you don't need guns unless you are living in a warzone.

you have other security measures that help to keep your family safe.
alarms, mace, taser guns, electric tasers

ozoneocean

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.

My main 2 points summarized are: defending oneself and keeping the government in check. That was the founding fathers' intent (and one I still see as relevant).

So if I understand correctly, these are not good reasons according to you Double O. I wonder then what else of the founders' intents you'd be willing to remove as relevant. You're open for the 2nd amendment to be questioned and creating intent to be deemed no longer important, I wonder if that is okay in the 1st amendment as well?

Here's some more reasons I support the 2nd amendment.
1) I hunt for food. Every year I fill my freezer with venison (deer meat). It's cheap and delicious. And it helps maintain population control over the deer in Michigan. I also hunt game foul.
2) In Michigan (where I live), there's SUCH a very LARGE deer population that if they're not hunted, there's a chance lack of food availablility would cause the population to go to numbers closer to "endangered" if left unregulated. (source: DNR). It's so bad that DESPITE hunting, sometimes they have to go out and feed the deer by pouring corn in to the woods.
3) I shoot competition .22 pistol. It's very much a sport for me. I train my body and mind to better place the rounds in the center of the target. I train all the time just as an athelete from another sport would. I compete against others in this as well. In fact, the particular pistol I use was NOT designed to kill things. It was specifically designed for competition shooting. So, if intent during manufacturing is relevant (as in cars not being death machines by intent), then so too must this particular pistol.
4) I grew up in Ionia Michigan and there's 5 prisons (including 1 max security) prisons in that town. A dangerous convict escaped one time back in the late 80's when I was 8-10 years old. I had a female family member who had a concealed weapons permit (CWP) and was only not raped and survived a very brutal assault by that escaped con ONLY because she was a firearm carrier. (note, no one was killed - only injured).

~Jerome~

i see guns like fantasy weapons i.e. war axes, broadswords...fun to think about but not as fun when you kill real people with it.

I myself play military games online battlefield/ 2142...it's fun strategically and is a hoot to shoot people up, but i can go to sleep at night knowing that i didn't kill real people.

subcultured
i see guns like fantasy weapons i.e. war axes, broadswords...fun to think about but not as fun when you kill real people with it.

I myself play military games online battlefield/ 2142...it's fun strategically and is a hoot to shoot people up, but i can go to sleep at night knowing that i didn't kill real people.

I own 2 shotguns, 2 pistols, and 1 rifle... and I too can go to bed knowing I didn't kill real people (with those guns ;) ).

just the fact that there are so many weapons out for sale and on almost every corener of the US keeps the gun homicide rate up.

pardon, but your situation is just a small minority campared to all the deaths that was done with guns in the past 20 years.

would you give up your gun if it saved 20 kids?
gotta balance the positive with the bad.
sometimes you have to give up certain lifestyles to protect people

subcultured
just the fact that there are so many weapons out for sale and on almost every corener of the US keeps the gun homicide rate up.

pardon, but your situation is just a small minority campared to all the deaths that was done with guns in the past 20 years.

would you give up your gun if it saved 20 kids?
gotta balance the positive with the bad.
sometimes you have to give up certain lifestyles to protect people

Dude. Actually, gun violence represents that very small minority of what goes on with guns in America. Most are used responibly and safely and without the intent of commiting violent crimes.

It's a delusion to think that most people carrying guns are criminals and/or intend of hurting people.

Gun ownership doesn't keep a government in check. The government doesn't fear your weapons because it has nothing to fear from them.

It's all fallacious :)

As for hunting, from what I hear the bow hunting seasons usually come before the rifle ones... Besides, real hunting firearms are fine. ie: not proto-assault rifles and repeater rifles.

Self defence again can be accomplished easily without firearms, or with non-semi-automatic firearms.

Target shooting is a fine sport!

reconjsh
Dude. Actually, gun violence represents that very small minority of what goes on with guns in America. Most are used responibly and safely and without the intent of commiting violent crimes.

In 2000,guns claimed 28,663 lives in the United. that's a small minority for you?
That's only one year.

that's more than enough to populate a small town

ozoneocean
Gun ownership doesn't keep a government in check. The government fear your weapons because it has nothing to fear from them.

It's all fallacious :)

As for hunting, from what I hear the bow hunting seasons usually come before the rifle ones... Besides, real hunting firearms are fine. ie: not proto-assault rifles and repeater rifles.

Self defence again can be accomplished easily without firearms, or with non-semi-automatic firearms.

Target shooting is a fine sport!

Well, you've said it was fallicious like 3 or 4 times now. But, you really haven't demonstrated how it is. :( You seem to be just making assumptions. Whereas my claim is based on why there's a 2nd amendment in the first place which demonstrates some weight to such an arguement. ;)

I don't see what bow hunting has to do with anything. I enjoy bow hunting too. It's very difficult though and I don't always fill my freezer since I don't always get a kill during that season. The "hunter" in me enjoys it more though since I get to stalk and feel like a pre-firearms warrior. But, the broke and starving artist in me enjoys eating so I gun-hunt during that season as well.

That female I mentioned was only saved by a firearm. 115 lb women... even uber ninja women... don't "defend" themselves when attacked by a 350lb muscular convict with intent and the element of surprise.

It is a fine sport. It'd be tough to do without a pistol. ;)

subcultured

reconjsh
Dude. Actually, gun violence represents that very small minority of what goes on with guns in America. Most are used responibly and safely and without the intent of commiting violent crimes.

In 2000,guns claimed 28,663 lives in the United. that's a small minority for you?
That's only one year.

that's more than enough to populate a small town

Yes, it is a small minority to me.

In 2001, there were 42,196 automobile/road related deaths AND 4,100,000 injuries (reference: Bureau of Transportation www.bts.gov). So, that's 50% MORE deaths because of something that was not created to kill people versus something that was. Interesting ;)

Heart disease claimed 871,500 lives in 2004. Maybe we should outlaw Big Macs before we outlaw firearms, eh? lol.

no one eats big macs to kill themselves

Firstly, I missed out a "doesn't" in my original post.

You're an intelligent adult man Reconjsh, I won't explain to you why your government could care less about armed citizens keeping it in check. But you could look at myriad examples overseas for why it doesn't work.

Obviously bow hunting is an example of how hunting doesn't require firearms, don't be obtuse! Plus, as I said, you can hunt fine without semi-automatic weapons can't you?

As for 48 kg women and their ability to defend themselves no mater what the weight of their opponent, they've been able to to that since before pistols were invented haven't they? Jebus man! You know that! Even the bible has stories about it. So I won't go into that either, it's silly.

Target shooting is pretty fun with a rifle ;)
Besides, a custom target pistol only for use at a range isn't an unusual concept. hey, you can even have single shot target pistols! Whatever, you're just set on your position and will not accept alternatives or refinements. No worries though, your crazy laws aren't going to change any time soon. :)

And STOP BRING UP CARS! We've told you why that was stupid. lol!

Fair enough, Double O. Most of your points are well taken.


SUBCULTURED - Suicide is still the leading cause of firearm death in the U.S., representing 57% of total 2004 gun deaths nationwide.
-Numbers obtained from CDC National Center for Health Statistics mortality report online, 2007.

So, go ahead and HALF (and then some) your number of firearm deaths in America since 57% are suicides and are meaningless in the conversation about gun control and murder. Suicidal people will find another way to off themselves. ;) And certainly, just as you've argued in other forums, it's not the government's role to protect people from their own stupidity... only others from others' stupidity.

I see no reason why they couldn't kick out the government. The Government would have no guns to turn on them. Because i've yet to meet one soldier who would ever turn their gun on a american, orders or no.

But your assuming that all the guns used in murders are pistols or assult weapons. When some of the largest massarces ever commited were by bolt action rifles and shotguns. While I do agree there is no need to own a AK-47 or M-16 in your home I think people should be able to have a pistol. People should be smart enough to use it the way it was intended to. And those who don't will face law enforcement. To bad our Law enforcement is sadly under funded. But thats something else entirly.

What saddens me is debates like this only come up when large numbers of people have been killed by firearms. Its like saying "if guns were not legal Cho never would have gotten them!" Its easy as hell to get a ilegal gun anywhere. And always will be. Shit you can buy a AK-47 in detriot from a guy on the street for no more then 150$.

Here's why your arguement is flawed and upsurd Subcultured.

You report 28,663 gun deaths in 2000. I couldn't find all the statistics for 2000... so let's use 2004.

In 2004 (the most recent year for which data is available), there were 29,569 gun deaths in the U.S:

16,750 suicides (56% of all U.S gun deaths),
11,624 homicides (40% of all U.S gun deaths),
649 unintentional shootings, 311 from legal intervention and 235 from undetermined intent (4% of all U.S gun deaths combined).
-Numbers obtained from CDC National Center for Health Statistics mortality report online, 2007.

Your arguement is proventing homicide from what I can tell.

Population in 2005 (couldn't find 2004) 296,410,404 (reference: census.gov).

~12,000 (homicides with firearms) divided by ~296,000,000 (population) = .00004% of the population is dying each year from firearms. Each life is important... but saving 12,000 lives is not worth the consequences of outlawing firearms.

Number of deaths for leading causes of death
Heart disease: 654,092
Cancer: 550,270
Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases): 150,147
Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 123,884
Accidents (unintentional injuries): 108,694
Diabetes: 72,815
Alzheimer's disease: 65,829
Influenza/Pneumonia: 61,472
Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis: 42,762
Septicemia: 33,464

These are the deaths we need to work on solving. This whole debate is a knee-jerk reaction to the VA Tech shooting and isn't founded on anything but emotion, poor correlations and bad use of statistics.

Blah, blah b;ah

I just realised I posted this in the Marijuana thread:

Heh, that point about heavy machine guns is stupid. They're no more dangerous to most people than a pistol, probably less: Because a pistol can be concealed so easily and they're so light and portable, a person can take one into a crowded place and theoretically kill about 17 people with each clip, and then another 17 for each clip they load (or however many a clip loads), always able to simply slip to another crowded place to look for more victims. There is no easy protection against a gunshot, you can't outrun a bullet...

Prophetic?

The largests spree killings ever commited were done by hand grenades, a AR-15, and a FN FAL. Hand guns aren't really the weapon of choice when wanted to kill a large number of people. Cho just attack people in closed rooms meaning they had no where to run. You could have done a lot of damage with a bow at that point.

You Americans and your guns! You should think yourselves lucky you are even able to hold a gun without being dogpiled by the police.

Why, just the other day a teen got arrested at a party because he had a knife stored in his car, he was a bloody carpenters apprentice! Am I going to get arrested for having a knife in my fishing box in the back of my car?

Phantom Penguin
You could have done a lot of damage with a bow at that point.

No you couldn't. They're too big, clumsy and slow. Just getting them through doorways is slapstick comedy. lol!
A pistol was the perfect weapon, as I predicted when I originally posted that ;)

Oh and I agree with ozone, of course I would go for one in each hand option.

But your assuming that all the guns used in murders are pistols or assult weapons.

Almost four times a many murders are performed with handguns (DOJ Link [ojp.usdoj.gov]) than any other gun. They are also used in more homicide cases than all other weapon varieties combined.

These are the deaths we need to work on solving.

That's why we dump money into research to study and hopefully find a cure for those diseases and disorders. Just because the numbers are lower for gun fatalities doesn't mean we shouldn't be concerned. We invest time and money into curing diseases which kill handfulls of people each year.

Also, simply throwing up numbers of deaths from some of those doesn't take into account the circumstances of those deaths. Heart disease, cancer, stroke, chronic lower respiratory diseases, diabetes, Alzheimer's disease, influenza, and nephritis all have a greater risk factor as you get older. They more commonly occur in older people and the elderly have a much harder time surviving their effects. You'll notice "old age" rarely appears on lists about causes of death. Natural death always has to have a cause these days.

Also, many medical entries on the list are very vague. Heart disease, for instance, encompases many different disorders with a wide variety of causes each. No research lab focuses on the wide category of "heart disease," but will focus their attention on particular disorders, their causes and possible treatment.

Besides which, I've always found the "it's a lesser evil so we should ignore it" argument to be irresponsible at best.

ozoneocean

Phantom Penguin
You could have done a lot of damage with a bow at that point.

No you couldn't. They're too big, clumsy and slow. Just getting them through doorways is slapstick comedy. lol!
A pistol was the perfect weapon, as I predicted when I originally posted that ;)

Thats why with no bow skill you just use a crossbow. I've seen semi-automatic crossbows before. People who have never been show at are not going to know how to act when coming under fire. Cho might as well have shot at dogs, because they gave the same reaction.

Semi-auto crossbows are both heavier and a lot less concealable than a pistol.

ME
~12,000 (homicides with firearms) divided by ~296,000,000 (population) = .00004% of the population is dying each year from firearms. Each life is important... but saving 12,000 lives is not worth the consequences of outlawing firearms completely.

Still hasn't been addressed.

ozoneocean
Semi-auto crossbows are both heavier and a lot less concealable than a pistol.

I'm not talking about the practicallity of it jesus your being to litteral. I ment at that point when busting in on the captive group in the class it didn't matter what weapon he had. People were going to die.

Still hasn't been addressed.

Maybe because most of us aren't calling for an outright ban on firearms. My beef is only with handguns and quite honestly, I don't see any negative consequences that would arise from banning them.

isukun

Still hasn't been addressed.

Maybe because most of us aren't calling for an outright ban on firearms. My beef is only with handguns and quite honestly, I don't see any negative consequences that would arise from banning them.

There's a few people here calling for an outright ban, btw. Anyways...

Well, my competition .22 pistol league would probably end. lol. That's a negative consequence.

(In 2004 - see my prior posts for references) there were ~12,000 gun deaths that were homicide. Almost all the others were suicides... and the remaining were law enforcement and accidents (these 2 being about 5% of all other gun deaths). The same source reported that about 2/3 of those homicides were handguns. So that's roughly... 8,000 deaths.

So, you're suggesting a complete ban on handguns to prevent 8,000 annual deaths? That seems a bit excessive to prevent .0002% of the US population from being shot by a handgun... especially in light of the lives SAVED by CWPs (concealed weapons permits). Even the most conservative estimates put lives saved by guns far ahead of those taken.

Someone
The Second Amendment Foundation notes that firearms are used defensively an estimated 2.5 million times every year, four times more than criminal uses. This represents some 2,575 lives protected and saved for every life lost to a gun. According to the National Safety Council, the loss of life to accidental firearm death is at its lowest point since records were begun nearly a hundred years ago.

The second amendment says "right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". Enough said. Regulate away, but my right to bear arms shall not... and should not be taken away.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0226493644/104-3119750-9146333 - read this book. It makes the arguement clearly.

Well, my competition .22 pistol league would probably end. lol. That's a negative consequence.

Not necessarily. There are ways to handle things like that without having everyone on the street in possession of a gun. There are people in Japan who can still target shoot and participate in competitions. There are also other alternatives to using handguns for recreational shooting.

So, you're suggesting a complete ban on handguns to prevent 8,000 annual deaths?

First of all, DOJ records of firearm homicide have handguns at 8,299 for 2004 vs 2,355 homicides using "other guns". That's not 2/3. Also, according the the DOJ, the total percentage of homicides committed with a firearm is 66 for 2004 (they also have 2005 for this number which comes to 68%). Do the math and that comes to about 48% of all homicide in the US being committed with handguns. Are you also going to claim that homicide is so infrequent it is meaningless to try and prevent it?

Of course, this is still the small picture. This does not take into account the much larger number of people who are victimized in gun-related violent crime (this category seems to only include rape, sexual assault, aggravated assault, robbery, and homicide, unlike the category of violent crime which also includes the much more prevelent simple assault which accounts for 65% of all violent crime). That particular number on the DOJ site is 477,040 (supposedly an average of about 2 out of every thousand people). In over 80% of violent crimes involving guns, handguns are used.

especially in light of the lives SAVED by CWPs (concealed weapons permits)

There are non-fatal alternatives which are near instantaneous, concealable, and less enticing to the average criminal (meaning, less likely to be stolen). Lives can be saved through other means, a handgun is not necessary.

I'm going to disregard the Second Amendment Foundation comment since spouting unrelated stats proves nothing. Using guns defensively and saving lives doesn't go hand in hand.

The second amendment says "right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". Enough said. Regulate away, but my right to bear arms shall not... and should not be taken away.

Why don't we try looking at the full wording: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." I think the intent there is pretty clear and it doesn't have anything to do with target shooting, personal defense, or hunting. The amendment is also purposely vague in how this right is upheld. By your logic, every Joe Schmoe should be allowed to keep a nuclear bomb in their basement.

Actually, the supreme court has repeatedly held that "the right to bear arms" is its own clause, independant of the other... despite what you "think".

And your math isn't sound because you're doing math that doesn't deal with what I was talking about... you're on some other tangent. I claimed that 2/3 of all firearm homicide was handgun... just as the DOJ confirms. We were dealing with firearm deaths and so the % of firearm homicide was releavant. You quoted the statistic "8,299" for handgun homicide in 2004. I said it was "~8,000". Isn't that pretty damn close? lol. You're spilliting hairs now.

And you can't just disregard an entire populace of evidence because it doesn't support your theory of less crime if less guns. There's tons and tons (which I've linked you to) of evidence that supports that CWPs have saved more lives than handguns have taken. Logic tells us that 1) criminals will have handguns regardless and 2) if the CWP people no longer have handguns, then the only shift we can deduce is more handgun crime.

And tell me, how do people get around target shooting with pistols in Japan if there's a ban on pistols?

Actually, the supreme court has repeatedly held that "the right to bear arms" is its own clause, independant of the other... despite what you "think".

The Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled in favor of gun control. In fact, precedent set by the Supreme Court claims that the intent of the second amendment was in fact for individuals to own guns as part of government sponsored militias (Presser v. Illinois). Individual use has to be sanctioned by the government, so no, the right to bear arms is not absolute or independent. There are also a couple of cases which set precedent allowing the states to enact whatever arms regulations they wish. U.S. v. Miller is also an interesting case where they set the precedent that laws restricting firearms are only in violation of the second amendment if the weapons can be proven to be "militia weapons."

I claimed that 2/3 of all firearm homicide was handgun... just as the DOJ confirms.

Actually, my point wasn't the number, but that a larger margin than 2/3 of firearm homicides were done with handguns.

And you can't just disregard an entire populace of evidence because it doesn't support your theory of less crime if less guns.

I'm not. I'm disregarding it because it doesn't support your theory that more guns save lives. Using a gun defensively does not equate to saving a life.

And tell me, how do people get around target shooting with pistols in Japan if there's a ban on pistols?

I didn't say they did, just that similar measures could be taken in the US as their more rigorous licensing procedures. You can still purchase a gun in Japan for recreational shooting or hunting. There is no reason the same approach could not be applied to handguns. Their extensive background checks (including family members and associates) and insistance on keeping firearms in a locker also prevents theft.