shoot their neighbor over some dispute like I hear about around campus.

[Panda]

[quote name='ScirosDarkblade']The biggest problem with what you are saying is this: the criminals aren't the main source of gun-related deaths! Yeah, it's hard to believe, but if you look at my previous posts, I've pointed out that there are more gun-related suicides than homicides, and many gun-related deaths are accidents as well (in some states the number rivals that of car-related deaths, actually). So it's not just an issue of taking the guns away from the criminals and murderers; it's an issue of preventing unnecessary loss of life. I mean, it's a bit ironic that people buy a gun to protect themselves but more often than not end up just shooting themselves or someone they love.[/quote]

I am sorry, my bad, I should have made that statement a bit clearer. When I was referring to the "bad apples" I mean the irresponsible gun owners and criminals. The irresponsible gun owners would be the owners who leave their guns stored incorrectly. They are the ones who clean loaded guns and shot themselves or others. The irresponsible people who leave guns where children can get to them. Those people are the "bad apples" along with the criminal faction.

I too have heard that many people who buy guns to protect themselves end up having the very gun injure themselves or the ones they are protecting. It really is ironic. I do strongly feel that there should be well monitored gun control AND care. This means making sure those with guns are handling and storing them properly. I doubt they will make sure people are storing their guns properly since it would cost a lot of money to have someone going to every single gun owner's home to check on their gun storage. I have no guns in my home, just 2 big dogs and a very ill-tempered Siamese cat to protect me.

[DeathBug]

[color=indigo][size=1][font=comic sans ms]Then, among the confusion, a lone voice cried out, to cause even more confusion.

First, the Second Ammendment clearly defines the rights for [b]individuals[/b] to own firearms. Not the emphasis on 'individuals'. Some will argue that the Amendment referred to the right of the government to create a militia but that makes no sense, because the Bill of Rights are all rights of people, not any governments, federal or state. Also, notice where the Amendment was placed: directly below freedom of expression, which is clearly the most imporetant and fundamental right. The Fathers ordered the Bill of Rights in order of importance, so they felt gun ownership was vital to the new nation.

And why shouldn't they? History teaches us that unarmed citizens are basically sitting ducks for oppressive governments. When Paul Reviere rode to alert the colonists of the British approach, why was he so afraid? The British weren't coming to kill the colonists; they were coming to sieze their guns. One of Hitler's first acts as Chancellor of Germany was to confiscate all private firearms.

Okay, so the average American citizen has the right to own a firearm, as outlined by the Constitution. The next question would be, what type of firearm? If I get a little fuzzy here, forgive me; I'm not well aquainted with guns, and their makes or models.

I think that not allowing people to carry heavy ordinance is not an infringement of SEcond Amendment rights. A pistol, fine; a sub-machine gun, not really. THere is no need for military-level firepower in the hands of the average citizen.

Some will say that all guns should be banned from private ownership, simply because they are involved in deadly accidents.

You wanna' know what kills people? Cars. Cars kill more people in America that any other product manufactured in our history availible to consumers. Cars are infinatly more deadly than guns, as well, considering the amount of damage that they can, and many times do, cause.

Should we ban private ownership of cars, or should we work to make car owners more responsible?

"Guns are used for crimes" is another flimsy bit of rehetoric. Everything can be used for a crime. Knives, rope, chains, tools, cars, airplanes....yet we don't have 'car crimes', or 'knife crimes', just 'gun crimes'. Maybe we should focus on the person comitting the crime, instead of the tool?

The old saying "If guns are criminal, only criminals will have guns" is true, as well. Consider this: Washington, DC, banned handguns in 1976. By 1991, the average homicide rate in the US had risen by twelve percent. (Still a bad number.) Washington's homicide rate increased by three hundred percent.

In a study conducted by Mr. John Lott, done by studying every county in the country, he discovered that "when conceled handgun laws went into effect in a county, murders fell (an average) 8.5 percent, rapes 5 percent, and aggrevated assaults seven percent".

More current data: there are over 200 million privatly owned guns in the US. Only 30,000 of these are involved in deaths each year; .015 percent of all guns in America.

As for children, consider this: more children [i]under five[/i] drown in water buckets that children [i]under ten[/i] die in gun accidents. Shall we roll out water-bucket control laws?

Guns, like most things in life, should be treated with caution, respect and knowledge. Banning or adding another gun-control law to the 20/000 already on the books is not the answer. Encouraging education and responsibility is.[/color][/size][/font]

[Guest ScirosDarkblade]

[QUOTE=DeathBug][color=indigo][size=1][font=comic sans ms]You wanna' know what kills people? Cars. Cars kill more people in America that any other product manufactured in our history availible to consumers...Should we ban private ownership of cars, or should we work to make car owners more responsible?
"Guns are used for crimes" is another flimsy bit of rehetoric. Everything can be used for a crime. Knives, rope, chains, tools, cars, airplanes....yet we don't have 'car crimes', or 'knife crimes', just 'gun crimes'. Maybe we should focus on the person comitting the crime, instead of the tool?
The old saying "If guns are criminal, only criminals will have guns" is true, as well. Consider this: Washington, DC, banned handguns in 1976. By 1991, the average homicide rate in the US had risen by twelve percent. (Still a bad number.) Washington's homicide rate increased by three hundred percent.
In a study conducted by Mr. John Lott, done by studying every county in the country, he discovered that "when conceled handgun laws went into effect in a county, murders fell (an average) 8.5 percent, rapes 5 percent, and aggrevated assaults seven percent".
More current data: there are over 200 million privatly owned guns in the US. Only 30,000 of these are involved in deaths each year; .015 percent of all guns in America.
As for children, consider this: more children [i]under five[/i] drown in water buckets that children [i]under ten[/i] die in gun accidents. Shall we roll out water-bucket control laws?
[/color][/size][/font][/QUOTE]

I don't want to put you on the spot, but you brought up some arguments nobody else has, or at least not as clearly. I'll try to stay organized:

Ok, well, to say that cars kill people in relation to the gun debate is a pretty empty statement, and anyone who says it is either disingenuous or not thinking clearly. Cars are, if you will, a necessary evil. You simply cannot ban cars and expect society to continue functioning how it currently is. Cars serve a purpose slightly more meaningful than sitting in your garage until it's time to kill someone with them. The same is hardly true of guns (especially those that aren't used for hunting).

The same can be said for the water bucket argument. Well, actually, that water bucket argument is wrong statistically (36 kids under 5 drowned in water buckets vs. 53 kids under 10 dying in accidental shootings, as stated by the study that researched this), but not by much so that's not the point. Again, even water buckets serve a purpose a bit more meaningful and productive than drowning people.

Accidental deaths are not the majority of gun-related deaths, anyway, as I've already stated. Suicides and homicides are. And screening people to make sure they never get suicidal is, well, not possible. Teaching them responsibility and education when it comes to owning a firearm is all well and good, but it can't keep them from killing themselves. They won't do it accidentally; they'll do it on purpose.

The Lott study was bound to be mentioned, and I guess it's time to address it. Well, first of all, it has been criticized by enough credible individuals that it cannot necessarily be taken as 100% accurate (I've read stuff on it; while his statistics aren't technically wrong, there are certain problems, such as the fact that correlation doesn't necessarily imply causality, that no cultural factors were taken into account, etc. It was a very strict "by the numbers" study, and that's not a good study when it comes to guns. I can list off a good number of countries with a ban on private ownership on firearms which have a significantly lower gun-crime rate, as well as countries with a large amount of guns and still a low gun-crime rate. These sorts of statistics are very dangerous to generalize with. And Lott's study might not be applicable over a larger-scaled population than what he tested; certainly there are no suggestions that it is.)

The thing about "gun crime" as opposed to "knife crime," etc. Well, that one is a pretty easy one to answer. Why do people differentiate between gun-crimes and other crimes? Because you can't enact "rope control" laws or "knife control" laws or "car control" laws, etc. It's not going to come up as an issue ever, so the terms never need to be used. Blame the person, not the tool. Yes, that's a decent philosophy, except I'd much rather that person has a knife than a gun if he's worthy of blame.

In general, all this defense of guns using the "look at how few guns actually kill people!" and comparing gun-related deaths to other causes, is not very strong because guns serve no other purpose than to kill (the guns we're discussing, anyway; not hunting rifles). Average citizens buy guns to shoot people, not to drive themselves around or carry water or do whatever else. (Obviously it's not so they don't have to shoot people, because the best way to assure that is to not own a gun.)

The issue of concealed weapons being deterrents for criminals is a bit unnerving. Sure, it makes sense that it would be a deterrent. (It also makes sense that the more guns are carried, the more guns will be fired.) Anyway, constant anxiety because you're afraid random people passing you by all have loaded guns (possibly forcing you to buy a gun yourself so you can be even [i]more[/i] nervous) is a large price to pay to *possibly* lower the violent crime rate (actually, once enough people start to carry concealed weapons, violent crime might rise; there is no evidence to suggest otherwise when you're talking about large populations. And non-violent crime, such as auto theft, will rise almost certainly).

[slasher]

What have I started?

[DeathBug]

[QUOTE=ScirosDarkblade]
Ok, well, to say that cars kill people in relation to the gun debate is a pretty empty statement, and anyone who says it is either disingenuous or not thinking clearly. Cars are, if you will, a necessary evil. You simply cannot ban cars and expect society to continue functioning how it currently is. [/QUOTE]

For the sake of the argument, I'll ask why not? Isn't inconvinience a small price to pay for all the lives saved?


[quote name='ScirosDarkblade']Cars serve a purpose slightly more meaningful than sitting in your garage until it's time to kill someone with them. The same is hardly true of guns (especially those that aren't used for hunting). [/quote]

You assume thatt he purpose of owning a gun is to use it. I plan to purchase a gun when I live on my own and have taken proper measures to ensure that I will handle it safely. I believe that the vast majority of people who own guns (approx. 86 million in the US) would tell you that they never want to have to use them. It is the deterrant philosophy.

[quote name='ScirosDarkblade']The same can be said for the water bucket argument. Well, actually, that water bucket argument is wrong statistically (36 kids under 5 drowned in water buckets vs. 53 kids under 10 dying in accidental shootings, as stated by the study that researched this), but not by much so that's not the point. Again, even water buckets serve a purpose a bit more meaningful and productive than drowning people. [/quote]

If someone is threatening me or my family, I can think of no task more meaningfulo r productive than having the ability to stop them. And, again, there are a lot of things that kill far more children than guns, yet we don't talk of banning them.

In 1999, 1260 children under ten perished in auto accidents. Nintey-six drowned in bathtubs. Four hundred and eighty died as a result of residential fires caused by electric appliances.

However, cars, buckets, eletric appliances, etc. are not dangerous when used responsibly. Niether are firearms.

[quote name='ScirosDarkblade']Accidental deaths are not the majority of gun-related deaths, anyway, as I've already stated. Suicides and homicides are. And screening people to make sure they never get suicidal is, well, not possible. Teaching them responsibility and education when it comes to owning a firearm is all well and good, but it can't keep them from killing themselves. They won't do it accidentally; they'll do it on purpose. [/quote]

Have you ever heard this statement:

"Man, life sucks. I really wanna' kill myself. Too bad I don't have a gun."

To blame suicides on firearms is completely foolish. If I wanted to kill myself, lack of a weapon isn't going to stop me. Heck, in this room alone I could hang myself with a LAN cable, slit my wrists with my razor, slice my jugular with my Swiss-Army Knife, create a tasty cocktail from the cleaners under my bathroom sink...if I leave this room and enter the kitchen, or, God forbid, the garage, the possibilities are endless.

Bottom line: suicidal people are going to kill themselves with whatever they have availible.

Homicide isn't that different either. Funny thing about gang members, thugs or violent criminals: they don't mind breaking the law. Adding a gun law violation to their record really isn't that big a deal. And, again, they will either a) get guns anyway, but will then have the ability to prey on an defenseless populance, or b) simply find other ways to kill people.


[quote name='ScirosDarkblade']The Lott study was bound to be mentioned, and I guess it's time to address it. Well, first of all, it has been criticized by enough credible individuals that it cannot necessarily be taken as 100% accurate (I've read stuff on it; while his statistics aren't technically wrong, there are certain problems, such as the fact that correlation doesn't necessarily imply causality, that no cultural factors were taken into account, etc. It was a very strict "by the numbers" study, and that's not a good study when it comes to guns. I can list off a good number of countries with a ban on private ownership on firearms which have a significantly lower gun-crime rate, as well as countries with a large amount of guns and still a low gun-crime rate. These sorts of statistics are very dangerous to generalize with. And Lott's study might not be applicable over a larger-scaled population than what he tested; certainly there are no suggestions that it is.)[/quote]

The critisisms of the Lott study are the same that can be applicable to the vast majority of social studies. For each protractor and critic it has, it also has advocates. Saying, 'Some people disagree with i't does not make the study wrong, just debatable. And, as I said, most studies are debatable.

I do not claim the study to be perfectly accurate or unflawed, only that the direction it points to supports my original assertions.

[quote name='ScirosDarkblade']The thing about "gun crime" as opposed to "knife crime," etc. Well, that one is a pretty easy one to answer. Why do people differentiate between gun-crimes and other crimes? Because you can't enact "rope control" laws or "knife control" laws or "car control" laws, etc. It's not going to come up as an issue ever, so the terms never need to be used. Blame the person, not the tool. Yes, that's a decent philosophy, except I'd much rather that person has a knife than a gun if he's worthy of blame.[/quote]


Why won't it ever become an issue? Knives are more readily availible than guns, and have almost no control laws. Considering that a cut to the jugular artery can cause death in (I believe) under two minutes, the ability to abuse them is much greater than with guns. They can be concealed more easily than guns, they require no ammunition, and are easier to dispose of than guns. Why not enact knife control laws?

And cars, as I've already mentioned before, are the deadliest products produced for mass consumption in the history of mankind. They kill more people than guns, ciggarettes, knives or fatty foods. They pollutue the enviornment, consume billions of dollars annually in mainenance, and trillions of dollars for countries to regulate them and roads for them. The mere existance of automobiles creates a host of crimes revolving around or involving them. Banning the use of automobiles would save hundreds of thousands of lives.

Yet we do'nt do it, nor would I ever support the idea. The answer is obvious: when used responsibly, cars help more than hurt. As do guns.

To answer your rehtorical situation, I would prefer that the criminal has a knife and I have a gun.

[quote name='ScirosDarkblade']In general, all this defense of guns using the "look at how few guns actually kill people!" and comparing gun-related deaths to other causes, is not very strong because guns serve no other purpose than to kill (the guns we're discussing, anyway; not hunting rifles). Average citizens buy guns to shoot people, not to drive themselves around or carry water or do whatever else. (Obviously it's not so they don't have to shoot people, because the best way to assure that is to not own a gun.)[/quote]

Again, you misundserstand the reason for ggun ownership. It's completely analegous to nations owning nuclear arms. Most nations don't want to use them, because doing so would be dangerous, and create so much more trouble than they could ever be worth. Why have them?

They have them because they are a deturrent. They never want to use them, but knowing thatt he option is availible gives them a measure of security against potentially hostile powers.

Same reason for owning a gun. As I said, I plan to own a gun. I hope to God I never once have to be in the situation where I need to even consider using the gun, but it is there as a potential defense, not as an offense.

Guns prevent an average of 80,000 assaults, robberies and burglaries each year, almost double the average amount of gun-related deaths.

[quote name='ScirosDarkblade']The issue of concealed weapons being deterrents for criminals is a bit unnerving. Sure, it makes sense that it would be a deterrent.[/quote]

Not only does it make sense, the evidence points to that being true. Right to carry laws enacted in Texas in 1996 resulted in a 60% decrease in the state murder rate within five years. When similar laws were passed in Florida in 1987, the murder rate dropped by 23% in five years; however, at that same time, the national average murder rate rose by 9%.

However, this next statement:

[quote name='ScirosDarkblade'](It also makes sense that the more guns are carried, the more guns will be fired.) [/quote]

That doesn't make any sense if the guns exist as a deterrant. Deterrants lead to less of a behavior, not more. If more people owned guns, the average person's knowledge of proper gun use and safety behaviors will increase.

That's not concerte or proven logic, but it's just as reliable as 'more guns equal more gunshots', when one doesn't buy a gun hoping to use it.

[quote name='ScirosDarkblade]Anyway, constant anxiety because you're afraid random people passing you by all have loaded guns (possibly forcing you to buy a gun yourself so you can be even [i]more[/i'] nervous) is a large price to pay to *possibly* lower the violent crime rate [/quote]

Maybe you would react in such a manner, but you can't expect the rest of a community to. Why should the knowledge that I are educated in methods that could save my life make me nervous, when I have the means to do so?

As for other people, we constantly trust them with the means to kill us, whether we want to oir not. tHe knowledge that the average citizen has a firarm won't bother me, especially since I expect the average criminal to.

Even if I were to become as hyper-paranoid as you suggest (which I doubt any reasonable person will), I think it would be an agreeable trade-off. I am not willing to trade freedom for safety, but I am willing to trade blissful ignorance for it.

[quote name='ScirosDarkblade'](actually, once enough people start to carry concealed weapons, violent crime might rise; there is no evidence to suggest otherwise when you're talking about large populations. And non-violent crime, such as auto theft, will rise almost certainly). [/quote]

Not to be offensive, but that's just your worst-case hypothosis. tHere's nothing to back anything you said there. If there's no evidence to suggest against it, there is most likely not evidence to suggest for it, either.

[SoapyShoes]

This is like arguing to a wall. This issue will always be devided and will never be solved, and I'm here to make a point.

We, as humans, will find other ways to kill ourselves if guns are banned. Whether you like it or not, we are a sadistic race. Tower of London? WW2? BSDM? Asphixiation-Erotica? Methods of torture (we're the only species on the planet that has ever tortured another one of it's kind, btw)? We are a sick bunch of people.

Did you know that stairs kill over 1000 people each year? Do you think that we should ban stairs? Should we ban cars because they kill people too? What about airplanes? Or toasters? What about 5 gallon buckets that those babies drown in every year? Or how about we ban going outside because sunlight causes skin cancer?

It won't help if we ban guns. Just look what happened when they banned alcohol. Anyway, what I'm saying is that we're all gonna die of something, and you liberal douches are just whining about it. If you're smart, you'll stay away from guns so you won't die of 'em. Plain and simple.