data:
The rate at which children under 15 years of age are murdered with guns in our country is 16 times higher than in the 25 other wealthiest industrialized countries combined

source:
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 46 Mortality & Morbidity Wkly. Rep. 101 (Feb. 1997)

graphs:
Deaths Due to External Causes Among Adolescents Ages 15-19: 2001
(rate per 100,000)
Source (II.10): National Center for Health Statistics


Firearms Mortality Among Adolescents Ages 15-19: 2000 and 2001
(rate per 100,000)
Source (II.10): National Center for Health Statistics



statistics are there for a reason. so we can see the trend.
and we can clearly see gun violence with intent to kill is high

gun fatality rate in other countries that don't have guns is less important than murder rate, or violent crime rate. Of course gun related homicide is going to drop, but you need to prove that homicide that is performed by other means doesn't go up a comprable amount.

You need to show that the same people who kill people with guns aren't going to just kill people by some other means.

If around the same number of people are getting murdered then whats the point in restricting our freedom?

You also can't use total numbers because as america has a larger population it's of course going to have a larger number of homicides, you need to show precentages, what precent of the total population of our country is being murdered as opposed to the precent in other countries that have stronger firearm laws but smaller populations.

For the sake of the argument, these numbers go to proving very little

so it's okay that people get killed by guns, as long as it's a small percentage of the murders style?

my point is gun homicide has some serious numbers.
maybe by banning or making it hard for people to get a gun then the numbers will go down.

tell me if you have statistics of countries that banned guns and have high gun homicide. having a gun is instant murder. there's no coming back from bieng shot across the street in the head and bleeding out.

sure you can debate that by banning guns it might increase the deaths by knives. but think about how close you have to be to kill someone with a knife.

a gun is a coward's weapon. you kill from long distances.

that's why i never like the term "hunter" to those people with rifles that can shoot yards away, where's the challenge of the kill? they said they feel like a man when they kill something that's beyond the perception of the animal's senses.

BTW people who argue gun control is putting more sources and statistics than the other side. so if yer still counting stats, you should put some in yourself.

subcultured
so it's okay that people get killed by guns, as long as it's a small percentage of the murders style?

my point is gun homicide has some serious numbers.
maybe by banning or making it hard for people to get a gun then the numbers will go down.

sure you can debate that by banning guns it might increase the deaths by knives. but think about how close you have to be to kill someone with a knife.

a gun is a coward's weapon. you kill from long distances.

that's why i never like the term "hunter" to those people with rifles that can shoot yards away, where's the challenge of the kill? they said they feel like a man when they kill something that's beyond the perception of the animal's senses.

It doesn't matter how you're killed if you're dead. You're saying we should change things but you're not showing me that changing things will make them better. If intentional vehicular homicide or knife murders go up comprable to the amount of gun murders that go down, and you net the same number of murder, what the hell was the point of restricting our freedoms? Dead is dead it doesn't matter if you were murdered by someone with a gun, or a knife, or a pair of bagpipes. How close someone has to be to me to kill me with a knife is immaterial. I could really care less how "brave" my murderer is.

tell me if you have statistics of countries that banned guns and have high gun homicide. having a gun is instant murder. there's no coming back from bieng shot across the street in the head and bleeding out.

BTW people who argue gun control is putting more sources and statistics than the other side. so if yer still counting stats, you should put some in yourself.

I think I was pretty clear when I said the statistics on both sides of this argument were questionable. Ronson never backed up his car accident statistics. He admitted you cant pin down a real number for self defense statistics. But the Pro-gun conrol argument is basing it's position on statistics more than the anti-gun control argument is. The anti-gun control argument is that you can't say for certain that banning gun control will improve anything.

I don't need to supply statistics because I'm not trying to change anything. Our conversation is:
You: "Lets change this because it'll be better."
Me: "Ok, well show me how it'll be better. I'm not going to take your word for it."
You: "No, you show me how it WON'T be better."

you can still find statistics to support your argument for not changing.

all you're doing is expressing your opinion.
you want everyone else to provide statistics for thiers.

homicides will likely go down if there is gun banning.
they can't shoot you with a knife from a drive by or stab 30 people while going the hallway.

the likelyhood of killing a mass # of people with other weapons other than guns are unlikely.

you don't have a gun around unless you are planning to kill something.
cars are not meant or design to kill. guns are to kill. bullet from guns are design to kill. if cars are design for maximum kill then our cars would have spikes bombs and knives on the bumper. so that argument is nonsensical.

there are non lethal ways to incapacitate someone.
in a situation were the other person has a gun an pulls it on you, do you have your gun on your side to pull at the same time?

so you're pretty much screwed. even if you have a gun in the house for protection. bullets go through walls. if you have a gun and is shooting at a robber and misses out through an apartment wall and kills your nieghbor's kid. how would that feel?

what do you mean that statistics for this argument is arguable?

When people get conservative about an idea or position, it's damn hard to shift them Sub.

Speaking of conservatives, I notice there has been a very strong spin, a propagandaish spin even, put on this current shooting. The bullshit meter is pretty high! To whit: the popular US media is actively promoting the idea that the only reason this shooting occurred is because the boy was a nutcase, and if he hadn't been a nutcase then it would have ALL been OK and no shootings would ever have happened because guns are just harmless pieces of kit that everyone should carry and only loonys ever kill people with guns.

Well how about this: if you think you need to own a gun for protection, you are likely to be a loony and we should have protection from you. lol!

Now if you lived in Faluja or Johannesburg, then it might be understandable... Or if you were going yachting around South East Asia you wouldn't be a nut if you had a sub machine-gun or a double barrel shotgun, but in a lawful, civilised, politically stable country like the US you are the danger point if you carry your own personal WMD.

subcultured
you can still find statistics to support your argument for not changing.

I don't need to supply statistics becasue I represent status quo. Theres no sense in changing unless its worthwhile

homicides will likely go down if there is gun banning.

theres that word, "likely" along with "probably" and "might" these are all words that mean "I want this statement to be true, but have nothing to support that it is true."

they can't shoot you with a knife from a drive by or stab 30 people while going the hallway.

But they can blow up 30 people with a bomb they found out how to build on the internet in less time than it would've taken to undergo the background check it takes to get a gun

the likelyhood of killing a mass # of people with other weapons other than guns are unlikely.

you don't have a gun around unless you are planning to kill something.

Self defense. What about the people who have guns but not bullets? I've known plenty of them. If the badguy knows you have a gun they leave you alone, they're not anymore interested in getting shot than you are. And lets say you have bullets for your self defense gun. Whats preventing you from shooting them somewhere nonleathal? Why does every GSW have to be a headshot in your arguments?

cars are not meant or design to kill. guns are to kill. bullet from guns are design to kill. if cars are design for maximum kill then our cars would have spikes bombs and knives on the bumper. so that argument is nonsensical.

there are non lethal ways to incapacitate someone.
in a situation were the other person has a gun an pulls it on you, do you have your gun on your side to pull at the same time?

What about all those times someone just has a knife and pulls it on you. Or maybe just corners you with like six people that are going to rape you. Why does EVERYONE have a gun in your examples? Everyone doesn't have a gun in real life.


so you're pretty much screwed. even if you have a gun in the house for protection. bullets go through walls. if you have a gun and is shooting at a robber and misses out through an apartment wall and kills your nieghbor's kid. how would that feel?


And what if I hit a patch of ice in my car and run over my neigbors other kid. Accidents and murders aren't the same. In one sentence you say guns are bad because you have it to intentionally kill someone. And in another sentence you say imagine a scenario where you accidentally kill someone with a gun.

what do you mean that statistics for this argument is arguable?

I said they're not real. because you haven't shown any precentages and you havent' shown anything to compare them to. I could go find the number of people who died chokeing on pie and therefore conclude pie was bad. But you'd say, no because the ratio of pie related deaths to the total amount of pie is small. And theres no reason to believe that the pie is at fault for their death, rather than the way they eat, so I'd need total deaths from choking in an environment with pie and an environment without pie to make any conclusion on what effect pie has on this number of choking deaths.

well, im not really trying to forcebly shift ideas.
I just like to discuss.

I know what we talk here prolly won't matter to law makers or have a bill passed. so people shouldn't take offense.

and i saw that too. "sure he's just crazy, look at his letters"
i see him as a madman who found weapons of mass killing.

if hitler didn't have his armies and weapons, he'd just be a crazy man talking about genocide.

you have weapon access, you can make some serious damage.

ozoneocean
When people get conservative about an idea or position, it's damn hard to shift them Sub.

So are you suddenly for baning all guns now ozone? personally I'm not against the ban of auto or semi auto weapons, although I don't have a good answer to the "only criminals will have them" question that comes about. But really, you only need one bullet, or really the threat of one bullet to deter people who mean to do you harm. So having automatic weapons could understadably be seen as unnessecary overkill

Speaking of conservatives, I notice there has been a very strong spin, a propagandaish spin even, put on this current shooting. The bullshit meter is pretty high! To whit: the popular US media is actively promoting the idea that the only reason this shooting occurred is because the boy was a nutcase, and if he hadn't been a nutcase then it would have ALL been OK and no shootings would ever have happened because guns are just harmless pieces of kit that everyone should carry and only loonys ever kill people with guns.

Meanwhile the liberal position, as presented on the forum is that if he didn't have a gun it would've been just way too much of a hassle for him to kill those people so he would've had a sandwitch instead. And then laughed about it 50 years later with his grandkids about his silly "manifesto." No one knows what would've happened. Sure it could've been much better if he couldn't get a gun, but it just as easily could've been much worse.

Well how about this: if you think you need to own a gun for protection, you are likely to be a loony and we should have protection from you. lol!

Now if you lived in Faluja or Johannesburg, then it might be understandable... Or if you were going yachting around South East Asia you wouldn't be a nut if you had a sub machine-gun or a double barrel shotgun, but in a lawful, civilised, politically stable country like the US you are the danger point if you carry your own personal WMD.

The idea that America is "safe" is naive. Just because we're not in political upheaval doesn't mean no one needs to protect themself, and therefore shouldn't have the option to protect themselves.

I'm really playing devils advocate more than I'm advocating my own position. So many of pro-gun control arguments are "quid pro quo" but they never prove the link between "quid" and "quo"

Someone
I don't need to supply statistics becasue I represent status quo. Theres no sense in changing unless its worthwhile

a statistic you could try diggin up would be how many protection with a gun has been know. Just because it's the status quo doens't mean it's right. the status quo before used to be that cig were safe. they even have the flinstones advertise cigs.

well statistic shows the rate of death from smokers show that the status quo was wrong.

Someone
theres that word, "likely" along with "probably" and "might" these are all words that mean "I want this statement to be true, but have nothing to support that it is true."

it's a hypothesis pertaining an experiment from data with countries who banned guns (japan, england)

Someone
But they can blow up 30 people with a bomb they found out how to build on the internet in less time than it would've taken to undergo the background check it takes to get a gun

gun makes it easier...it's pre assembled. people who by bomb materials are immediatly suspectd of bomb making. people who buy guns aren't immediatly suspected of a serial killer.

Someone
Self defense. What about the people who have guns but not bullets? I've known plenty of them. If the badguy knows you have a gun they leave you alone, they're not anymore interested in getting shot than you are. And lets say you have bullets for your self defense gun. Whats preventing you from shooting them somewhere nonleathal? Why does every GSW have to be a headshot in your arguments?

why have a workable gun at all?
so every joe blow know where the major artery is gonna be and the robber is just gonna stand there and let him shoot you in a nonlethal section of his body.

Someone
And what if I hit a patch of ice in my car and run over my neigbors other kid. Accidents and murders aren't the same. In one sentence you say guns are bad because you have it to intentionally kill someone. And in another sentence you say imagine a scenario where you accidentally kill someone with a gun.

that's an accident, nothing to do with the intent to kill or be killed for protection.
i was arguing why have guns at all if it's so easy to kill with it intentionally or accidentaly.

Someone
I said they're not real. because you haven't shown any precentages and you havent' shown anything to compare them to. I could go find the number of people who died chokeing on pie and therefore conclude pie was bad.

so go find me a stat of pie murders and lets see if that stat goes higher than gun murders.

the stats was for the #'s of gun deaths not camparison that's why i stated above it ho wmuch each line was.

kingofsnake
But they can blow up 30 people with a bomb they found out how to build on the internet in less time than it would've taken to undergo the background check it takes to get a gun

Please don't ever use this in an argument, seriously... They should do a mythbusters on this one. IT IS VERY MUCH EASIER to get guns to kill lots and lots of people with than it is to make, build and deploy bombs.

Just because you can find out how to make VX nerve gas, don't mean you can actually do it.
-an extreme example, but it goes the same for normal explosives.

subcultured
and i saw that too. "sure he's just crazy, look at his letters"
i see him as a madman who found weapons of mass killing.

Ah, but don't you see? The angle is that "only mad people" do these things, that's being hyped above the idea of the actual gun use. That's why you have people saying stupid things like "cars kill" etc. They've been manipulated into diluting the issue.

Of course gun related homicide is going to drop, but you need to prove that homicide that is performed by other means doesn't go up a comprable amount.

I could have sworn I went over this in a past thread. Particularly when I said that the "violent crimes" argument meant nothing because it included various crimes which had a very low possibility of resulting in injury or death. Things like breaking and entering, stealing cars and so forth. I then went on to explain that countries like Britain, which conservatives will be quick to point out have a higher rate of "violent crime" also have a much lower rate of homicide. Sites like Nation Master, which uses information from the CIA database, can give you a nice rundown of the murder rate per capita of the various countries in the world. Not surprisingly, of the developed countries in the world, gun related murder and murder correlate fairly well, showing that countries with a lot of gun crime generally have more homicide. It also isn't surprising that the US rates much higher on the homicide list (in fact, they're the top of the list for developed nations) than countries like Britain and Japan.

subcultured
well statistic shows the rate of death from smokers show that the status quo was wrong.

So show me the statistics for the rate of death of people with countries with guns vs countries without guns? I'm not arguing for tobacco, I have the data that shows tobacco=bad. give me the data that shows guns=bad and I'll be on board.

it's a hypothesis pertaining an experiment from data with countries who banned guns (japan, england)

And yet you haven't given complete data on either of those countries, you made supposition off partial data and built a hypothesis on that supposition.

gun makes it easier...it's pre assembled. people who by bomb materials are immediatly suspectd of bomb making. people who buy guns aren't immediatly suspected of a serial killer.

I'm sure the guy at the hardware store was suspicious as soon as the guy bought all that fertilzer. "This guy isn't doing some landscapping....he's making a bomb!"

why have a workable gun at all?
so every joe blow know where the major artery is gonna be and the robber is just gonna stand there and let him shoot you in a nonlethal section of his body.

Only as much as they're going to stand their and let you shoot them somewhere lethal. What makes it easier to shoot someone in the head than the shoulder? And why have a workable gun at all? Well if nobody knows it doesn't work than it really doesn't matter does it?

that's an accident, nothing to do with the intent to kill or be killed for protection.
i was arguing why have guns at all if it's so easy to kill with it intentionally or accidentaly.

why have cars at all if it's so easily to accidentally kill with one? One argument at a time. You wan to do the intentional argument I won't mention car accidents. If you want to mention accidental gun related deaths then theres no reason not to compare it to car accidents.

so go find me a stat of pie murders and lets see if that stat goes higher than gun murders.

the stats was for the #'s of gun deaths not camparison that's why i stated above it ho wmuch each line was.

Numbers don't mean anything unless theres something to compare them to, and that was my point with the pie analogy.
-----

ozoneocean
Please don't ever use this in an argument, seriously... They should do a mythbusters on this one. IT IS VERY MUCH EASIER to get guns to kill lots and lots of people with than it is to make, build and deploy bombs.

Just because you can find out how to make VX nerve gas, don't mean you can actually do it.

Please don't quote me mythbusters as a viable source. They once tried to show how someone couldn't get thrown through a plate glass window by throwing a gelatin dummy through one. He was naked and didn't have skin. Now if their myth had been, if you're naked and someone peeled your skin off you'll get cut up alot when you're thrown through a window then I'd be on board.

Just because the mythbusters said something doesn't make it true. they're biased going into things, it's hardly double blind.

Ah, but don't you see? The angle is that "only mad people" do these things, that's being hyped above the idea of the actual gun use. That's why you have people saying stupid things like "cars kill" etc. They've been manipulated into diluting the issue.

Because the flipside of the coin is saying that this happened because of guns. Both sides of this coin are wrong.

isukun
I could have sworn I went over this in a past thread. Particularly when I said that the "violent crimes" argument meant nothing because it included various crimes which had a very low possibility of resulting in injury or death. Things like breaking and entering, stealing cars and so forth. I then went on to explain that countries like Britain, which conservatives will be quick to point out have a higher rate of "violent crime" also have a much lower rate of homicide. Sites like Nation Master, which uses information from the CIA database, can give you a nice rundown of the murder rate per capita of the various countries in the world. Not surprisingly, of the developed countries in the world, gun related murder and murder correlate fairly well, showing that countries with a lot of gun crime generally have more homicide. It also isn't surprising that the US rates much higher on the homicide list (in fact, they're the top of the list for developed nations) than countries like Britain and Japan.

I agree with you about your first point on the "different definitions of violent crime" but the fact that those numbers may not synch up doesn't prove the opposite.

You make alot of claims as to what the statistics are but you're not actually giving the statistics. I'm receiving the information third hand from a biased source. Show me where you're getting you statistics so I can base a decision off them.

kingofsnake
Please don't quote me mythbusters as a viable source.

I never did, Please read my postings :)
I said someone "should" do a mythbusters on it. Because like the rest of your do nothing gun law arguments, it's based on hearsay and constructed knowledge.

i swear i feel like i'm doing all the work and putting out statistics that is gonna be ignored. it's not like it's hard to research this. but here it is.

Australia

Someone
Australia strengthened its gun control laws following a massacre on April 28, 1996. Martin Bryant, a twenty-nine-year-old man with a history of mental problems, walked through the resort town of Port Arthur with a variety of assault weapons, shooting fifty-four people, thirty-five of whom died. The Australian government responded quickly. Within two weeks, it introduced legislation that included a registration system for all firearms, a twenty-eight day waiting period prior to purchase, and a ban on the possession, sale, and manufacture of automatic and semiautomatic weapons. A gun buyback program was also enacted in 1996

Someone
According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, in 1997 there were 2,185 robberies—24.1 percent of all armed robberies—that involved firearms. In 1998, that number fell to 1,910 (17.6 percent). The number of murders committed with firearms also fell, from 99 in 1996 (the year of the Port Arthur massacre) to 54 in 1998

Someone
“Where firearms are present in violent crimes, the statistics show a drop between 1996 and 1997 from 25.3 percent to 24.2 percent for armed robbery; . . . from 5.3 percent to 2.6 percent for manslaughter.”

Great Britain

Someone
A massacre in Great Britain led to a change in gun control policy in that country. The nation was shocked when forty-three-year-old camera vendor and freelance photographer Thomas Hamilton walked into a school gymnasium in March 1996, in Dunblane, Scotland, shot sixteen kindergartners and a teacher dead, left another twelve children wounded, and then committed suicide. In response, the Parliament approved the Firearms Amendment Act.

Someone
An article from the August 12, 2000, Economist states that firearmrelated crimes fell in Britain from 5,209 in 1996 to 3,143 in 1999. Firearm homicides in England and Wales declined from an annual average of 62 from 1994 to 1996 to 52 per year since then

Japan

Someone
Japan has an especially low level of violent crime. In 1996, fifteen people were killed by handguns in Japan.

US

Someone
.In 2000,guns claimed 28,663 lives in the United
States. gun Homicide 10,801

subcultured
i swear i feel like i'm doing all the work and putting out statistics that is gonna be ignored. it's not like it's hard to research this. but here it is.

Don't be so pessimistic

Australia

Someone
Australia strengthened its gun control laws following a massacre on April 28, 1996. Martin Bryant, a twenty-nine-year-old man with a history of mental problems, walked through the resort town of Port Arthur with a variety of assault weapons, shooting fifty-four people, thirty-five of whom died. The Australian government responded quickly. Within two weeks, it introduced legislation that included a registration system for all firearms, a twenty-eight day waiting period prior to purchase, and a ban on the possession, sale, and manufacture of automatic and semiautomatic weapons. A gun buyback program was also enacted in 1996

Someone
According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, in 1997 there were 2,185 robberiesâ??24.1 percent of all armed robberiesâ??that involved firearms. In 1998, that number fell to 1,910 (17.6 percent). The number of murders committed with firearms also fell, from 99 in 1996 (the year of the Port Arthur massacre) to 54 in 1998

Does that 1996 number include the 35 that died in the massacre, which could reasonably be viewed as an anomly. If so it's only a difference of 10 murders, and even then it's only murders with firearms, not total murders, I'm interested in seeing if the total murders also went down, stayed the same, or went up.

Someone
â??Where firearms are present in violent crimes, the statistics show a drop between 1996 and 1997 from 25.3 percent to 24.2 percent for armed robbery; . . . from 5.3 percent to 2.6 percent for manslaughter.â??

What constitutes as a violent crime, as isukun mentioned? The precent drop in armed robber is an incidental 1.1. Does it mark the beginning of a downward trend? What was the following year? What is the precent of is that the precent of armed robbery out of violent crimes, or total population?

Great Britain

Someone
A massacre in Great Britain led to a change in gun control policy in that country. The nation was shocked when forty-three-year-old camera vendor and freelance photographer Thomas Hamilton walked into a school gymnasium in March 1996, in Dunblane, Scotland, shot sixteen kindergartners and a teacher dead, left another twelve children wounded, and then committed suicide. In response, the Parliament approved the Firearms Amendment Act.

Someone
An article from the August 12, 2000, Economist states that firearmrelated crimes fell in Britain from 5,209 in 1996 to 3,143 in 1999. Firearm homicides in England and Wales declined from an annual average of 62 from 1994 to 1996 to 52 per year since then

Again, what about homicide that was not handgun related. Did that also decline? I doubt it. I'm betting it went up, as did non-firearm realted crime. But its reasonable to suspect that none of this has anything to do with firearms, I've cited an article below.

Japan

Someone
Japan has an especially low level of violent crime. In 1996, fifteen people were killed by handguns in Japan.

But how many people in japan were killed that year total? What precentage of the population of japan is that number. US has a much larger population, therfore it's figures would also be larger.

US

Someone
.In 2000,guns claimed 28,663 lives in the United
States. gun Homicide 10,801

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/htus00.pdf
http://www.straightdope.com/columns/041105.html

Someone
If going on ONLY these numbers i could conclude that not being allowed to have guns caused people to kill themselves more often (even though it makes it more difficult)
But thats a silly conclusion. It's the cultural, educational, social, domestic and economic differences that effect these stats.

so...not owning a gun made them depressed and then they commited suicide? what?


so you sourced this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_homicide_rate#_note-un7 [en.wikipedia.org]

went down to
1998/2000

which sourced this: http://www.unodc.org/pdf/crime/seventh_survey/7sv.pdf [unodc.org]

then I found this:

Someone
Total recorded intentional homicide, completed year 1999
[[]]

United States of America 4.55

with gun ban
Japan 0.50
Australia 0.93
England & Wales 1.61

subcultured
so...not owning a gun made them depressed and then they commited suicide? what?

Quoting you quoting me

Someone
But thats a silly conclusion. It's the cultural, educational, social, domestic and economic differences that effect these stats.

Also

with gun ban
Australia 0.93

Australia doesn't have a "gun ban" they have stricter gun control policies, which I've said I was in favor of.

The right to bear arms is OK if it is combined with military training that also teaches discipline and patriotism. Make the law in such a way... that the right to bear arms is only for people who have completed a certain kind of course or a certain amount of time of military service.

As well as a psychological test. Like an interview or something like that. Also a record check would be fine. Look at the history if that person has a criminal or mental hospital record.

kyupol
The right to bear arms is OK if it is combined with military training that also teaches discipline and patriotism. Make the law in such a way... that the right to bear arms is only for people who have completed a certain kind of course or a certain amount of time of military service.

As well as a psychological test. Like an interview or something like that. Also a record check would be fine. Look at the history if that person has a criminal or mental hospital record.

And you and I can only use free speech if we complete a public speaking course, use only complete sentences and and take a psychological evaluation.

You're being a little disingenuous Reconjsh, those aren't the same things. Kuypol is talking about putting a procedure in place that would make the handling of dangerous devices safer (possibly). You're just turning it around and making it look stupid by applying it in an irrelevant way. -an old tactic but a silly one. ;)

The right to drive isn't enshrined in any constitutions in the US and yet it's a lot more important to many more people than gun ownership. Driving is also subject to stricter laws and training, but cars aren't designed as weapons...

I think that's a better comparison to outline the absurdities inherent in the attitudes expressed here.

Yet more people probably die from car-related deaths.

ozoneocean
You're being a little disingenuous Reconjsh, those aren't the same things. Kuypol is talking about putting a procedure in place that would make the handling of dangerous devices safer (possibly). You're just turning it around and making it look stupid by applying it in an irrelevant way. -an old tactic but a silly one. ;)

The right to drive isn't enshrined in any constitutions in the US and yet it's a lot more important to many more people than gun ownership. Driving is also subject to stricter laws and training, but cars aren't designed as weapons...

I think that's a better comparison to outline the absurdities inherent in the attitudes expressed here.

It's silly, but relevant. Free speech is dangerous and people have died from others' free speech. Maybe we should regulate it because there's a few - albeit a very small minority - who die from that freedom. If it were regulated and only allowed by specifically trained people, we could mitage those deaths. That's the same path kyupol walked down for his stance on firearm control.

But yeah, red herring. I digress. Your analogy is better Double O.

Anyways... I'm all for gun control (but not restriction). Guns should only be sold to and owned by those people who register and meet certain qualifications (like having never commited/convicted of a violent crime and of a certain age). And create strict-er-er penalities for gun control violaters.

But, everyone should be given the right to bear arms. It's important that we are armed as citizens for a very large number of reasons I've already demonstrated in previous posts. Our right to bear arms is as important as freedom of speech or religion - again, as I've already posted. In fact, I propose that our second amendment helps ensure our first.

it's probably because i strap on chainsaws on each side of my car and drive down the suburbs trying to cut people to pieces.

i like my deathcar. it's purpose is to kill. the same as gun, so I don't see why the city want to tow it away and arrest me for manslughter.

Total recorded intentional homicide, completed year 1999
[[]]

United States of America 4.55

with gun ban
Japan 0.50
England & Wales 1.61

Funny post-posting observation.

I find it ironic that so many of the people posting against the 2nd amendment in THIS thread also posted in the "choose Your Weapons for the Zombie Invasion" thread that they'd choose 3 "arms" out of the 4 weapon choices alloted for that thread.

It's meaningless because that was a "fantasy" thread (although several of you contributed to the debate of the effectiveness of each weapon without regard to anyone else's safety - only that of zombie destruction). But, I do find that funny.

Ask a liberal about guns: "get rid of them all". Ask them how they'd kill zombies: "2 shotguns, a bazooka, and a katana".

Irrelevant but funny to me.

Because they are great at what they were made for. No one can debate that.

Phantom Penguin
Yet more people probably die from car-related deaths.

And that's completely disingenuous since it's been addressed before: those are almost universally accidental, many more people use cars, and roads are everywhere.

Almost all the "pro" arguments range from bizarre, to plain ignorant and obtuse, to outright silliness. I've yet to encounter a better exercise in sophistry! lol!

Reconjsh, I'm glad you and I concur on the regulation idea. I feel your ideas supporting the "right to bear arms" are fallacious, but even so I don't see any undue harm in allowing a populace to own certain types of firearm given that they pass certain requirements.

Guns don't equal murder. Canada has just as free gun laws as the US. But a much lower murder rate.

I know we really don't need them. I'm just here for the sake of debate.

Canada doesn't quite PP. As Isukun has said before; most of those are hunting rifles, NOT pistols.

We're just being foolishly circular here over and over.

As for the zombie fantasy: Well it shows a great mark of the knowledge of those people that they picked certain weapons and outlined why: it makes their positions all the stronger since they've demonstrated that they do have some knowledge of what they're arguing against; they're not just hippy flower children who're saying they'd never, ever want to touch a gun and wouldn't know what they're for or the first thing about them. Gee, even I've done target shooting and my dad used to win prizes at it as well as hunt.

I haven't the experience that PP has with them though ;)