Welcome Jack thompson of the anti-gun lobby...
Thank you for the well reasoned statement which is filled with lies...

I have also enjoyed other Brady statements in the past:

"We must get rid of all the guns."
-- Sarah Brady
"It [the Brady Bill] is not a panacea. It's not going to stop crimes of passion or drug-related crime."
-- Sarah Brady
"I don't believe gun owners have rights."
-- Sarah Brady

Now please go away and don't bother us here...

To those saying that guns are not to blame, I have to disagree. Games are not a weapon so blaming them when there is no evidence of psychological effects is ludicrous, but guns have very limited uses - to kill, to threaten, to deter or for sport.

Often when you hear gun advocates speak you hear such lines like the above poster "Gun control laws only makes the law-abiding citizens not have guns. It does nothing for criminals". Well what is a criminal exactly? Are they not law-abiding citizens up to the point they pull the trigger? If a child has murderous intentions and their only weapon is a close range one like a knife, do you think they could go from classroom to classroom killing students? If a couple are having a fight and there isn't a gun close at hand to grab and pull the trigger, would there be so many fatal 'domestics'?

The other argument is about the constitution, but this is usually from ignorance of the circumstances in their own history. The right to bear arms was at a time when it was thought necessery for the citizens to retain the ability to overthrow the government should it be needed. Thats a far cry from how guns are used today.

In all seriousness, can anyone here think of a valid reason for a citizen to be able to own an automatic rifle? The sport angle is removed at that point and it is really only there for violence and war. I'd argue that semi-automatic weapons and shotguns largely have no place in the hands of your average joe, though might agree that hunters or farmers could benefit.

Could there not be some half way house here? This isn't about removing rights, it is about a problem in the US of epidemic proportions. If you remove the worst and most unworthy of weapons from the hands of people and criminalize anyone who retains them, you can quickly improve matters. I don't think it will be realistic to get rid of hand guns at this stage in the US as there would be too much backlash, but I would make people responsible for owning them - full background checks on mental health for all licensees, proper lock boxes that are checked once a year by an independant governing body for shotguns and semi-automatic rifles and removal of all automatic weapons.

Thoughts?

"Well what is a criminal exactly? Are they not law-abiding citizens up to the point they pull the trigger?"

Mostly, no. They're already criminals. Most shootings occur during another crime: rape, robbery, breaking and entering, or between members of rival street gangs (read: organized criminals.)

"If a couple are having a fight and there isn’t a gun close at hand to grab and pull the trigger, would there be so many fatal ‘domestics’?"

While my evidence is anecdotal, I could find very few instances via google where a domestic dispute fatality was caused by a gun. There's some big news about cops gunning down a husband in Meeker/Joliet, but it seems to me that most domestic dispute manslaughters are of the blunt object/stabbing variety.

"Thats a far cry from how guns are used today."

Today guns are used for hunting, other sport, and property defense, even from one's own country, should it turn against it's populous. Exactly as they were in the colonial years.

"can anyone here think of a valid reason for a citizen to be able to own an automatic rifle?"

Moot point. Automatic rifles aren't used in crimes. Most guns used in crimes were perfectly legal under the assault weapons ban which was later allowed to lapse because it HAD NO IMPACT ON CRIME. Why? Because men who pay the high prices to own automatic weapons are collectors. Some are also gun nuts, but they're not shooting anyone who isn't on their property without permission.

"This isn’t about removing rights, it is about a problem in the US of epidemic proportions."

The problem isn't guns, it's gun CRIME, and it's a statistically proven fact in many cases all over the country that enacting concealed carry laws cuts gun CRIME drastically with minimal impact on accidental shootings. Even so, to call gun crime an epidemic in the US is denying the last two decades where, as I mentioned before, youth crime and gun crime have fallen precipitously. Keep in mind, these are some of the same statistics used to defend games, as the drop has a casual (not causal) corrolary relationship with the popularization of modern gaming. Maybe video games kept some kids from falling in with violent gangs, who knows, but if you're really gung-ho about curtailing gun crime, allow law-abiding citizens to defend themselves.

@IllegallyMindedJohn

Then I'm declaring myself a one-man militia. Where do you think a "well-regulated militia" comes from? Do they just pop out of thin air, fully formed and fully armed?

@chuma

You are blessedly removed from reality

"Any realistic scenario in which a gun would do the trick for you but a good taser would not?"

I'm sure there might be some scenarios, but I don't have the luxury of choosing my battles.

Plus Tasering an armed person wouldn't be that great of an idea, IMO. They might fire out of desperation, or because of the involuntary muscle spasms.

Side-note: Even if Tasers have a less-than-lethal or non-lethal designation, it doesn't make them (in effect) non-lethal. I'd rather the police pull a gun on me than a Taser, the pistol is far less likely to be abused.

To point out the taser thing....in Michigan only cops can carry tasers or stun-guns.

@Rhade

A couple cops fired some 20 shots at a kid that had a plastic cafeteria knife, cops abuse their gun power wayy too much

"Alright, AK-47’s apparently are $200-$400 dollars. So the rumor was wrong."

Semis are $200-$400, fully automatic push $800-$1000.

"nor do they have contacts in the black market... Your garden variety “thug” on the other hand just gets them from the shady guy selling from his car."

shady guy = black market, dipshit. And the shady guy probably buys guns from thugs as well, if not actual importers of firearms. No one is saying guns shouldn't be regulated in the same way cars are. Cars are titled, require a license to operate, and are useful and deadly much in the same way guns are. However, banning certain types of weapons, especially handguns, is over the line. I absolutely want background checks on firearm purchases and required licenses for concealed carry. But I don't want "No handguns in Chicago." I mean, look how well that's turned out.

@ chuma

Seriously? You quote me and then follow up with an example of what I was condemning you for to begin with...

"Better still, give me a scenario where having the gun in self defense is a good idea and DOESN’T put your life in danger."

My life was always in danger, it always will be. This is universal. It applies to everyone. The variable is the amount of danger, which we can only estimate very roughly. Assuming this danger can be met with defense via the use of a firearm, one must then decide if it SHOULD.

I can give you a senario whereby my gun ownership solves world hunger and cures cancer. Possible? Sure. Probable? Not even in the slightest.

I think you're trolling, if only by accident.

Wow! This is a debate and a half :)

My opinion basically boils down to this:

Less guns in circulation = less chance of people getting shot

The UK has very heavy gun control and i like it this way.
I have only seen guns 'in real life' in very few locations: Museums and on police officers (rarely) and soldiers.
I'd feel significantly less safe if the general public had easy access to them, as a lot of the general public are morons.

There seems to be a fair few people theorising over the situation: "imagine if a criminal comes at you with a gun" style arguments
In response to that i'd say firstly, how often does that really happen?
and if it does happen, how more likely is it for the criminal to shoot you if he thinks you may have a gun on you?
And while heavy gun control does not stop all criminals having a gun, it does make it a lot more difficult to get a gun, which is a definite improvement.

Whilst i know guns are not the actual cause of gun crime, i do feel quite strongly that heavy gun control can help reduce the problem somewhat with no real drawbacks.

"It’s estimated that between 250,000 and two million times a year a gun STOPS a violent crime without being fired. Depends on who you ask, and what numbers they are cherry picking. The fact is it happens, every day, and your theory simply *doesn’t* happen every day. If we’re making up rules based on hypotheticals, mine wins."

Theres making up hypotheticals as an example and there is making up statistics which is a falsehood. If what you are saying is true, and it "depends on who you ask" then please provide figures from anyone who estimates in that range. I can provide you with figures of gun crime from home office and police reports. Can you provide such proof?

Correction: I reread some of his posts and realize I actually don't feel that way about Dark Sovereign. The others I still do though.

Hmm.. I read somewhere the other day there were just 7 school shooting rampages between 1776 and 1990. Since 1990, there have been 78.

What changed in 1990? The Federal Gun-Free School Zone Act made them into attractive, soft targets.

Thank you Brady Campaign!

So, so desperate to argue your indoctrinated position that you feel you have to goad people with name calling, huh? Suddenly the real reasons behind your gun advocacy become clear.

Try googling 'causality' while you're at it, and good night.

@Leahelm. I prefer to avoid this this argument. However, I can't let this statement pass without comment:

"Did you know that in England where gun laws are stricter, that every single crime aside from homicide by gun has drastically higher rates than the US?"

The Overall UK crime rate is bad, we seem to have a serious problem in that regard. However, "drastically higher" is hardly a justifiable characterisation of the situation (85.5517 per 1,000 people vs the USA's 80.0645 per 1,000 people*). Moreover, it's simply incorrect for crimes like "plain old homicide" (the last figures I saw where 0.042802 per 1,000 people vs 0.0140633 per 1,000 in the UK*).

Anyway, got it off my chest now. Make what you will of the figures, but given the statistical misuse of data in arguments like this I'll include a caveat: Different countries use different methodologies when collecting data on different types of crime so the figures may not actually be comparable (with the probable exception murders which tend to be rather more "definite" stats). Furthermore, recorded crime says nothing about undetected crime rates.

*Seventh United Nations Survey of Crime Trends and Operations of Criminal Justice Systems, covering the period 1998 - 2000 (United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, Centre for International Crime Prevention)

the combination of lenient background requirements for purchasing firearms and mental health issues/anti-depressant usage is obviously a bad mix. Why the hell isn't there a background check on the buyers mental health? sure, it may be a violation of some privacy, but this cant be as bad as the PATRIOT Act. Its absolute fucking bullshit that a psycho is able to purchase a gun in this country just as easily as anyone else.

We've had a lenghty discussion about gun control here. Some are for it, others against it and that's fine, it's part of the U.S. culture. I have a question though, let"s just look at this quote first: "I’m not sure that psychological factors or violent movies and video games are any different here than in other countries - the difference is how easy it is to get a gun".

So besides gun availability (that debate has been covered already), what do you think is the reason that the U.S. seems to have a lot more school shootings than other countries? What is happening in the U.S. that does not seem to be happening elsewhere?

@niceaznguy721

People who are found insane by the courts are added to the prohibited persons database. At least they're supposed to be. But in the case of VT, for instance, lack of funding and/or bureaucratic screw-ups often let people fall through the cracks.

@jab49

So with no guns, nobody could kill more than four people? Explain the 45 people killed and the 58 injured at a school in Bath, Michigan with a bomb then. Or the 8 dead and 15 injured in a kitchen knife rampage at a school in Osaka, Japan.

As for not being useful, tell that to the Polish Jews who held off the SS for a month in the 1943 Warsaw Ghetto uprising with a handful of stolen rifles and pistols. Or to the million plus people every year who use a gun to defend themselves from violent criminals.

@Hackangel

To me, it seems obvious that the "gun-free zones" are a major factor. Placing a sign on a door or a line in a student handbook is not going to stop someone hell bent on murder from bringing a gun into a building. Doubly so when school administrators and politicians loudly advertise said buildings as being completely defenseless. This isn't much of a problem in the UK, being that the whole country is almost gun-free. But here, it's like setting up a chain-link fence in the ocean and declaring a water-free zone or something.

The fact that ~90% of known rampage shootings in the US happened after 1990 seems to be a strong correlation.

Shady8x

Chuma: “to kill, to threaten, to deter or for sport.”

"You just mentioned 4 things, how is that limited???"

Given those things are violence, defence from violence and sport, it isn't exactly diverse compared to say a knife.

"Guns are successfully used to threaten/deter in 85% of the 2.5 million self defense instances per year(by civilians)…"

Not true. In fact if you had read my response to this statistic further up in the thread you will see the links to scientific studies of Kleck and Gertz's research you will see that their methodology is fundementally flawed. Basic maths allows you to work out that if what they were saying is true, by the time you are 60, half the population would have been in a life threatening situation and could only save themselves if they had a gun on them. This is laughably false. Exact figures are hard to come by, even harder outside of law enforcement, but 2.5 Million is a gross exaggeration.

"You also forgot the use of “just for fun” at a shooting range…
and Police enforcement…"

Shooting range is sport, police enforcement is kill, threaten and deter.

"No, they are a criminal for hundreds of thousands of possible reasons only one of which is pulling a gun on an innocent person..."

Point is that a law-abiding civilian who owns a gun is just that until the moment they pull the trigger and kill someone. Criminals don't wear a uniform to identify them from others and come in all shapes and sizes.

"...and doing so is far more common for self defense than an attack on another…"

This is another exaggeration. Guns are more often drawn as a threat, even by police. Often they draw their guns first to approach a suspect, even if they don't have a weapon in a "cooperate or get shot" way. I imagine the number of times they draw weapons because the suspect has one is much less than forcing cooperation through intimidation (not critisizing the police you must understand, but there is a distinction here).

"The ‘child’(most school shooters are adults) could obtain a firearm just as easily in a state that banned them as they can in a state with no restrictions…(except that states with almost no restrictions on guns have never had school shootings and have the lowest crime rates…)"

This just isn't so. You only have to look at previous school shootings and see how they got hold of weapons from family members because they didn't lock the weapons away properly. My proposals for restrictions include maintaining a secure location that is checked by an official.

"as for domestics, I believe knives are more common in those… and those 2.5 million defensive uses do include ‘domestics’ and with guns banned there would be a hell of a lot more of them…"

Again with the 2.5M figure... Please scroll up and look for the links that discredit the figure entirely. Anyhow, yes you can argue that knives are more common, but it is easy to run from a knife than a projectile weapon like a gun.

"They are mostly used for self defense… and are seen as one of the main components of freedom…
Why is protecting against government more important then protecting against a home invader or back alley robber? they are equally important."

It's not the importance that you place upon either but the intention of the 2nd amendment that I was getting at.


"2% of crime have something to do with automatic weapons, and since most of those are with semis converted to full auto by the criminals and involves zero mass shootings I don’t see how banning or not would effect anything…(by the way they were banned for almost a decade and during that time were used more often then before the banning…)"

Great, then by banning automatic weapons, and by placing heavy restrictions of semi-auto weapons we decrease crime by organised criminals and can work on getting that 2% to 0%. Everything has to be done in stages and by removing the most damaging weapons that noone can argue in favour of keeping, we can start the ball rolling. And I appreciate you say there was a rise in crimes but I have to wonder how this law was implemented. Not every idea is a bad one just because its implementation is bad.

"also if you own a weapon in your home for self defense, then wouldn’t you be able to defend better if you had a better gun???"

Personally I would be on the phone to the police immediately and the last thing I would want to do is approach someone with a gun, regardless of whether or not I have one as well. My posessions are not as important as my life and are covered by insurance.

"Removing guns isn’t unrealistic do to a backlash(check Washington DC, handguns banned crimes go through the roof but no backlash) it is unrealistic because it wouldn’t help anyone as there are HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF GUNS ON THE BLACK MARKET…"

Where do you think all these come from exactly? Usually from people who can legitimately own guns having them stolen or selling them on. If you make people responsible for their weapons, you'll see a lot less of this sort of thing happening.

"You want a governing body to go into 80,000,000-100,000,000 homes on a yearly basis?!?!?!?!? but not into the homes of know criminals that but the guns illegally??? Now that would have a political backlash…"

You want to own a gun? You have to have a yearly visit. How many times do you get visited by the gas-man to take a meter reading in a year? It's not that inconvenient.

"There are already back ground checks but privacy laws keep insanity status out of the registries and including that info would keep crazies from seeking professional help which would likely increase crime since they can get weapons from illegal dealers very easily…"

You logic here is ludicrous. It would increase crime because they would have to go to an ILLEGAL dealer rather than a readily available gunshop? Don't be silly. Tell me something, how many illegal gun dealers do you know of? Now how many gun retailers do you know? Which would you rather deal with, crazy or not? You can't take a leap of logic on this and claim that something would be worse if you make it more difficult for someone.

Anyhow, thanks for the comments, please feel free to respond to any points in here you want to debate further. But please, read up on the 2.5M figure. It's clearly false.

@ Shady8x

''@NovaBlack
“um actually no.. its completely in context. where do u stop. Somebody has a gun, so i need a gun to defend myself, so they get a bigger gun, so i get a bigger gun etc etc its completely analogous. ”

So everyone has a big gun and no one actually uses them on each other, so where is the harm?

''


um so nobody uses them on each other.. then WHY DO YOU NEED A GUN.

geez thanks for winning that point for me!

@Chuma

"Ofcourse the one time one of them then reaches behind for their own gun and shoots you, it isn’t so fun…"

Except thats when you shoot them.

"Criminals are thugs, but if the shaken cashier had produced a gun it would have provoked a response from him and maybe meant that instead of being hit, she would have been shot dead, or maybe others as well. It is unfortunate he was not caught, but that’s no reason to give upon the police."

Except a good number of criminals make there intentions obvious from the moment they enter the door. This one had most of his face covered, before he actually pulled the gun. The problem with your argument is that YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT A CRIMINAL IS GOING TO DO, even when you do everything he says. You never know how they will respond to any thing adverse to them, you never know what they will perceive as a threat.

"Statistically it is also not rational to assume you will be. If you live your life ruled by fear of the unlikely then you add to the whole problem of being governed by it. There are sensible precautions you can take. I don’t walk down narrow dark alleyways in the middle of the night or cut through rough parts of town on my own when no one else is about. You don’t need to carry a weapon all the time."

Four homes in my mother neighborhood have been burglarized in the last year. There have been several car jacking, 2 of which were violent within 2 miles of my house in the Last month. I live in a firmly suburban area above Atlanta. There are no dark alleys and the rough parts of town are the 2 or 3 bits of section 8 housing.

@Austin Lewis
"If you have to be admitted to any psychiatric institution, you are required to have this put on the record that NICS can access. Now, for the longest time, this was not done or barely ever done (in 2006 I believe it was, Arizona reported only 3 people admitted to such institutions, wherein common sense will tell you that it is more than that)"

Does this mean that everyone that is admitted have to be reported including those who voluntarily check in, and those who's parents put them in there to fix them from being not-straight(yes people do that) and those who's parents just think they're kids are unruly and want to 'fix' them...

Do you know in which circumstances they are reported, because there are certainly many types of crazy and a tiny fraction of them is dangerous to the public at large...

Anyways, if there is a law, then those institutions must report it.

@Ebonheart
"I love historical inacuracies. 2 Nazi generals in Hitlers inner circle where exactued by Hitlers orders for an attempted and failed assassination. Was quiet funny a table saved his life. Hitler political career started off in the Nazi party (It use to be a labor union) He reorganized it. He forceabily seized control, not this “vote” you silly people speak of."

Wasn't there like 18 known assassination attempts by his own people?
http://members.iinet.net.au/~gduncan/assassination_attempts.html

@NovaBlack

No one is arguing the causal link between massive trauma from a bullet wound and death.

There actually is an inverse correlative between legal guns and crime. The fewer legal guns, the higher the crime. [See: Washington D.C. circa 1980]

I can argue the opposite side of the inverse, but I don't think I really have to.

There is no causal relationship between guns and crime. Guns do not, cannot cause their trigger to be pulled.

Using firearms to defend a country that was, in it's infancy carved out and defended by the latest technology: Men on Horses with Swords™ is completely different than using guns to free yourself and your countrymen from an oppressive imperial force. Without guns, we'd all be English. Do you see how there might be a problem with perspective? And your wars were fought by soldiers, our revolution was fought by the people. There are some huge fundamental differences in our countries' cultures, and you're simply failing to recognize them because you've already decided that what works for the UK should obviously have to work for this offshoot country that violently opposed our government and culture.

" What about the UN or the G8? That’s a bunch of nations all commenting on one another…"

The UN or the G8 hasn't demonstrated a lack of understanding of American culture and politic in the face of an appeal from someone who has first-hand experience being an American.

"So you are happy with the violent society you have? Wouldn’t you like to try and have a something, I dunno… BETTER?"

No, I'm not at all happy with the violent society we have. That's why I'd like to allow law-abiding citizens to defend themselves. I'm going to spell it out for you all one more time.


THE CRIMINALS WILL ALWAYS HAVE GUNS. IN PLACES WHERE PRIVATE FIREARM OWNERSHIP IS BANNED, CRIMINALS PROSPER AND VIOLENT CRIME RISES. IN PLACES WHERE SUCH BANS ARE NOT ISSUED, DRAMATIC INCREASES IN VIOLENT CRIME DO NOT OCCUR.

How can it get any clearer than that?

It is easier to ignore a volume of comments with a sweeping generalization that may or may not make sense according to the facts, than trying to actually argue a point that's a lost cause.

In fact, heres my argument boiled down to the gristle:

Because banning guns in the united states has resulted in each and every case a dramatic increase in violent crimes, we should not ban guns.

Argue that. Keep in mind that WHY this statistical correlation occurs is irrelevant, just that it does occur every time. I've even attempted multiple times to explain why, even though that's not necessary for the integrity of my argument. When you can explain why we should ban guns (or regulate them, if you're mincing words) even though it makes our violent crime rise, I'll yeild to your awesome logical prowress.

Actually Stripe, this discussion has degenerated so I'm fed up of continuing it.

I think however in closing that this exchange between me and you sums up nicely your opinions:-

Chuma said: “You clearly seem to think that all criminals have guns and are out to kill people and your only line of defense is to have a gun. ”

TheStripe said: “This is true.”

And hopefully anyone reading will feel the same way I do about that sentiment.

"Good job bowing out before the dance is over."

It's no fun dancing with someone with 2 left feet. Consider me out too.

@chuma
"Some of you really don’t understand what Correlation and Causation means. This is something I had hoped EVERYONE woudl have learned from Jack Thompson’s own ignorance of the two, but apparently not.
Correlation is merely that two events increase and decrease with one another. They can be completely independant events but happen to do this.
Causation is where one event CAUSES the other event to occur and thus the increase in one CAUSES the increase in another."

Yes, I know, and if you actually read my posts, then you will notice that I have never claimed otherwise, in fact I said exactly this...

Though correlations should still be stated because they do have some scientific value, but they certainly aren't proof...

@chuma
"Let’s take Novablacks very fine example of Correlation. Shark attacks go up as Icecream sales go up. Does that mean the presence of icecream causes sharks to go mad? NO. What happens is that the SUN comes out in the summer, people go to the beach, swim lots and eat icecream. More swimmers and warmer seas brings in sharks. Warmer weather also means that people enjoy cooling down with an icecream."

The reason I got a bit mad at that statement wasn't because it was incorrect, but because I was saying exactly that, and the one time I admitted that correlations have scientific value he tried to make me look like an ignorant person by stating that which I have said through most of my posts...

Which is why my first response to this was, Thank you for explaining MY point to me...

@chuma
"What Novablack is saying with regards to guns and shootings is true. It is a causal link. If noone in the US had guns at all, even criminals, there would be no shootings because there is nothing to shoot bullets with. The presense of guns means there is more shootings. That is causal. Period."

I have agreed through this whole discussion that guns have a causal relationship with shooting guns... which I have argued is neither here nor there in terms of whether or not to control them or not, cause 99.9999% of the time they aren't fired to kill people(if the statistic above by illspirit is accurate...)

However Novablack(see my last response to him) argued about guns having a causal relationship with violence(even when not related to guns). That is simply not true and an insane assumption if the facts are reviewed....

@chuma
"Please try and understand and learn the difference. This doesn’t have to change your viewpoint if you feel you want guns so badly for other reasons, but don’t argue from ignorance."

Please read my posts carefully as you seem to have misunderstood them...


@chuma
"Some of you would like to argue that if EVERYONE had guns, they would cancel each other out."

They wouldn't cancel each other out, but if it is only criminals vs everyone, then the everyone option is by far the better one.


@chuma
"I’ll throw out my argument here in all it’s glory. You can disagree with it if you want, but I’m not about to change my position for the reasons given below:-
1.Criminals are seldom out to kill people for killing sake.
2.These are usually psychopaths or gang members."

1. I have agreed with this the whole time, I have merely stated that there are still many that do kill, and if there are witnesses, they prefer to not have them around any more...
2. Which still number in at least hundreds of thousands...

@chuma
"If we set these people aside because they are going to try and get hold of weapons anyhow, and concentrate on other crimes that can lead to murder like theft, muggings and burglery.
1.If they encounter the person who owns the property with no weapons, then they can try to intimidate or attack the civilian in order to get the posessions, but runs the risk of being outmuscled."

1. In such a fighting match, the civilians has the risk of being seriously injured and would have had far better chance with some sort of a weapon against the unarmed criminal. In fact like in 85% of the times when a gun is used for self defense, it is likely that merely seeing a gun in the hands of a civilian would make this criminal escape...

@chuma
"2.If they take a knife they can usually intimidate people into submission that way. It is a close-range weapon however, but most right-minded people wont want to risk being stabbed for the sake of an item or money. "

2. Many burglaries occur in poor neighborhoods, so the money that a criminal steals may mean that you and your children will not eat for a while... Which means defending yourself is often(please don't start saying that I said always because often means many times it doesn't even mean most times) a better option, but you are correct, most unarmed civilians will simply let the criminal take what he wants. Then there is a chance that the criminal doesn't like witnesses, which is not very high but higher then you seem to believe it to be. Also if the civilians had a weapon like a gun, the criminal would likely make a quick escape... or be one of the 15% of successful defenses were a civilian does shoot the criminal.

@chuma
"3.If the civilian has a knife too to make another stand off, the criminal has either a choice to attack them and stab them to get the goods or leave."

I agree, but if the civilian had a gun, then don't you think he would be better off in this scenario?

All of the last 3 options would have a better ending for a civilian with a gun... because these civilians could be killed without it, since as you point out in 2 of these, they do struggle with a criminal and in number 2 there is still some chance of them getting killed... and will mostly not be killed if they have a firearm...

@chuma
"4.Which leaves the criminal having a gun. Guns are distance weapons so pointing it at someone from across the room has the same threat as under their chin. Usually the sight of a gun will mean the civilian will give up their posessions. "

4. Ok, I also agree, but if the criminal was stupid enough to not wear a mask, he will not be very happy in letting a witness go free when he is done... also there is the chance that the civilian is frozen in fear of the burglar and doesn't respond to his commands to hand over his things(how does that usually end?) and there is a chance that the civilian goes after the gunman anyway, but without a weapon his chances aren't very good(unless he is in close range).

@chuma
"5.If the civilian has a gun however, what does it come down to? Ultimately it comes down to the will of the two people. If the criminal wants the posessions badly enough, their ONLY choice is to pull the trigger. The presence of the other gun has removed any other option. Of course there will also be times where if a civilian has a gun the criminal will decide not to chance it and run off."

5. I also agree, but why do you think this to be a far far worse option then 4? Most criminals are less trained in the use of guns then many civilians... also the chance of the criminal running off is much higher then you think...
The criminal has two problems, if he wins, then the cops will have been alerted and he will likely go to prison for a long time, maybe even get the death penalty... if the civilian wins, then he also doesn't do to well... Escape would be the best option for the criminal in this situation...
Also some criminals use fake guns which would make this a very short gun fight...

@chuma
"As I take it, the argument that others here are using is that if the criminal has a gun and the civilian doesn’t have one, they are likely to shoot them. I disagree with this position entirely. I believe having a gun puts any motivated criminal in a position to HAVE to kill to take posessions and thus increases the likelihood of murders taking place."

I have never argued this. NEVER.

and I agree about the increased chance of a struggle, though the chance of them succeeding in the murder is far far lower than it otherwise would be...

I have argued that there is a chance that the criminal doesn't like witnesses... also many home invasions are for the purpose of rape... so it may not be a deadly encounter but it may be one you want to be protected against...

@chuma
"Yes, my way will mean there might be more people who have stuff successfully stolen from them that police have to follow up. I personally think that is preferable to having more people shot and killed."

Where is the time when a civilian has a bat or a knife against a gun???
I would think this to have the highest casualty rate...

Also if fewer criminals die in robbery attempts then the number of robbers rises drastically, which would increase the number of deaths as well...

and if we don't count the gangbangers and drug lords, then the stats are on my side, since without them home invasions are ten times less likely here in the states then UK. Why its like criminals don't like getting shot at or something...
IF what you suggest is true and it is mostly civilians getting killed and submitting than we would have a far greater amount of home invasion wouldn't we?

I think that you are simply wrong on this point, the number of civilians that go uninjured and/or survive robberies and home invasions increases with guns even though there maybe a shoot out...

@chuma
"So there we go, thats my thoughts - have at them. I won’t bother to respond any more as I have said this as concisely as I can possibly say it and someone asserting “I will just shoot the criminal first” isn’t going to make me believe that you can’t be taken by surprise or beaten to the quick. But if you guys carry guns and are ever faced with a criminal with a gun, I wish you good luck. Personally, I will be handing over my wallet and trusting in the police. My life isn’t worth X amount of money."

I have already mentioned knowing a guy who went to the shooting range several times and then single handedly fought off 5 hardcore criminals two of which were convicted of murder before and while he was fine, only 3 criminals got out of the house, and one of them died from injuries later on... all the criminals were armed, not sure if they all had guns but several did... I admit that something like this is rare(only 5% of the 1 million successful defenses with a gun result with a dead criminal and not many of those have five criminals involved), but since only a local paper that no one reads reported that he had a gun, we wouldn't know even if this happened every day...

I would also like to mention that my friends and I were attacked once on the street by two guys with knifes, my friend had a concealed gun and he used it... We were ALL fine... a warning shot was more than enough... The criminals were arrested for attempted armed robbery and assault with a deadly weapon when the cops came... No one at all reported on that one...

That isn't how it will always happen but it happens far more than enough to justify owning a gun...

Good luck too you too, I hope you don't see the criminals face and that he isn't on drugs or something...

@chuma
"2) You assume that the criminal is willing to shoot another human being.

That assumption is made for the benefit of TheStripe and Shady8x who believe this to be the case for all criminals. Want proof? Scroll up!"

I HAVE NEVER CLAIMED THIS. EVER.

@chuma
""5) You make the faulty assumption that we’re only defending ourselves from murder."
If you aren’t defending yourself from just murder then you are at fault for using your weapon in the eyes of the law. So yes, I made the assumption you weren’t a criminal yourself…"

What if it's a few guys with bats that promise that they will only break a few bones???

By law you have the right to defend yourself with deadly force from any serious physical injury also you can defend your property and other people. Well the threat has to be imminent.

Wait it's illegal in GREAT Britain to protect yourself from being raped with a gun even if you passed the ridiculous checks for gun ownership and do own a gun!?!?!?!?!??!?!?!?!?!? is the same true for a knife?????
WOW, that explains a lot actually...

Change the constitution, then we'll talk.

@ Rhade

Thompson? This is GAMING!

Screw this guy. It's not games, but it's not guns either. It's PEOPLE!

And I have no intention of arguing with non-americans over the merits of the constitution. If you feel that guns should be controlled, that's no better than saying speech should be controlled. 1st and 2nd amendment ftw!

Make it easier for everyone to have a gun and Mutually Assured Destruction will eventually set in.

@ gweedo

Agreed.I mean look at Japan they don't have any guns (they are illegal!) and arguably they are much more technologically advanced than any other country.

Criminals will ALWAYS have weapons. There is no protection from intent either. So.. the best we can hope for is that an armed populace will deter criminal behavior. The statistics I've seen massively support this idea.

For those of you a little too dense to break from the 'Guns are Evil' paradigm...

Criminals will ALWAYS have weapons.
Criminals will ALWAYS have weapons.
Criminals will ALWAYS have weapons.

I guess.. we could always disarm and become a population of victims.

OH! And... take a look at some of these bizarre violent crimes... do some back reading on the perp... notice a trend? Psychotropic drugs.

Dare I ponder the effects of imperfect chemical interference within the brain?

some crimals may always have weapons but some college students wouldnt have guns if they couldnt buy them at walmart, and thats a fact.

wow some one is actually blaming the device that enable school shootings? for shame them.......... Gun control is a good thing.

It's not the fact that there are too many guns out there. It's that there aren't enough.

Alright, let's take a look at these major shootings. Most of them are in schools, at least one has been in a Post Office, there was at least one in a mall... These are all "Gun Free Zones," where it is illegal to carry a gun of any type. So, people are defenceless to react, and people will freeze up anyway. Solution? Let the people have concealed guns. The word of the day here is "Deterrance."

Ever wonder why the US never just nuked the USSR during the Cold War, or vice versa? If one launched nukes at the other, the other would respond in full force. The ever-famous "If I go down, I'm taking you with me" clause. In fact, there's a movie with a young Mathew Broderick called "Wargames" (maybe it's two words, I don't know) that brought up that very same topic.

Anyway, back to the point, these shootings take place in locations where people are overpowered by the presence of even a single gun. They know that, they know they can "get away" with it. Now, what if they knew there was opposition? What if they knew that if they pulled out their gun, they had a good chance of getting shot themselves? They'd be less likely. They'd be afraid.

Penn & Teller brought this up on an episode of their show "Bullshit!" where they used a very simple example. Penn's hypothetical law: give every woman a handgun. It's their choice to take it, and their own choice to carry it. In the end of this hypothetical situation, about 50% of the women would take, and carry, the pistol given to them. Now, if you were looking to rape a woman, and you know that there's a 50% chance she's packing heat, would you take the chance?

... But, hey, it's politics. It's all about playing the blame game, saying false statements that can't be held against you, and being way behind the majority of the public (for example, the majority of America now supports the Roe v. Wade decision, while lawmakers are still trying to oppose that).

Right, it all makes perfect sense! Ban guns, get rid of them! We don't need them! Before guns were invented, there was neither war nor murder! Mankind lived in peace and harmony.

@Rhade
I would much rather people have just intent, rather than intent and a loaded firearm.

@ Gweedo

Please enjoy being a slave to the state, a victim to criminals, and an unfit protector of your family. =D

@Shadowfox

My word sir, a bold statement! Be careful I can already see the shit storm brewing on the horizon.

As for the issue it is really easy to blame something like a gun when A) the act is so horrible it is almost unbelievable that the one person could be responsible, it makes it tolerable when you can say "It would not have happened if..." B) It fits your agenda (this is not say the guy is a JT level douche but he does have an agenda).

will, guns are bad...

There are a great many reasons why someone commits these acts.

There is no one solution that will prevent future events.

More/less gun availability, more/less censorship in any or all forms of media, more/less access to various specific religious beliefs, stronger/less strict punishment/security in or out of schools, better mental health services, better control over abuse (verbal, mental, physical, sexual) and how it is handled in society as well as in specific locations such as schools, and so on. It's difficult to focus on one solution for all situations but, frankly, those who do very much appear to be more interested in their own agendas than making things better.

If, however, we examine each situation and the complexity of those situations, we can see that some situations have more than one issue that needs to be addressed. Not simply for that specific case but for any future situations. And we have to be prepared for the fact that there are many situations which have a great many potential solutions. And not all situations will be solvable by the same solutions type of solution. And the solutions themselves may create their own problems as well. We must consider those facts as well.

Nightwng2000
NW2K Software

*Insert crude, yet obligatory Charlton Heston joke/comment/insult here*

You know, it's not like we can't get a gun if there banned. I, and I'm sure others here can to, can tell you that I know of several areas to go to get a quick, cheap gun for less cost than I would pay in a gun store. It's not like they are suddenly all gone if they get banned from the US. It's also stupid to say that shootings are a US phenomenon. Wasn't there a rather publicized school shooting in Finland a while back? I personally do not want to live somewhere where the government is the only protection available. These people do not grab a gun and just shoot people for shits and giggles. There is intent there. If they didn't have a gun, I could say that they would use a knife. It's quieter, cheaper, and has a better chance of getting a quick kill.

To say that a gun takes control of a person's mind and forces them to kill is just as stupid.

Why is no one addressing the state of mental health care?

Its not Guns, its BULLETS! You should restrict the sales of bullets.

Now seriously:

Everyone should have a gun? That would keep things peaceful? Come on! Does anyone with more than two neurons actually believe that? Was the Wild West a peaceful place?

Having guns everywhere will just have people itching to be the first to pull the trigger in fear of the next guy.

You should not let anyone have a gun, just like you shouldn't have anyone drive a car or perform brain surgery.

@omegaman

You have no idea what the Wild West was like, do you? There was LITTLE to NO law enforcement. The people had to take the law into their own hands or criminals would just roll over them. The guns were used not just to defend, but to hunt. If you came into bar, gun drawn, you would have a sawed-off shotgun in your face and a pistol at the back of your head, and you would be told to leave.

I love all these idiot rednecks hanging on to their guns for dear life at the mere mention of gun legislation.

Just remember: if you want to keep your guns, then stop crying over every school/mall/any other public place shooting. The victims of these shootings are paying the blood tax for your right to have a gun.

Me? I'm glad I can live in a country where the constitution isn't so rigid so that it can't adapt to different times, and I'm glad I can go outside and be confident that no one around me has a gun or any weapon they can harm me with. The state hasn't stripped away my right to have a gun (nb: the right to have a gun is ridiculous. There is no God-given right to possess any weapon, you idiot rednecks), rather, it has given every one of us the right to walk around free of fear of being shot. There are about 2 publicised shootings a year in the UK; there are about 2 a minute in the US.

Also, to Shadowfox: your theory that deterring the perpetrator of school-shootings by letting everyone carry concealed weapons and therefore the shooter will be too scared to open fire out of fear of getting killed has one major flaw: pretty much every perpetrator in school shootings across the world ended up killing themselves, so no, they weren't scared of dying because they knew they'd end up killing themselves anyway. Cho, Klebold, Harris, they were all premeditated suicides, they just wanted to prove a point by killing masses of people as they went down.

I'd hate to live in a country where everyone is so insecure that they feel they need to carry a gun everywhere they walk. If you can't see that this is problem then I pity you. Have fun living in fear, idiots.

@ Dark Sovereign
@ JQuilty

My point exactly. Now you have law enforcement and its up to them to uphold the law, not just anyone.

And "a sane, rational gun owner doesn’t reach for their gun in every situation", but a lot of hot headed people would, especially if they have all the reason to believe the other guy also has a gun.

I honestly think the gun control debate is a lost cause.

One side wants them all gone.

One side wants them to stay.

Neither will listen, so no solutions will ever be reached

We need tighter gun laws and no rhade, it's not giving up a civil liberty. The const amendments don't grant guns to everybody, but instead to a a well regulated militia. 3 Hints there are "well", "regulated", and "militia". Not whoever wants one in their home. Keeping guns well regulated, would mean less are able to get out on the streets to criminals. Sure criminals will always get weapons... but we don't need to make sure there is an abundant supply of guns for the petty criminal to become a gun toting criminal.

These shootings by mentally ill individuals may still happen, but then since most of these individuals were prior to their incident not criminals, maybe they wouldn't have gotten ahold of the arsenal of weapons they had. Maybe they would have, but making it more difficult would lower the numbers... as this person indicates, these incidents are less heard of outside the US.. in countries where it's more difficult for individuals to get access to firearms.

IMHO, you can keep your ultimate check/balance as long as you're in a well regulated militia... if not you shouldn't have access to a gun. It seems obvious that this amendment should be interpreted more strictly.

@ gweedo

Umm, the Constitution was crafted in 1789 and ratified not many years later

2008-1789 = 219 years NOT 500.

And shouldn't be amended? It's been amended 27 times, well 18 if you want to count the first 10 amendments as a group, which I think is fine
since they were all proposed and ratified at roughly the same time.

The debate today is this country is over the 2nd Amendment which says:

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

The issue is over whether that language gives INDIVIDUALS the right to keep and bear arms or whether it applies to the militias only. If you care to weigh in on your interpretation, please do.

The interesting thing is that if you look at the statistics, the U.S. actually hasn't had an uptick in school shootings...they are merely being reported to a much greater extent. There has been a minor increase but listening to the media you'd think we had one every week.

Now I am in favor of gun control, guns should be one of, if not the most difficult items to legally obtain. Background checks, criminal history, waiting periods, drug testing, etc...

That being said, a wholesale ban is not the answer. As plenty of people have pointed out, the criminals aren't going to care about a ban. In most cases they are already banned...they get them anyway and they always will.

Oh and gweedo, plenty of people believe the Constitution SHOULD be amended, whether it be over gay marriage, gun control, allowing people born outside the US to be president or what have you.

The issue is that the Constitution itself makes it very difficult to amend. You need the approval of 3/4's of the states (38 out of 50).

I think that's a good thing, it means that the Constitution is difficult to alter based on a "fad" or "political trend" and ensures long term stability. It would be very bad, VERY bad if the Constitution could be changed on a mere whim. It would basically become completely useless since it could be easily "amended" out of existence, Bill of Rights and all.

There is also the issue in the United States of Federalism, which is not common in Europe or elsewhere. In the United States the States are sovereign from the Federal government with their own powers. The Federal Government is not generally permitted to override the States in certain matters.

While state sovereignty has eroded over time it is still an important concept. Each state is permitted to set its own regulations for what goes on inside its borders. Generally, the Feds can step in at the point something crosses state lines. So the Feds can regulate INTERSTATE gun issues, but not those issues that remain wholly inside a state.

@las, attorney
For future reference, you will find name-calling does not improve your position in any intelligent debate.

I will do my best not to associate your ignorance with the rest of the people of your country, despite the fact you have utterly failed to know the difference between "red-necks" and "pro-gun" citizens.

"If you feel that guns should be controlled, that’s no better than saying speech should be controlled. 1st and 2nd amendment ftw!"

Really? Are you really stupid enough to believe that? What if I replaced "gun" with another type of weapon?


If you feel that grenade launchers should be controlled, that’s no better than saying speech should be controlled.

If you feel that ground to air missiles should be controlled, that’s no better than saying speech should be controlled.

If you feel that nuclear bombs should be controlled, that’s no better than saying speech should be controlled.



Where does it end? Where do you draw the line at what type of weapon is too far? Guns are made for the sole purpose of hurting or killing. They have no other function.



"Criminals will ALWAYS have weapons"

Maybe so, but a person trying to go on a stabbing spree with a knife is going to hurt a lot less people than someone on a shooting spree.

I think perhaps you Americans have a skewed idea of how easy it is to get a gun elsewhere, just because you find it so easy to get them. Perhaps highly organized crime will always be able to get guns, but how often do you have a run in with the mob? Strict gun laws mean that any random criminal from the street can't just get whatever they want, which means that regular people don't need guns to defend themselves either.

Finally, to any American touting that having guns keeps your government in check: Are you kidding me? Your government does whatever it wants and you let it. You have plenty of guns right now and I don't see anyone doing anything. I'm pretty sure they could take away all your rights BUT the right to bear arms, and so long as you had your guns you probably wouldn't mind that you were no longer allowed to express ideas. Even if you did get upset, the government would probably just mention something about terrorism and that safety has a price, and it'd calm you all down.

@zerodash

exactly. the gun is just a tool for what they do, you can wipe guns off the face of the earth but you are not going to get rid of the true problem which i believe is the living enviorment these people who do these sort of things are facing. most of these people are or have been bullied, alienated and told their worthless by their peers and society itself for the most part. i dont think they seem to care about what or how they can express or act out, i think the only thing they care about is that they do it and get it done by any means necessary instead of holding it in and letting their inner and external tormenting continue.

while a gun may be the most efficent way to kill and/or kill amount-wise, i think that saying the number of people killed in these incidents is what matters makes no sense. it doesnt matter if its one person or 100 people that are killed, both are equally tragic no more and no less. we shouldnt be looking to make the number lower, we should be looking to making it not exist. we should be tackling the question of why these people act out in violence instead of going after the tools they use to do it with. if they have no reason to kill i doubt they would do it. blaming guns and video games and saying that they are the judge and jury of their logic and reasoning is just downright stupid and annoying. when someone kills another human being, they have a much more complex motivation than video games or easy access to guns.

Let me also say this:

Why are we comparing the US to the UK?

The 2006 population of the UK is about 60,000,000

The population of the U.S. recently topped 300,000,000

That's A LOT more people. The land area is also incredibly more.

You're comparing two very different demographic societies. It simply isn't appropriate from a numbers standpoint to make that comparison. You need to find a similar culture with a similar population to compare (maybe Western Europe as a whole? I'm not sure)

@ Ias Attorney

Do you have a link or report to back up that 2 a minute number? I don't doubt there are more, far more, gun crimes in the US but that sounds high to me.

"We need tighter gun laws and no rhade, it’s not giving up a civil liberty."

Read it again.... -_-

I only said that we should consider what the US Government would do if we didn't have a means to overthrow them. Right now we do, and they are chipping away at our rights regardless.

Not bad. Kids can't shoot without a gun.

Guns, while not directly at fault, are obviously closer to the problem than games. Guns don't kill people, true, but people will have a tougher time killing without them.

Guns are like cars:
Incrediblly Useful,
Incrediblly Powerful
Incrediblly Dangerous.

Yet no one complains about Traffic Control. But Gun control doesn't violate the constitution any more than stop signs.

@Las

Just because you see the problem being guns does not make it fact. There are deeper problems than legal ownership of guns. Owning a gun and/or owning a violent video game does not a killer make. I own a handgun for several reasons (Zombies!), and I have taken all necessary precautions to secure my weapon, have the proper license to carry it in public, and it is registered with the local police department.

The illegal trade of firearms that is part of the problem, but past that is the socio-economic situation and a culture that is fine with showing extreme violence on TV but shudders at the thought of nudity. Our puritanical leanings have created a sense of paranoia and righteousness in people that carries with it a tendency to condemn based on a limited set of evidence and execute immediately afterwards. This is not however limited to just our country, as violence across the world is much more prevalent than in our country.

Bah anyway I gotta get back to work.

I think we need to make a distinction between "legal ownership" of guns and a "gun ban."

Obviously, everyone wants to keep guns out of the hands of criminals. This is why I think we need incredibly tight gun control, but not a wholesale ban. Banning simply won't work, the criminals will still get the guns if they really want them.

But, restricting legal ownership might keep them out of the hands of the dangerously pychotic. Simply put, if you have committed a violent crime - no gun for you.

Increase the background checks, require mandatory drug testing, mandatory mental health evaluation. Sell them only at state licensed stores that can be tracked (No more gun shows), require waiting periods etc...

If you want anything more than a pea-shooter you should have to jump through some serious hoops

@Rhade

None of that surprises me.

Grenade launchers, Surface to Air missles, and nuclear weapons are already controlled, but not by any law. These weapons aren't something the citizen should fear falling into the hands of criminals because they can't afford them. Your argument is silly.

Wow, this thread is moving fast.

@nightstalker160

You've had a lot of good posts, and I agree with most it. Kudos!

The language of the 2nd is open for interpretation, which is what makes the Constitution so workable as a blueprint. Does it literally mean "militias," or does it mean individuals? You have to remember at the time it was drafted, the social climate was very different. Everyone had a gun, EVERYONE. It's how people lived, and survived, in an untamed land. Militias also weren't the same as they are today. Back then, a militia both meant State-run organizations, AND individually-run groups of landowners. So which did the founding fathers mean? Or did they mean both?

Personally, I think they expected for every American to be allowed to carry a gun if they chose.

@ Rhade

And why haven't they? Did they happen to change their minds all of a sudden, or did your government stop them? And if your government stopped them, then how did having guns help them at all?

@ Are'el

"Does it literally mean “militias,” or does it mean individuals?"

That's about to be put to bed this year. The Supremems have already heard arguments for it and even the news media thinks they are all leaning towards "individuals".

@ Dark Sovereign
I'm afraid that's the whole problem with your society (or at least part). You live in fear. You should be calling out for better conditions and a more peaceful environment, not more guns. As for your depiction of an encounter with an armed criminal: that seems optimistic at best. I very much doubt things would turn out that way.

As for JQuilty's point that crime rates went down after legalizing concealed carry, I really do not have enough information to to go into that debate, although I could argue that there might be other factors. But note that I'm not defending that people should be prohibited of carrying guns. I'm just saying that tight, efficient controls are necessary.

@Novablack - "i really cant understand why people cant see the CAUSAL link between guns and shootings."

Because there isn't one.

MRK Says: No. I chose not to refute your points since you obviously have a bias against American gun owners. Why speak with someone who peppers their debate with insults and cannot keep an open mind?

First of all, I'll stop insulting people when they stop calling the country and my views backwards and saying the UK is wrong for banning guns and saying we have no rights.

Secondly, I do have an open mind, it is just I haven't heard a decent argument yet against gun control.

@las

You think I'm an idiot redneck for actually *liking* my right to bear arms in defense of my home and family? You honestly believe that I'm a moron for wanting them safe? That I'm insecure about it? You may be right on that last point. But you know what? It doesn't bloody matter. if you're not willing to step up to the plate and defend yourself, but rather, you're gonna stand there and yell for someone to call the police while someone shivs you in the bollocks, in my mind, your Darwin Award is well-earned. Me, I'll take the gun, and the dead bad guy, over detached genitals any day of the week.

@omegaman
And if everyone else has a gun, that guy is going to get his just desserts for being a hotheaded pillock. And if he doesn't, you know what happens? He gets charged with reckless endangerment (at the very least), and becomes a felon. At which point, he's no longer legally allowed to carry a firearm.

Just to clarify before I check out, I am for gun control laws. I beleive that people should have background checks and waiting periods, and so on. But I'm against most forms of "increased" gun laws, until such time as they can actually enforce the ones they already have.

As for complete banning of guns, no way. Then the deer and the zombies will have won. Mostly the deer.

@omegaman

Then I'm calling for more guns, which would make a more peaceful environment. Besides, it's not like we'll stop being scared if nobody but governments have guns. People kill people. Always have, always will.

@Rhade, and those underground militias if well regulated would be allowed to have guns. Just not any individual by themselves, such as that walmart shopper mentioned earlier. I'd say the militia can buy guns and keep them and distribute to their members so if they wish to overthrow the gov for whatever reasons (like big brother fears or whatever)... then that militia can.

Your reasons still fit nicely inside what I said. Militia can have guns, but not individuals. Gun control laws to limit who can buy would limit the number of guns just floating about, finding ways into dangerous individuals.

And @Dark Sovereign, Thanks for rewriting the 2nd amendment on here... I still don't read it as saying that individuals who are not in well regulated militias should be allowed guns. It says that the people who make up those militias that protect our status as a free state can have guns... as they need guns to keep King George away from taxing me unfairly (ha, I was saying that as the actual KG back in colonial america.. but I guess it works w/ our current pres too). Militias are not the police, the police are gov funded and thus gov controlled... a militia made to protect our civil liberties should not be controlled by the government it is to protect us from. But by the people. Thus if you want to start a militia, and be armed to be able to keep your free state... then more power to you. But without being part of a militia that has it's own rules and regulations you're just a person with a gun... and are a potential danger (should you get all messed up in the head, god forbid)

@ IllegallyMindedJohn;

So your definition of a "well regulated militia" is what? Any group of people that joins together with a set of rules and calls themselves a militia?

So basically...a gun club? Your argument has no legs there, if you did that then any individual who wanted to own a gun would simply join one of these "militias."

Let's not kid ourselves, the "militia" that would be covered would be the state or federal government authorized militia or in other words The National Guard (which is the modern equivalent of the old State Militias).

Here, if you guys hate guns so much, try getting a gun-free zone!

http://youtube.com/watch?v=C0vyxgJLJVA

Try it now! It works!

/sarcasm

@ AreYouGuysForReal

Actually, believe it or not, there are no laws against owning "nuclear weapons" or "grenade launchers."

There are however many laws against owning "explosives," "radioactive material" and other components necessary to such weapons.

As many people will tell you, "gun-control" is one thing "gun banning" is another. I am wholeheartedly for the former, but not for the latter. Unfortunately, many (on both sides) equate the two.

This is quickly turning into a pissing contest of "my country is superior to your country because of..." I'm in favor of the 2nd Amendment. It is my right, as an American citizen, to bear a firearm if I so choose.

I'm still not clear on the logic behind people thinking crime would go down if we placed a ban on guns. I doubt most criminals walking our streets today, who actually do carry guns, went and purchased them from Walmart or other such shop. From another criminal or maybe a black market dealer maybe because then it can't really be traced back to them.

chadachada Says: [unfunny skit proves that gun-control causes communism]

anyone who cites Faux News and actually thinks they're right is a fool.

Also, that video's argument has more holes in it that a truck load of swiss cheese.

chadachada

"To your other point, yes, I am afraid of being attacked by someone. I won’t just stand by and let someone (including myself) by raped, assaulted, robbed, murdered, or hurt, which is why us law-abiding citizens need something with which to protect ourselves. Call it American dignity, but it’s not right to stand by and let others be hurt, or to let myself get hurt/run away. We stand, and we fight for whats right."

Actually, usually when you see these gun crimes is is accompanied by people running for their lives, not people tackling them. This is the appropriate response to someone with a gun - you take evasive action. There is nothing dignified in getting shot in the head for trying to be a hero.

And you law-abiding citizens HAVE something to protect yourselves. It is called a policeforce. Use it.

@Jeff

The black market is a little easier to deal with.

Chuma:

"Property defense is not valid in my opinion as that is why we have a police department. It is probably the enpowerment in having a gun than makes people confront criminals and gets them killed."

After reading this debate, this is one point where I have to stand up and disagree. Until fairly recently, in the state of Michigan, if someone illegally entered your home you were required by law to attempt to flee as opposed to defending your property or the safety of those within.

Only if a "significant" threat was displayed against you could you legally resort to violence. Fortunately, this law has been changed and now if someone illegally enters your home, you do have a legal recourse. Kill them. Yes, shoot them, stab them, beat them with a wiffle bat, do whatever you like but in the end you finally have the States approval to defend yourself, your property and your family without having to ask the criminal what his intentions are first.

Oh, an interesting fact for those of you talking about the black market for weapons and it being a reason not to create a ban as guns are easy for crinimals to get hold of...

"According to Americans for Gun Safety (December 2002) ... Based on FBI data, nearly 1.7 million guns have been reported stolen in the past ten years, and only 40% of those were recovered. The missing guns, over 80% of which are taken from homes or cars, most likely fuel the black market for criminals."

@ nighstalker160

Semantics, a law against "radioactive material" effectively is a law against a nuclear bomb, so my point still stands.

I have no problems with people living in the country having appropriate firearms, for obvious reasons. Nor do I have any problems with people who enjoy taking a gun to the firing range.

I don't however, see the need for guns to be in the hands of every regular person, as so many rednecks seem to advocate. If criminals don't have guns, I don't see what Joe Citizen needs a gun in his closet for. I mean I don't mind people who enjoy archery having a bow and arrow, but I wouldn't go advocating that everyone should own one of those either.

@Dark Sovereign

Right on!

@las, attorney

Your views are your own and I hold the right to disagree. And that skit was a comical skit poking fun, trying to be funny, jeeze. And you ...so sad ...so very sad...that is all I have to say to you.

@chadachada

You rock sir.

Wait, wait, wait - but country does have a bigger dick than yours! Honest! Here, I'll prove it to you with a wall of text..."

YAWN

"These people are not born into gun crime. At some point they were innocent of gun crime and then picked up a gun and shot it. Your words seem to imply that organized criminals are some how a different species."

Bullshit. I'm saying that gun violence doesn't start when someone thinks "I'm gonna go shoot someone today." It happens when criminals get in a tight spot and try to shoot their way out.

Remember, the police can't stop the crime, they can only pick up the pieces. So if you're okay with the cop drawing a white line around your corpse rather than driving off a criminal yourself because you're armed, have fun.

"Actually in the US gun crime is still at a stage where 80 people die a day to gun crime compared with less than 1 a day in the UK. Our populations are 5:1 so can you explain the disparity between those figures if ‘gun control doesn’t work because criminals can still get hold of guns’?"

Because those guns are in most cases as evidenced by miles and miles of court documents are already illegal, and as I said before, used in multiple shootings usually with multiple shooters. Also, comparing rates now in the US to rates now in the UK isn't at all what I was trying to prove. Compare rates in the US now to rates in the US in 1985-89. Comparing the US to the UK is kind of moot; you guys are used to living in a nanny state.

"I challenge you to find the statistics for gun ownership and compare it to those who profess to hunting or sport."

I'll guarantee you that far more than 1% of gun owners are going to SAY they own their gun for hunting or sport. If someone does in fact own a gun so they can go out and mow down dozens of innocent citizens, they're going to tell you they're a hunter or a sport shooter.

@ AreYouGuysForReal

You're right it is semantics, but in the law semantics are very important. But you asked if there were laws against "nuclear weapons" specifically and there aren't. You're point does not still stand because you said that if the government banned certain weapons, they had to ban them all.

They have NOT banned certain weapons because of that very reason. They don't want to "ban" guns so they don't "ban" any "weapons" specifically, they regulate necessary components of those weapons to as to create a de facts, but not a de jure ban.

And I have never heard anyone advocate for everyone to HAVE a gun. What I have heard is advocacy of the RIGHT for everyone to have a gun. Now that is a flawed argument and I think those people are going too far and perhaps not thinking, I doubt they'd want convicted murders or psychotics to have guns. I think they are making hyperbolic arguments to make a point and ignoring some of the details (which is a perfectly legitimate argument scheme...sort of an unspoke "with logical exceptions.")

Also, be careful about the use of the word "Redneck" for many people it carries an implied accusation of "racism." It's a charged word, more so than many realize given its common use.

nighstalker160:

"Take evasive action from what? The bullet. This isn’t Rambo or the Matrix, you try dodging a bullet and tell me if it works."

...And this isn't a Police Drama either where every bullet fired finds its target. If you stay low with cover and run away you are more likely to miss being hit. A moving target is difficult to hit, and if you are in a crowded place, you have more chance that way than being the lone hero standing tall with your gun returning fire. You shoot at a criminal, YOU become the sole target of ALL the bullets he fires until one of you is dead. I don't like those odds, especially when he probably has more experience shooting than I do.

As for the rest, yes with a police force you have to let them catch someone after the fact, but that is life. However, you know what? I don't live every day of my life assuming I am going to be the victim of crime. And you know what? So far I've been right. Know what else? The one day I am not right will be the exception and chances are I will not only survive it, but not have had my life threatened, just some of my posessions stolen.

Peanut*

@Hawkeye - good one.

Another: Better to be judged by twelve than carried by six.

Jeff:

"Granted, I managed to escape from the person assaulting me, and THEN called the cops. But I wonder, if the person who attacked me had been carrying a weapon. ANY weapon. Would I have actually been able to get away and be able to make that call? Probably not. If, at that time, I had a firearm with which to protect myself then it would’ve been a moot point."

But he DIDN'T have a gun, so what is your point here exactly? That if you had have had a gun on you everything would have been okay? He attacks you, you shoot him with a gun. Suddenly you are the criminal not him. He might get done for assault but you would be done for attempted murder, or worse still you kill him, then what?

You got beaten up. It happens and I hope the person who did it was found, charged and imprisoned, but I fail to see how that helps an argument for gun ownership.

Noone said the police can be everywhere at once, or even that they can PREVENT you from being the victim of a crime but they CAN help you get justice. Enacting your own justice on a criminal is vigilante.

@TheStripe: What are they coming at me with? Taser beats knife. And if they're coming at me with a gun, and they're going to shoot me before I can fire a taser back, then they're also going to shoot me before I can pull a gun on them.

@ Jeff

But the point is, with stricter gun laws the other criminal wouldn't have a gun to sell them. Neither would the guy selling guns from the trunk of his car, mentioned earlier in the thread. You're never going to be able to keep them out of the hands of all criminals, but it stops the common street criminal from easily accessing a gun, and I'm certain that common "thugs" account for a much larger quantity of crime than the highly organized criminals.

@ TheStripe

Of course my argument wasn't 100% realistic, I certainly didn't spend hours before posting trying to craft some sort of essay. I was merely upping the scale of the armaments to illustrate a general point. It seems I failed, and that my point got lost in my long winded analogy. I'll try to make it more concise:

Criminals of some variety will always be able access more powerful weapons than members of the general public. Giving everyone access to these weapons is not a solution. It merely means that current and potential criminals who would have been weaponless before now have easy access to a weapon, and criminals who would have used guns before when the public was unarmed, now have to up the ante of their weapons maintain an advantage.

Kids shooting kids. Take the gun out of the equation and it's just kids. I don't know where the confusion lies. However, I don't beleive that regulation is neccisarily the answer. Parental education would be a nice start.

The fact is, while a videogame in and of itself is incapable of assisting in a murder (aside from using it as a blunt object), a gun provides an easy to use and immediate option. There's no arguing that guns are dangerous, but making them mysterious is a problem.

Just as with drugs, education about guns could provide a huge boost. Though, education in any real issues in schools these days would be boss.

Azzedar:

"Until fairly recently, in the state of Michigan, if someone illegally entered your home you were required by law to attempt to flee as opposed to defending your property or the safety of those within.

Only if a “significant” threat was displayed against you could you legally resort to violence. Fortunately, this law has been changed and now if someone illegally enters your home, you do have a legal recourse. Kill them. Yes, shoot them, stab them, beat them with a wiffle bat, do whatever you like but in the end you finally have the States approval to defend yourself, your property and your family without having to ask the criminal what his intentions are first."

It's a sad day when a State gives someone the right to kill another when they are on their property. This law is ripe for abuse (I'll just invite in this person I don't like, kill him and then claim he was robbing me) and is utterly immoral. I fail to see how anyone who shoots someone who is not threatening their lives is any less of a criminal as the next potential murderer.

"Just as with drugs, education about guns could provide a huge boost. "

Truest thing said yet.

@chuma

But he DIDN’T have a gun, so what is your point here exactly? That if you had have had a gun on you everything would have been okay? He attacks you, you shoot him with a gun. Suddenly you are the criminal not him. He might get done for assault but you would be done for attempted murder, or worse still you kill him, then what?

You missed the point entirely by somewhat misquoting what I said. You're right, he DIDN'T have a gun. Now go back and re-read my post. Done? Now I seem to recall asking you what I would've had to do in that situation if HE DID HAVE A GUN. Big key there is an if. Would I have shot him if he didn't have a gun? No. But if I had a gun on me and he was also carrying a weapon then I'd have to say it's highly unreasonable to say that I shouldn't protect myself and my life.

The argument here is not whether I would have shot him regardless if he was carrying a weapon. I was VERY fortunate that he wasn't. If he was though, then I doubt I'd be here to be able to enjoy this discussion we're having right now. If he had a weapon and I had gun, however, you can damn well bet that I would've protected myself to assure my survival.

@chachada

Is that "abuse" or "mistake"? With tasers, the cops use them to subdue people who are only putting up verbal resistance. With guns, the perp usually has a weapon and the perp is usually warned to put it down before firing.

nighstalker160:

Not a clue as to the Michigan law I'm afraid. It was a response to Azzedar and I was taking his comments at face value, i.e. that he knows more about his state laws than I do. He might be able to point you at the right one though. If you find it, I wouldn't mind a read too if you would mind posting the link? Ta.

@chuma

You're preaching just as much as I am.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but school shootings have become a problem in fairly recent years. We've always had the 2nd Amendment right to bear arms, yet these mass shootings are a fairly recent trend. While there is no doubt that firearms make it easier for these psychos to kill people, guns aren't the problem here. There must be something else. But what?

I do think that there must be some restriction on guns. No one needs an automatic rifle to defend his home against intruders. But, again, guns are not to blame for these incidents.

@GruntyThirst713

"No one needs an automatic rifle to defend his home against intruders" Then let's go back to above: why would you pay the money for an assault rife just to defend your home? I've heard that AK's can be purchased for $23, so I guess there's that.

@AYGFR

But the point is, with stricter gun laws the other criminal wouldn’t have a gun to sell them. Neither would the guy selling guns from the trunk of his car, mentioned earlier in the thread. You’re never going to be able to keep them out of the hands of all criminals, but it stops the common street criminal from easily accessing a gun, and I’m certain that common “thugs” account for a much larger quantity of crime than the highly organized criminals.

That's high naive. For one, if a common thug wants a fire arm there will be connections. These "organized criminals" could, and most likely already DO, sell guns to the common thug. A stricter gun law isn't going to prevent people from getting guns. If they're banned from stores like Walmart, Target, or pawn shops, etc. it won't change a thing because they'll still be available elsewhere. I doubt an organized crime syndicate is going to go into Walmart to buy their guns. Ever seen the movie Lord of War? Arms dealers are everywhere and crime syndicates will purchase guns from foreign countries, arms dealers, etc. These firearms will, eventually, regardless of any stricter (which I'd support but not an outright BAN) gun laws, filter down into the hands of your common street thug.

Paranoia? Maybe. But I prefer to expect things than take the "It'll never happen to me." route.

Alright, AK-47's apparently are $200-$400 dollars. So the rumor was wrong.

@ TheStripe

You just made my point for me. Most criminals just use the same weapons that any old citizen can get. This is because most criminals ARE any old citizen. Most criminals are not part of a highly organized crime syndicate, nor do they have contacts in the black market. The criminals who do are of a much higher level and will always be able to get a gun. Your garden variety "thug" on the other hand just gets them from the shady guy selling from his car.

Now here's the secret: this shady guy isn't some high level criminal either. If guns weren't so easy to get, this guy wouldn't be selling them, and the common street criminal simply wouldn't have them.

@ Dark Sovereign

AK-47's are that amount at market. But what are they on the street? If some guy is trying to sell one to get his crack fix, he's gonna charge less.

But yes, on the market you're looking at around $400.

@ Chuma

You frame your argument in such a way that I'm having a hard time deciding on whether or not you're trolling.

"assuming you are a person of sound mind and body in all of this and as such do no holster your gun in your trousers"

Sane holster locations include?

"Now, if the criminal threatens you with a gun, how are you going to get your gun load it, cock it point it at them and (maybe) shoot without risking them just pulling the trigger?"

Just assuming there weren't several problems with this senario... You seem to think that because someone has a weapon, they have absolutely no other choice but to some how employ it in every dangerous situation.

"So basically unless you are breaking the law on a consistant basis with a gun on your person in easy access and/or you are willing to shoot first, then I fail to see how it helps your cause. Infact I would say it only serves to either endanger you further, or make you the murderer."

... Don't even know where to start..

Azzedar:

"So lets make this clear… drunk passed out on the lawn = don’t shoot. Unknown person kicking down your door = open fire."

I think your view is abhorrant. The idea of deliberately killing someone for kicking down a door is justifiable in ANYONES moral view is shocking to me. Imagine it was the police kicking down the door and you shoot first and ask questions later. Imagine it was someone scared for their own lives running from someone who was desperate to get into a house. Imagine it was a neighbours kids who were just out to steal some drink.

"So lets it be said, if my wife and I are home one night, and someone breaks into my HOME, I will kill them.

I WILL NOT wait to see what their intentions are.

I WILL NOT hope they take a few things and leave.

And when all is said and done I will face any repercussions for my actions, be it from the Law or the Lord. This may not be the choice for everyone, but it certainly is mine."

Then you acknowledge that you are breaking the law and choose to be a criminal and a murderer. At this point I see little difference between what you say you would do and any other gun crime and think you shouldn't ever be allowed to own a gun as you are too irresponsible. I also wonder if when you pull that trigger you think about how your wife feels to have her husband locked up or executed by the State or how your kids will feel at school when the other kids ask them where their daddy is.

I knew this was going to be a Crab-Fight before I even opened the topic ;)

@ Azzedar

I have to say I think you're going a little far here.

Simply shooting is probably not the way to go. Now pointing the gun is one thing, but I would say wait to pull the trigger. It's completely possible the guy throws his hands up and either does whatever you want or simply turns and runs.

Now if the guy keeps coming at you, or grabs some kind of weapon that's a different story.

@Rhade

Alright then, go back to the other point, if the criminal is buying from the back of the car for more than he would pay elsewhere, he will go elsewhere. If prices are universally high, that's one thing, but saying that it's easier to get a gun from a car than the car guy's source is absurd if the car guy's source is cheaper.

@ GoodRobot

I gotta say, having gotten into this debate on other boards, this is by far the most respectful I've ever seen this debate.

It usually breaks down long before this into accusations of fascism, comparisons to Hitler and worse, so far the worst I've seen is Redneck.

Dark Sovereign:

Save your breath - The moment you started swearing and abusing me I stopped caring what you had to say. My last response to you says all I need to.

@chuma

Started, then stopped. If you're going to accuse me of "preaching", then stop repeating the same argument over and over again.

@All

So can we agree that we all want background checks? I would further suggest that we could agree that mental health evaluations are in order, and that these results be put on record. Could that be agreed on?

That would because I posted the wrong damn link! ARGG!!

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/04/14/campus.guns/index.html

That's the "appropriate link" Although the waterboarding story is, IMO hilarious:

"See how hard Chad is fighting for air!? That's how hard I want you to fight to make the sale!"

"So can we agree that we all want background checks?"

I'm down for that.

"I would further suggest that we could agree that mental health evaluations are in order, and that these results be put on record. Could that be agreed on?"

No.

@Rhade

Reasons?

@Dark Sovereign

So can we agree that we all want background checks? I would further suggest that we could agree that mental health evaluations are in order, and that these results be put on record. Could that be agreed on?

If there were a solution to the issue of gun control, without infringing on First Amendment rights, this would most likely be it. Make it virtually impossible for someone with a record or mental issue to get a gun by due process. If a person with a record and of sound mind were to go through the same process then I don't see why they should be prohibited from purchasing a firearm.

We are in agreement you and I.

@Rhade

The point is, if somebody is going to shoot you, they will shoot you, regardless of what you do. If you pull a gun you might shoot them first. If you don't they'll shoot you, you might live, and you might call the cops. But the possibility of being shot is always present.

@Azzedar

I'm fairly certain it's loser in practice than in theory here. The neighborhood where I live doesn't have as many home invasions, and dogfighting here is fairly unheard of, but when an invasion happens, it's a doozy.

@My own post

I meant @chuma

For the record, my family owns some old WWI shotguns, but I'm not sure what make and model. The only gun I've shot is what I think was an old WWII Kar rifle.

@ Dark Sovereign

"The point is, if somebody is going to shoot you, they will shoot you, regardless of what you do. If you pull a gun you might shoot them first. If you don’t they’ll shoot you, you might live, and you might call the cops. But the possibility of being shot is always present."

What exactly do you think I'm arguing? I think you have me confused with someone else. 0_o

@koichan

Gang bangers will run if their target puts up a significant threat, and a gun will likely make them flee. I've never heard of someone who becomes more likely to get shot when they pull a gun, but plenty of instances of "I pulled a gun and they ran". Simply put, criminals are looking for soft targets. If there is a chance that they could get killed for some loot, they usually run.

"I still argue that owning one/carrying one for self defense is more likely to land you in more danger than not."

And the fact still remains that while the danger for the citizen for the gun may anecdotally put them at risk more often that a citizen that doesn't carry a firearm, allowing some citizens to carry guns does IN EVERY CASE reduce gun violence and gun deaths.

TheStripe:

"And the fact still remains that while the danger for the citizen for the gun may anecdotally put them at risk more often that a citizen that doesn’t carry a firearm, allowing some citizens to carry guns does IN EVERY CASE reduce gun violence and gun deaths."

That just isn't true. And again I point out that the UK bans guns completely and there are 20 times less gun fatalities. So no, not in every case. Infact I would like to see any statistics that back up this claim.

Chuma asked:

"Have any of you actually ever been a victim of gun crime?"

No, I kept my head down and my mouth closed. Loaded weapons were however approx. 6ft away and pointed in my direction.

"Have you ever had a family member been a victim of gun crime?"

Yes, my Uncle was shot in the face and lost his eye.

"And finally have you ever had a friend (not a friend of a friend or a piece of anecdotal evidence) been a victim of gun crime?"

Yes, several friends have been shot. One several times.

My next question is, how do you plan on spinning this into your arguments without knowing the situations? Or does being a victim to people with firearms somehow make my points more valid? Not sure where you're going with this but I'm sure you'll tell us. ;)

Azzedar:

Spinning? Not at all, though it makes more sense as to your radical point of view.

Where am I going with this? Basically wondering how much of the "I need a gun" is down to paranoia and how much is down to negative experience. In your case it is clearly the latter.

I'm interested in hearing more as to the circumstances of these crimes and where you live/lived though? Would you be willing to share?

"Infact I would like to see any statistics that back up this claim."

http://www.ohioccw.org/content/view/3004/83/

Yes, I know it's from a gun advocacy group, but the stats are valid nonetheless. Same deal in Texas and Florida.

I put guns at a different level then video games. Guns are used to cause harm, not matter what. If you are using it for protection, you are still using it for harm.

I know that is an argument of what if someone is going to shoot you, and you don't have a gun. But think it this way. What if the person have a nuke? Does that mean you have to have a nuke too? Look at the cold war. Both sides having nukes just made everyone's lives more worse.

Guns are a weapon used to kill more efficiently. If you have anything more powerful then a hand gun, then you are out to kill.

@ las, attorney

Not everyone who owns a gun is a redneck. Good going there- keep that open mind of yours and reach for the stars!!!!

TheStripe:

Well we certainly have our crime centres and there are sections of Birmingham, London, Glasgow, Manchster and Liverpool where there are serious gun crimes on a comparatively regular basis. That said though, I have a friend who lives in 'Murder Mile' in Hackney, London who I visit now and again and I used to go to Aston in Birmingham. I've never had any trouble whatsoever there, and yet they are apparently 2 of the worst places for gun and knife crime. This is only personal experience ofcourse, but while walking around I have never felt in fear for my life. Then again, I have never ever gone looking for trouble either so that is probably part of it.

As for the violence aspect... I think there is probably more friday/saturday night violence in the UK, but it is almost always fighting rather than stabbing or shooting, and usually drink related.

Race Riots in the 90's. Nuff said.

The US is a violent place. It would be awesome if we could undo that just by removing or banning the implements of violence. It doesn't work that way. Bans in this country just remove guns from law abiding citizens' hands, and makes criminals of otherwise honest folk who just want to keep what the constitution says they were allowed to have when they purchased it legally with thier own hard earned dollars. My argument is based on the wonderful results acheived in Texas, Michigan, Florida and Ohio, and on the fact that if you want to ban private ownership of firearms in the US in any capacity, short guns, long guns, automatic guns, then you need to amend the constitution. If you can't bolster enough support to do so, then too bad, you don't get to take guns from honest people.

Azzedar:

Your experience underlines my thoughts on drug running, and I'm glad you were alright after the experience, though I can certainly understand the stiff drink! I highly doubt gun restrictions would end such an experience so there is little for me to say on the matter other than I'm happy you weren't shot.

Your friend who was shot by the .22 though, I think a gun ban would have prevented such a potentially fatal encounter, assuming this 'jealous lover' wasn't also someone involved in gun crime prior to this incident. At the very least it would have made getting a gun a definitively premeditated event and attempted murder would have been almost a certainty in court. I know it is of little consequence to your friend, but really what I am trying to get to grips with in this thread is the idea that justice is better than vigilantism.

" I should also say, I do support some type of regulation to ensure people with criminal records, mental instability, and other antisocial behaviors do not possess firearms. However, I’ve yet to see any form of these that truly works. And between State budget woes and rabid anti-legislation groups I doubt this will ever come to pass.

In the meantime, I support people being responsible gun owners. Too many times we have children gaining access to guns because parents fail to do what they should. However, I also have yet to find a way to stop people from being stupid. :( No matter what though, I don’t see this issue ever being resolved. "

We definitely have some common ground here then. I cant add much to these paragraphs other than to say I wholeheartedly agree.

Thanks for sharing your experience.

To every defender if the Second Amendment in this thread - This American thanks you.

To every person who thinks the second only applies to the military, which is always a branch of government, why would that be the ONLY instance where the phrase "the people" is used that way? "The people's" right shall not be infringed. In the Constitution, the state and the people are two VERY distinct entities.

Anyone who doesn't understand that isn't qualified to have this conversation.

Lastly, it's NEVER morally acceptable to punish adults for the behavior of someone else's child. *MY* right to self-defense "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" according to the ultimate law of this land, and no amount of "B-b-but it;s for the children" should change that.

"If you have anything more powerful then a hand gun, then you are out to kill."

My God, the ignorance in that statement is astounding. First, off, you don't seem to know what "powerful" really means. Plenty of massively powered handguns and plenty of underpowered long guns in the world. Secondly, who the frack are you to judge someone else's intent in owning a gun? I have shotguns not for defense, as they are unloaded, locked and separated from their ammo, but for clay target shooting. ONLY. They are way more powerful than my handguns, and yet according to your blanket statement, I intend to kill with them.

Ignorance doesn't benefit the conversation in any way. Stick to gaming topics. You're way out of your depth.

You know what? I would be perfectly happy having a gun with no bullets. I don't know if I could actually shoot someone. But I think I could prevent a crime by acting like I could shoot him. Maybe a Desert Eagle, so I could just beat the guy if he doesn't run.

The threat of escalating violence is unnecessary. A criminal who is going to get something by force is going to use his trump card right off the bat for exactly that reason. If there's a chance his victim is going to have a knife, he's going to have his knife out. If he has a gun, he's going to have his gun out. He's always going to open with the most effective threat, because if he doesn't, he's probably going to get shot or stabbed by his victim.

In short, the only reason a criminal would confront you without drawing a weapon is because he doesn't have one. Also, all concealed carry training courses stress that the only time you should pull your gun is when you're ready to fire.

@chuma

You're dealing with crimes that happen. He's dealing with crimes that don't. Not saying you don't have a point, but be prepared for estimates, since a crime prevented is not reported.

TheStripe:

First link is for data from 1991 and I cannot find any further information on the actual statistics gathered or the reliability of the data. The second is Fox News...

"You people make me afraid to live in this country. I hope you’re proud."

Yup, law abiding gun owners should scare you, moron.

chuma demonstrates that nothing will ever be good enough for those who fear an inanimate object and wish to ban it's existence, and that's ultimately why these debates are futile.

Thank God the Second Amendment is an individual right and I live under it's rule, so chuma's irrational fears do not affect *MY* rights as a responsible citizen.

TheStripe:

An amusing summary of that first link on further review. There was a paper written about the paper and its methodology. Let's just say that it was called into question...

"Survey Research and Self-Defense Gun Use: An Explanation of Extreme Overestimates, David Hemenway, PhD, The Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, Vol. 87, No. 4, 1997, pp. 1430-1445.

This paper analyzes survey methodology by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz, who estimate that civilians use guns in self-defense against offenders up to 2.5 million times each year. This estimate is based on a survey of civilian defensive gun use in 1992 and has been repeatedly by the NRA and gun advocates. This paper concludes that the Kleck and Gertz survey design contains a huge overestimation bias and that their estimate is highly exaggerated.

This paper illustrates the overestimation problem found in Kleck and Gertz's methodology by applying it to a 1994 ABC News/ Washington Post survey of 1500 adults of which 10 percent answered affirmatively as to whether they had ever seen an alien spacecraft. Of these, six percent stated they had come into contact with a space alien. If extrapolated to the national population using Kleck and Gertz's methodology, this would translate into almost 20 million Americans who had seen a spacecraft from another planet and more than a million who had actually met space aliens."

chuma: just for you:

It is impossible to determine accurately how many times each year guns are used for self-defense. But there are estimates. A 2003 survey (National Crime Victimization Survey, 1993–2001, U.S. Department of Justice, September 2003) records the self-defensive actions of victims. Table 6.5 shows that 60.5% of victims of violent crime reported taking self-defensive measures during the incident. Most victims used non-aggressive means, like getting help or trying to escape. Thirteen percent of victims tried to threaten or attack their offender—1.4% of these victims used a gun to ward off their offender.

Gary Kleck, a Florida State University criminologist and researcher, concluded that people defend themselves with firearms from 2.2 million to 2.5 million times a year ("Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun," The Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, vol. 86, no. 1, Fall 1995). If this estimate is accurate, the defensive use of firearms might save as many as seventy-five lives for every life lost to gun-related crime, because firearms are involved in about 32,000 deaths (murders, suicides, and accidents) every year.

http://www.libraryindex.com/pages/1770/Guns-Injuries-Fatalities-GUNS-SEL...

Any time you;d like to apologize for insinuating I am a liar, please feel free.

Wow, much better link than mine. WTG Jim.

First off I just want to say that as someone pointed out earlier this has got to be one of the most civil debates over this topic that i have ever run into on the internet. I would like to applaud the people on both sides of this for trying to keep it that way.
Also I kinda wonder if anyone has the stats for the UK on gun violence for now as compared to b4 some of their heavier restrictions (bans? i don't know their laws very well myself) as i remember seeing somewhere that although it is still low as compared to the US that is has actually increased in the time that ours has decreased. That may be wrong though, was just wondering if anybody had the numbers because that could be an interesting thing to consider in this.
As for myself, I support background check and possibly even mental balance checks as a prereq for owning a gun, i think a gun safety and training course of some kind would be amazing also. But, and i want this to be clear, I also want to be able to have my guns in order to protect myself and my family as well as to provide for them as need be.
There havent been too many people calling for the all-out ban of all guns on this thread, but this is to the ones that have. If u want to take my rifle away from me then i think you should also find a way to put food on my family's table as well as my friends and neighbor's family's. Where i come from we don't just have guns because we want to protect ourselves (though that is a reason, i myself will be getting a CCW permit within the year), and we don't just have them to have a fun time at the rifle range (though that is a blast) we use them to hunt in the fall so that our families can eat throughout the winter. Now, i don't want to sound like we absolutely NEED to hunt to survive, but in many cases around here bagging that elk is how we feed our families thereby freeing up more money to pay our energy and heating bill that can tend to go up quite substantially when it's sub zero temperatures outside. it's something that. its how we can continue to afford to live in an area that we LOVE whilst our economy is slowly being whittled away at with treehuggers gettin our Sawmills shut down and the like. (not against people who want to protect the environment either, but like everything there's extremists, thats who i don't like)
Like i said, most of the people who have commented on here have not called for the all-out ban of guns, but for those who have, how about you feed my town?

JimK:

"Any time you;d like to apologize for insinuating I am a liar, please feel free."

Never said you were a liar, I said that your source of evidence was flawed and backed it up with own quotes and papers. Your latest quote says "If this estimate is accurate", which I am saying it isn't. We see this often here on this website where people try to rig statistical data to make a point with gaming, either by exaggerating the figures or exaggerating the conclusions.

When I challenged you to provide statistics to back up the HUGE figures you were claiming saved lives every year I knew it was because it was going to be false. 2500000 lives saved by guns a year? Give me a break. So it is of no surprise to see that such figures have been dismissed by the scientific community and clung to by gun advocacy groups. If you think about it, if what this paper says was true, with a population of 300M and a save rate of 2.5M/year by the time you reached the age of 60, half the population would have needed a gun to save their lives. I consider this to be stat laughable.

In your defence, it is very difficult to prove how many lives have been saved by guns compared to those taken (the latter has to be recorded on death certificates and hence are accurate).

TheStripe:

It's a better link, but he misses out the flip side of the argument on his quoted text which continues thus:

"But in contrast to Kleck's estimate of 2.2 million to 2.5 million DGUs each year, there are only about 108,000 incidents of self-defense with a firearm annually, according to the 1994 National Crime Victimization Survey. The telephone sample that Kleck used is larger than that of the national survey. Kleck asserted that many people who used their guns would probably withhold such information from a government agent; therefore the national survey must under-report DGUs. Most firearms scholars have relied on the estimates of either Kleck or the National Crime Victimization Survey.

Tom W. Smith of the National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago concluded that both estimates were "off the mark" ("A Call for a Truce in the DGU War," The Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, vol. 87, no, 4, Summer 1997). In Smith's opinion, the National Crime Victimization Survey estimates were too low and Kleck's estimates were too high. Smith said more studies are needed."

It is STILL the same paper that is being referenced in this article (Marc Gertz's) as was referenced in your own first link though. It is just that this one goes on to point out that it is flawed. In fairness though, they also point out that the National Victim stats are also flawed and are probably too low.

Chuma: That makes it a better article, too. ;) I'm not reliant on those statistics for my purposes, but I was skeptical of the Kleck article when I posted it. Just seeing that there's an agency with some impartiality examining both sides makes me feel better about it.

No matter how you slice it or how you cherry pick the data, guns in the hands of private citizens save more lives than they take. Even if it was only a ratio of 1.5 to 1, that's still a good thing.

So, forget the morality and legality. From a practical standpoint, gun control is simply *stupid*. It doesn't work. It ONLY works if you round up virtually every gun in existence first. Not possible in the US. That horse has left the barn.

From a practical standpoint, whinging about what we wish were true doesn't do anything but make the whinger look silly. We deal with what *is*. Not an irrational fear of a machined tool.

Legally, morally and practically it is a fine thing that *I* can own guns to protect myself without being part of a government run military. What someone else or someone else's child does with some other weapons is neither my responsibility nor something i should be punished for.

Concealed carry permits over the last 20 years went from pretty scarce to available in most states. Anyone care to show me how the blood runs in the streets due to this? Have we seen an increase in gun crime over the last 20 years? Anyone? Beuller?