Gun Control

[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.

[Guerrilla Guy]

@cystic:

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.

The Mofia is Corparate Crime… they can get gun and get away with it because the “cops” don’t have evidence… I’m not saying every student should have… I posed it as a contemplative question…

[Guest]

GG and GI,

you don’t need witnesses if you can arrest people for owning a gun. Thus, once you have someone as a suspect for being a member of organized crime, you search him.
If you find a gun, you have evidence!

The above makes the fight against organized crime much easier.

To Daarigaaz:
My sidenote is quite some time ago, and displays how you don’t read the postings of me (and CC in another case) not properly. It has nothing to do with the rest of the argument, that’s why i repeatedly made clear that it is a side note. You didn’t seem to care where it was from, or re-read the postings that lead to that sidenote.
Which just adds to that sidenote btw ….

To the later argument:
i still have not heard any reason for you, why we should keep up drug control, as it (from you view) obviously doesn’t work. That is how it started. You stated something, i followed that logic, you said i misunderstood you, and only restated your line, without going into the implications i gave.
All you said is “i am law abiding, so i would lose my gun, only criminals would keep their guns”. Following CCs lines, you would admit that this gives the police another handle against criminals, that you don’t seem to want. Follwoing your own lines, having guns “for self defense” seems just be a minor reason to own them, your main reason seems to be hunting.
Thus, why do you mind that criminals keep their guns? You invalidated/weakened your conter-argument yourself.

Summing up your reasons against gun control:
So, a reason not to ban weapons is that we haven’t banned cars/alcohol, which in combination are illegal. Another reason not to ban weapons is that shooting people is illegal. Another reason is that criminals would retain their then illegal weapons anyway. Drugs control doesn’t work, and that is a reason not to ban weapons.

You also have not yet answered which effort has been done by society and/or weapon manufacturers to reduce the number of “gun deaths” (which could be done by reducing the number of weapons around). A question i have asked several times and which solution has been given by CC. You haven’t answered why “owning a gun” is more important than a single human live.

So, i have not taken a lot from here, and i don’t think i want you to use this in your debate class. You should not want it yourself, as you have been nicely ignoring several lines by CC and me, which would not make you look good.

[Darrigaaz]

@F_alk:

Thus, once you have someone as a suspect for being a member of organized crime, you search him.
If you find a gun, you have evidence!

You can’t have a cop randomly walk up to people and ask them to empty their pockets any more than you can search someone’s house without a warrant.

To Daarigaaz:
My sidenote is quite some time ago, and displays how you don’t read the postings of me (and CC in another case) not properly. It has nothing to do with the rest of the argument, that’s why i repeatedly made clear that it is a side note. You didn’t seem to care where it was from, or re-read the postings that lead to that sidenote.
Which just adds to that sidenote btw ….

Correct, i don’t read your posts not properly.

i still have not heard any reason for you, why we should keep up drug control, as it (from you view) obviously doesn’t work.

I didn’t reply because it had nothing to do with the topic, and i only inserted it as an example of how smuggling guns would work.

That is how it started. You stated something, i followed that logic, you said i misunderstood you, and only restated your line…

Not true, i merely emphasized my ‘line’ and tried to explain it better.

…without going into the implications i gave.

Most times, i did go into the implications you gave, if i did not address one it is because i had either addressed it before, addressed it in relations to another point of yours of CC’s, or i simply thought i did a good of addressing it and apparently you didn’t.

All you said is “i am law abiding, so i would lose my gun, only criminals would keep their guns”. Following CCs lines, you would admit that this gives the police another handle against criminals, that you don’t seem to want. Follwoing your own lines, having guns “for self defense” seems just be a minor reason to own them, your main reason seems to be hunting.
Thus, why do you mind that criminals keep their guns? You invalidated/weakened your conter-argument yourself.

No i didn’t. My counter arguement is that by taking guns from EVERYONE, which i might add is gun control but gun removal, you screw over the non-criminals. I did not say that owning a gun for protection was a minor reason for guns, but that in MY mind it is. It doesn’t seem practical to me. When you say another handle against criminals, do you mean a way to bust them? It’s not that i want to protect the criminals, but i want keep firearms around for recreational purposes. My counter arguement against gun “removal” is that criminals would still be able to access guns, that banning firearms would screw hunters, and mainly that guns are not simply evil things, they actually have some recreational purpose. Also, while i don’t agree with it, who knows how owning a gun may comfort some people.

Summing up your reasons against gun control:
So, a reason not to ban weapons is that we haven’t banned cars/alcohol, which in combination are illegal. Another reason not to ban weapons is that shooting people is illegal. Another reason is that criminals would retain their then illegal weapons anyway. Drugs control doesn’t work, and that is a reason not to ban weapons.

You sure know how to pull out the strangest points i’ve made. My car/gun comparison was to show how rediculous it is to simply ban something outright like that and more importantly how one person can turn a good thing into a bad thing. You actually made sense with criminals will retain guns anyway thing, as i feel that that would happen, but i don’t even know that what that drug control thing was about. You somehow managed to turn my explaination of how easy it is to smuggle things into the country into a reason that guns should not be banned.

You also have not yet answered which effort has been done by society and/or weapon manufacturers to reduce the number of “gun deaths.”

Trigger locks and {those things that are metal tubes/links inserted into the chamber} do a fairly good job of saving five year olds and deterring school shootings. Those gun safes that look like bank vaults could stand up to an explosion by the looks of them, so they’d work great if they weren’t so expensive.

You haven’t answered why “owning a gun” is more important than a single human live.

because it hasn’t been asked yet. Here is my answer:

The point is that our country was founded on a belief of individual freedoms and that responsible use of these freedoms is something to be cherished and protected at all costs. Hundreds of thousand of americans have died in defense of this basic american ideal. You say that taking away all guns would be worth it to save one life, where do you draw the line?
There are 5 million members of the NRA, thats AT LEAST 5 million people who’s rights would be tossed away if all guns were banned.

“The same principle of law should apply to gun owners that applies to all other citizens you break the law and cause harm to others; you get punished and you lose your freedom and rights . You dont get punished just because some fanatical group of people with an opposing view says you should be.” Quote from my friend’s father, also a hunter.

(that took alot of thought…. how was it? i think that got my point across well)

So, i have not taken a lot from here, and i don’t think i want you to use this in your debate class. You should not want it yourself, as you have been nicely ignoring several lines by CC and me, which would not make you look good.

Actually i did use it, and with exception to the spelling errors, lack of locations for our sources, and the frequency that we got off topic, (hehe… oops) it was well recieved as a good debate.

Also… that estimate that there are over 200 million firearms in the country acording to the FBI; thats about the only thing pro and anti gun advocates agree on.

Another thing; “laughing at a valid point is the defense of those who have no valid response”. keep that in mind. its a good quote to pull out in unofficial debates over the internet.

Ok, now how was that for my reasoning? i think i answered all the stray questions… now i’m having a PBEM with Hurkyl in the games section, so i seriously will have to cut back on my debating time. Check out my New article for discussion… Cruise Missiles.

[DeviantScripter]

Also… that estimate that there are over 200 million firearms in the country acording to the FBI; thats about the only thing pro and anti gun advocates agree on.

Haha, that’s because pro-gun advocates are extremely proud of that number, and the anti-gun advocates feel like shitting a brick over it. :P

[Guest]

@Darrigaaz:

You can’t have a cop randomly walk up to people and ask them to empty their pockets any more than you can search someone’s house without a warrant.

That’s why i said suspect, and not anyone. You of course need to to collect sufficient material thatwould allow such a search, but when you then conduct it, just a gun could be enough to pull them out.

Correct, i don’t read your posts not properly.

i noticed that.

You sure know how to pull out the strangest points i’ve made. My car/gun comparison was to show how rediculous it is to simply ban something outright like that and more importantly how one person can turn a good thing into a bad thing. You actually made sense with criminals will retain guns anyway thing, as i feel that that would happen, but i don’t even know that what that drug control thing was about. You somehow managed to turn my explaination of how easy it is to smuggle things into the country into a reason that guns should not be banned.

I pull out the things that stick to my mind. If you find them strange, don’t make them in the first place!
When addressing how “easy” it is, to turn a good thing into a bad thing, you neglect that it is differently “easy”. It’s much easier to turn a gun into a bad thing, than to turn a car into a bad thing. You can use a small silver crucifix to kill people, with enough effort. You can use everything. It is more hard for some things, and pretty easy with others. Thus, we call those things which are in the “pretty easy” category … dangerous.
If i could not make that clear in previous posts, then i am sorry.

Trigger locks and {those things that are metal tubes/links inserted into the chamber} do a fairly good job of saving five year olds and deterring school shootings. Those gun safes that look like bank vaults could stand up to an explosion by the looks of them, so they’d work great if they weren’t so expensive.

Thanks for that info.
Are these devices standard… a must in newly produced weapons?
Why is the expensiveness of a gun safe an argument? If you cannot afford a car, you don’t get one. If you cannot afford a gun safe, you don’t get a gun!

You haven’t answered why “owning a gun” is more important than a single human live.

because it hasn’t been asked yet. Here is my answer:

@CC:

Since when is more slaughtered people and more people in jails preferable to a society with fewer slaughtering devices?

@CC:

A society where the right to have guns takes precedance over the lives of its citizens is a society with whacked priorities… trampling the rights of people to own guns is soo much more onerous than people losing their lives to these guns.

@me:

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

@CC:

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

Sorry that i didn’t ask that question explicitly before. If i overestimated your capabilites of to abstract, then i am sorry for that and will try not to let it happen again.

…You say that taking away all guns would be worth it to save one life, where do you draw the line?

That is what i asked you…… finally, you come to it.

There are 5 million members of the NRA, thats AT LEAST 5 million people who’s rights would be tossed away if all guns were banned.

And for me, it is no right, thus any single live is enough.

“The same principle of law should apply to gun owners that applies to all other citizens you break the law and cause harm to others; you get punished and you lose your freedom and rights . You dont get punished just because some fanatical group of people with an opposing view says you should be.” Quote from my friend’s father, also a hunter.

If you look up what Sherman28 said in a different thread:

In an American Court conspiracy to commit X, typically carries the same weight as committing X.

Doesn’t fit, because of the word “fanatical”. Soone fanatical has not only opposite views, but also acts according to his views, which would make him a criminal or at least conspiring. Anyway, that’s just a minor point. Fell free to anwer, i won’t carry it further after your reply.

Actually i did use it, and with exception to the spelling errors, lack of locations for our sources, and the frequency that we got off topic, (hehe… oops) it was well recieved as a good debate.

@me:

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.

I am close to call you names for that. First you ask, and then you totally ignore the answers. Why did you ask us then in the first place?

Also… that estimate that there are over 200 million firearms in the country acording to the FBI; thats about the only thing pro and anti gun advocates agree on.

The Bundeskriminalamt thinks that it is 20 million weapons in the country.

Find my post where i first said it’s not 200 but 20 million. Find the quote. Red the following next two lines, and you will see what i was actually critizing all the time.

Another thing; “laughing at a valid point is the defense of those who have no valid response”. keep that in mind. its a good quote to pull out in unofficial debates over the internet.

Well, whoever looks for the stick in the others eye should look for the log in his own… or something like that. That’s another good quote to pull out…

[ElementUnknown]

I know I’m jumping in on this here, but here’s my thoughts:

Marijuana is illegal. I know many people who smoke it. If guns were to be illegal, many would still have them, and they would probably not be people who normally abide the law. At least with legalized guns we have a way of tracking more murders if registered guns are used.

[Darrigaaz]

Correct, i don’t read your posts not properly.

Thats a double negative… i mens yes i do read your posts properly.

You can get trigger locks very cheap or even for free from the sensible gun-controlists.
You cant really standardize a lock/safe, seeing as the governmnet cant walk into your house to inspect. Thats not a bad idea. All newly made firearms have a safety mechanism.

@CC:

Since when is more slaughtered people and more people in jails preferable to a society with fewer slaughtering devices?

Ok you got me on this one…. i guess i just read it as a rhetorical question. Even reading it over now… i still get the impression that thats what it was…
@CC:

A society where the right to have guns takes precedance over the lives of its citizens is a society with whacked priorities… trampling the rights of people to own guns is soo much more onerous than people losing their lives to these guns.

Nope…. a statement regarding the topic, not asking the question. And i gave my reasoning/opinion.
@me:

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 answered this one. But the date is incorrect and i cant find the post anymore.
@CC:

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

That was more of angry remark, and while its on the subject, it doesnt ask the question.

Sorry that i didn’t ask that question explicitly before. If i overestimated your capabilites of to abstract, then i am sorry for that and will try not to let it happen again.

Thats like like we’re having a conversation on penguin conservation and you expect me to magically know when to talk about how their breeding affects survival. ok…. that was an absolutely terrible analogy, but basically you can’t expect me to say absolutely everything you want to hear when you want to hear it any more than i can you.

And calm down on the snide remarks, there’s no need for you to get angry. I’m glad that your passionate about the subject, but acting like that really does nothing but make you look petty.

That is what i asked you…… finally, you come to it.

While severe gun controlists like yourself seem to want to do anything and everything to save a life without thinking of those you hurt. Then you (well, CC actually) say that “Well who cares about what millions of honest americans will think about this, we saved a life, and that makes it alright” (Paraphrased) Sure its great that you saved a life, but you made millions of lives a bit worse. The whole issue, including which side you stand on, boils down to your opinions on morality. People will always die. In most cases, there would have been a way for us to have saved them. But if society were to do everything it could to save these people, we would have nothing. Moderation is the key. YOU are not a hunter/gun owner. YOU have no experience with them. Name something thats dear to you. ok, lets not use you, lets use the millions of people worldwide who use tobacco products. Tobacco is dangerous not only to those who use it, but to those near those who use it. I have no experience with tobacco, so in my mind i would gladly wish it banned to save the thousands who die from it every year. But what about all those smokers out there? I’m sure they dissagree with me.

And for me, it is no right, thus any single live is enough.

Well in that case, owning a chainsaw, to me, is no right. Does that mean that it makes sense to ban all chainsaws to protect people from death and injury?

“The same principle of law should apply to gun owners that applies to all other citizens you break the law and cause harm to others; you get punished and you lose your freedom and rights . You dont get punished just because some fanatical group of people with an opposing view says you should be.” Quote from my friend’s father, also a hunter.

If you look up what Sherman28 said in a different thread:

In an American Court conspiracy to commit X, typically carries the same weight as committing X.

good quote, but average gun owners do not conspire to go out and murder people in their sleep.

Doesn’t fit, because of the word “fanatical”. Soone fanatical has not only opposite views, but also acts according to his views, which would make him a criminal or at least conspiring. Anyway, that’s just a minor point. Fell free to anwer, i won’t carry it further after your reply.

So when i make a small point, you can turn it into a rhinocerous, but i cant’? ha!
P.S. fits fine…

I am close to call you names for that. First you ask, and then you totally ignore the answers. Why did you ask us then in the first place?

I didn’t ask you if you thought it was a good idea, just if you had a problem with it. Get over yourself.

Also… that estimate that there are over 200 million firearms in the country acording to the FBI; thats about the only thing pro and anti gun advocates agree on.

Well, whoever looks for the stick in the others eye should look for the log in his own… or something like that. That’s another good quote to pull out…

i like my quote better :P

[Guerrilla Guy]

CC, do you really think most gun owners walk around just wating to blow people’s brains out? If this statement is true then Minnesota should be a war zone and New York City Heaven…

GG

[cystic crypt]

While severe gun controlists like yourself seem to want to do anything and everything to save a life without thinking of those you hurt. Then you (well, CC actually) say that “Well who cares about what millions of honest americans will think about this, we saved a life, and that makes it alright” (Paraphrased) Sure its great that you saved a life, but you made millions of lives a bit worse. The whole issue, including which side you stand on, boils down to your opinions on morality. People will always die. In most cases, there would have been a way for us to have saved them. But if society were to do everything it could to save these people, we would have nothing. Moderation is the key. YOU are not a hunter/gun owner. YOU have no experience with them. Name something thats dear to you. ok, lets not use you, lets use the millions of people worldwide who use tobacco products. Tobacco is dangerous not only to those who use it, but to those near those who use it. I have no experience with tobacco, so in my mind i would gladly wish it banned to save the thousands who die from it every year. But what about all those smokers out there? I’m sure they dissagree with me.

it’s not about saving “A” life, but thousands and thousands. America had over 11 000 gun homicides last year. This number does not include (afaik) accidental gun deaths. Nor does this number include gun-woundings. This number is nearly 70 times that of Canada (with 1/10th the population - again, not including the wounded). These numbers are substantially more than 1 person (and yes, i would say that to save the life of 1 child, one 6 year old girl, a million people should be denied the right to own a firearm.
As far as tobacco goes - you are absolutely right. We are increasingly making smokers pariahs in society. I believe that people who smoke around children should be charged with child abuse. There are increasing laws and taxes limiting public smoking, and decreasing the amount of smoking period. I am all about eliminating smoking from society beginning at the level of the producers and providers.
I hope this clears up my stance a little bit. Should all hunters suffer the loss of a firearm if it would prevent 1 death? I suppose the dear, moose, fox, etc. wouldn’t mind so much . . . .

[Guerrilla Guy]

FBI Statistics (FBI, “Crime in US” 1998) stated that 2/3 of all firearm deaths are criminals killing criminals! It is against the law to commit Murder! Guns are used 6,580(resistance to crime: the prevealance and nature of Self-Defense with a Gun #86 “the Journal of Criminal Law” Northwestern Univ. of Law) times a DAY to defend themselves (me brings up handy computer calculator…) if we times that be 300 (just for a conservative rate we get: 2,055,000 lives saved every year! remembr that this is a conservative rate… Thousands are not lost because of accidents but because of suicide! 2% of firearm deaths related to civilians shooting actually killed a innocent person… I feel bad that a 1 and 6 yo got shot by their brother just as anyone else would… Everyone doesn’t deserve to die an early death by any means… do not auto assume that we are non-caring Americans who just want a gun for bragging rights… we would own them for a reason… The parents were not there (why I don’t know) and the gun was not secure so something like that was bound to accure… Here is a question for you: why does the politician who is making a speech about how his new gun control law will save lives, why does he need 5 body guards?

GG

[djensen]

@Yanny:

There should be three kinds of guns in this country.

1. Guns designed for hunting
2. Guns designed for policemen
3. Guns designed for the military

I challenge you to name for me one reason why you need a gun other than the three above mentioned reasons, if no one else has a gun.

Guns for self protection against (non-human) animals in the wild. I knew somebody who grew up in Alaska and he said you are stupid if you go into the Alaskan wilderness without a gun.

[Grigoriy Ivanovitch]

(and yes, i would say that to save the life of 1 child, one 6 year old girl, a million people should be denied the right to own a firearm.

What if that 6 year old girl had been run over by someone driving a car? Would you say that millions of car owners should be denied the right to own a car?

[Darrigaaz]

America had over 11 000 gun homicides last year.

This figure was actually brought up by super liberal Kevin today during my George Bush Rant. It DOES include those caused by accidents. Of those that were crimes, as either you or F_alk so aptly put it, 96% were performed by illegally owned firearms. Your first priority should be to find a way to remove illegally owned firearms from our country, or my country i should say. (your from canada, right?) This, which would be VERY difficult, but surely someone as smart as you could figure out a solution. I think since we have been over the banning guns philosophy on both sides, this would be a great way to branch off but stay on topic.

This number is nearly 70 times that of Canada (with 1/10th the population - again, not including the wounded).

off topic: i went to Canada last year, and despite all the jokes people may make, Canada does have a few really good things going for it. As i drove through Ottawa, i noticed that the city is insanely clean! and really easy to navigate. While on another road trip, i got lost in the bronx for three friggin hours because the roads were all screwed up, and a past the same damned blue bridge 16 times! Also Canada’s crime rate is like Nil. On the news up there, they were talking about a massive crime wave, and the numbers they spoke of were so miniscule i almost laughed. My trip there was really fun and pleasant though; with only two things going wrong. Some guy in an army surplus store lied to me when i bought a helemt there. i knew he was lying, but still bought it. He told me it was British WWII era, but it looks nothing like any of their helmet models.

The second thing was that while driving home through Quebec, i got bit by an elk (also known as the Wapiti). It didn’t break the skin, but it was still traumatizing.

Should all hunters suffer the loss of a firearm if it would prevent 1 death? I suppose the dear, moose, fox, etc. wouldn’t mind so much . . . .

That was really well written, and you must have put a great deal of thought into it. But let me just say that hunting is a lot more humane than any of the ways fast food joints ETC kill their animals. Damn Macdonalds and its ‘making a bad name for the United States’-ness.

[Guest]

Darrigaaz,
do you want to make me laugh or cry?
Seriously, you can’t be just that……

On my trolls-list, you climb up position after position…

[cystic crypt]

@Guerrilla:

FBI Statistics (FBI, “Crime in US” 1998) stated that 2/3 of all firearm deaths are criminals killing criminals! It is against the law to commit Murder!

dumbest stat ever!! So 1/3 of these involved non-criminals?? This alone is a travesty!! Also the killing of “criminals” is not necessarily something to be desired. I guess unless you are an American . . . .

Guns are used 6,580(resistance to crime: the prevealance and nature of Self-Defense with a Gun #86 “the Journal of Criminal Law” Northwestern Univ. of Law) times a DAY to defend themselves (me brings up handy computer calculator…) if we times that be 300 (just for a conservative rate we get: 2,055,000 lives saved every year! remembr that this is a conservative rate…

gee . . . i wonder if there were no guns, how many times would a gun be necessary to be used for self-defense? Also, i really question this stat. Yours is one scary nation where a gun may save over 2 000 000 lives every year. Add that onto the number of times where there is an attack with no gun to save the life, and your society is far to anarchist to be imagined.

Thousands are not lost because of accidents but because of suicide! 2% of firearm deaths related to civilians shooting actually killed a innocent person…

Again, i do not know about America, but here we work extremely hard to prevent suicides. If removing guns from the situation may delay the commission of a suicide, these people may actually get the help they need instead of offing themselves. This is extraordinarily tragic. And only 2%? Geee . . . that’s not very many at all. How about we eliminate this 2%? Or is this only a problem if you know one of these people??

I feel bad that a 1 and 6 yo got shot by their brother just as anyone else would… Everyone doesn’t deserve to die an early death by any means… do not auto assume that we are non-caring Americans who just want a gun for bragging rights… we would own them for a reason… The parents were not there (why I don’t know) and the gun was not secure so something like that was bound to accure…

while the gun was there, then yes, something was bound to occur. If the gun was not there, then the chances of this occurring were much more remote.

Here is a question for you: why does the politician who is making a speech about how his new gun control law will save lives, why does he need 5 body guards?

Why is a nation with so many guns, the most apparently terrified, crime-ridden, murderous, most insecure, most unsafe nation in the world?
He needs the 5 body guards (and he has many many more) because:

1. He’s a head of state
2. Because there is a demonstrated need for new TIGHTER gun control.

[cystic crypt]

@Grigoriy:

(and yes, i would say that to save the life of 1 child, one 6 year old girl, a million people should be denied the right to own a firearm.

What if that 6 year old girl had been run over by someone driving a car? Would you say that millions of car owners should be denied the right to own a car?

tragically this happens all to often. Given our reliance on cars for many beneficent uses, the elimination of cars would set us back as a society. At the same time, i am in favor of much tighter regulation of cars and driver’s licenses. Increased mandatory safety checks, more difficulty in attaining and maintaining a license, etc. Also loving the idea of the ignition tied to a breathalyzer. Careless drivers lose their licenses entirely, as well as their cars . . . .
Also - note: it is not simply one 6-year old. it is thousands and thousands of people killed by units created not to help mankind, but to KILL PEOPLE!!

[Guest]

@djensen:

I knew somebody who grew up in Alaska and he said you are stupid if you go into the Alaskan wilderness without a gun.

I know that guy, too.

But I know a coupla hot chicks who lived there for over 30 years who say the same thing. They moved here for the work and the warmer weather. With the warm winters Alaska’s been having they’re thinking of moving back up there. Boy, will I miss them. Woo-woo!

Went shooting with them, too, and boy can they shoot!(revolver and rifle.)
Glad to call them friend and neighbour!

[El Jefe]

Dammit! That was me… bumped offline again!

@Anonymous:

@djensen:

I knew somebody who grew up in Alaska and he said you are stupid if you go into the Alaskan wilderness without a gun.

I know that guy, too.

But I know a coupla hot chicks who lived there for over 30 years who say the same thing. They moved here for the work and the warmer weather. With the warm winters Alaska’s been having they’re thinking of moving back up there. Boy, will I miss them. Woo-woo!

Went shooting with them, too, and boy can they shoot!(revolver and rifle.)
Glad to call them friend and neighbour!

[Guerrilla Guy]

I’m back…

CC wrote:
Also - note: it is not simply one 6-year old. it is thousands and thousands of people killed by units created not to help mankind, but to KILL PEOPLE!!

As I said, it has also saved over a million a year… you never hear those stories cause they promote gun use… are those people that were saved insignificant? maybe they are unintelligent zombies :wink: :lol: … many 6 yo were saved when her father pulled out a .22 or a .38 special and gave the burglar, murderer whatever a scare… why don’t you mention those saved…

GG