For or against?

And those illegally obtained weapons wouldn't have been so readily available if they weren't bought and sold by people as a hobby.

I have no problem with firearms, but I don't see any sense in having one for 'protection' either. If you want to hunt, then fine. If you want to feel badass and know that you can shoot a burglar and have delusions about being a hero-in-waiting, then that's something I don't relate to.

The strangest thing about the subject in my view is how adamant people are that they just need to have guns, lots of guns. And big f'n guns too. I mean, the logic gets lost along the way pretty quickly from where I'm sitting. But I guess it's always hard to explain the draw of penis enhancing purchases.

But I love your opening post. If I'm not pro-gun, then it's really just that I want to endanger your family and infringe on your rights. I mean, yeah, that's why people do things, just to piss off another group.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Sometimes I'm still a little surprised at some things due to my not being from the US. Here it'd be laughable to teach kid's gun safety, or how to shoot etc. as a matter of course in public school. But apparently it's just the opposite wherever David and Gumby are..

On the subject of killing intruders because they are 'the bad guys': There are degrees to being a bad person or criminal. I think Minion's point is that just because someone will steal (bad), does not mean that they will rape/murder (more bad). So the argument that they *might* do worse than steal, so you ought to kill 'em, y'know, just in case, sounds a bit harsh to me. Shoplifters aren't executed for a reason, and so on.

On the subject of availability of firearms: Yeah, weapons are easily bought illegaly. My argument against this, is that if every joe sixpack didn't buy gun(s), then there would be a whole hell of a lot less made. A whole hell of a lot less stolen/lost/resold illegaly. Those illegaly obtained weapons have to come from somewhere, and they are only made because there is a legal demand for them.

On the subject of 'guns don't kill people': If you are in a confrontation, and someone pulls a weapon it escalates to situation. What might have been a fist fight turns into a killing. So one's response of carrying a weapon, and pulling it when they are 'in trouble' has a great chance of increasing their risk in that situation. I've been in this kind of situation before, and what was a manageable situation got immediately out of control because someone wanted to pull a weapon.

And just so we are clear, I don't think that guns should be banned. I think that the population should think a little more clearly about why they are buying and using them. I hear an awful lot of excuses about owning them, maybe instead of excusing the behaviour you might examine for yourself why you 'need' them.

Also, what other uses for your guns have you found? I'm reminded of Homer trying to get a cat out of the tree... You cook with them? Clean with them? Seriously, as far as I know, they only do one thing, put a hole in whatever you shoot 'em at. Please elaborate on all the other practicle things you do?

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by Gumby

Rock, I suggested that you do some research on this matter before you continued this debate. Also no one in their right mind would say that no legally purchased guns would be used in crime. That

These were all found in a 2 minute google search.
Statics
Lowest violent crime rate in 30 years. Gun ownership is up.
1999 state comparison of crime rates
American Enterpise Institute for Public Policy Research

There were about 500,000 guns sold last year. Last year there were only about 31,200 violent crimes that involved guns. This does not take into account all of the guns that were sold in the past 100 years that are still in current circulation of the gun market. You do the math; VERY few of the guns on the market are actually used in violent crimes. Then when you look at the fact that our crime rates are going down to 30 year record lows after out assault weapon ban was lifted while the Great Britain which completely outlawed handguns in 1997 have sky rocketing crime rates.

A lot of good information

You wanted hard facts Rock, there they are. I'm sure there is much more information out there.

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.

How ya doing, buddy?

Originally Posted by lordjames

I haven't seen anyone prove that there exists a strong correlation between high gun ownership rates and higher rates of murder.

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.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Originally Posted by Night Phoenix

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.

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.

I was speaking idiomatically.

Originally Posted by Night Phoenix

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.

Of course I don't *know* that, neither side of the debate can prove a thing.

But you are honestly saying that less guns would not result in less people getting hurt, because it's just an asinine theory that it would reduce such incidents?

How many kids shoot themselves or someone else by accident each year, using a firearm which is owned by their upstanding citizen parent? Let's say this figure is 1. Is it really completely unreasonable, and ass-backwards to believe that the odds are lessend for this situation if there wasn't a gun in the house?

Would the kid instead be guaranteed to go out and find one of Manis Tricuspis' criminals. Have them sell a black market gun, and then accidentally shoot someone? Or would they make their own gun, then accidentally shoot someone? Which one of these scenarios is the one that would neccessarily occur in order to keep the number of incidents at least as high as the year before gun regulation?

You do see that both sides of the issue make their assumptions based on little-to-nothing, and then just tell the other side to put up or shut up right?

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Dead Horse, how can there be required classes for all prospective and current gun owners if there is no structure with which to know who has, and does not have one? Without any kind of registry, there can be no way to enforce the course you suggest.

And who's going to pay for that?

Rikimaru, so all those other countries that aren't armed to the teeth don't have freedom? Or is it that they only have a little freedom which is soon to be lost?

Best minds in the political world (It's ever so difficult not to tack on a snide remark)? Who are these best minds? And what was used to back up those assertions?

Cal, Reading is for wimps. Real communication is not in the listening, but in the talking. ;p

FELIPE NO

Originally Posted by David4516

I don't see how it is "common sense". The presance of a firearm is not was causes people to get hurt. It's people who do stupid things with firearms, for example leaving a loaded pistol within reach of a small child...

Stupid people will always be there. The entire point about considering the consequences of gun ownership is to reduce the means they have of amplifying their stupidity. They would have done something stupid yes, but the odds of it being a fatal stupid, would be reduced.

And I'm not promoting banning guns, only promoting people properly think about things before they do them. Arugments like 'We should have a milita', well fine, have a militia. Doesn't mean that those outside of the militia need a gun. 'The founding fathers had guns, I wanna be like them.'... Uh, ok. 'Only stupid people and criminals use guns with poor judgement', if this is true, then what's the solution? Kill/lock up all the criminals, stupid people, maybe those who are likely to be criminals or borderline stupid?

There are a precious few reasons to have a gun. There are piles upon piles of excuses to have them though.

Also, the issue with the 'stand your ground' law, is that there is are no ground rules as to what is reasonable. It's written in a manner to leave that up to the sole discretion of the court.

Criminals are those who have comited a crime. Just because you don't count some crimes, doesn't make it any less so.

You can legislate safety, traffic laws would be an example. Now again, I'm not suggesting that firearms need aditional legislation, only that people should take safety into their own hands and be more practicle/cautious. Oh, do you know why traffic laws had to be implimented? Because people were too impractical, wreckless, and stupid to be ressponsible with their vehicles.

Originally Posted by David4516

My point exactly. As long as people are responsible with them, why should anyone care if they have guns?

People AREN'T responsible with them. Some are, some aren't. It's those that aren't responsible, that are a concern. Just because you may be trusted with a death dealing boomstick, doesn't mean that everyone will make choices as to it's use as well as you have.

Originally Posted by Gumby

It is a right guaranteed by our constitution, which why I find it funny that all the foreigners are the ones telling us that we can't or shouldn't have guns. Maybe a touch of jealousy at our rights?

Heh. An interesting conclusion. You'd be amazed at how many rights other countries have. There isn't exactly a monopoly on 'freedom' by the US, despite what headlines might say. And if others were jealous of the 'right to bear (fire)arms', I'd imagine they would look to changing their laws instead of speaking against yours. You have a point though, nobody but your countries own citizens have a right to set policy. And you have every right to plug your ears and pretend as though the rest of the hasn't a voice if you wish. But the jealousy thing is pretty laughable.

Rikimaru, no one is suggesting that your constitution be abandoned. What I personally suggest, is that whenever one consults a source, they should re-examine how appropriate it is today. To quote an old source, or a well respected source is nice, but shouldn't be the end. Otherwise it's blind faith that those that came before know better than those that are here now. Sometimes true, sometimes not.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

Originally Posted by Rock

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.

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.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by Night Phoenix

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.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

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...

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

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

Originally Posted by David4516

Of course there are some people out there who really shouldn't have access to firearms.

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.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

This seems to be a constant issue in PP. That no country thus far has been 'comparable' to the US. What country would be? It's often disputed that the US either has A)More varied population B) Borders C) Lots of land D) I can't think of anything at the moment.

But my point is, what country can be compared to the US? Otherwise statistics from other countries are deemed worthless for comparison. And that the US's own statistics can't be compared with anything but their own.

I was speaking idiomatically.

Originally Posted by Gumby

Another issue is the education of the public about firearms; far too many people these days seem to be completely ignorant about firearms assuming that they are only used to kill people. This is especially true with the knee jerk reactions that happen in areas where a recent killing(s) have been committed with guns.

Killing animals, killing people, and practicing.

True, people have knee jerk reactions about them, but I don't see how education about guns will make people think that they are used for anything but the three things listed. All it might do for your cause is to get people to marginalize the impact that guns have on violence. The most people can take away from the education is the impression that the weapons are only a very minor factor, and best ignored.

It'll always be hard to comfort people who have just been exposed to shootings. "Guns only killed a *few* people, I mean, geez, put it in perspective." might work fine for those of us that haven't been affected by it recently. But can you imagine it having any effect in a situation like Columbine after their shootings? People don't want to hear that, they want someone/something to blame, wether it's legit or a scapegoat.

How ya doing, buddy?

How can that not suffice? It clearly shows drop over ~10 years.

There is no debating that there was a drop in crime rate. It doesn't mean that more control on firearms would *not* further decrease violent crime, but that's just another one of those things that you can't answer unless it's attempted. And since it's not desired, it won't be put to the test.

FELIPE NO

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.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

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.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Which all ties into my earlier point about illegal guns having come from at least somewhat legitimate sources. The criminals aren't making their own weapons, and they don't come out of thin air. They are stolen from, or sold by, the 'good' citizens. Edit, and good companies etc.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

That's what I used to think. But it was explained to me that those that live in the US rockies *need* their SUVs. It was explained to me that before they were available people were unable to travel in those areas in the winter because mortal cars weren't up to the job. And since they *need* them, it justifies it for the rest of us. Seemed like bullshit to me, but the popular opinion was against me on that one.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Whoa. You're saying that gun education used to be a regular class in schools until recently? I thought you were proposing something new which hadn't been in place before.

Pez, do you have the numbers on your study? Like, how many are unintentionally injured, and how many die? The ratio is interesting, but it'd be even better to have the rough totals.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?