Gun Control

[ChibiHorsewoman]

[quote name='slasher']What have I started?[/quote]

[color=darkviolet]Forget what you started, look what I started! *dies*

Too many people who have guns have no idea on how the hell to use them. Too many people are also way too irresponsible with their guns.

What do I mean by irresponsible?:
They don't lock up their guns or atleast purchase a trigger lock for their guns

They make amunition way too easily accessable to minors who may use it in a reckless manner.

They don't take proper gun safety courses.

These people shouldn't even be allowed around a paintball gun, let alone a .22 rifle or a handgun. However, if they pass a background check and can afford the liscence they can get themselves a gun.

People are trying to argue that gun ownership is a right given by the 2nd Ammendment in the constitution of the United States. Uh, no, it's a priveledge which is repeatedly abused by people who have no business owning such a weapon.

I really loved this arguement in the post about banning motorized vehicles as well as guns because people die in motor vehicle accidents as well.

Does a gun help you get around to work or to the grocery store? Does the gun come with a place to put your CDs? Do you put gas in a gun? No.

Guns are somewhat necessary to society because if we completely banned guns the only ones availble would be illegal weapons which law abiding citizens don't have access to and we'd have another prohibition case going on.

Gun control os necessary for both the safety of adults and minors. Consider this: if you are an adult with an unlocked gun and easily accessable amunition and a child in your house gets into that amunition and loads your gun and then accidentally shoots and kills his friend who was visting your house you can be charged with child abuse by criminal negligence.

This country needs to get out of the mind set that we aren't responsible for our actions even if our actions are not in direct connection with the action. after all you're responsible for your property right? Consider this then: If you leave your car unlocked in your driveway and someone comes and yanks your stereo from the car in the middle of the night, aren't you responsible for that action by the simple fact that you left your dorrs unlocked and didn't take the faceplate off your stereo?

As for the whiney liberals, consider this, it's the whiney liberals who end up having to think up the laws to protect people since the hard headed conservatives are probably to concerned with getting money from the NRA. But enough about my last familiy reunion[/color]

[Guest ScirosDarkblade]

Ok I guess a back-and-forth is nothing bad.

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

I'm just gonna tackle all of that at once. I don't know why you keep bringing up the accidental deaths of children to support your argument. Yes, guns are nowhere near the leading cause of accidental death among children. But I don't see guns doing much more to kids other than shooting them.

The car thing is not worth talking about, because like I said cars serve a beneficial purpose for a good deal more of the population a lot more of the time than do guns. The amount of shootings in self-defense doesn't even come close to how many people get to work every day because of cars. And the banning cars thing is ridiculous. How about we ban fire trucks and ambulances along with cars while we're at it. And knives. I'm tired of cutting my food with kitchen utensils. I'm gonna use my CD's to do it from now on. Oh, and pencils too. I can kill someone with a sharpened pencil if I felt like it. And, just for kicks, I'd like to inform you that one is more likely to drown than [i]accidentally[/i] die from a gun, so let's just ban water altogether. (Pardon the sarcasm, I went a bit overboard. And of course I'm making the same point you were trying to, but the thing is that banning what you facetiously suggested is unreasonable, ridiculous and not doable; such is not the case with handguns). The point is that guns (and again I stress we're not talking about hunting rifles, just so you don't bring them up in regards to this) are much more often used in homicides/suicides/accidents than they are used in self-defense (which probably happens to be self-defense against a gun sometimes). The fraction of deaths resulting from self-defense are such a small fraction of gun-related deaths that it's almost ridiculous to consider that a worthwhile function of firearms.

Bottom line is this: of the guns purchased every year (acquired legally), far more are used to kill someone unlawfully than to kill someone in self-defense. [i]Far more[/i].

[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]
The deterrent philosophy works when you're talking about nuclear weapons, but so far it hasn't really worked with guns. First of all, something works as a deterrent if people know you have it (as is the case with nuclear weapons; we're not afraid of Chile taking retaliation after a nuclear strike). If you buy a gun and store it properly, unless you drive around town announcing your ownership of a gun, I can't say it works any more as a deterrent than if you didn't have a gun. Does that make sense?

[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.[/QUOTE]
Unless you're constantly armed, someone threatening you is equally dangerous whether or not you own a gun. And although I can't tell you how many families are threatened with their lives in any given year (it's gotta be a pretty small number), I'm sure that precious few of those threats are properly settled because the family has a gun in the house.

[QUOTE]Bottom line: suicidal people are going to kill themselves with whatever they have availible.[/QUOTE]
That's not entirely true. It's not like people who own guns are more suicidal than people who don't. Often it's an impulse thing, and the easier it is to do it (and it's pretty easy with a gun), the more likely it is to happen.

[QUOTE]Homicide isn't that different either. ... 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]
Well, first of all, the "populace" is defenseless enough as it is. Just try to find some meaningful statistics on just how much a deterrent household firearms are to thugs, criminals, gangs, etc. I think you'll be hard-pressed to find anything that doesn't come from the mouth of the NRA. And about finding other ways to kill people, like I've said before, those other ways will not be as deadly as guns (unless you mean other [i]banned[/i] stuff like grenades).

[QUOTE]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?[/QUOTE]
Answer me this: what is the cause for a death more often? Knives or guns? What appears to be the weapon of choice? You're right about all those "advantages" of knives, but they have one serious disadvantage: they don't kill like guns do. You [i]cannot[/i] abuse a knife like you can a gun. I don't know why you said something like that.

[QUOTE]The answer is obvious: when used responsibly, cars help more than hurt. As do guns.[/QUOTE]
But cars are used responsibly far more often than not, and they serve a pretty important economic/social purpose. Guns, when used responsibly, [i]are not used[/i].
Now, the only thing that would change about guns not being used should they be banned, is that "deterrent" you refer to would be gone (but along with some guns on the "criminal" side.) Also, if bullets for handguns stop being readily available, the criminal element will have much more difficulty getting them, especially the thugs and punks you mentioned.

[QUOTE]Guns prevent an average of 80,000 assaults, robberies and burglaries each year, almost double the average amount of gun-related deaths.[/QUOTE]
Please give me a source for this statistic, because right now I'm suspicious that they might be taking police action into account. Which would distort the data tremendously.

[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. [/QUOTE]
Based on the numbers, if more people owned guns, more people would die from guns. You stress the deterrent function of guns, but I say that unless you're talking about concealed carry, that deterrent doesn't exist in the least.

[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? [/QUOTE]
Well, you see, it's like this. Supposing I'm just somewhere out in public, and everyone (or many people) are armed with loaded guns. Why should I feel safer? On the contrary, if someone hostile were indeed to pull a gun on the public, I'd say there's a better chance of me being shot if everyone has a gun than otherwise. Is that unreasonable?

Soapy Shoes, I take offense to being referred to as a "liberal douche." I think you should maybe act more civil here. As for your liking of banning guns to banning alcohol, I think it's highly inappropriate. First of all, alcohol doesn't exist just to kill people (while handguns do), and second, alcohol was impossible to outlaw. It increased crime because alcohol became illegal. There's no way that you're trying to say that if handguns are outlawed we'll have a rise in crime. In fact, prohibition can only be used in defense of gun control, because it shows a case where a right was taken from people but no other rights were taken along with them (which is the precedent many pro-gun people are afraid such an action would set).

[Brasil]

[quote name='ScirosDarkblade]Answer me this: what is the cause for a death more often? Knives or guns? What appears to be the weapon of choice? You're right about all those "advantages" of knives, but they have one serious disadvantage: they don't kill like guns do. You [i]cannot[/i'] abuse a knife like you can a gun. I don't know why you said something like that.[/quote]I don't suppose you do Medical Transcription for a living, huh?

In my two years of transcribing, I've had one, count it, [i]one[/i] report for a gunshot wound to the head, to anywhere, in fact. Just one.

Compare that to the [i]countless[/i] reports I transcribe where the injuries are caused by domestic violence, blunt objects, car crashes, etc. I can't even [i]begin[/i] to tell you how many reports I do on teens (ages 17 through 22) who were in motor vehicle accidents.

And the hospital I work for is one of the larger hospitals in South Jersey, too, so they see a significantly larger amount of emergency cases than the surrounding hospitals, so it's not like I work for some tiny little healthward in a tiny little town populated by a vast number of idiots.

Sciros, frankly, I don't give a damn what your side is here, but you should seriously re-consider what you want to say regarding what causes more deaths. You may quote the news, but obviously, the news doesn't really report the good stuff, now does it? Death sells, to put it simply. And we've established that we can't really rely on any studies, because each of them has their strengths and weaknesses, so bringing in studies/surveys/number-crunchings won't really help you at all, either.

So, what's it going to be?

EDIT: And after CHW's recent reply, I think the thread can be closed. CHW hit the nail precisely on the head. Focused, to the point, and really, very readable.

[DeathBug]

So much toi say, so little time.

[QUOTE]People are trying to argue that gun ownership is a right given by the 2nd Ammendment in the constitution of the United States. Uh, no, it's a priveledge which is repeatedly abused by people who have no business owning such a weapon.[/QUOTE]

I'm afraid you're wrong; it [i]is[/i] a right, same as voting, speeking freely and not being searched or seiezed illegally. It is in the constitution, and was considered important second only to the right to freely express yourself.

Like most rights, there are limitations on it, and you can disqualify yourself of the right. However, it is still a right. If you want to say that it shouldn't be one, that's another thing, but you cannot deny that the average, law-abiding citizen has the right to own a firearm, as outlined by the Constitution.

[QUOTE]I really loved this arguement in the post about banning motorized vehicles as well as guns because people die in motor vehicle accidents as well.

Does a gun help you get around to work or to the grocery store? Does the gun come with a place to put your CDs? Do you put gas in a gun? No.[/QUOTE]

Getting somewhere faster is a matter of convienience. Stopping a violent assault is a matter of life and death. And you put bullets into a gun, not gasoline.

[QUOTE]Guns are somewhat necessary to society because if we completely banned guns the only ones availble would be illegal weapons which law abiding citizens don't have access to and we'd have another prohibition case going on.[/QUOTE]

Agreed; if guns are criminal, only criminals will have guns.

[QUOTE]Consider this: if you are an adult with an unlocked gun and easily accessable amunition and a child in your house gets into that amunition and loads your gun and then accidentally shoots and kills his friend who was visting your house you can be charged with child abuse by criminal negligence. [/QUOTE]

As well the hypothetical person should be, for being irresponsible. However, and I'll say this again: [i]Every product is dangerous if used irresponsibly[/b].

[QUOTE]This country needs to get out of the mind set that we aren't responsible for our actions even if our actions are not in direct connection with the action.[/QUOTE]

Also agreed. A supporter of this line of thought might even be lead to believe that guns aren't responsible for killing people, but irresponsible and foolish people using them are.

[QUOTE]If you leave your car unlocked in your driveway and someone comes and yanks your stereo from the car in the middle of the night, aren't you responsible for that action by the simple fact that you left your dorrs unlocked and didn't take the faceplate off your stereo?[/QUOTE]

Legally, you're not responsible, you're just a moron.

[QUOTE]As for the whiney liberals, consider this, it's the whiney liberals who end up having to think up the laws to protect people since the hard headed conservatives are probably to concerned with getting money from the NRA. But enough about my last familiy reunion[/QUOTE]

I'd rather not turn this into (another) 'liberals v conseratives' thing. And I refuse to respond to the point of someone who resorts to name calling in a debate, which is why Soapy is not getting a response from me.

I will say, however, that all political parties have a political blind-spot to the organizations that give them money. The NRA, PETA, China...That's how political parties survive.

I don't agree with everything the NRA stands for, but they produced millions of dollars worth of literature, programs and videos dedicated to the subject of gun safety. They, as an organization, are more responsible with guns than the average citizen. Given the choice, I'd rather an NRA member carried a firearm that one who is not, because they will most likely be more responsible with it.

[QUOTE]I'm just gonna tackle all of that at once. I don't know why you keep bringing up the accidental deaths of children to support your argument. Yes, guns are nowhere near the leading cause of accidental death among children. But I don't see guns doing much more to kids other than shooting them. [/QUOTE]

Gee, how about protecting them? Again, 80,000 crimes an average year prevented by responsible use or display of a firearm.

[QUOTE]The car thing is not worth talking about, because like I said cars serve a beneficial purpose for a good deal more of the population a lot more of the time than do guns. [/QUOTE]

Cars are convieniences that kill over a thousand people each year. Guns are life-saving products that protect thousands each year. They're really not comprable, but not in the way you're suggesting.

[QUOTE]The amount of shootings in self-defense doesn't even come close to how many people get to work every day because of cars. [/QUOTE]

Convienience, and nothing more. There are other ways to get to work.

[QUOTE]How about we ban fire trucks and ambulances along with cars while we're at it.[/QUOTE]

Nope, the state and government agencies would retain the use of automobiles no matter what, just as they will retain the ability to use firearms no matter what.

[QUOTE]And knives. I'm tired of cutting my food with kitchen utensils. I'm gonna use my CD's to do it from now on. Oh, and pencils too. I can kill someone with a sharpened pencil if I felt like it. And, just for kicks, I'd like to inform you that one is more likely to drown than accidentally die from a gun, so let's just ban water altogether.[/QUOTE]

What's funny is that you're actually right, despite your sarcasm. We [i]could[/i] ban knives, pencils and standing water, and the amount of people who die from incidences relating to them would sharply decrease. However, the cons outweigh the pros in these situations, just as they do with guns.

Again, [b]anything is dangerous if used irresponsibly[/b].

[QUOTE](Pardon the sarcasm, I went a bit overboard. And of course I'm making the same point you were trying to, but the thing is that banning what you facetiously suggested is unreasonable, ridiculous and not doable; such is not the case with handguns). [/QUOTE]

Unless you own a handgun, feel secure because of it, or have ever had your life or property protected because of one. then is is [i]not[/i] doable. You are fortunate to have apparently never been in a situation where this is an issue, but more people than not aren't so lucky.

[QUOTE]The point is that guns (and again I stress we're not talking about hunting rifles, just so you don't bring them up in regards to this) are much more often used in homicides/suicides/accidents than they are used in self-defense (which probably happens to be self-defense against a gun sometimes). [/QUOTE]

I believe I provided several recent statistics that point in the exact opposite direction. Ignoring them will not make them go away, nor change the conclusion that they lead to.

[QUOTE]The fraction of deaths resulting from self-defense are such a small fraction of gun-related deaths that it's almost ridiculous to consider that a worthwhile function of firearms.
[/QUOTE]

When someone has a gun, is being threatened, and displays their ownage of and ability to use the gun, a funny thing happens: the hostile party uisually leaves, and no one dies. So, of course deaths as a result of self-defense won't usually ocurr. That's the entire point of owning the gun.

Again, it's only ridiculous to you.

[QUOTE]Bottom line is this: of the guns purchased every year (acquired legally), far more are used to kill someone unlawfully than to kill someone in self-defense. Far more.[/QUOTE]

You're completely ignoring the facts again. Only .015% of all guns owned in America todays are involved in deaths. The facts completely disprove your claim.

[QUOTE]The deterrent philosophy works when you're talking about nuclear weapons, but so far it hasn't really worked with guns. First of all, something works as a deterrent if people know you have it (as is the case with nuclear weapons; we're not afraid of Chile taking retaliation after a nuclear strike). If you buy a gun and store it properly, unless you drive around town announcing your ownership of a gun, I can't say it works any more as a deterrent than if you didn't have a gun. Does that make sense?[/QUOTE]

Yes, perfectly. Which is whyt he more people own and properly handle guns, the more the deterrant philosophy will work. In Washington, DC, there ids no deterrance whatsoever, because the average criminal knows that civilians aren't armed. In Texas, the crime rate is so much lower because the average person [i]does[/i] have a gun. So, the more people that responsible own guns, the more they are a deterrant.

[QUOTE]That's not entirely true. It's not like people who own guns are more suicidal than people who don't. Often it's an impulse thing, and the easier it is to do it (and it's pretty easy with a gun), the more likely it is to happen[/QUOTE]

Then why are teen suicide rates steady, independent of whether guns are availible or not?

[QUOTE]And although I can't tell you how many families are threatened with their lives in any given year (it's gotta be a pretty small number), I'm sure that precious few of those threats are properly settled because the family has a gun in the house.
[/QUOTE]

Again, that's your belief; there are no facts to back that up.

[QUOTE]Well, first of all, the "populace" is defenseless enough as it is. Just try to find some meaningful statistics on just how much a deterrent household firearms are to thugs, criminals, gangs, etc.[/QUOTE]

Texas.

[QUOTE]And about finding other ways to kill people, like I've said before, those other ways will not be as deadly as guns[/QUOTE]

If you define 'deadly' as the amount of people killed, then there are salrwady more deadly products. If you define 'deadly' as to ease of use, that's subjective.

[QUOTE]Answer me this: what is the cause for a death more often? Knives or guns? [/QUOTE]

[url=http://www.folders-r-us.org/statistics.htm]Knives[/url]

[QUOTE]What appears to be the weapon of choice?[/QUOTE]

For career criminals? Guns. For those with no prior convictions? Knives.

[QUOTE]You're right about all those "advantages" of knives, but they have one serious disadvantage: they don't kill like guns do.[/QUOTE]

What does 'like guns do' even mean? That knives can't kill by expelling a piece of lead at high speeds?

If it refers to the statistics of knife-deaths to gun-deaths, then you're simply wrong, and the statistics generally agree with me.

[QUOTE]I don't know why you said something like that.
[/QUOTE]

Why not? It used the same logic that's used for the banning of firearms.

[QUOTE]But cars are used responsibly far more often than not, and they serve a pretty important economic/social purpose. Guns, when used responsibly, are not used. [/QUOTE]

Most guns aren't used. .015%, remember?

[QUOTE]Now, the only thing that would change about guns not being used should they be banned, is that "deterrent" you refer to would be gone (but along with some guns on the "criminal" side.) Also, if bullets for handguns stop being readily available, the criminal element will have much more difficulty getting them, especially the thugs and punks you mentioned.[/QUOTE]

But criminals [i]would still get them[/i]. tHe only difference is that any possible deterrant would be entirely gone. Crime rates would skyrocket, just like they have when hanguns are banned in any area.

[QUOTE]Please give me a source for this statistic, because right now I'm suspicious that they might be taking police action into account. Which would distort the data tremendously.[/QUOTE]

The source is John R. Lott. While it is not specified whether or not that does include police activity, it more than likey does not, due to the nature of Lott's reasearch.

However, if we want to bring coruppted data into account, ask yourself this: What constitues a 'child'? If the term is sused indiscriminatly, the data it gives is highly innaccurate. Legally, a 'child' can be as old as nineteen, thus including the most violent section of the American population (teenage males) into 'child gun-death' statistics.

[QUOTE]Based on the numbers, if more people owned guns, more people would die from guns. You stress the deterrent function of guns, but I say that unless you're talking about concealed carry, that deterrent doesn't exist in the least.[/QUOTE}

[i]You[/i] say that, but the evidence seems to be saying something else.

[QUOTE]Supposing I'm just somewhere out in public, and everyone (or many people) are armed with loaded guns. Why should I feel safer? On the contrary, if someone hostile were indeed to pull a gun on the public, I'd say there's a better chance of me being shot if everyone has a gun than otherwise. Is that unreasonable?
[/QUOTE]

You're ignorring the factt hat if more people have concealed weapons, the odds of someone suddenly pulling a gun in public will decrease substantially.

And, again, most of us have no problem with letting people propel tons of steel at speeds in excess of fifty miles per hour.

[QUOTE]Soapy Shoes, I take offense to being referred to as a "liberal douche." I think you should maybe act more civil here.[/QUOTE]

While I agree his behavior is completely inappropriate, perhaps he's merely upset because you're trying to strip away one of his fundamental rights.

[QUOTE]First of all, alcohol doesn't exist just to kill people (while handguns do), [/QUOTE]

No, handguns exist to deterr other people from trying to kill you. Get it right.

[QUOTE]alcohol was impossible to outlaw. It increased crime because alcohol became illegal.[/QUOTE]

So, what you're saying is, the people who wanted alcohol still used alcohol, even though the knew it was illegal? Kind of like how the people who wanted to use guns for crimes would still use guns for crimes?

[QUOTE]There's no way that you're trying to say that if handguns are outlawed we'll have a rise in crime.[/QUOTE]

I'm afraid he is, and, even worse, I'm afraid the evidence supports that assertion.

[QUOTE]In fact, prohibition can only be used in defense of gun control,[/QUOTE}

O.O;

So, after just admitting that prohibition lead to a rise in crime, and knowing the violence that result from it....you still use it to support your claim?

Okay....

[QUOTE]because it shows a case where a right was taken from people but no other rights were taken along with them [/QUOTE]

No, it doesn't, because there is no right to alcohol. Prohibition was still an abomination, though, because it restricted individual rights in the document that was supoposed to protect individual freedoms.

How could you possibly use it to support your claims, knowing what a disaster it was? It disproves your claims in almost every way.

[Transtic Nerve]

[quote name='Boba Fett][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)[/quote]

Thats because there are much fewer people per capita in Canada. If I have two people per capita and one of those people owns a gun, i now have more people per capita which own guns than in the US. Not to mention, they use their guns for hunting alot. Theres more forest per capita in Canada than the US too.

[quote]It sounds cheesy, but guns don?t kill people, people kill people.[/quote]

Yeah it does, but guns certainly don't help in the situation. If I was a robber and I didn't have a gun, my chances of killing someone would be far less than if I did have a gun.

[quote]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]

I think it's quite simple to understand. Gun + Bullet + head = death. I think Americans know perfectly well what the outcome of a gun fight would be, which is why we have so many deaths per year dealing with firearms. If Americans don't know that guns are bad, jesus.... what else can't we know. How dumb can we be?

[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.)[/quote]

Apparently those restrictions don't work cause we still have people obtaining these weapons illegally. Like I said, if you want to carry an 18th century musket I will stand beside you in your right to bear those arms.

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

I wouldn't say that....

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

No they won't. My local representative is an advocate of gun usage. He's pro gun and anti-gun control. He only won the election because he beat out some other lady who spent alot of money on some statue of a frog (I swear to you, that was his whole campaign and it worked and it was sad)

[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.[/quote]

Sure there is. Banning bullets is like banning guns, just easier. People run out of bullets, they don't run out of guns quite as easily. Therefor the solution is simple. There is no midle ground, ban bullets or ban guns. Either or works for me.

[quote]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.[/quote]

I think that issue lies within the killers of Matthew Sheperd. If they didn't have this useless hatred for gay people, Matt might still be alive....

[quote]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]

Maybe those people should learn better ways to defend themselves. I once saw a blind woman beat up 4 guys attacking her, who weren't blind. She didn't seem to need a gun, why would anyone else?

[Dan L]

[quote name='Transtic Nerve']Maybe those people should learn better ways to defend themselves. I once saw a blind woman beat up 4 guys attacking her, who weren't blind. She didn't seem to need a gun, why would anyone else?[/quote]

that and I think a blind woman would be far more dangerous to everyone in general (as opposed to just her attackers) with a gun, than without one.

----

I'm british, so I live in a place where gun control is a lot more.. well, I guess you could call it strict. Thing is, I don't really see it that way, and I don't think many others around here do either. I mean, what need is there to have a gun, [i]really[/i]..?

If anything, I don't consider our gun laws strict as much as I see America's to be incredibly loose to a rediculous level.

The simple fact is that you don't even need a gun in day to day life. Over here, hardly anyone has a gun in their house, and you just don't walk around, even at night, in fear of being shot (though there is a fair share of dodgy goings on at night which don't involve shooting). The other week there was a shooting in Netheredge, a part of Sheffield quite near to where I live- and it was quite a shock.. that sort of thing rarely goes on in Britain at all.

Believe me, if there is tight gun control to the point that hardly anyone owns a gun- nobody even needs a gun, so the fact that we have tighter gun control is not generally complained about.

[ChibiHorsewoman]

[color=darkviolet]Yeah, the name calling thing was a bit off for me, but it was late. Sorry.

Okay back to my case.

Gun ownership should not be considered a right it should be considered a privledge for a person to own a gun. Yes, it was mentioned in the constitution after the freedom of speech, but just as rights of speech are limited so are rights of gun ownership. Besides we should look at when the constitution was written 1789-most people needed guns to get food. Back then it was considered a right actually, more of a necessity. Now most of the populace lives in large cities or in the vicinity of a large city so they have access to a mode of transportation and a grocery store. Aside from going hunting for sport or because Wegmans doesn't carry rabbit, modern society isn't in [i]need[/i] of guns except in law enforcement.

Handguns really don't serve much of a purpose except to shoot at someone. Honestly, would you take a handgun with you during deer season? I think the deer would most likely die from laughing its head off at your gun.

I don't quite understand how just having a gun is a deterant, all you do is apply for the gun, buy the gun andkeep the gun in your dresser. You don't go around waving this gun and being all, 'I have a gun don't mess with me' If you did, you'd get arrested and put in jail for public endangerment.

I stand by what I've said before, Guns aren't a right, they're a privledge.

Well, There goes some more of my opinion take it as you will.[/color]

[DeathBug]

[QUOTE=ChibiHorsewoman][color=darkviolet]
Gun ownership should not be considered a right it should be considered a privledge for a person to own a gun. Yes, it was mentioned in the constitution after the freedom of speech, but just as rights of speech are limited so are rights of gun ownership.[/color][/QUOTE]

There are limits, as there should be. That is not, nor has that ever, been the question. The question is whether the right to own a gun should exist in the first place.

[quote name='ChibiHorsewoman][color=darkviolet] Besides we should look at when the constitution was written 1789-most people needed guns to get food. Back then it was considered a right actually, more of a necessity. Now most of the populace lives in large cities or in the vicinity of a large city so they have access to a mode of transportation and a grocery store. Aside from going hunting for sport or because Wegmans doesn't carry rabbit, modern society isn't in [i]need[/i'] of guns except in law enforcement.[/color][/quote]

If the use of guns was only important to the Founders in the sense of gathering food, then they wouldn't have bothered to list that as a right at all. To understand why guns were considered important, you have to recall the point of the Bill of Rights in the first place. The point of the Bill was to give citizens [i]rights to protect themselves from their governments.[/i] Foir obvious reasons, the Founders feared oppressive governments.

And, historically, opressive governments have always made certain that their citizens had no means of defensive. The British tried to do it to the colonists, Hitler did it to Germany, Castro did it to Cuba, the roman Empire did it to any conquered province, and any society that kept slaves made darn sure that they couldn't arm themselves.

[quote name='ChibiHorsewoman][color=darkviolet']Handguns really don't serve much of a purpose except to shoot at someone. Honestly, would you take a handgun with you during deer season? I think the deer would most likely die from laughing its head off at your gun.[/color][/quote]

I don't hunt for sport so I have niether knowledge nor interest in the mechanics of it. That's why I haven't mentioned that topic.

[quote name='ChibiHorsewoman][color=darkviolet']I don't quite understand how just having a gun is a deterant, all you do is apply for the gun, buy the gun andkeep the gun in your dresser. You don't go around waving this gun and being all, 'I have a gun don't mess with me' If you did, you'd get arrested and put in jail for public endangerment.[/color][/quote]

I'm afraid you misunderstand the idea. It's not that a single person having a gun is a deterrant, it's the idea that if the general populance makes use of their second amendment rights, criminals will be much more hesitant to commit crimes.

Want an example of this? Look at Texas. They're hardly what I would call the perfect state, but they have a very low crime rate compared to the surrounding area.

As they saind in Miss. Congeniality, "It's Texas; everyone has a gun. My florist has a gun!".

[quote name='ChibiHorsewoman][color=darkviolet']I stand by what I've said before, Guns aren't a right, they're a privledge.[/color][/quote]

They are a [i]right[/i], hence their inclusion in the [u]Bill of Rights[/u].

[quote name='ChibiHorsewoman][color=darkviolet']Well, There goes some more of my opinion take it as you will. [/color][/quote]

Always a pleasure. ^__^

[Guest ScirosDarkblade]

I'm just going to copy/paste this from some webpage I ran into:

[COLOR=Sienna]did you know that, according to data from the Department of Justice, in 1997 in the United States, there were 12,397 homicides by guns, 9,796 of which were by handgun. This is in contrast to 2,355 homicides by knives, 822 homicides by blunt objects, and 2,637 homicides by other weapons. (More murders by handguns - 9,796 - than murders by other guns, knives, blunt objects, and other weapons - 8,415[/COLOR]

This was from a page which was a back-and-forth thing about knives being used in more and more murders in Maryland (although apparently still far less than guns).

Anyway hopefully that'll clear up the knives being more dangerous thing.

EDIT: Actually I checked out Lott's surveys, and it seems he extrapolated like nobody's business. I'm not sure his survey data can be considered significant. In his paper concerning the survey he claims that guns are used defensively in 1,000,000 cases per year. That number seems absolutely ridiculous, seeing as his sample sizes were nowhere near that. Though there is no evidence that he took police action into account (in any case his surveys didn't check if he was talking to law enforcement or not), it wasn't exactly a well-done study. Also, since Lott is unbelievably biased, I wouldn't consider him too reliable.

Alright, anyway, I'm done here. You all know where I stand, and I know where you stand. I know there won't be any convincing of anyone.

[Merlin Matrix]

Okay right of the bat, I hate guns but i can also respect of those who wish to own them. I can understand using them for hunting (even though bow is much more rewarding), what I don't understand is using them for protction. I used live in L.A. and we still didn't own a gun for "protection" (that's what the baseball bats and knives where for). Owning a gun for protection is just asking for trouble man. Say you get up one night because someone has found a way to your house and you go down there and shoot them, you feel good about yourself and what the heck you do a happy dance but then you hear a voice, "hey Da, it's your son, you shot me in the leg. I didn't know you where that serious about curfew."

Peace love dope
Miquel Anthony Cremeans

ONE MORE THING: the veiw on guns by Mr Heston

[I]Guns don't kill people, monkey's with guns kill people.[/I]

[DeathBug]

[QUOTE]Anyway hopefully that'll clear up the knives being more dangerous thing. [/QUOTE]

Yet, at the same time, the FBI study I linked to clearly showed that knives are used just as often as guns to violently attack law enforcment individuals. Combining that death toll with all the advantages knives have oiver guns, and I still consider them to be just as, if not more dangerous.

[QUOTE]In his paper concerning the survey he claims that guns are used defensively in 1,000,000 cases per year. That number seems absolutely ridiculous, seeing as his sample sizes were nowhere near that.[/QUOTE]

Unless he took surveys of various smaller samples, and applied the results proportionatly to the rest of the country. That's a common thing to do while studying sampels of this size.

[QUOTE]it wasn't exactly a well-done study.[/QUOTE]

Why not? And if it isn't, which study is?

[QUOTE]Also, since Lott is unbelievably biased, I wouldn't consider him too reliable.
[/QUOTE]

In case you haven't noticed, everyone is biased. I do'nt see why him being biased invalidates his study. If he was really so biased, and the results of the study pointed against the reaction that he wanted, he simply wouldn't have published it.

[QUOTE]Alright, anyway, I'm done here. You all know where I stand, and I know where you stand. I know there won't be any convincing of anyone.[/QUOTE]

You seem to stand on the side that wants to errode one of my most important constitutional rights, on the possibility of increased security.

[QUOTE][b]Originally said by Ben Franklin[/b]
He who would sacrifice freedom for security deserves niether freedom nor security.[/QUOTE]

[Transtic Nerve]

[quote name='DeathBug']You seem to stand on the side that wants to errode one of my most important constitutional rights, on the possibility of increased security.[/quote]

Owning a firearm is one of your most important constitutional rights? lol.... I'm sorry, i thought you were being serious there for a second...

Guns are a huge killer in American society, so why would anyone want to keep them? I mean it's like "hey, there's a big plague going around thats killing everyone, let's just keep it and not try to get rid of it." It's silly. Why would anyone want to keep something that has a possibility of killing themselves, their family, or their friends? I could never understand that. But then I remembered what country I live in and the people I deal with on a daily basis, and it all seems to make sense. Stupidity runs rampid in this country and it's seen in every aspect of life, even gun control.

If you want to read and interpret the constitution as it was, and I'll say this again, I'll gladly support you're right to own an 18th century musket. However, the founding fathers never would have foreseen automatics and semi-automatics in American society or else theyw ould have never put that amendmet in. Therefor I don't believe anyone has the right to carry any other weapon. It's a danger to society and it's a danger to yourself

[Godelsensei]

[COLOR=Gray][FONT=Courier New]If it wasn't so easy to get ahold of guns, there would be nowhere near as much crime involving them. It's a "No, DUH." kind of thing. Like, [i]ya know[/i]?

If every one carries a gun on their person, what good are police officers? The idea is that there are a number of people, who, ideally, work to protect the populous, and they alone are allowed to carry firearms.

With all the school shootings (even in grade one classes!!), you'd think some people would be a little less up-tight about their "God-given right to bear arms."

And it's not only in America that this causes problems. The flow of illegal guns into southern Canada is unbelievable.
While American's (some of them : / ) ***** and moan about how senior citizens are smuggling medicinal drugs down south, across the border, they seem to be forgetting about the things that actually hurt people being shipped in the opposite direction (and, yes, I know these drugs can hurt people, but that's not why they're smuggled...>_>).

Imagine if there hadn't been a rack of guns to steal. Would you "have to" sit with a .22 mm in your lap, then?

And how the [i]hell[/i] does allowing every Tom, Dick and Harriette to tote a pistol [i]increase[/i] security?! O_o o_O""[/FONT][/COLOR]

[DeathBug]

[QUOTE]Owning a firearm is one of your most important constitutional rights? lol.... I'm sorry, i thought you were being serious there for a second...[/QUOTE]

Good gravy, did you read anything I said? The right to bear arms is the [b]second[/b] Amendment on the Bill of Rights. It's second only to free speech. The original Ten Amendments were listed in order of importance. Freedom of expression was first, followed by the right to keep and bear arms. so, yes, it [i]is[/i] one our most important constitutional rights.

[QUOTE]Guns are a huge killer in American society, so why would anyone want to keep them? I mean it's like "hey, there's a big plague going around thats killing everyone, let's just keep it and not try to get rid of it." It's silly. Why would anyone want to keep something that has a possibility of killing themselves, their family, or their friends? I could never understand that.[/QUOTE]

Again, I explained all of this. Several times. Apparently, I need to once again. Pay attention.

Guns are not dangerous if used respoinsibly.

Everything is dangerous if used irresponsibly. Again, I will use the example of automobiles, the most deadly product availible to consumers. when used properly, there is little risk. When used improperly, they are weapons of minor destruction.

And, if you ban guns, you will only take them from citizens responible enough to actually obey the law, leaving them in the hands of those who don't heed the law.

[QUOTE]But then I remembered what country I live in and the people I deal with on a daily basis, and it all seems to make sense. Stupidity runs rampid in this country and it's seen in every aspect of life, even gun control.[/QUOTE]

So, when will you be leaving, then?

[QUOTE]If you want to read and interpret the constitution as it was, and I'll say this again, I'll gladly support you're right to own an 18th century musket.[/QUOTE]

But the Constitution doesn't say musket. It says 'arms'.

[QUOTE]However, the founding fathers never would have foreseen automatics and semi-automatics in American society or else theyw ould have never put that amendmet in. [/QUOTE]

I do not support ownership of semi-automatic weapons, as they are really not necessary to fulfill the tasks intended by the fathers.

And, had the Fathers known the types of ordinence availible today, they [i]still[/i] would have put that Amendment in, because history taught them, as it should teach us, that unarmed populances will be opressed by their governments. Do I have to list my examples again?

For someone with such a negative view of the current administration, I would think you'd understand what the fathers had in mind when they spoke of 'oppressive governements'.

[QUOTE]Therefor I don't believe anyone has the right to carry any other weapon. It's a danger to society and it's a danger to yourself[/QUOTE]

You can not believe it, but you would still be wrong.

[QUOTE]If it wasn't so easy to get ahold of guns, there would be nowhere near as much crime involving them. It's a "No, DUH." kind of thing. Like, ya know?[/QUOTE]

You would think that, but, as I've repeatedly said, the data proves otherwise. again, think of Texas. Large percentage of gun ownership, low percentage of violent crime.

[QUOTE]If every one carries a gun on their person, what good are police officers? The idea is that there are a number of people, who, ideally, work to protect the populous, and they alone are allowed to carry firearms.[/QUOTE]

The Founding Fathers were deathly afraid of a country where only the agents of the government had acess to weapons. Remember, one of Hitler's first acts as Chancellor was the disarmnmewnt of the populance.

[QUOTE]With all the school shootings (even in grade one classes!!), you'd think some people would be a little less up-tight about their "God-given right to bear arms." [/QUOTE]

With all the deaths caused by automobiles, you'd think some people would be a little less up-tight about their 'right to drive'.

With all the deaths caused by STD's, you'd think some people would be a little less up-tight about their 'right to procreate'.

With all the turmoil initiated by exchanging conflicting ideas, you'd think some people would be a little less up tight about their 'right to free speech'.

[QUOTE]And how the hell does allowing every Tom, Dick and Harriette to tote a pistol increase security?! O_o o_O""[/QUOTE]

Read my posts about the deterrance factors again; I'm too tired to type it all out. and think of Texas.

[Godelsensei]

[COLOR=Gray][FONT=Courier New]About the issue of police:

The motto of police in most of North America is something along the lines of "To serve and protect."

With the tightening of gun-regulation laws, there would also need to be the tightening of other laws. I figured this would be obvious.
Police would have to be monitered more carefully, and with much less leniance, for one.

As far as cars go...there is a difference between a weapon, made for the sole purpose of killing things, and a car. Cars were not designed to kill people, though they still do.
Using a gun "properly" would mean you would be shooting people with it, [i]n'est pas[/i]?

And, in regards to Texas... Countries with tighter gun-control laws have very little gun-related crime. Is it not better to have a gunless populace than one in which every one carries a weapon, if the effects are almost even.

It's regulated guns that six year olds bring into class to shoot their classmates in the head with. They find them on the top shelf of their parents' closets one day, and all Hell breaks loose.

I understand owning a gun in a place like a northerly cottage, where police services and whatnot are kind of far off, and you have bears wandering around in the bush.

It's unfair to bring Hitler into this: wouldn't a leader banning guns today do it in order to protect the populace, not kill half of it?

Ignoring what the constittuion does or does not say, why do you think you shoudl be allowed to carry around a firearm? Enough of this "It was laid down by our forefathers" stuff--the times, they a' changing. Have changed.[/FONT][/COLOR]

[DeathBug]

[QUOTE]With the tightening of gun-regulation laws, there would also need to be the tightening of other laws. I figured this would be obvious.
[/QUOTE]

No, it's not. You said 'gun control' laws. If you think that most/all laws are too lax, you should have said so. [i]Ceteris paribus[/i].

And, quite frankly, if my country were banning one of my constitutional rights while simultaneously tighting laws all across the board, I'd be very, very scared.

[QUOTE]Cars were not designed to kill people, though they still do.[/QUOTE]

I cannot stress enough just [i]how many[/i] people cars kill. It is a totally valid comparison.

[QUOTE]Using a gun "properly" would mean you would be shooting people with it, n'est pas?
[/QUOTE]

I'll have to pardon your French. ^_^ Anyway, as I have said before, the mentality of responsible gun ownership is that you buy one and hope to never need to use it.

Airplanes have emergency equipment for water landings. Obviously, to jump into a huge pool of water onto an oddly-colored plastic raft with a bunch of people with little to no survival experience is a bad idea. Why keep them? Because someday you might need them.

[QUOTE]It's regulated guns that six year olds bring into class to shoot their classmates in the head with. They find them on the top shelf of their parents' closets one day, and all Hell breaks loose.[/QUOTE]

You're thinking with your heart and not with your head. That is a a tradgedy, but the fact is, those situations aren't that common. In fact, they hardly happen at all. There are 86 million privately-wned firearms in the US today, and only 30,000 or so are involved in deaths. tHat's about .015%.

Oh, and it's an unregulated gun the criminal uses to kill a man and take his walet. He'll keep using that unregulated gun with or without more gun control laws (Over 200,000 on record). The only difference is, his victem might have once had a chance to defend himself. Once.

Maybe the situation isn't banning handguns, or adding more laws, but actually enforcing the laws that exist? Hmmm...

[QUOTE]Countries with tighter gun-control laws have very little gun-related crime.[/QUOTE]

Tha'ts not really impressive. What's impressive is only .015% of guns in a country with 86 million privatly-owned firearms being involved in deaths. (Not just crimes, mind you; deaths, period.)

[QUOTE]Is it not better to have a gunless populace than one in which every one carries a weapon, if the effects are almost even.
[/QUOTE]

Based on what I just said, the US is actually sahead of the game compared to other countries that don't allow private firarm ownership. So, the answer is 'no'.

[QUOTE]It's unfair to bring Hitler into this: wouldn't a leader banning guns today do it in order to protect the populace, not kill half of it?
[/QUOTE]

Not only is it fair to bring Hitler into this, it's necessary. Hitler was exactly the kind of man the Fathers were thinking of when they penned the Second Amendment.

Remember, you have to consider things from the Fathers' perspective. tHey had no idea this government would survive. They were afraid it woud degrade into the type of government they just deposed.

So, they created the Bill of Rights [i]as a way to protect citizens from their government[/i]. Each of the first ten amendments takes powers from the government and places it into thew hands of the people.

Why the Second Amendment? Because they knew history. Hitler is a more modern example, but consider slavery. In just about every society that had slaves, the slaves were not allowed private ownership of weapons. (In normal circumstances.) Why? Because a people with no defense are easy to opress.

Hitler rose to power through legal means, disarmed the country and began to systimatically oppress select members of the population in some of, if not the worst, ways in history. The Fathers feltt hat something similar to that might happen in America, hence the Second Amendment.

[QUOTE]Ignoring what the constittuion does or does not say, why do you think you shoudl be allowed to carry around a firearm?[/QUOTE]

'Ignoring what the Constitution says'? So, you're asking me to ignore the basic document of a country with 200+ years of history that I've studied most of my life? To ignore some of my most basic beliefs about government, and the results of a highly sucessive government that shared these beliefs? Is that what you're asking?

Then, I'd think people should be allowed to carry firearms for all the reasons I have previously stated. I'm tired of typing the same thing over and over. You can scroll for it if you're interested.

[QUOTE]Enough of this "It was laid down by our forefathers" stuff--the times, they a' changing. Have changed.[/QUOTE]

If you ever study history, you will learn that the recurring themes of history never change. The reason the United States has been a successful government for so long is because it was laid down by a group of men who understood history.

[Transtic Nerve]

[quote name='DeathBug]Good gravy, did you read anything I said? The right to bear arms is the [b]second[/b] Amendment on the Bill of Rights. It's second only to free speech. The original Ten Amendments were listed in order of importance. Freedom of expression was first, followed by the right to keep and bear arms. so, yes, it [i]is[/i'] one our most important constitutional rights.[/quote]
Actually, no I didn't read anything you said except the last part, which is what I commented on. I wasn't commenting on anything else you said, if I was, I would have quoted it. Good gravy, did you read anything I said?

Anyway, yeah they were listed in order of importance, back in the late 1700s. This is the year 2004 incase you haven't noticed. Things have changed.... alot. In fact, did you know there were MORE amendments added! Can you believe how much things change. Owning a firearm should not be important to anyone, I can't even believe that crap is still an amendment.

[quote]Guns are not dangerous if used respoinsibly.[/quote]
Perhaps you don't understand the fact that VERY FEW people use them responcibly, therefor they are dangerous.

[quote]Everything is dangerous if used irresponsibly.[/quote]
I highly doubt if I used a piece of bellybutton lint irresponcibly it would be dangerous.

[quote]And, if you ban guns, you will only take them from citizens responible enough to actually obey the law, leaving them in the hands of those who don't heed the law.[/quote]
Hmm, England and Canada, two countries who have strict gun control, don't seem to have that big of a problem. Again i say that there were approximately 20 deaths resulting in firearms in England in 2001. That doesn't seem like alot of people using guns for bad purposes.

[quote]So, when will you be leaving, then?[/quote]
Who said I was leaving? Just cause people are stupid doesn't mean I have to leave.

[quote]But the Constitution doesn't say musket. It says 'arms'. [/quote]
Ok smart ***, fine. You have the right to carry 18th century ARMS.... you do not have the right to carry anything else.

[quote]I do not support ownership of semi-automatic weapons, as they are really not necessary to fulfill the tasks intended by the fathers.[/quote]
Neither are any other guns, except those 18th century arms... (which I'm sure you are loaded with)

[quote]And, had the Fathers known the types of ordinence availible today, they [i]still[/i] would have put that Amendment in, because history taught them, as it should teach us, that unarmed populances will be opressed by their governments. Do I have to list my examples again?[/quote]
No they wouldn't. Anyone with any sort of intelligence would never give a population of stupid people the right to carry any sort of weapon. Again I point out that Canadians and the English are not oppressed by their government anymore than we are.

[quote]For someone with such a negative view of the current administration, I would think you'd understand what the fathers had in mind when they spoke of 'oppressive governements'.[/quote]
I know exactly what they meant by oppressive governments, but again, that was back in the late 1700s. You really need to step out of your time machine and start living in the year 2004. Oppressive governments are dealt with by the populous with arms in America anymore. Maybe this is the case in other countries, but not here, and we are talking about here.

[quote]You can not believe it, but you would still be wrong.[/quote]
It's a shame I am too.

[Godelsensei]

[COLOR=Gray][FONT=Courier New]The main problem I see with such leniant gun control laws is the fact that (as I have stated previously) they don't only affect the country in question.

It is unbelievably easy to get between Canada and the US without having to go through customs. This is because of linked water-ways.
Most guns used in crimes in Canada are illegaly brought in from the states. If both countries had stricter gun-control laws, both would benefit, as there wouldn't be anywhere to get guns from (well, much fewer places, anyway).

As far as inflatable rafts go (o.o"), you carry those with you on a plane. Most people who own guns do not have them on their person at all times. The only time you'd really use one is if you were going hunting (which I don't really see the appeal of, though that's another debate_ _U) or if some one broke into your house. Or if you were planning on committing suicide, which should also be considered here...
Teenagers who don't want to live any more, who know that their dad keeps his gun in the suck drawer, next to the condoms, would probably be better off without such a brutal option, no?

If, idealy, police numbers could be increased and used more efficiently, criminals dealt with more effectively for gun-related crime and all those other ends were to be tied up, it would not hurt to keep guns out of sock drawers.

I do believe there is a minimum ten-year sentence for crimes involving guns in place in Canada, currently. However, the per cent of gun-related crime has increased--about ten people were shot extremely near to where I live last year. To think I might have gone to school right across from that preffered shoot-out location...o_o

And then there's always the issue of Joe here, who doesn't know which end of the gun the bullets come out of, or how to put on the safety...*sweat*

[i]Tu doit pardonez mon francais? Pour-quoi?^^[/i] I mean, come on--it's a free country or whatever.^_~[/FONT][/COLOR]

[DeathBug]

[QUOTE]Actually, no I didn't read anything you said except the last part, which is what I commented on. I wasn't commenting on anything else you said, if I was, I would have quoted it.[/QUOTE]

If you're not going to bother to understand the positions already taken in an argument, don't expect anyone else in the argument to take your position seriously.

[QUOTE]Anyway, yeah they were listed in order of importance, back in the late 1700s. This is the year 2004 incase you haven't noticed. Things have changed.... alot. In fact, did you know there were MORE amendments added! Can you believe how much things change. Owning a firearm should not be important to anyone, I can't even believe that crap is still an amendment. [/QUOTE]

Are you so arrogant to believe that we are immune to history? America and most of Europe have been very fortunate with stable government systems for the past half-century. Are we to assume that we will always be? Yes, and I'm sure chopping up the Bill of Rights is a great way to ensure that happens.

More unrest and turmoil is caused by the expression of free ideas than anything else in the country. Why not just do away with the First Amendment while we're at it? It would sure save a lot of trouble.

[QUOTE]Perhaps you don't understand the fact that VERY FEW people use them responcibly, therefor they are dangerous.[/QUOTE]

86 million people in the US own a combined 200 million guns, yet only 30,000 guns are involved in deaths each year. That's .015%. Seems like a lot more people use them responsibly than not. A whole lot more people.

[QUOTE]Hmm, England and Canada, two countries who have strict gun control, don't seem to have that big of a problem. Again i say that there were approximately 20 deaths resulting in firearms in England in 2001. That doesn't seem like alot of people using guns for bad purposes.[/QUOTE]

In 2002, gun crimes in England and whales increased by 35%, despite the fact that the citizens cannot own firearms. Apparently, no one told the criminals.

[QUOTE]Who said I was leaving? Just cause people are stupid doesn't mean I have to leave.[/QUOTE]

I didn't say you had to; I assumed you would. I sure wouldn't stay in a country where I disagreed with a fundamental right granted to its citizenry.

[QUOTE]Ok smart ***, fine. You have the right to carry 18th century ARMS.... you do not have the right to carry anything else.[/QUOTE]

I wasn't being a smart-arse, he of the belly-button lint remark. The Constitution was envisioned as a living document that could adapt to the changing times. THe use of the word 'arms' was specifically used to keep the Amendment valid despite changes in technology.

[QUOTE]Neither are any other guns, except those 18th century arms... (which I'm sure you are loaded with)[/QUOTE]

An 18th-century musket is no longer a reliable means of self-defense. you figure out why.

[QUOTE]No they wouldn't. Anyone with any sort of intelligence would never give a population of stupid people the right to carry any sort of weapon.[/QUOTE]

So, people shouldn't have what has been a basic right for over two-hundred years because you don't think they're smart enough to deserve it?

[QUOTE]I know exactly what they meant by oppressive governments, but again, that was back in the late 1700s. You really need to step out of your time machine and start living in the year 2004. Oppressive governments are dealt with by the populous with arms in America anymore. Maybe this is the case in other countries, but not here, and we are talking about here.
[/QUOTE]

We are talking about here, but you are the one who mentions Canadia and England?

Ever hear the saying, 'Those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it'? The basic principles that held true in the 1700's regarding peoples and their governments still hold true today.

As I explained to Godelsensi, the first step to oppressing a society is to disarm them. This is ture in the world right now, just as true as it was during the Second World War, the American Revolution and the Roman Empire.

So, we can either keep our heads in the sand, or we can learn from what history repeatedly shows us. Right now, the political scene is incredibly polarized. These are the types of situations that can, if not monitored properly, can lead to governments taking more power than they are warrented.

Another thing history teaches us is that it's just a slippery slope downhill from that point. Just because America has been very fortunate regarding such things doesn't mean it will always be so.

[QUOTE]It's a shame I am too.[/QUOTE]

It's a shame that this issue is so devisive, really. I don't want people to be shot with guns any more than you do, but the difference is that you're willing to trade one of your basic rights to achieve a minimal measure of safety. you know what they say about those willing to trade freedom for liberty, don't you?

[QUOTE]It is unbelievably easy to get between Canada and the US without having to go through customs. This is because of linked water-ways. [/QUOTE]

Isn't that a problem with the boarder patrol, and not the actual guns? Drugs of the non-medicinal kind can be getting through the boarders as well, or stolen property. you're focussing on the symptom of the problem, instead of the cause.

And, again, you're only keeping guns out of the hands of people who'd use them responsibly, and not the criminals you should be worried about.

[QUOTE]Teenagers who don't want to live any more, who know that their dad keeps his gun in the suck drawer, next to the condoms, would probably be better off without such a brutal option, no?
[/QUOTE]

The thing is, though, that teen suicide rates raise pretty steadily regardless of gun-control laws. Canadia has stricter gun laws than America, yet teen suicide is still the number-one cause of death. This data suggests that kids are killing themselves with or without guns. Again, you're focussing on the symptoms, instead of the cause.

[QUOTE]If, idealy, police numbers could be increased and used more efficiently, criminals dealt with more effectively for gun-related crime and all those other ends were to be tied up, it would not hurt to keep guns out of sock drawers.
[/QUOTE]
If, ideally, governments and their agents were completely and totally trustworthy, and would never, ever become oppressive or corrupt, I might not mind.

Sadly, this isn't an ideal world. If men were angels, government wouldn't need to exist at all, as Thomas Jefferson said.

[QUOTE]However, the per cent of gun-related crime has increased--about ten people were shot extremely near to where I live last year.[/QUOTE]

So, even though Canadia has stricter gun-control laws, criminals still use them to commit crimes?

If guns are criminal, only criminals will have guns, I'm afraid.

[QUOTE]And then there's always the issue of Joe here, who doesn't know which end of the gun the bullets come out of, or how to put on the safety...*[/QUOTE]

Joe can get free materials from the NRA instructing him how to safely use a guns features. He would also be instructed to never store the gun loaded, never in a common area, etcetera.

If more people had guns, general knowledge of gun safety-techniques and practices would increase, and maybe poor Joe won't accidebntly remove himself from the gene pool. Never mind the tests he has to pass to get a liscence to own a gun, of course...

[QUOTE]Tu doit pardonez mon francais? Pour-quoi?^^ I mean, come on--it's a free country or whatever.^_~[/QUOTE]

[i]Es una pais libre, pero no hablo o comprndo fraces. Hablo espanol, porque vivo in Floridia, y no necesito hablo frances. ^__^ [/i] Damn...English language keyboard with no accent marks...

[ChibiHorsewoman]

[color=darkviolet]It's necessary to remember that the constitution was written before there was a regulated militiary. (As far as I know) The government thought it necessary for the population to defend themselves against any invaders.

Also taken into consiseration is that some members of the fledgling nation were moving out into the fronteirs where they felt they needed protection from the Native Americans and wild animals. This is why the government in 1789 decided that the right to bear arms was 2nd only to the freedom of speech.

Guns aren't much of a necessity. People just start thinking they are and now in today's society everyone and their estranged mother-in-law suddenly has the urge for firepower. That's why there are so many accidental shootings.

DeathBug, you keep mentioning over and over about how dangerous vehicles are and yet nobody's trying to ban them. Most people don't try to go out on a killing spree in their Vehicle. You get yourself a gun for protection, okay fine. But then say you hear a noise in the house and you take your gun to investigate...and as you walk down the stairs you begin to get nervous. Your nervousness increases as you approach the origin of the noise. You hear the noise again then you panick and shoot the gun. Worst case scenerio, you've just shot your kid in the chest. Do you still think that having a gun is as important as freedom of religion or in this case-an affordable health care plan?

As Godel pointed out a leniant gun law doesn't just affect the country it's hurting, it affects countries boardering on the country it's based in. Actions in one area don't just affect that area, they affect the areas around it.

And as for Texas-the entire state is screwed up. Their lemon law only applies to new cars, you can't legally make k-turns and they try to run antique shop owners out of small towns because the lady is wiccan. So Texas has guns. So do New Yorkers, so do Pennsylvanians. Maybe because the Texans are less responsible with their guns is the reason why so many people remember them?[/color]

[Brasil]

[quote name='Transtic Nerve][b]Actually, no I didn't read anything you said except the last part[/b'], which is what I commented on. I wasn't commenting on anything else you said, if I was, I would have quoted it. Good gravy, did you read anything I said?[/quote]This is why you have no reasonable bearing at all in this discussion, TN, because you refuse to entertain the other side's viewpoint enough to engage in a comprehensive discussion. You essentially read [i]one[/i] line of DeathBug's previous post, and based your entire reply on that sole point. That is not unlike misquoting, and it is quite similar to literary fraud. Literary fraud is when someone ignores the entirety of a passage, only concentrating on one minute point out of many, and believing their thesis to have a reasonable basis of discussion.

I don't know if you are even able to appreciate what I'm saying here, TN, but if you think any of your arguments that are based on one line and one line alone are worth anything, I suggest you try to write a three page essay on nothing more than "the lght flares in the music-hall" (Oscar Wilde, Prologue: In The Stalls).

You will find it to prove to be a most difficult task.

[QUOTE]Anyway, yeah they were listed in order of importance, back in the late 1700s. This is the year 2004 incase you haven't noticed. Things have changed.... alot. In fact, did you know there were MORE amendments added! Can you believe how much things change. Owning a firearm should not be important to anyone, [b]I can't even believe that crap is still an amendment[/b].[/QUOTE]Again, this is another reason why you have no reasonable bearing at all in this discussion. Your attitude is wholly inappropriate, and your reaction to my saying this will be equally brash and rude.

Also, it would suit you well to keep in mind that the later amendments you speak of were added because the Constitution is a living document, able to be re-interpreted and evaluated numerous times. It is because of this carefully structured and well-conceived design that we are able to have this discussion.

Furthermore, TN, you are most certainly not the most reliable source/authority on anything. I loosely quote John Carpenter's The Thing, "You're not the most level-headed person." But I'm sure you know that quite well, and I have a feeling...I'll touch upon this later.

If you wish to disregard one amendment simply because times have changed, then you should question the entire Bill of Rights, because everything in the Bill of Rights was conceived "back in the day." You want to throw out an amendment because you feel it is outdated, when in fact, it is a universal and timeless amendment. There is no mention of any particular time at all in it, meaning it still has relevance today.

[QUOTE]Perhaps you don't understand the fact that VERY FEW people use them responcibly, therefor they are dangerous.[/QUOTE]I think we are failing to realize just what we are talking about here. The main concept behind this point is kinetic versus potential danger.

Kinetic danger is danger of an object in motion, or action. The actual pulling of the trigger is kinetic danger. The sweeping motion of an axe is kinetic danger. A bowling ball being thrown about is kinetic danger.

Potential danger, however, is relatively harmless, as it requires action to be deadly/injury-inducing. A gun lying on a table is potential danger. A leaky gas tank is potential danger.

It is because of potential danger that kinetic danger exists. Without any form of potential danger, there can be no action that damages. This is why guns are not dangerous when used responsibly. I know it's a cliche, but it is true: "Guns don't kill people. People kill people." Outlawing guns is not the answer. Banning guns is not the answer.

[QUOTE]I highly doubt if I used a piece of bellybutton lint irresponcibly it would be dangerous.[/QUOTE]I'm quite certain someone, somewhere out there is able to figure out a way to make bellybutton lint dangerous. The country is a vast place. The world is a vast place. You would be awfully surprised at just what particular people can do with say...a drinking straw.

[QUOTE]Hmm, England and Canada, two countries who have strict gun control, don't seem to have that big of a problem. Again i say that there were approximately 20 deaths resulting in firearms in England in 2001. That doesn't seem like alot of people using guns for bad purposes.[/QUOTE]TN, do you honestly believe that having strict gun control is the only cause of less gun-related deaths?

[QUOTE]Who said I was leaving? Just cause people are stupid doesn't mean I have to leave.[/QUOTE]Then do not let it affect you so much. You are making yourself unhappy, TN. You have the power to live peacefully, but you choose not to. It is no-one else's fault that you are unhappy with the world around you.

[QUOTE]Ok smart ***, fine. You have the right to carry 18th century ARMS.... you do not have the right to carry anything else.[/QUOTE]As I've said previously, the Bill of Rights is a universal and timeless document that still has significant and worthwhile bearing today.

[QUOTE]Neither are any other guns, except those 18th century arms... (which I'm sure you are loaded with)[/QUOTE]This is an invalid point to begin with, no matter who initiated it. This point should just be dropped, as it serves little to no purpose.

[QUOTE]No they wouldn't. Anyone with any sort of intelligence would never give a population of stupid people the right to carry any sort of weapon. Again I point out that Canadians and the English are not oppressed by their government anymore than we are.[/QUOTE]Do you feel that if you were given a gun, would you handle it responsibly? I'm interested to know. Are you confident in your decision-making abilities and feel confident that you are level-headed enough to carry a firearm? TN, with the level of sheer arrogance and temper that you display, and the utter disregard for anyone other than yourself, I honestly don't think the "stupid" people are the greater threat, regardless of whether or not they have a firearm.

[QUOTE]I know exactly what they meant by oppressive governments, but again, that was back in the late 1700s. You really need to step out of your time machine and start living in the year 2004. Oppressive governments are[color=red]n't[/color] dealt with by the populous with arms in America anymore. Maybe this is the case in other countries, but not here, and we are talking about here.[/QUOTE]Funny you should mention how our government isn't influenced at all by the armed populace, because it is. The NRA is a very powerful political force. Don't take things at face/literal value all the time. Also, you're dealing in extremely vague terms. What [i]is[/i] "armed populace?" How do you define "populace?" Is it dependent solely on those living within our country? Is it defined solely by natural citizens? TN, you said it yourself: times have changed. How have they changed? We've got terrorist cells in America right now, they may not be active, but they're there. They're certainly armed populace and feel our government is an oppressive one, and will strike at us to deal with us.

"Other countries" are fine and all, but when there is danger right here in our very own country, no matter from citizens or terrorists, no matter from handguns or boxcutters, the issue is much more complicated today and you simply cannot say with any reasonable basis for discussion, "All guns are dangerous and should be banned."

[quote]It's a shame I am too.[/QUOTE]Now touching back upon earlier,

[QUOTE]Furthermore, TN, you are most certainly not the most reliable source/authority on anything. I loosely quote John Carpenter's The Thing, "You're not the most level-headed person." But I'm sure you know that quite well, and I have a feeling...I'll touch upon this later.[/QUOTE]Let's delve back into this discussion point.

TN, you can drop the act. I know you think acting all big and bad somehow makes you look cool. It doesn't, and I know you're putting on a show. It's okay for you to admit it, even in a PM to me. Just understand that I understand exactly what is motivating you to act this way. You're trying to assert control in your life. You're trying to carve out something to hold on to, to make yourself feel superior. Don't worry about it. You can drop the act.

EDIT:

[quote]What act, Petey? Oh so you think you can act under a new username and fool me? I don't act, this is me. This is how I am. You wouldn't know that cause you're an egomaniac who think he knows everything about everyone. You don't know me, all you know if what I tell you. And heres something for you, I don't care what you say "Anime Gurl' (Couldn't come up with anything better than that?) cause I'm not listening to you cause from your prior posts I know how you'll respond. And quite frankly I don't want to listen to it. So you can talk all you want, you're just talking to a brick wall. I will not read your posts and I will not repsond to them. That isn't because you're against my opinion, it is because you lack all fundamental logic in your opinion and it is a waste of my time, and yours, to even bother comprehending anything you write. Thank you for your time.

At least Deathbug provides some sort of logic, which I can respect. That's something you don't possess.[/quote]
No, TN, it is an act. You may think you have something to prove here by talking tough, but I'm sure you don't act this way with say...your boyfriend, your family, your friends. It's okay if you want to call me ignorant, unfeeling, moronic, illogical, etc, but really, you are blinded by your own (self-inflated) magnificence. Go ahead and say you're ignoring what I'm saying, but if you had the drive to reply to what I had said, then you've just proven what I've said has affected you and thus [i]do[/i] pay attention to what I say.

It's an interesting aspect of the human condition, actually. So many think that just because they say they are ignoring something, they are ignoring it and are not affected by it.

Tolstoy's White Rabbit club, TN, Tolstoy's White Rabbit club.

[DeathBug]

[QUOTE]It's necessary to remember that the constitution was written before there was a regulated militiary. (As far as I know) The government thought it necessary for the population to defend themselves against any invaders. [/QUOTE]

I'm afraid you misunderstand the Bill of Rights, Chibi. The point of the Bill of Rights is to protect the individuals from the government, not the government from outside forces. The government thought it necessary to allow the citizens to protect themselves from from their government.

[QUOTE]Also taken into consiseration is that some members of the fledgling nation were moving out into the fronteirs where they felt they needed protection from the Native Americans and wild animals. This is why the government in 1789 decided that the right to bear arms was 2nd only to the freedom of speech.
[/QUOTE]

Again, that was not the reason.

[QUOTE] You get yourself a gun for protection, okay fine. But then say you hear a noise in the house and you take your gun to investigate...and as you walk down the stairs you begin to get nervous. Your nervousness increases as you approach the origin of the noise. You hear the noise again then you panick and shoot the gun. Worst case scenerio, you've just shot your kid in the chest.[/QUOTE]

Not likely. It happens, yes, and it's a tradgedy when it does, but, once again, only .015% of guns in America are involved in gun-related deaths. That includes crimes and accidents.

And, you know what? The car analogy still stands, because the odds of a person being hit by a car while not even in a car are literall hundreds of times higher than the odds of a person being shot by a gun.

[QUOTE]Do you still think that having a gun is as important as freedom of religion or in this case-an affordable health care plan?
[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE]I think having my rights stripped away in a misguided attempt to prevent an incredibly small number of deaths is a very important matter.
As Godel pointed out a leniant gun law doesn't just affect the country it's hurting, it affects countries boardering on the country it's based in. Actions in one area don't just affect that area, they affect the areas around it.[/QUOTE]

Again, you're focusing on the wrong problem. Border control should be increased, if this is creating a difficulty.

[QUOTE] So Texas has guns. So do New Yorkers, so do Pennsylvanians. Maybe because the Texans are less responsible with their guns is the reason why so many people remember them?[/QUOTE]

I'm not trying to argue about Texas, Im' arguing about the example they set concerning gun laws. Again, they allowed conceled-carry permits in Texas, and violent crimes went down 60% in five years. During that same time, the average national violent crime rate rose by 12%. Compare that to Washington, DC, in a different time period. They banned personal ownership of handguns, and their violent crime rate increased by [b]300%[/b].

[Transtic Nerve]

[quote name='DeathBug']If you're not going to bother to understand the positions already taken in an argument, don't expect anyone else in the argument to take your position seriously.[/quote]
I understand perfectly. Just because i didn't read your post doesn't mean I don't understand what you mean. It's quite obvious what you mean, just as it's quite obvious what I mean. There's no middle line with our positions.

[quote]Are you so arrogant to believe that we are immune to history? America and most of Europe have been very fortunate with stable government systems for the past half-century. Are we to assume that we will always be? Yes, and I'm sure chopping up the Bill of Rights is a great way to ensure that happens.[/quote]
Correction, chopping up the second amendment will essure that happens. I have no want to chop up the bill of rights, I like to use my first amendment thank you. I only think that the second amendment should be gotten rid of. I think it has no purpose in the way we live life today and I think we would be a much better people without such useless words.

[quote]More unrest and turmoil is caused by the expression of free ideas than anything else in the country. Why not just do away with the First Amendment while we're at it? It would sure save a lot of trouble.[/quote]
Yes, because people like me, who want a better life, try to change the way this country is run for the better. But people don't want change and then turmoil and unrest is created. It's actually the people who want to keep things the same that causes turmoil and unrest, not the ones who want to change it. So getting rid of the first amendment wouldn't change anything. \

[quote]86 million people in the US own a combined 200 million guns, yet only 30,000 guns are involved in deaths each year. That's .015%. Seems like a lot more people use them responsibly than not. A whole lot more people.[/quote]
Thats 30,000 to many. Ok smarty pants, whats your plan to save the 30,000 people that die each year from your precious weapons? Also, not all those 86 million people USE their guns. Like I said before about banning bullers, this would allow to keep your gun, which I have no problem with, but you couldn't use it. I don't mind if you have a gun (it can be a very artistic thing actually), it's how you use it I'm worried about. If you wanna put it in a frame and on a shelf above your TV, be my guest. But I don't want to be walking down a street next to some lunatic with a gun in his pocket.

[quote]In 2002, gun crimes in England and whales increased by 35%, despite the fact that the citizens cannot own firearms. Apparently, no one told the criminals.[/quote]
We're not talking about "gun crimes," we're talking about "gun deaths."

[quote]I didn't say you had to; I assumed you would. I sure wouldn't stay in a country where I disagreed with a fundamental right granted to its citizenry.[/quote]
Unfortunantly I don't have much of a choice whether or not to leave. It would be better for me to try to change what I have then to start over.

[quote]I wasn't being a smart-arse, he of the belly-button lint remark. The Constitution was envisioned as a living document that could adapt to the changing times. THe use of the word 'arms' was specifically used to keep the Amendment valid despite changes in technology.[/quote]
Yeah, that was a smart *** remark by me, and it was good too. Very proud of that. It prooved my point though, not everything is dangerous when used incorrectly

[quote]An 18th-century musket is no longer a reliable means of self-defense. you figure out why.[/quote]
Why the hell isn't it? Cause it's dated? Takes 20 minutes to reload? Doesn't have the greatest accuracy? Can't shoot 200 bullets a second? Which one of these is the reason? I'd like to know. What possibly in those questions could lye a reason that an 18th century musket cannot be a reliable means of self defense. People were born with hands and feet back in the paleolithic era, hands and feet are still reliable means of self defense, why can't an 18th century musket be?

[quote]So, people shouldn't have what has been a basic right for over two-hundred years because you don't think they're smart enough to deserve it? [/quote]
Part of me wants to say absolutely, but the other part says no because they don't deserve it period. You don't have to be smart to use a gun, I would hope smart people would figure out they SHOULDN'T use guns.

[quote]We are talking about here, but you are the one who mentions Canadia and England?[/quote]
Well yeah, I'm in favor of strict gun control, therefor I need some basis for my argument and I certainly can't find it here.

[quote]Ever hear the saying, 'Those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it'? The basic principles that held true in the 1700's regarding peoples and their governments still hold true today.

As I explained to Godelsensi, the first step to oppressing a society is to disarm them. This is ture in the world right now, just as true as it was during the Second World War, the American Revolution and the Roman Empire. [/quote]
This question applies to both comments here. Yeah I've heard of that saying, but where in American history were we as a people ever disarmed? What history in America shows that certain things will happen when you disarm us? England has been disarmed... I don't see them rising up against their government. There's some history right there for ya. I'm confused by you're whole logic here. America didn't rise up against England int he American Revolution because they disarmed us or anything like that. They rose up because Americans felt that they were being mistreated through tax regulations and certain other limits put upon them, disarmorment was not one of them. (or certainly we would not have had the weapons to fight them to begin with)

[quote]It's a shame that this issue is so devisive, really. I don't want people to be shot with guns any more than you do, but the difference is that you're willing to trade one of your basic rights to achieve a minimal measure of safety. you know what they say about those willing to trade freedom for liberty, don't you?[/quote]
I don't have a gun now. Nor will I ever. I'm not trading any freedom in. I will never envoke the second amendment onto myself, therefor I have no problem trading it away for what i see as more security.

[quote]And, again, you're only keeping guns out of the hands of people who'd use them responsibly[/quote]
I don't think this comment was geared towards me but I would like to ask exactly what is the responsible way to use a gun?

[quote]TN, you can drop the act.[/quote]
What act, Petey? Oh so you think you can act under a new username and fool me? I don't act, this is me. This is how I am. You wouldn't know that cause you're an egomaniac who think he knows everything about everyone. You don't know me, all you know if what I tell you. And heres something for you, I don't care what you say "Anime Gurl' (Couldn't come up with anything better than that?) cause I'm not listening to you cause from your prior posts I know how you'll respond. And quite frankly I don't want to listen to it. So you can talk all you want, you're just talking to a brick wall. I will not read your posts and I will not repsond to them. That isn't because you're against my opinion, it is because you lack all fundamental logic in your opinion and it is a waste of my time, and yours, to even bother comprehending anything you write. Thank you for your time.

At least Deathbug provides some sort of logic, which I can respect. That's something you don't possess.

[DeathBug]

[QUOTE] I think it has no purpose in the way we live life today and I think we would be a much better people without such useless words. [/QUOTE]

Then you are living with your head in the sand. Again, America has been lucky not to be in a situation where we, as a whole, were oppressed by our government. Just because it hasn't happened yet doesn't mean it won't happen.

[QUOTE]Yes, because people like me, who want a better life, try to change the way this country is run for the better.[/QUOTE]

Yes; loss of basic rights is much better.

[QUOTE]But people don't want change and then turmoil and unrest is created. It's actually the people who want to keep things the same that causes turmoil and unrest, not the ones who want to change it.[/QUOTE]

That has little bearing on the current conversation, but I'll just mention thatt he point of most refiorms is to increase the amount of rights availible to people, noit take them away.

[QUOTE]Thats 30,000 to many. Ok smarty pants, whats your plan to save the 30,000 people that die each year from your precious weapons?[/QUOTE]

Increase knowledge of gun safety and responsible weapon usage. It's not hard to do.

[QUOTE]Like I said before about banning bullers, this would allow to keep your gun, which I have no problem with, but you couldn't use it.[/QUOTE]

Banning ammunition would completely negate the purpose of banning a gun, and only produce the same results. It would actually produce worse results, because it's easier to illegaly procure something small, like bullets, than something larger, like a handgun. As data has shown us, banning guns will only keep them out of the hands of law-abiding citizens, and leave average citizens in danger of being preyed upon.

[QUOTE]But I don't want to be walking down a street next to some lunatic with a gun in his pocket.
[/QUOTE]

You already allow 'lunatics' to propel two-ton pieces of metal and glass at speeds in excess of fifty miles per hour. you already allow 'lunatics' access to posionous chemicals, flamable materials, blunt objects, and serrated shards of metal.

[QUOTE]We're not talking about "gun crimes," we're talking about "gun deaths."[/QUOTE]

I'm talking about both.

[QUOTE]Why the hell isn't it? Cause it's dated? Takes 20 minutes to reload? Doesn't have the greatest accuracy? Can't shoot 200 bullets a second? Which one of these is the reason? [/QUOTE]

Because it cannot be concealed, and cannot be used as effectively as weapons currently in the hands of the unscrupulous members of society.

[QUOTE]Part of me wants to say absolutely, but the other part says no because they don't deserve it period. You don't have to be smart to use a gun, I would hope smart people would figure out they SHOULDN'T use guns. [/QUOTE]

If a person is smart, their ownership of a gun will not be a problem. Again, only .015% of guns in the US are involved in any sort of deaths, and that includes crimes.

[QUOTE]Well yeah, I'm in favor of strict gun control, therefor I need some basis for my argument and I certainly can't find it here. [/QUOTE]

Except there are areas in the country that enforce strict gun control. Once again, Washington, DC, implimented it. tHeir violent crime rate increased by 300%. Texas implimented concealed-carry laws, and their violent crime rate dropped sixty percent, during the same time period that the national average increased by twelve percent. England implimented bans on guns, and their crime rate has risen 35%.

Evidence for the banning of handguns doesn't really exist here, but there's a lot of evidence against it.

[QUOTE]Yeah I've heard of that saying, but where in American history were we as a people ever disarmed? What history in America shows that certain things will happen when you disarm us?[/QUOTE]

When slavery was legal in America, it was a potential death-penalty offense to give slaves weapons. When the Japanese-Americans on the west coast were lead into internment camps, they had their own weapoms siezed. Oppression by the government doesn't happen often in the US, but when it does, the weapons are siezed. Wonder why.

[QUOTE]They rose up because Americans felt that they were being mistreated through tax regulations and certain other limits put upon them, disarmorment was not one of them. (or certainly we would not have had the weapons to fight them to begin with)[/QUOTE]

You're right; they would not have had the means to defend themselves from an oppessive government had they allowed their weapons to be confiscated. If all Muslim-Americans were forced into internment camps, would they want the means to defend themselves?

[QUOTE]I will never envoke the second amendment onto myself, therefor I have no problem trading it away for what i see as more security. [/QUOTE]

That's your right to make that descision for yoyrself, but you have no right to make that descision for me.

[QUOTE]I don't think this comment was geared towards me but I would like to ask exactly what is the responsible way to use a gun?[/QUOTE]

As a means of defense, obviously.