Gun Control

[cystic crypt]

@Janus1:

CC, thats where you are wrong. ive killed 30 people with a butter knife, from across the street.

they call me the butter-knife bandit

:roll:

have you thought about entering the circus? it’s not just about juggling babies anymore.

[Darrigaaz]

All your “Save the children from the evil guns!” nonsense and you condone juggling babies? shame on you!

@cystic:

i’d suggest that you would have a different result without any effort directed at drug-control.

I predict that pehaps drug use in the country would increase about 3% of its current total TOPS.

well, they’re pretty close. i think i’d be a lot more paranoid in a society as gun-happy as the US.

yeah, i think i’ll stand by my original stance on this one. A society where the right to have guns takes precedance over the lives of its citizens is a society with whacked priorities. A society with fewer guns has fewer gun deaths.

lol seeing as your in a medical field, i figure you would realize that people dont live forever, so there would not be any less deaths. Maybe a few (FEW) less early deaths, but at what cost? As i said, cars kill people, so to save more people lets revert back to using horses. wait sometimes people get crushed by horses, so lets only walk. You ban weapons and you screw people out of something useful to them. I mean really - think about it.

You basically said: so? If children are killed handling firearms, then their parents should go to prison. This society is eminantly more preferable to one where we can have a/many designated killing machine/s in most/every household? People have momentary lapses in judgement daily. Doctors, judges, politicians, parents - everyone. Someone has one of these, their child gets killed, and we say “oh well - better lock up the bad daddy” instead of just getting rid of the stupid things.

Lets suppose some guy gets very drunk, and decides to get into a car and causes an accident that kills three kids on their way to soccer practice. What do we do? we arrest him. Do we ban the beer he drank? no. Do we recall all cars? no.

But no - trampling the rights of people to own guns is soo much more onerous than people losing their lives to these guns.

Yes it is, see above. Despite what your obvious beliefs are, you cant make the world danger-proof. And if you try, everyone would lose everything.

this goes to my Deliverance statement . . . .

How so? Because i speak the undeniable facts i’m some kind of toothless hick? Do you really expect all the bad guys that you seem so intent on taking these guns away from are going to stroll into the police office and say, “I’m here to hand over my Glock, sir.” What kind of fantasy world do you live in?

Saying “when you outlaw gun, fewer people will be killed by them and the outlaws owning guns will eventually be nailled by the appropriate authorities when our society pays more heed to preventative and protective strategies” is not nearly as clever.

Once again, back to the smuggling/prohibition arguement.

lmao
you ask me not to insult you, and then you come up with something like this???
Please give me something to take seriously. In the meantime, examine a butter knife. Try to kill someone across the street with it without moving. Or someone in the next office.

I could easily take this butter knife and put it On an arrow and shoot it across the street. True, i would need some practice to adjust my aim, but its possible.

And why do you think someone needs to stand still? I could easily sneek into my friends house with a butter knife and get close enough so that someone could kill him. Then my sean would probably kick my ass for breaking into his house, but i could easily prove you wrong.

Of course, i’m a bit too lazy to do so right now and seans off at college.

[Guest]

@Darrigaaz:

There are alot of private collectors out there, which brings me to you next point.

I have never heard that guns have another purpose than delivering death.

Collectors; guns are usually MORE valuable if nver fired. LouisXVI had a pistol that had about 3/4 of a pound of jewels on it, making it more of a trophy that “A SATANIC DEATH DELIVERING BEAST FROM HELL”. Many people go to rifle ranges as a source of fun. Yes, fun, or unmandated extracuricular activities.

Don’t shout.
Don’t imply that a phrase coined by you is taken any seriously by me.
For a collector, it is very simple to make the weapon unusable. (Not permanently, just by removing one or more inner parts, like the bolt (correct term?)).

EVEN WORSE THAT WE STILL HAVE THESE MECHANIZED DEATH BOXES ON THE ROAD! WHY STILL USE THESE DESTRUCTIVE AND UNCONTROLLABLE FORCES IF THEY KILL SCORES OF INNOCENT PEOPLE A DAY!

sigh i don’t have to comment that any further.

To a slightly different topic….

And: to use a car you have to do a license.

to use a gun, you do have to have a license.

And also a proven need.

Surely none of his (CC’s) fellow citizens. Surely none of mine. And it is less than 200 million in the country. That would be more than 2 rifles per person (of any age).

dont be so sure, unless you have scoured everyone of your neighbors houses, you cannot know for sure.
sigh
and yes, OVER 200 million. Most hunters own more than one rifle depending on the game and terrain they’re hunting in. Most police stations have mnay more firearms than the officers assigned there. most collectors have insane amounts of firearms. that figure is most definately correct.

It is not. It’s about 20 million, by police estimates. Weapons used with crimes are most likel to be illegal (96%).

You didn’t read my post did you?

Please, you anti gun people seem to enjoy using terms like “stupid” and “whacked”. They really do nothing than to send the impression that your not thinking rationally.

That is not my fault. Can you tell me how to counter your irrational arguments rationally? I don’t see that there is any way for that.

@Darrigaaz:

yeah, i think i’ll stand by my original stance on this one. A society where the right to have guns takes precedance over the lives of its citizens is a society with whacked priorities. A society with fewer guns has fewer gun deaths.

lol seeing as your in a medical field, i figure you would realize that people dont live forever, so there would not be any less deaths. Maybe a few (FEW) less early deaths, but at what cost? … I mean really - think about it.

I mean, really, read his post again: “gun deaths”, not “deaths”. The costs … how much is a human live worth? You seem to know the answer, and it doesn’t seem to be that much.
I agree totally with CC here, and whoever takes his own “rights” as more important than other peoples lives… i cannot respect, as they show a blatant selfish disrespect for the one most important and universal human right.

Lets suppose some guy gets very drunk, and decides to get into a car and causes an accident that kills three kids on their way to soccer practice. What do we do? we arrest him. Do we ban the beer he drank? no. Do we recall all cars? no.

As you probably don’t see the flaw:
Drunk driving is illegal.
Remember what you said yourself why you don’t “allow” thinking further your “drugs and weapons” thread: “if a law like this was ever passed, i’d be very pissed at the democrats but i would kindly oblige; then i would work to get it repealed.”
(…which is a good laugh by itself btw)

[cystic crypt]

@Darrigaaz:

All your “Save the children from the evil guns!” nonsense and you condone juggling babies? shame on you!

Whew!. Glad to see that you have a sense of humor after all.

@cystic:

well, they’re pretty close. i think i’d be a lot more paranoid in a society as gun-happy as the US.

yeah, i think i’ll stand by my original stance on this one. A society where the right to have guns takes precedance over the lives of its citizens is a society with whacked priorities. A society with fewer guns has fewer gun deaths.

lol seeing as your in a medical field, i figure you would realize that people dont live forever, so there would not be any less deaths. Maybe a few (FEW) less early deaths, but at what cost? As i said, cars kill people, so to save more people lets revert back to using horses. wait sometimes people get crushed by horses, so lets only walk. You ban weapons and you screw people out of something useful to them. I mean really - think about it.

A common unit of measurement in medicine is “years of life lost”. This is actually considered an important measurement and a useful endpoint when examining both prospective and retrospective trials. You can put any kind of spin on it that you like, but every gun death is absolutely preventable (as opposed to many medical illnesses where death is the endpoint). Furthermore every typical gun death represents many more years of life lost than a simple M.I. As far as your endless attempts to compare guns (units intended to kill) with automobiles (units intended to transport people), i really hope that this is another sign of your sense of humor (are you British by background?).

You basically said: so? If children are killed handling firearms, then their parents should go to prison. This society is eminantly more preferable to one where we can have a/many designated killing machine/s in most/every household? People have momentary lapses in judgement daily. Doctors, judges, politicians, parents - everyone. Someone has one of these, their child gets killed, and we say “oh well - better lock up the bad daddy” instead of just getting rid of the stupid things.

Lets suppose some guy gets very drunk, and decides to get into a car and causes an accident that kills three kids on their way to soccer practice. What do we do? we arrest him. Do we ban the beer he drank? no. Do we recall all cars? no.

hahaha, i get it. You’re being funny again!!

But no - trampling the rights of people to own guns is soo much more onerous than people losing their lives to these guns.

Yes it is, see above. Despite what your obvious beliefs are, you cant make the world danger-proof. And if you try, everyone would lose everything.

this goes to my Deliverance statement . . . .

How so? Because i speak the undeniable facts i’m some kind of toothless hick? Do you really expect all the bad guys that you seem so intent on taking these guns away from are going to stroll into the police office and say, “I’m here to hand over my Glock, sir.” What kind of fantasy world do you live in?

right. evidently not one where rationality and citizens lives takes precedence over the right to a little death-spitter.

Saying “when you outlaw gun, fewer people will be killed by them and the outlaws owning guns will eventually be nailled by the appropriate authorities when our society pays more heed to preventative and protective strategies” is not nearly as clever.

Once again, back to the smuggling/prohibition arguement.

unrelated. with prohibition - every citizen with the exception of teetollars wanted to drink and found ways of doing it. The odd drink was not difficult to obtain, and lasted maybe one evening. I look at other societies (i.e. the non-US/non-terrorist ones) where the use/ownership of firearms is significantly more restricted, and i don’t see your average citizen trying to get themselves a hot-weapon.

lmao
you ask me not to insult you, and then you come up with something like this???
Please give me something to take seriously. In the meantime, examine a butter knife. Try to kill someone across the street with it without moving. Or someone in the next office.

I could easily take this butter knife and put it On an arrow and shoot it across the street. True, i would need some practice to adjust my aim, but its possible.

And why do you think someone needs to stand still? I could easily sneek into my friends house with a butter knife and get close enough so that someone could kill him. Then my sean would probably kick my a** for breaking into his house, but i could easily prove you wrong.

Of course, i’m a bit too lazy to do so right now and seans off at college.

ok, you got me. very funny.

[Janus1]

how much is a human live worth?

$37,246.89

You can convert the currency yourself.

:roll:

[Guerrilla Guy]

@cystic:

@Guerrilla:

one point CC… the right to keep and bear killing machines? have you ever thought that the car you drive can kill someone? a gun is no different it’s just perticularly meant to kill or disable….

do i really have to insult your intelligence by explaining the difference between a car and a gun? and i have seen a car used as a weapon (on a patient), however its effectiveness relative to a weapon and . . .
really, this is just too inane for words.

Insult my intelligence? Heck, I think were all stupid! :lol:

The point is not wether it kills or not, the point is wether it should be outlawed… If someone is killed by a drunk driver do we outlaw cars… if someone is shot while a burglar is robbing a house do we outlaw the guns and prevent a person to defend themself?

GG

GG

[DeviantScripter]

DS, while i agree with you, please keep it civilized, this is a very fun topic to discuss and i do not want it to deteriorate into just blasting eachothers opinions.

Haha, sorry guys. :lol: I like to stoke it up every once in awhile. :P

[Guest]

@Guerrilla:

The point is not wether it kills or not, the point is wether it should be outlawed… If someone is killed by a drunk driver do we outlaw cars… ?

drunk driving is outlawed.

[DeviantScripter]

So is killing people.

You’re missing the point. :-?

[Guest]

Surely, the number of deaths through drunk driving would be reduced if we banned either alcohol or cars.
But … banning alcohol hasn’t worked that fine as history has shown, plus the cultural attachment to alcohol is much older than the affinity of your citizens to carry weapons.
Cars, as mentioned before, serve a useful purpose, and much effort is done to make them safer from generation to generation (of cars).

So, we have deaths through car accidents, and deaths through gun accidents (and reducing those is one of the goals of gun control).
We very rarely have cars used against human lives on purpose. This happens more frequently with guns (another thing that gun control wants to reduce).

To reduce teh number of car accidents, in my country there is “traffic education” in primary school, drivers licenses (in some contries you only get temporary permits and have to redo them every some years), speed limits and car developments.
What is on the “gun’s side”?
Has any effort been made (by anyone: manufacturers, legislation, whoever) to reduce the “use of weapons against humans on purpose”? That is where this comparison differs hugely, this is where you must do first action if you want to compare the two topics.

[Darrigaaz]

:sigh:

No CC, I’m Not british, my ancestors were british/Irish, but I was born and raised in MA.

F_alk, i may have misheard my source, as i was getting that info from an article at my grandfathers house, and while i admit 20 million seems more logical, until i can contact my grandfather again i will not recant my statements. (he’s in the hospital now)

Drunk Driving is Illegal. Being an ass and shooting someone is illegal.
Owning a gun is NOT illegal. Owning a car is NOT illegal.
Being a dumb@$$ is NOT illegal.
^ that is the fatal factor in either situation.

Please clarify this, i cant really understand your point:
Remember what you said yourself why you don’t “allow” thinking further your “drugs and weapons” thread: “if a law like this was ever passed, i’d be very pissed at the democrats but i would kindly oblige; then i would work to get it repealed.”

Weapons to be used with crimes are most likely to be illegal. You said it. That proves that the average good guy with a gun will not commit a crime with it. That point we can both agree on.

And yes, a gun license is a good idea.

Collectors removing the bolt could be done, but i dont see the need for it.
To CC’s arguement

The average citizen wouldnt be the one getting the “hot” gun (good adjective!). It would be the one who would use if for evil who would get the "hot gun. (:))

Quote:
You basically said: so? If children are killed handling firearms, then their parents should go to prison. This society is eminantly more preferable to one where we can have a/many designated killing machine/s in most/every household? People have momentary lapses in judgement daily. Doctors, judges, politicians, parents - everyone. Someone has one of these, their child gets killed, and we say “oh well - better lock up the bad daddy” instead of just getting rid of the stupid things.

Lets suppose some guy gets very drunk, and decides to get into a car and causes an accident that kills three kids on their way to soccer practice. What do we do? we arrest him. Do we ban the beer he drank? no. Do we recall all cars? no.

hahaha, i get it. You’re being funny again!!
Quote:
Quote:
But no - trampling the rights of people to own guns is soo much more onerous than people losing their lives to these guns.

Yes it is, see above. Despite what your obvious beliefs are, you cant make the world danger-proof. And if you try, everyone would lose everything.

Quote:
this goes to my Deliverance statement . . . .

How so? Because i speak the undeniable facts i’m some kind of toothless hick? Do you really expect all the bad guys that you seem so intent on taking these guns away from are going to stroll into the police office and say, “I’m here to hand over my Glock, sir.” What kind of fantasy world do you live in?

//\//////\right. evidently not one where rationality and citizens lives takes precedence over the right to a little death-spitter.

Um…. what does that have to do with my above statement? Anyway, i’ll adress it.
Before my rights to own a “death spitter” are violated, there are some things that should go first. Worried about the lives of the citizens? ban cigarettes and other tobacco products; theyre far more dangerous.

LoL if hunting rifles and shotguns were banned, Maine, Vermont and Michigan would cecede (Spelling?) from the union!

P.S. From what I’ve heard, Holland allows hunting rifles to be owned, but nothing else. Even that bothers me a bit.

Let me just run this by you on an unrelated issue; do you realize how much life would suck if ALL our rights were taken away?

Back to f_alks last post. Finally your being sensible in your debating. Traffic Education is here as well. When applying for a gun licence, i believe there is some form of testing in most areas. And as you said before, most guns that are used improperly are illegally obtained. You cant teach those people unless you teach all people. And many firearms come with a care and matenance, manual, wether from the dealer or manufacturer im not certain. that explains safety ETC.

QUESTION: Do any of you mind if i print out this topic to use for my debate team?

[cystic crypt]

@Darrigaaz:

The average citizen wouldnt be the one getting the “hot” gun (good adjective!). It would be the one who would use if for evil who would get the "hot gun. (:))

right,
but with fewer average citizens owning guns, there would be MANY fewer accidental shootings, fewer Columbines (did you guys just have another one of those recently??), fewer 2nd degree murders with firearms, etc. (and no, i would not have a problem if the proportional amount of knife-deaths increased relative to firearms as that would indicate that not only are firearm-related deaths dropping, but so are all deaths related to these two). So now we’ve reduced the number of guns in the general population, thus making it much more difficult for the bad guys to get them. On top of this, harsher laws for possession would put more bad guys behind bars, and more guns in incinerators. All very groovy man.

Before my rights to own a “death spitter” are violated, there are some things that should go first. Worried about the lives of the citizens? ban cigarettes and other tobacco products; theyre far more dangerous.

Believe me, my family is already doing all we can about tobacco. As for your rights to own a gun, i still don’t understand why these are so important to you. You don’t complain about the fact that there are many things you don’t have the right to (i.e. owning various kinds of explosives, walking into public buildings at night, setting fires on your front yard) - why is “the right to own a gun” so important?

LoL if hunting rifles and shotguns were banned, Maine, Vermont and Michigan would cecede (Spelling?) from the union!

ummm . . . isn’t this one more reason to ban these in addition to handguns? :)

P.S. From what I’ve heard, Holland allows hunting rifles to be owned, but nothing else. Even that bothers me a bit.
Let me just run this by you on an unrelated issue; do you realize how much life would suck if ALL our rights were taken away?

certainly - the right to free speach (without shouting fire in a crowded building, etc.), the right to assembly (without doing it to form a mob) etc. Still, it looks like you are applying the “slippery-slope fallacy” in order to force an argument. Not being allowed to own a firearm is completely unrelated to every other “right”. Removing this one does not go towards removing others, if anything, i’d suggest that it frees a society in many ways.

Back to f_alks last post. Finally your being sensible in your debating. Traffic Education is here as well. When applying for a gun licence, i believe there is some form of testing in most areas. And as you said before, most guns that are used improperly are illegally obtained. You cant teach those people unless you teach all people. And many firearms come with a care and matenance, manual, wether from the dealer or manufacturer im not certain. that explains safety ETC.

doesn’t change the fact that 5 year olds can’t read, that angry husbands forget not to shoot people, and 16 y/os learn reading in the schools they end up totin’ the family rifle to . . . .

QUESTION: Do any of you mind if i print out this topic to use for my debate team?

[Guerrilla Guy]

uh CC, have you ever heard of the mofia (HAHAHA…don’t say you do cause RI is all mofia and nothing else… :lol: 8) :-? ) that is just one “criminal” orginization that can get away with getting guns… once again, criminals can get guns illegally they don’t play by the rules anyway 8) … Furthermore if every student in Columbine was armed in some way that day maybe no one would have died… gotta go to bed for now but I’ll post later…

GG

[cystic crypt]

@Guerrilla:

uh CC, have you ever heard of the mofia (HAHAHA…don’t say you do cause RI is all mofia and nothing else… :lol: 8) :-? ) that is just one “criminal” orginization that can get away with getting guns… once again, criminals can get guns illegally they don’t play by the rules anyway 8) … Furthermore if every student in Columbine was armed in some way that day maybe no one would have died… gotta go to bed for now but I’ll post later…

GG

yes, i’ve heard of the mAfia. as well as the Hell’s angels, the Indian Posse, the Rock Machine, blah blah blah, so what’s your point? Certainly, i was talking about removing guns in general to limit their ability of falling into the hands of criminals. And so what if a member of the mafia etc. can obtain firearms? One more reason to arrest them, one more opportunity to conduct a search, one more crime to add x many more years to their sentance.
If every student in Columbine was armed . . . ???
I am begging God that all American’s do not think like this. That’s just too freakish.

[Guest]

@Darrigaaz:

F_alk, i may have misheard my source, … until i can contact my grandfather again i will not recant my statements. …

Even then you won’t as you continue to ignore the minor side point i was making.

Drunk Driving is Illegal. Being an a** and shooting someone is illegal.
Owning a gun is NOT illegal. Owning a car is NOT illegal.
Being a dumb@$$ is NOT illegal.
^ that is the fatal factor in either situation.

if everyone sticked to the rules, you would need no guns. Why would you need to defend yourself, when there are no criminals? You just wouldn’t.

So, the argument of you goes like that:
You compare one thing that is illegal (drunk driving) with something that is legal in the US (owning a gun), and ask why we don’t make one of the ingedients for the illegal behavior illegal.
You then ignore accidents (which are not “illegal”, just unwanted) for guns, keeping the drunk driving (which is illegal because it massively increases the probability for unwanted accidents with cars) argument.
You don’t come to the point that allowing only small calibres for example could be related to speed limits. Both limit “your freedom” to make live safer for the others, both try to reduce the “messyness” of potential accidents. Speed limits also reduce the probability for accidents.

So, you keep comparing something illegal, where in both needed (and standing alone each legal) ingredients a lot of effort has been done to reduce the chance of accidents and increase the personal sefaty… to something legal, where not that much effort is made, or where you don’t even seem to want the bit of effort yet done to be kept (or do you think that the restrictions concerning fully and semi-automatic weapons are useful?).
You ignore that cars are very rarely used as weapons, but lead to death by accidents which have a increased chance to occur when the driver has drunk.
You do this comparison in a rhetoric question why we don’t ban cars or alcohol, with the side note that we can’t ban cars and that trying to outlaw alcohol had been tried and failed. This is done in attempt to make the proposal look silly, just as the proposal of banning cars or alcohol looks silly.
I still say, the comparison is invalid, for the above reasons.

Weapons to be used with crimes are most likely to be illegal. You said it. That proves that the average good guy with a gun will not commit a crime with it. That point we can both agree on.

There is no “average guy” with a gun. The “average guy with a gun” has a illegal weapon. (As you use information from that side point, i have to keep to that). Thus, the “average guy with a gun” is a commiting a crime by possessing it.

Collectors removing the bolt could be done, but i dont see the need for it.

I don’t see the need for brakes and indicators and lights at my car.
The reason is: Safety, less accidents. The point you quite ignored of my last post.

Before my rights to own a “death spitter” are violated, there are some things that should go first. Worried about the lives of the citizens? ban cigarettes and other tobacco products; theyre far more dangerous.

smoking in public places is continually more and more banned. Otherwise: smoking harms yourself, and only yourself (once the above rules concerning passive smoking are active).
Noone here objects when you get a gun to shoot yourself. Your life, your decision to mess it up for yourself, but don’t harm others.

And as you said before, most guns that are used improperly are illegally obtained. You cant teach those people unless you teach all people. And many firearms come with a care and matenance, manual, wether from the dealer or manufacturer im not certain. that explains safety ETC.

Safety is when a kid cannot misuse it. Safety is, when a drunk person can not misuse it. Maintenance is not related at all to this, care is not related to this. Safety is something that prevents accidents and misuse. Having a glass cabinet to display all your guns is not safe. Not removing bolts of collectors weapons (that probably are on display as well) is not safe. I hope that are enough examples.
And as i said before, most weapons are illegally obtained. Even in your country i guess that the most spectacular cases of improper use are done by legal weapons.

Cars have all these protective devices, and are improved on safety issues from decade to decade.
Has anything happened to make guns “safer” and kill less people? I don’t think that you can give me any example for that. Regardless wether it is for accidents (where you ahve to address the point made by CC) or on purpose, where the comparison with cars fails completely as cars are rarley used as murder instruments.

QUESTION: Do any of you mind if i print out this topic to use for my debate team?

Maybe, not sure yet. You might not want to do it.

To add to CCs answer:
I feel free, not having the right to own a gun.
And i second his other notions: if owning a gun was illegal in the US, you wouldn’t have to go for some minor crimes (like tax evasion for Al Capone in those days), but have quicker and better reasons to lock them up.
AS you don’t want tighter gun control, then you must now give an alternative of how to reduce all the lethal “accidents” that happen, and just do not have to happen at all. Tell me one other way, of how to prevent the examples CC gave in the last post. And, a way that works as good as or better than outlawing the guns, thus taking them out of reach for many people.

[Grigoriy Ivanovitch]

And i second his other notions: if owning a gun was illegal in the US, you wouldn’t have to go for some minor crimes (like tax evasion for Al Capone in those days),

The reason Al Capone went to jail for tax evasion was because that was the only thing they could get anyone to testify against him for. If he was using illegal guns, nobody would have testified against him anyway because his gang would have been the only ones with guns.

[cystic crypt]

@Grigoriy:

And i second his other notions: if owning a gun was illegal in the US, you wouldn’t have to go for some minor crimes (like tax evasion for Al Capone in those days),

The reason Al Capone went to jail for tax evasion was because that was the only thing they could get anyone to testify against him for. If he was using illegal guns, nobody would have testified against him anyway because his gang would have been the only ones with guns.

yeah, but do the math.
If it’s determined that Al Capone’s gang are the only people with the guns, then they are much more easily charged as they are in possession of the evidence.
This is an excellent example of using gun-control laws in order to nail criminals. If we can not prove that they did the killing, then we may at least prove that they are possessing weapons. The confiscation of these weapons makes determining via ballistics that they did the murder much more readily.

[Grigoriy Ivanovitch]

yeah, but do the math.
If it’s determined that Al Capone’s gang are the only people with the guns, then they are much more easily charged as they are in possession of the evidence.

I understand this, but the Chicago mafia consisted of many more people than were likely to be arrested at one time. If word got out who was a witness, (and likely it would have, seeing as how some members of the police were on Capone’s payroll) then those witnesses would have been silenced.

[Darrigaaz]

@cystic:

@Darrigaaz:

right,
but with fewer average citizens owning guns, there would be MANY fewer accidental shootings, fewer Columbines (did you guys just have another one of those recently??), fewer 2nd degree murders with firearms, etc. (and no, i would not have a problem if the proportional amount of knife-deaths increased relative to firearms as that would indicate that not only are firearm-related deaths dropping, but so are all deaths related to these two). So now we’ve reduced the number of guns in the general population, thus making it much more difficult for the bad guys to get them. On top of this, harsher laws for possession would put more bad guys behind bars, and more guns in incinerators. All very groovy man.

I prefer to call them “school shootings” rather than ‘Columbines’. And no, not to my knowledge, we have not had one in a while.

Believe me, my family is already doing all we can about tobacco.

I’m glad to here it m8; to me tobacco is a plague on humanity.

As for your rights to own a gun, i still don’t understand why these are so important to you. You don’t complain about the fact that there are many things you don’t have the right to (i.e. owning various kinds of explosives, walking into public buildings at night, setting fires on your front yard) - why is “the right to own a gun” so important?

Well the other activities you mentioned simply add to the detriment of society. I know this may be difficult to grasp, seeing as you most likely have no experience in the matter, but hunting is an amazing thing. There’s nothing like being out in the woods, one with nature, trying to outsmart the animal on its turf; its an experience like no other. Just from debating with you on this topic, i get the impression that if you tried it, you’d enjoy it.

ummm . . . isn’t this one more reason to ban these in addition to handguns? :)

Handguns can be used to hunt certain kinds of game. And there’s also the defense factor. While i don’t actually think owning a gun will help out defensively, theres no way of measuring how assuring it may be to someone to know that its there.

certainly - the right to free speach (without shouting fire in a crowded building, etc.), the right to assembly (without doing it to form a mob) etc. Still, it looks like you are applying the “slippery-slope fallacy” in order to force an argument. Not being allowed to own a firearm is completely unrelated to every other “right”. Removing this one does not go towards removing others, if anything, i’d suggest that it frees a society in many ways.

No, i wasn’t implying that losing our right to own guns is taking away all our rights or any nonsense like that, i merely wanted you to reflect on how life would be if it did happen.

doesn’t change the fact that 5 year olds can’t read, that angry husbands forget not to shoot people, and 16 y/os learn reading in the schools they end up totin’ the family rifle to…

My comment was on whether or not anyones trying to promote gun safety, not if it works everytime. Let me point out that this is the great minority of cases that these happen in. Since i have already said this, this brings me to my final point.

This debate has run its course. Any arguement that could be used for either side has been said. Unless someone comes up with something WAY original, it would have already been said at least once. Had this been an actual debate, the moderator of the debate would have declared it dead in the water a while ago and switched to a new topic.

I shall post very little else on this topic, but i had a great time debating with you guys, CC in particular. Your a tough opponent who stands their ground. Congratulations, and i hope you all took something away from this discussion.

[Darrigaaz]

@cystic:

@Darrigaaz:

right,
but with fewer average citizens owning guns, there would be MANY fewer accidental shootings, fewer Columbines (did you guys just have another one of those recently??), fewer 2nd degree murders with firearms, etc. (and no, i would not have a problem if the proportional amount of knife-deaths increased relative to firearms as that would indicate that not only are firearm-related deaths dropping, but so are all deaths related to these two). So now we’ve reduced the number of guns in the general population, thus making it much more difficult for the bad guys to get them. On top of this, harsher laws for possession would put more bad guys behind bars, and more guns in incinerators. All very groovy man.

I prefer to call them “school shootings” rather than ‘Columbines’. And no, not to my knowledge, we have not had one in a while.

Believe me, my family is already doing all we can about tobacco.

I’m glad to here it m8; to me tobacco is a plague on humanity.

As for your rights to own a gun, i still don’t understand why these are so important to you. You don’t complain about the fact that there are many things you don’t have the right to (i.e. owning various kinds of explosives, walking into public buildings at night, setting fires on your front yard) - why is “the right to own a gun” so important?

Well the other activities you mentioned simply add to the detriment of society. I know this may be difficult to grasp, seeing as you most likely have no experience in the matter, but hunting is an amazing thing. There’s nothing like being out in the woods, one with nature, trying to outsmart the animal on its turf; its an experience like no other. Just from debating with you on this topic, i get the impression that if you tried it, you’d enjoy it.

ummm . . . isn’t this one more reason to ban these in addition to handguns? :)

Handguns can be used to hunt certain kinds of game. And there’s also the defense factor. While i don’t actually think owning a gun will help out defensively, theres no way of measuring how assuring it may be to someone to know that its there.

certainly - the right to free speach (without shouting fire in a crowded building, etc.), the right to assembly (without doing it to form a mob) etc. Still, it looks like you are applying the “slippery-slope fallacy” in order to force an argument. Not being allowed to own a firearm is completely unrelated to every other “right”. Removing this one does not go towards removing others, if anything, i’d suggest that it frees a society in many ways.

No, i wasn’t implying that losing our right to own guns is taking away all our rights or any nonsense like that, i merely wanted you to reflect on how life would be if it did happen.

doesn’t change the fact that 5 year olds can’t read, that angry husbands forget not to shoot people, and 16 y/os learn reading in the schools they end up totin’ the family rifle to…

My comment was on whether or not anyones trying to promote gun safety, not if it works everytime. Let me point out that this is the great minority of cases that these happen in

F_alk,
“Even then you won’t as you continue to ignore the minor side point i was making.” Was that some kind of attack on my character? If i do find out if i was wrong, i would admit it. Thats just the kind of person i am.
And what makes you so sure that the only reason to own a gun is for self protection? F_alk, although you had many good points and ways of expressing them, you often tried to change words to your own use, as you did on my car/gun comparison. I specifically stated that drunk driving was ilegal, and owning a gun was legal. PERHAPS i should have worded the “being an a** and shooting someone is illegal” line as “Being reckless and dangerous with a gun is illegal”. I have shown that post to a few friends including the super liberal kevin, and while he staunchly opposed my view, he said my “point was clear”, then went on for the rest of my lunch period about how and why guns are a threat to the average american. Safe to say, my lunch period today sucked. I’m sorry, but i think that post of mine was fairly clear in its meaning and not majorly faulted. That aside, its been great debating with you.

Since i have already said this, this brings me to my final point.

This debate has run its course. Any arguement that could be used for either side has been said. Unless someone comes up with something WAY original, it would have already been said at least once. Had this been an actual debate, the moderator of the debate would have declared it dead in the water a while ago and switched to a new topic.

I shall post very little else on this topic, but i had a great time debating with you guys, CC in particular. Your a tough opponent who stands their ground. Congratulations, and i hope you all took something away from this discussion.