Jesus Christ, why don't I just close the fucking thread?

I guess it really depends on where you get your numbers. I saw a figure that Canada has a 50% higher crime rate than the US. But by this link: http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/011218/d011218b.htm there seems to be more agravated assaults, homicides, robberies per capita in the US. Canada's crime rate seems higher for breaking and entering, vehicle theft, and arson. While these are all lumped into the 'violent crimes' category, they are hardly equivalent in terms of violence. Homicide and Aggravated assault are clearly more violent than the theft related crimes.

So, I'm not saying that the pro-gun camp's numbers are wrong, just that they don't match those from Statistics Canada.

I'm not sure I can really take you seriously with a "Sabrina the Teenaged Witch" avatar :/ "Christian-heads"?!? wtf is wrong with you? awwh NVM.

Double Post:
Some types of crime the US has higher numbers than in the UK but we are still on a significant downward trend while many countries that ban or heavily restrict guns are on a sharp upward trend with their crime rates.

I haven't seen anyone prove that there exists a strong correlation between high gun ownership rates and higher rates of murder. The benefits of having a weapon in your home as opposed to not having one far outweigh an outright ban on all weapons purchases within legal channels (because that's as far as government jurisdiction can extend, and its record in dealing with illicit markets for banned goods or substances has been weak) insofar as being able to defend the individual and his property against an armed robber or thug.

Some people argue that certain types of weapons should be banned, as opposed to small handguns would seemingly suffice against a criminal. To this, all we must do is look to the justitication that John Locke and the founders of the constitution gave for granting citizens the right to bear arms, and to use those arms in the event that a corrupt regime takes power and curbs essential freedoms. Just because the government exists in America doesn't mean it will never become corrupt, and no one has the foresight to say for sure that an American government in the future would not roll back those important freedoms. Considering the freedoms that have already been sacrificed in the War on Terror, and other potential freedoms that could be lost in the event of another, more serious, terrorist attack, or the resulting chaos of a nuclear armageddon, or any number of possible events, citizens must arm themselves to confront the potential threats posed by a corrupt government or a population relegated to anarchy. Therefore, placing limitations on the type of weapons that can be purchased only undermines those moral intentions behind the establishment of the second amendment, and puts Americans in a weaker position to defend their liberties against a possible corrupt regime.

and then they'll argue, "oh but that was way back then when you had militias and blah blah blah... people were so uncivilized. the founding fathers really didn't know what they were doing anyways; we should re-write the constitution from the supreme court bench... and fuck john locke, adam smith, and thomas jefferson, we love karl marx and joe stalin!"

somebody just close this. nobody has changed their opinions on anything and they never will.

The possibility of a corrupt government taking power today or in the future in the U.S. is still possible, and therefore citizens should have the right to carry weapons to protect themselves against any corrupt government that could potentially arise or a potential breakdown in civil order.

lordjames, i completely agree with you. the 2nd amendment is the most important right in my book cause it's the only one that allows you protect yourself and your freedoms on an individual level. you're preaching to the choir with me, but the thing is.... this is the gff pp. nobody changes their minds or really listens to anything anybody says! they just keep rambling on and on, trying to be "right." nobody in here will change their opinion on the subject despite how many different angles are shown.

That's just the thing. Neither side of the debate can really prove a correlation. The anti-gun camp believes that logically guns=greater potential for agravated violence. And the pro-gun camp believes that guns don't hurt people, and that they would be constantly victimized by criminals, invaders, government, etc. if they didn't have 'em.

Neither side can prove their case. And to those who have picked a side, it seems entirely logical and common sense to stick to their assumptions. Then they get to play with the numbers and statistics to make themselves appear right.

MetheGelfling, are you suggesting that the PP be closed? Sure debates are not 'won', and sure people just repeat themselves 'till they are blue in the face, but it still provides some insight (and entertainment) as to what people think of an issue. That for the most part one's bottom line beliefs are already established doesn't mean that additional information and comment isn't warranted.

oh no, of course not. I don't mean the political palace as a whole. i just meant this thread. this could go on for like 14 pages of posts of nothing but the same old rehash arguments that people have been regurgitating for forever.

"guns don't kill people, people kill people."
"guns don't kill people, bullets kill people."
"if we didn't have guns then people wouldn't get shot."
"you wanna get capped sucka?!"

now if somebody wants to come in and blow my mind with something new then go for it.

I know what you mean about not changing anyone's mind. However, it's still interesting to hear what people have to say. This is an important issue to me, and so I hope that the thread remains open...

I believe that a someones views on this issue say alot about what kind of person they are.

(Christian-head is an inside joke that our history teacher said. He uses it to get everyone's attention. For example, baseball-heads/music-heads/etc.)


See? The last line tells it all...

Controlling all weapons is overdoing it. Controlling (not eliminating) guns designed to kill other people might help the problem. If your worried about getting shot at night, well, try not to piss people off and if that can't be helped, use a shotgun (you don't have to aim as much anyway...).

Perhaps there is an alternative to controlling weapons to reduce crime. I think it was Rudy Giuliani (mayor, NYC) who reduced crime rates alot. What means did he go by?

oh yeah, "controlling" guns is a new argument. gimme a break. "controlling" guns in the way you suggest is basically registering them with the federal gov't. the only people that this keeps in check are law abiding citizens.

here's a figure for you. as of 1986, there were 150,000 fully automatic firearms legally civillian owned in the US. How many of them were used in crimes? "so minimal as not to be considered a law enforcement problem." Farmer v. Higgins.

It's debatable as to whether or not Giuliani's policies in NYC really had much to do with the reduced crime rates. Before his election there was a reduction in crime already taking place on a national level. It was a bit of smooth politicking to take credit for that. After he received credit for reduction in crime in NYC, other cities around the country attempted similar methods but with very mixed results.

Good lord, why would someone ever need a fully automatic weapon?!?!?!?

Man, it's such a cute argument, you know? I love it.

"Man, if you.... if you make a law, the only people who will obey it are, they're the ones who aren't criminals!"

Shit, man, you guys have GLEAMED THE CUBE. Laws are USELESS against people who don't follow the law!

Prove a correlation? Wow, uh. Do I need to PROVE that having a device that uses explosive force to hurl pointy metal things at people might result in people getting hurt more often? Yeah, that's a real stumper, we'd better get out our scratch paper and do some EQUATIONS.

You see, the 2nd Amendment is the most important of the amendments, as it will allow us to RISE UP and get run over by tanks when the ZOG tries to repeal, uh, the 2nd Amendment? Are there other ones?

5 infantry could take down a tank in Red Alert. Why lie.

The point about law abiding citizens following a registry is because registering a weapon signifies intent to use it. If you register your weapon, chances are you bought it for personal protection, hunting, whatever else people go gaga for.

If, however, you bought a weapon and didn't register it, then the assumtion is that it would be used for some nefarious purpose.

Here's the problem, though. In a national gun registry, how are we supposed to know who has unregistered weapons?

I need a fully automatic weapon like I need a triple bypass surgery. Just because I don't need it doesn't mean that I don't want it, nor does it mean that I have no good reason for doing so.

All of my life my parents have raised me to be not stingy, but just careful on what we buy. I tend to be so different because I talk to people all the time and I don't understand them. What you said makes no sense in my mind (it's actually kind of funny, don't take it offensively). I don't understand human WANT. Sure I want things here and there, but I say to myself all the time, "You don't NEED that so why buy it?" When people I know say, "I just had to buy it, it was 60% off and just cool." I reply sometimes, "I got a better deal than you. I saved 100% by not buying it!"
O dear, I'm getting off subject...

Is this supposed to be witty? And why the fuck are you capping words that have no business being capped?

People that don't obey laws couldn't be deemed law-abiding citizens, could they? Most of the time, depending on the seriousness of the law and in the sphere of certain types of laws (criminal, for example), people that ignore the law are criminals.

Secondly, yes, you do need to prove the correlation. Guns aren't the only "dangerous" things out there, and we could just as easily posit that the presence of those things is the culprit behind the increase in murders (string, knives, cars, etc.).

Just look at the absurdity of this example: The presence of cars is the source of so many drive-by shootings.

Yes, it may have been a material accessory in the shootings, but the source, or even a negligible factor? Comeon.

No, however, you do need to prove that taking such devices away from law-abiding citizens will result in people getting hurt less often. When you meet that burden, feel free to respond. If you can't or won't, then we have nothing further to discuss.

And I suppose I saved 100% by not buying Sabrina the Teenaged Witch DVDs. But I suppose that's where I don't understand your want.

It's like Lil' Abner found an AppleII.

Except that it is common sense, at least intelectually that it would result in people getting hurt less often. What the argument should be, is if it would reduce such numbers by an acceptable amount to justify the loss of 'freedom' or 'fun'. To argue that it *wouldn't* result in less injuries/deaths is just an exageration.

To take the ever popular car example. If there were no cars, people would not be run over, or crash into each other, or drive off the road killing themselves etc. So it would obviously result in less injuries, but it's not something that is practical, or worth the cost.

... Unless of course someone can argue that criminals would still get cars (true), and that they would make up the difference in automotive related injuries.

This whole topic really seems to be argued by the pro-gun camp a little wrong from my point of view. Instead of arguing that guns don't kill people. Hell, they actually help people, and are the most important liberty ever dreamed of. It'd be a whole lot easier to handle the argument that yeah, they kill some people, yeah, it makes killing people easier, but it's worthwhile despite that cost. At least it'd be honest.

What kind of analogy is that. Cars aren't designed with the specific single purpose of harming people.

I mean, what, if there were no guns, would gang members throw pieces of 'string' at one another? Or maybe there'd be a rapid increase in the number of deaths by drive-by knife-throwings; probably, probably.

I like how in the wonderful world of pro-firearm, law-abiding citizens are law-abiding citizens and criminals are criminals.

[capslock]THE WORLD IS NOT THAT SIMPLE, FOLKS.[/capslock]

Pull the trigger, I'm begging you. At least dump the poll.

Also, it's going to happen anyways isn't a valid argument. If something is worth being outlawed, the scale to which the law will be broken is not a factor.

From a legal standpoint, it is that simple. If you break a law, you're a criminal. I'm fairly sure I break the law every day in some way or another, however the argument in the context of Gun Control refers to people that adhere to gun code laws, and not necessarily the speed limit, or drug usage, or internet piracy, or whatever other laws people break every day.

You don't know that at all. You assume that because you strip the right to bear arms from regular citizens that people will get hurt less often, but in truth, you have nothing to back up that claim. If you do, feel free to offer it up.