See, the problem I'm having with this argument is the concept of a "law-abiding citizen". I've already elaborated on it in this thread. There's no common definition of a "law-abiding citizen" and nobody can tell a criminal from a law-abiding citizen before they have actually committed a crime. This is why I think nobody should be allowed to have such a weapon in the first place. I think the chances of abuse outweigh the positive aspects of having a gun by far. Besides, I think a positive aspect can only be achieved with a gun that's never actually fired.

I don't know how you feel about this, but I just couldn't entrust a person with a gun just because they claim to be "law-abiding citizens". There is no scientific way to even prove this, so you're basically argueing to trust random with deadly weapons. I'm just not comfortable with that and will probably never understand where this trust comes from given the relatively high amount of homicides that involve firearms legally purchased by your a law-abiding citizen.

As an example, I wouldn't want to live in a neighbourhood with the thought of guns being stored in every household - no matter how peaceful and trustful this neighbourhood might be. I prefer to be relatively certain that the place I'm living in is just free of guns. Maybe it's just a matter of trust and I don't feel like taking unnecessary risks.

After combing the thread, could you post up the source that tells you about the 'relatively high amount of homicides that involve firearms that are legally purchased'?

It's the exact oposite of trusting each other. It's distrusting your neighbours, and your government that fuels the desire. It's been argued that they are to protect yourself from the 'bad guys', whether that be criminals, invading armies, or the government. The only person that one can trust is one's self. And even then, we are often wrong. It always brings to mind the statistic about 90%+ of adults believing themselves to be above average inteligence.

THE GUN

Suivant-next!

No. You have been shown the reasons and you refuse to accept any of them.

Really. Who did?

That's cute.

When you show me evidence that me having the right to own a gun causes people to get shot I'll start to consider what you say.

Ok, *you* having a gun wouldn't be even remotely an issue because you are so careful, and let's just say it, awesome.

Does it not strike you as even remotely possible that others do not act as responsibly and downright awesome as yourself or the other gun owners in this thread?

Again, please keep in mind that I am not advocating removing one's right to own a firearm. So it doesn't exactly ruin one's case to admit that they are a danger in the wrong hands. Though that hasn't happened yet.

What do you call that, "circular avoidance"? If you're not considering what I say, then how do you find the evidence?

http://www.converge.org.nz/pma/gunaus.htm

There you go.

Australia initiated a voluntary gun buy-back program, and as a result, in only one year, gun-related crime and death stats dropped significantly.

Arrowhead seems to have forgotten all about me. C'est la vie. :'(

Those numbers can be easily construed, particularly when the American crime rate has decreased without gun control laws. The resulting conclusion, then, is possibly that an increase in living standards has decreased the overall crime rate, or that the prospect of easy cash would lower the number of gun-related crimes.

Did the gun buy-back only apply to legally registered firearms? Did Australia even have a gun registry?

Night Phoenix's challenge is impossible to meet. The factuality of him owning a firearm does not in any way prove or increase the danger of those around him, because possession does not imply intent.

It is impossible to prove the case of gun control with statistics, because you can put a spin on any numbers. Hell, I just did.

Does a presence of a firearm increase your likelihood to get a chunk of lead in your brain? Yes. Obviously if there were no firearms around, that danger would be non-existant. However, that does not mean that the presence of the danger, or the chance of it coming to fruition is in any way significant to the average person, nor does it debunk the deterrent that an armed citizenry creates.

You could argue that it's hard to wage guerilla warfare in Suburbia, but I would beg to differ. Nobody knows the surrounding area more than its locals, and soldiers from New England are going to be just as lost in Kansas as they would be in Columbia as far as familiarity goes. Tanks aren't the end-all threat either, because you can easily flank a tank in any urban environment, even the suburban ones. Of course, that doesn't eliminate the nuclear threat, but using nuclear weapons as an effort to quell dissent is retarded on so many levels I don't feel I have to go into.

The fact of the matter is, I'm still more likely to die in a car crash than a gun-related accident, or a gun-related crime. (the former, admittedly, is practically impossible because I do not own a firearm) While the gun does not have a utilitarian function outside of putting holes in things, it's that deterrent that ultimately guarantees even the most basic of freedoms.

Have you ever been convicted of or accused of committing a crime?

No?

There you go.

Just because you own a gun doesn't mean you are more likely to commit a crime, or to even use it. Just as purchasing a hammer doesn't make you more likely to become a carpenter.

If you buy a hammer, you are much more likely to use the hammer than someone who doesn't own one. And you can extrapolate that to also mean that you have a higher chance of hitting your thumb with a hammer, than someone who doesn't own one.

I'm sure this can apply in some way...

What

Yeah, people are always buying hammers without any intent of engaging in carpentry. Why would anyone do that? Why would you buy a hammer unless you wanted to pound some nails? Why would you buy a piece of hardware unless you intended to work with it?

People own tools because they are operating under a reasonable expectation that they might be called upon to use such tools. I don't know anyone who owns a hammer but is morally opposed to hammering things.

Again, by that logic we should also ban power tools and automobiles...

The reason that we don't is because the VAST majority of people are smart enough and safe enough that it's not really a concern...

Agreed... thinking is normally a good thing after all.

Again, this question of "reason" or "need" pops up. Why should it matter? I want a gun, and I'm not going to do anything dangerous with it, so why should it matter?

I fail to see the problem with that. The whole reason we have trials is to determine if someone is guilty or not. The court will decide if you acted reasonably or if you killed someone in cold blood. This is actualy the way the law works in many states, it's nothing new. I'm suprised that this Florida law was made into such a big deal by the media...

It's not that I personally don't count them. There is a distinction between felonys and lesser crimes that the law makes, not me. If it still bothers you, replace the word "criminal" with "felon"...

Then why do car accidents still happen? Trust me on this one, you can't legislate saftey...

Again, the VAST majority of people ARE responsible with them. If you take into accont the number of guns and gun owners in the US, the number of gun accidents or crimes commited with a gun are very low in comparison.

I'm not Rikimaru, but I would like to say that I trust guys like George Washington, Alexander Hamilton, etc... more than I do Bill Clinton or George Bush.

How is history irrelevant? Those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it after all...

Again, I point to the example of the Nazis...

What if the poor kid chocked on the cauliflower? Almost anything can be dangerous if used improperly...

Actually it's just the oposite. Now you have to prove to the judge and jury that you acted REASONABLY. If you can't prove that, then you're in deep doo-doo

We've been over this one before... I've personally used my firearms many times, but never once have I hurt/killed anyone. Therefore I'd say you need to re-evaluate your thinking on this one...

I think not. There are plenty of people who get by just fine without a car. Owning a car is far from being a "necessary part of life"...

The object itself has nothing to do with intent, only the person using it can have any intention to do anything.

It wouldnt' be easy, but I'm sure it's possible... whats your point though?

There are all "what ifs". I can use "what if" arugments for banning just about anything. I can also use "what if" arugments to support almost any position.

I think that, what this whole debate boils down to, is that you personally don't like the idea of me having access to firearms. That isn't enough to convince me that I'm wrong. I'll use the computer example again. If I personally had a problem with you having access to computers, would you care? No, you'd say "I'm not doing anything wrong, therefore you have no right to bitch". It's the same with me and my firearms. I'm not doing anything wrong, so what gives you the right to take them away from me? If you can somehow convince me that the world would be a better place if I didn't have any firearms, I'd change my stance on this issue.

I have no problem with private citizens owning full autos. I personally don't want one, but I can see why someone else might. After all, they're really cool, and alot of fun...

Actually, I read an article about this once, I just can't find the source. It was a well-know Japanese millitary leader, I forget who exactly (Admiril Yamamoto maybe?) who said that they wouldn't be able to occupy the US because there would be "a rifle behind every bush" or something like that...

2

Not if you shoot them first. Besides, what if their intention is to kill you anyway?

True, but how do we know that it will be an improvement? Maybe in 2 years we'll be even worse off... what if Hillary becomes the next president?

Hey, if your arguments are based on "what ifs", then mine can be too :p

So people should be considered guilty untill proven innocent? I thought it was suposed to be the other way around...

I know the car example is being used alot, but I'll use it once again: You trust random people with cars, why not guns? Cars kill more people than guns do after all...

You guys say that us pro second amendment types are paranoid...

Life is about taking risks. You take a risk just by getting out of bed each morning. You take a risk every time you step out side...

And what reasons might those be? Because they make you feel uncomfortable? Thats not much of a reason if you ask me...

Of course there are some people out there who really shouldn't have access to firearms. However, they are in a very small minority. Again, if you look at the number of accidents compared to the number of guns, it's a very small precentage...

I think someone else has already said this, but here in the US crime rates dropped as well, without any change in gun laws. Therefore I'd argue that it wasn't nessisarily the buy-back program that caused Australia's drop in crime...

So all traffic laws should be repealed, because they don't actually reduce traffic incidents.

That is all I wanted to hear. You notice it took eight (8!) pages before someone in the pro firearm camp admited that the availability of firearms does present a risk, however minor.

Could you stop trying to discount foreign sensibility with bullshit arguments and irrelevant US statistics?

There are democracies in the world who would mediate the intersection of individual liberty and the public good instead of blithely defend an ultimately destructive freedom because 'everything a man does is innately risky anyway'.

David, you are quoting troo much shit your posts look like a mess. I also think I saw something about the Nazis in there, because you know that's a surefire way to win an argument.

whoa... I hadn't really noticed, but you're right, I went overboard with the quotes there...

I'll keep the quotes to a minimum this time...

My argument hasn't changed. Not once did I say EVERYONE should have a gun. People who have been convicted of felonys for example should not be permitted to own firearms (and they aren't). And there are some people who are just too stupid to use one safely. You can't really weed out the stupid ones though, so that will always be a "risk" as you put it. However, this risk is very small compared to the overall population.

Australian statistics are ok, but US statistics are irrelevant? Why is that?

Because America should be more like Australia. Remember - America is wrong about everything and the lesser nations of the world are always right. Whether it be in regards to foreign policy, the death penalty, socialism, or gun ownership, America is on the wrong side. This is why foreigners are considered 'sensible' by Cal and Americans are full of shit.

Remember always that foreigners think Americans are stupid, arrogant, and completely undeserving of the power they have.

Well you are signifgantly behind the rest of the industrialised world in these regards, often seen as progress. You should try it sometime.

If America was more like Australia you'd have less murders, more equal distribution of income, a more open electoral system, a higher life expectancy, a more educated population and better beer.
Think about it.

Yes, because socialism is the cure to all of society's ills.

No, you're thinking of communism.

Don't even try to change the subject. America might be developed economically but it's highly regressive compared to the rest of the developed world in many other social aspects. Gun control not withstanding.

You say that now but will rue the days of neglect towards the impending unstoppable alien invasion. Those armed will stave off the threat underground. You and your family will be enslaved and separated. The weight of the regret will burn your soul away, you fucking communist.

There's a key element you're overlooking, RAB.

Australia sucks ass.
http://jimallanstudio.com/IMAGES/air...he_patriot.jpg

You know, not everyone considers being socialist as being 'progressive' or beneficial.

U.S> homicide rate is 5.67 per 100,000, Australia's is 1.81. Considering Australia doesn't have an open border bleeding criminals into the country, nor does it have the huge urban centers of the U.S. and it is a mostly homogeneous society, as compared to the large and bvaried etnic populations in the U.S., 1.81 is nothing to brag about. lets compare Australia with a U.S. state with similar demographics..Utah..which has a 1.9 homicide rate. Apple and Oranges.