Go back to my earlier post and read-up on my proposal for manditory firearm safety education prior to purchasing any firearm.

If the user isn;t stupid, and those in the household are educated in proper safety ettiquite (whicn includes teaching kids that a gun is not a show-and-tell toy for your friends at home), then accidental death or injury incidents WILL drop.

You know, it's rather like sex ed: One side believes teaching children about sex, thereby informing them of both the dangers and the protections, will reduce teenage pregnancy...while another side believes teaching children to just say no to sex completely will stop teenage pregnancy.

In regards to guns, I'm on the former side rather than the latter. An informed public is a public that knows better. But sex? Wrong topic, so don't ask.

Interesting comparison. I know it made me laugh.

I agree with you that education would help reduce injuries and deaths by firearms. It is most amusing though, that you compare it to sex education's abstinence only vs. sex education. The clear difference is that sex is always going to be there, whether we teach kids about it or not. In order to compare the two topics, you'd have to chop off lil' Billy's wang, as the counterpoint of outlawing firearms. And even better than that, you have to argue that billy still has as high a chance of having sex as he would have without having his penis removed.

You're right though, it's off topic. I just couldn't help but smile though.

That's a problem, too. There's always going to be a gun, or a knife, or a bat, or a stapler, or a dry-eraser...we're limited in our ways to kill only by our imagination.

Don't forget body parts. People have died from being headbutted. Now there's "using your head".

:rolleyes: at my own dumb joke.

Guy at my old high school head-butted another kid (both were on the football team, but the head-buttee was rather scrawny) , which sent the head-buttee to the hospital room with a concussion.

...yeah...school made a few new rules after that one.

Why would the school make rules after that one incident?

Just because one person is irresponsible with their headbutting, it ruins it for *everybody* else who would use their heads only to butt appropriately and safely.

Yes, and then you introduce the inevitable problems of any government-run program: apathy, ineffectuality, double standards and bribery. You'd see the same thing that goes on with the DMV; lots of rich folks and pretty girls getting the nod regardless of their competence. Besides, if you make the safety classes mandatory, then gun ownership becomes a privilege rather than a right and that won't satisfy anyone. Furthermore, it limits firearm ownership to whoever can pay for the classes. They'd have to charge a "nominal fee", after all, and charging a nominal fee so that people can make use of their basic constitutional rights is apparently completely acceptable.

See, this always cracks me up, because unlike the gun debate this one is demonstrably one-sided. You can look at any given town or state's teen pregnancy rates before and after the Paranoid Parent Collective freaks out and cancels the sex-ed classes, and the result is always the same. This is all off-topic, of course, but it just shows how useless statistical data is when people just WANT to believe otherwise anyway.

Like environmental and sociological factors have nothing to do with crime rates. What I'm saying is that there isn't enough data being provided to come to a logical conclusion. Assuming that things like income and basic standards of living have remained the same, or even lowered, you have a much better case for the buy-back program. However, the following lends itself better to the buy-back program than either of the above:

And here we have the key. If all firearms are bought back with no questions asked, then you're looking at a situation where the state is openly purchasing illegally possessed firearms. The end result, then, is that there are less guns being possessed by the people that intend to use them.

While this definitely reduces gun-related crime, as your source is oft to point out, how has it affected Australia's overall crime rate? Are Australians honestly any safer thanks to the buy back? How many Australians still have legally possessed firearms after compared to before?

All of these are factors, as people who trade in illegal weapons to the government are probably those looking to make some quick cash in the first place. While they no longer have a gun, that still hasn't eliminated their perceived need to commit crimes.

All situations are created from more than a single cause. Looking at all contributing factors is the only way to effectively make an objective conclusion. For instance, the article that Gumby linked to could be used to support the idea that an increase in gun ownership reduces the crime rate. However, that's highly unlikely, and there's no real logical reason to come to that conclusion.

Well, the beauty of freedoms and rights is that you don't have to excercize them. What you're really looking for is a false sense of security stemming from the lack of trust in your neighbors.

It's ironic that a driving motive for both sides of the camp can stem from an overblown need for safety.

Ironic as it is, that safety from both sides comes from completely different motives, freedom over another social dependence on the government for protection.

Oh, Gumby. Poor, retarded Gumby. Tell us, Gumby: what is the function of the military?

The function of a military is to secure the national interests of a country.

And the military is funded by...

Taxpayers :p

You completely missed the point, Manis Tricuspis. I am well aware of the fuction of the military as I am a part of it. Also I was speaking more of police than the military.

Ok, so what's in the interest of a country? I think the first interest of a country is continuing to exist, am I right?

It's still highly irrelevant, as we rely on socially funded methods of security. Unless you're somehow implying that crime does not impact National Security.

Precisely. You're still paying for your safety. Now, if anyone WANTS to remove themselves from the social safety net, I support their right to do that. No police protection, no fire protection, no social security, no driver's license, no postal service... I can go on and on like this. Hey, fine by me. And in return, no taxes! All you have to do is renounce your citizenship. You can keep LIVING here, but we'll pretend you don't exist! I think that sounds like a fair compromise.


Gumby: As a part of the military, who employs you? Think on this one as long as it takes.

lol you guys are funny.

No I was refering to the fact that people who are pro-gun want the ability to defend themselves rather, than like the anti-gun people, being very dependant on the cops to defend themselves...

In a larger and greater sense, it's the American people that employs you. They give you their trust and they hand down to you the responsibility of defending the nation, its people, and its interests. However, of course, most people will answer that it is the military that employs you.

And Gun ownership isn't restricted to whose who can afford the gun, ammunition, and maintenance? And wouldn't SOME system of pre-education be better than no education at all? Unless, of course, you also have a proposal to fix the DMV, as you exampled. And as far as denying rights, this does no such thing. You can get a gun anytime you want, you just have to prove you know how to handle it. Just like a car, really. Though there is no direct right regarding automobiles (for obvious reasons: These rights were drafted in the 18th century), you still have to have a license in order to drive it.

It's one sided to you, because that is the side you choose. However, there ARE two sides to that argument, and the other side has their own data to back up their claims.

While the poll is closed, I'll put my vote here. I'm definitely for firearms, and am livid about a lot of the senseless gun control legislation. All that and I'm on the left. Well, I may be left, but I also work in law enforcement and see first-hand plenty. Gun control laws do only hinder and hurt honest citizens. The scum I've dealt with have no problem getting whatever guns they want.

Now I heard somewhere, can't remember where, that's there's legislation on the table to make a law that can punish gun owners if their gun is stolen and subsequently used in a crime, with the owner being considered equally guilty. This is just plain ridiculous. Think about it. You're on vacation, your gun locked up nice and tight where your kids can't get to it but it's also useless to you if someone breaks into the house. Well, someone breaks in while you're not there, breaks into your case, steals the gun, then goes and kills people. Now you come back and you find yourself charged with all the murders. Can you say "retarded"?

Yes, the military employs soldiers. The military is in turn commissioned by the government, which is composed of (mostly) elected officials who are selected by— YES! The citizenry! The same citizenry that the military, in securing the interests of the nation, is protecting! It's all so beautiful!

See, to me, the phrase "anti-gun" is misleading. I'm not "anti-gun". When someone's "anti-abortion" that usually means they think abortions are wrong and should never be allowed. But I don't feel that way about guns! I can think of a lot of good reasons a person should have a gun. They could be a soldier, a policeman, a secret agent... or maybe they're just a rustic, living off the land. That's not a problem! What I (and probably most "anti-gun" people) object to is the notion that every single citizen of the nation has a "right" to handheld cannons just because.

I don't depend on the police for my safety, either. I live in a rural area; the police would be highly unlikely to arrive in time to save anybody. But no one has ever broken into my house (with or without a gun of their own), nor do I have any reason to fear that anyone would want to. No, the most significant danger I have from criminals is the fear that one of the yahoo hunters tramping around the woods near my home will reflexively shoot me or my family or one of my pets. And indeed, this happens to someone in the general neighborhood every year or two, some asshole in the hospital and some other asshole in the pokey because of their CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT to shoot at the deer (and miss).

The Flat Earth Society is also operating under the delusion that all debates are two-sided. Good for them! The world needs more idealists.

That rule should be used in a case-by-case basis. You can't condemn all gun-owners who have had their guns stolen and used in the commission of a crime to be responsible ALL THE TIME. However, sometimes, people should be penalized for leaving a gun in insecure places where it is likely to be stolen.

To me, it just seems obvious.

"Well, the gun used in the killing belongs to Joe Smith."

"We should arrest Joe Smith, in that case!"

"WTF NO THAT'S PERSECUTION OF GUN OWNERS"

I mean, hello? I'm not a POLICE COP but it seems like determining the origins of the weapons used in a crime is a PRETTY CRUCIAL STEP!

And yet the Abstience policy is still mandatory in how many Federally Funded schools again?

It doesn't mean that side is completely right, and it doesn't mean that side is completely wrong. After all, the Abstinence Only group holds their belief strongly in religion, and religious freedom of definately something you wouldn't want to step on in America. For you to disregard their stance is akin to my disregarding yours simply on the basis that I don't view "Right to Bear Arms" the same as you do.

See how the "I am right because I just am!" idea falls flat on its face? Debate becomes nothing more than a shouting match.

So, really, you've argued the implemntation of gun education...but not the idea(l). Which is exactly the opposite of how you feel about sex ed, apparently, though you would meet severe opposition on your views based on others views and religious beliefs were you try to impliment your apparent beliefs onto others.

You see how the similarity works now?

Double Post:
Only if the owner knowingly allowed his weapon to be used in a crime.

Now then, if it had been stolen from the owner, then the owner is clearly not liable. You WOULD make arguements about how the gun was stored, etc., in regards to such a theft, and some states do have such laws. But if the owner had taken reasonable steps to secure their weapon, yet the weapon is stolen (or taken in other, extenuating circumstances) and used in a crime anyways, then how is the Owner at fault?

"Hey, someone stole my baseball bat from the locker room and used it to beat Billy to death...why are you taking me to jail instead of/with the guy that stole and used it criminally?"