Poll: Fun control

[Good morning blues]

Gun ownership is a right, not a priveledge. Furthermore training costs money. This is unfair to the poorer people.

You are talking specifically about the United States, whereas I am talking about a hypothetical well-governed society. While it is true that, due to some judicial interpretive gymnastics that I personally find very suspect, individuals (as opposed to well-regulated militias) in the United States have the right to keep and bear arms. In an optimal society, keeping and bearing arms would be a privilege and not a right - while a civilian who has demonstrated their competence in behaving safely should have the right to use guns for hunting and recreation, firearms are simply too dangerous to allow everyone unrestricted access. See Los Angeles for an example of my point.

The fact that things discriminate against poor people is an argument that enjoys very little currency in the United States. In any case, I hardly see why firearms safety lessons, particularly when they are a requirement for gun ownership, should be beyond the means of anybody who has the time to spend hunting or at a firing range. Furthermore, a militia in which some members do not have firearms safety training can hardly be described as "well-regulated."

"Mental health issues" is a vague phrase that could be stretched to cover everyone.

This is a strawman that you've set up in order to ignore my point, which I should think is very, very clear.

This is the case in New York City, Maryland, California and New Jersey. Only the well connected elite have a chance of obtaining a carry license. Criminals frequently carry guns illegally. This arrangement is elitist and anti self defense.

The only people who should be able to carry a weapon in public are those who carry it in some sort of enforcement capacity and those who need it due to a clear and imminent danger (for instance, threats on their life). Killings of innocent people in public are very, very rare; as a result, the only reason somebody would need to carry a concealed weapon is to charge into a fight in which they were not involved, which just creates the potential for more violence and injury. I would expect that fewer people will be killed as a result of not having concealed weapons than would be as a result of accidents and unnecessary violence involving concealed weapons (although I would want to see some empirical evidence of that before I ever voted for it, to be fair).

Human rights don't vary from country to country, other countries just choose to oppress them.

If guns were completely illegal and they spent hundreds of billions to send JBTs to every house to round them up, I'm pretty sure criminals will have no problem throwing in a few crates of guns from Mexico along with the heroin and meth shipments. It's also worth pointing out that Diane Feinstein, a staunch proponent of gun control is one of the few people in California who has a concealed carry permit.

I agree that it is good for gun owners to know safety, which is why I think it should be taught in school, we already teach safe sex and drug usage.

How many people do you know that carry would rush into a fight? If you went on to a gun forum and advocated that, you would be dog piled by time you hit "refresh".

If you're interested in emperical evidence, it's estimated that between 1-2.5 million people a year have used a gun to protect themself in some manner (that's why the wide range) but the media rarely reports these things. Also, plenty of states that have passed concealed carry laws have dramatically reduced their crime rate. Vermont, where the only requirement to carry concealed is that you can legally own a gun, has always had a low crime rate. England, after their handgun ban has actually seen an increase in handgun crime and the one place gun control should work would be on an island. It still doesn't.

I'm not married to opposing concealed carry; I'm just not convinced that it's a better idea than preventing people from carrying guns in public. Your nebulous 1-2.5 million people per year defending themselves using a gun doesn't convince me, since even if that was a number that was specific enough to be useful, I would be very surprised to find out that most or even a significant portion of those incidents occurred in public.

We've all heard the argument that criminals will keep their guns. Fortunately, criminals almost exclusively use their guns on each other. I am concerned with preventing injury to innocent people, and I have no problem with using gun crime to prosecute criminals, either. There are places in the world where people are in significant danger of being attacked with a gun by someone they don't know; in the first world, these places are very few and very far between.

I categorically disagree that carrying a weapon without being educated on how to use it safely constitutes a "human right."

 

[quack35]

What's the point of even owning a gun?

Let's be honest, how many people do you shoot per day?

 

[AssButt]

Gun ownership is a right, not a priveledge. Furthermore training costs money. This is unfair to the poorer people.

You are talking specifically about the United States, whereas I am talking about a hypothetical well-governed society. While it is true that, due to some judicial interpretive gymnastics that I personally find very suspect, individuals (as opposed to well-regulated militias) in the United States have the right to keep and bear arms. In an optimal society, keeping and bearing arms would be a privilege and not a right - while a civilian who has demonstrated their competence in behaving safely should have the right to use guns for hunting and recreation, firearms are simply too dangerous to allow everyone unrestricted access. See Los Angeles for an example of my point.

The fact that things discriminate against poor people is an argument that enjoys very little currency in the United States. In any case, I hardly see why firearms safety lessons, particularly when they are a requirement for gun ownership, should be beyond the means of anybody who has the time to spend hunting or at a firing range. Furthermore, a militia in which some members do not have firearms safety training can hardly be described as "well-regulated."

"Mental health issues" is a vague phrase that could be stretched to cover everyone.

This is a strawman that you've set up in order to ignore my point, which I should think is very, very clear.

This is the case in New York City, Maryland, California and New Jersey. Only the well connected elite have a chance of obtaining a carry license. Criminals frequently carry guns illegally. This arrangement is elitist and anti self defense.

The only people who should be able to carry a weapon in public are those who carry it in some sort of enforcement capacity and those who need it due to a clear and imminent danger (for instance, threats on their life). Killings of innocent people in public are very, very rare; as a result, the only reason somebody would need to carry a concealed weapon is to charge into a fight in which they were not involved, which just creates the potential for more violence and injury. I would expect that fewer people will be killed as a result of not having concealed weapons than would be as a result of accidents and unnecessary violence involving concealed weapons (although I would want to see some empirical evidence of that before I ever voted for it, to be fair).

Human rights don't vary from country to country, other countries just choose to oppress them.

If guns were completely illegal and they spent hundreds of billions to send JBTs to every house to round them up, I'm pretty sure criminals will have no problem throwing in a few crates of guns from Mexico along with the heroin and meth shipments. It's also worth pointing out that Diane Feinstein, a staunch proponent of gun control is one of the few people in California who has a concealed carry permit.

I agree that it is good for gun owners to know safety, which is why I think it should be taught in school, we already teach safe sex and drug usage.

How many people do you know that carry would rush into a fight? If you went on to a gun forum and advocated that, you would be dog piled by time you hit "refresh".

If you're interested in emperical evidence, it's estimated that between 1-2.5 million people a year have used a gun to protect themself in some manner (that's why the wide range) but the media rarely reports these things. Also, plenty of states that have passed concealed carry laws have dramatically reduced their crime rate. Vermont, where the only requirement to carry concealed is that you can legally own a gun, has always had a low crime rate. England, after their handgun ban has actually seen an increase in handgun crime and the one place gun control should work would be on an island. It still doesn't.

I'm not married to opposing concealed carry; I'm just not convinced that it's a better idea than preventing people from carrying guns in public. Your nebulous 1-2.5 million people per year defending themselves using a gun doesn't convince me, since even if that was a number that was specific enough to be useful, I would be very surprised to find out that most or even a significant portion of those incidents occurred in public.

We've all heard the argument that criminals will keep their guns. Fortunately, criminals almost exclusively use their guns on each other. I am concerned with preventing injury to innocent people, and I have no problem with using gun crime to prosecute criminals, either. There are places in the world where people are in significant danger of being attacked with a gun by someone they don't know; in the first world, these places are very few and very far between.

I categorically disagree that carrying a weapon without being educated on how to use it safely constitutes a "human right."

You're correct in that 2/3 murders are criminals killing each other, but that leaves the other 1/3 which is a sizable portion of murders.

From the Encyclopedia of Crime and Punishment "The most common place where violent crime occurs is in the home. However, most violence by strangers occurs outside of the home(91 percent)."

It makes sense for a criminal because kicking in the door of a strangers home can lead to disastrous results. You have no idea who lives there and how many people are there, if they're armed or not, and you're in unfamiliar territory. It is far easier to ambush clueless person in a parking lot, by an ATM, or an elevator. Profiting is a criminal's 2nd priority, surviving is the 1st.

I already addressed the issue of gun safety by suggesting it be taught in school. As for gun ownership being a right, I guess it depends whether you live in a society that promotes self-determination vs a society where your purpose of existance is to serve the state. In a free society, who are you to be a moral authority over what other people can and cannot do? It is not right to punish an innocent person just because they "might" be unsafe, look at how many people die in drunk driving accidents, do you support a ban on alcohol and cars as well?

 

[JRslinger]

You are talking specifically about the United States, whereas I am talking about a hypothetical well-governed society. While it is true that, due to some judicial interpretive gymnastics that I personally find very suspect, individuals (as opposed to well-regulated militias) in the United States have the right to keep and bear arms. In an optimal society, keeping and bearing arms would be a privilege and not a right - while a civilian who has demonstrated their competence in behaving safely should have the right to use guns for hunting and recreation, firearms are simply too dangerous to allow everyone unrestricted access. See Los Angeles for an example of my point.

The fact that things discriminate against poor people is an argument that enjoys very little currency in the United States. In any case, I hardly see why firearms safety lessons, particularly when they are a requirement for gun ownership, should be beyond the means of anybody who has the time to spend hunting or at a firing range. Furthermore, a militia in which some members do not have firearms safety training can hardly be described as "well-regulated."

We have differing ideas of an "optimal society" IMO gun control doesn't work well in any society. Differences in gun crime can be explained mostly I think by the presence of a large racial underclass which can be home to substantial violent criminal subcultures.

As for demonstrating competence before owning guns, I think it would reduce the number of accidents, but I'm concerned that the government would make the test too expensive or difficult for most people to pass. In my state a safety course is required. Although not too hard to pass right now it costs around $100 and the state recently increased the licensing fee from $25 to $100. I'm concerned they'll do it again in the near future.

"Mental health issues" is a vague phrase that could be stretched to cover everyone.

This is a strawman that you've set up in order to ignore my point, which I should think is very, very clear.

Right now someone who has been confined involuntarily to a mental institution can't legally buy a gun. Considering how anti-gun activists and politicians often hold law abiding gun owners in contempt I could easily imagine the government using "mental health" as an excuse to disarm many innocent people, claiming they are dangerous when they are not.

 

[Good morning blues]

You're correct in that 2/3 murders are criminals killing each other, but that leaves the other 1/3 which is a sizable portion of murders.

From the Encyclopedia of Crime and Punishment "The most common place where violent crime occurs is in the home. However, most violence by strangers occurs outside of the home(91 percent)."

It makes sense for a criminal because kicking in the door of a strangers home can lead to disastrous results. You have no idea who lives there and how many people are there, if they're armed or not, and you're in unfamiliar territory. It is far easier to ambush clueless person in a parking lot, by an ATM, or an elevator. Profiting is a criminal's 2nd priority, surviving is the 1st.

I already addressed the issue of gun safety by suggesting it be taught in school. As for gun ownership being a right, I guess it depends whether you live in a society that promotes self-determination vs a society where your purpose of existance is to serve the state. In a free society, who are you to be a moral authority over what other people can and cannot do? It is not right to punish an innocent person just because they "might" be unsafe, look at how many people die in drunk driving accidents, do you support a ban on alcohol and cars as well?

This is just more misrepresentation of my argument to make it sound like I'm in favor of resurrecting hitler and genociding everybody with a virtuous bone in their body. I do not for a second believe that 1/3 of murders are perpetuated between strangers in the first world.

I have no problem with teaching gun safety in school, and I agree that it probably is a very good idea. That does not change my opinion that you should not be able to carry or use a gun if you haven't had safety training.

I completely disagree that gun ownership has anything to do with prioritizing individuals or states; in general, I am a civil libertarian, and I believe that anyone should be allowed to do anything so long as it does not tread on peoples' rights. Personally, I prioritize the right to a safe environment higher than the right to have guns all over the place. I hardly think that requiring someone to know how to handle a firearm safely before they get to handle it counts as punishing innocent people. I don't believe that we should ban cars, but I do believe that only people with drivers' licenses should be allowed to drive them.

I'm not even saying that people shouldn't be allowed to have guns, just that the right to a safe environment trumps the right to have weapons.

You are talking specifically about the United States, whereas I am talking about a hypothetical well-governed society. While it is true that, due to some judicial interpretive gymnastics that I personally find very suspect, individuals (as opposed to well-regulated militias) in the United States have the right to keep and bear arms. In an optimal society, keeping and bearing arms would be a privilege and not a right - while a civilian who has demonstrated their competence in behaving safely should have the right to use guns for hunting and recreation, firearms are simply too dangerous to allow everyone unrestricted access. See Los Angeles for an example of my point.

The fact that things discriminate against poor people is an argument that enjoys very little currency in the United States. In any case, I hardly see why firearms safety lessons, particularly when they are a requirement for gun ownership, should be beyond the means of anybody who has the time to spend hunting or at a firing range. Furthermore, a militia in which some members do not have firearms safety training can hardly be described as "well-regulated."

We have differing ideas of an "optimal society" IMO gun control doesn't work well in any society. Differences in gun crime can be explained mostly I think by the presence of a large racial underclass which can be home to substantial violent criminal subcultures.

As for demonstrating competence before owning guns, I think it would reduce the number of accidents, but I'm concerned that the government would make the test too expensive or difficult for most people to pass. In my state a safety course is required. Although not too hard to pass right now it costs around $100 and the state recently increased the licensing fee from $25 to $100. I'm concerned they'll do it again in the near future.

"Mental health issues" is a vague phrase that could be stretched to cover everyone.

This is a strawman that you've set up in order to ignore my point, which I should think is very, very clear.

Right now someone who has been confined involuntarily to a mental institution can't legally buy a gun. Considering how anti-gun activists and politicians often hold law abiding gun owners in contempt I could easily imagine the government using "mental health" as an excuse to disarm many innocent people, claiming they are dangerous when they are not.

I could imagine the government using "mental health" as an excuse to disarm many innocent people as well, which is why "mental health" is the kind of nonspecific phrase you use when debating issues on the internet instead of when you're writing legislation or enforcement policy. I think I have been perfectly clear in who I'm saying should not have access to guns, and I think that bureaucrats and legislators are more than capable of writing the specific details to create a happy medium between allowing people to have and use guns and keeping them out of the hands of people who would be dangerous with guns.

 

[sneakypenguin]

While it is true that, due to some judicial interpretive gymnastics that I personally find very suspect, individuals (as opposed to well-regulated militias) in the United States have the right to keep and bear arms.

The prefatory clause has no bearing on the operative clause though as finalized in DC v heller. Some bills used similar language, just the way they chose to write it.

Spoiler: rationale

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR
THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
No. 07?290. Argued March 18, 2008?Decided June 26, 2008
District of Columbia law bans handgun possession by making it a crime
to carry an unregistered firearm and prohibiting the registration of
handguns; provides separately that no person may carry an unlicensed
handgun, but authorizes the police chief to issue 1-year licenses;
and requires residents to keep lawfully owned firearms
unloaded and dissembled or bound by a trigger lock or similar device.
Respondent Heller, a D. C. special policeman, applied to register a
handgun he wished to keep at home, but the District refused. He
filed this suit seeking, on Second Amendment grounds, to enjoin the
city from enforcing the bar on handgun registration, the licensing requirement
insofar as it prohibits carrying an unlicensed firearm in
the home, and the trigger-lock requirement insofar as it prohibits the
use of functional firearms in the home. The District Court dismissed
the suit, but the D. C. Circuit reversed, holding that the Second
Amendment protects an individual?s right to possess firearms and
that the city?s total ban on handguns, as well as its requirement that
firearms in the home be kept nonfunctional even when necessary for
self-defense, violated that right.
Held:
1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a
firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for
traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
Pp. 2?53.
(a) The Amendment?s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but
does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative
clause. The operative clause?s text and history demonstrate that it
connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2?22.
(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court?s interpretation
2 DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER
Syllabus
of the operative clause. The ?militia? comprised all males physically
capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists
feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in
order to disable this citizens? militia, enabling a politicized standing
army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress
power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear
arms, so that the ideal of a citizens? militia would be preserved.
Pp. 22?28.
(c) The Court?s interpretation is confirmed by analogous armsbearing
rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately
followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28?30.
(d) The Second Amendment?s drafting history, while of dubious
interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals
that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms.
Pp. 30?32.
(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts
and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the
late 19th century also supports the Court?s conclusion. Pp. 32?47.
(f) None of the Court?s precedents forecloses the Court?s interpretation.
Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553, nor
Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, 264?265, refutes the individualrights
interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not
limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather
limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by
the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47?54.
2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited.
It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any
manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed
weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment
or state analogues. The Court?s opinion should not be taken to cast
doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by
felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms
in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or
laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of
arms. Miller?s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those
?in common use at the time? finds support in the historical tradition
of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.
Pp. 54?56.
3. The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to
self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District?s total ban
on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an
entire class of ?arms? that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the
lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny
the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this
Cite as: 554 U. S. ____ (2008) 3
Syllabus
prohibition?in the place where the importance of the lawful defense
of self, family, and property is most acute?would fail constitutional
muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the
home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible
for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and
is hence unconstitutional. Because Heller conceded at oral argument
that the D. C. licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbitrarily
and capriciously, the Court assumes that a license will satisfy
his prayer for relief and does not address the licensing requirement.
Assuming he is not disqualified from exercising Second Amendment
rights, the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and
must issue him a license to carry it in the home. Pp. 56?64.

 

[CargoHold]

People don't have guns, people can't shoot other people. Easy.

Black market weapons? Just let the thugs shoot each other anyway.

Riiiight. Because criminals only shoot other criminals, never innocent people...

Ha, was waiting for that one. If every man and their dog didn't have a gun, innocent people would still be shot, but less often. Sooo... less people being shot. It's an improvement.

Edit:

What's the point of even owning a gun?

Let's be honest, how many people do you shoot per day?

Quoted for truth!

 

[CargoHold]

Also,

What's the point of even owning a gun?

Let's be honest, how many people do you shoot per day?

is completely ridiculous. By that logic, what's the point of owning a fire extinguisher? Or having defibrillators? How many fires/heart attacks do you have a day?

People are somewhat less likely to kill other people with fire extinguishers or defibrillators. Accessible fire extinguishers and defibrillators may save someone's life. Accessible guns -may- save someone's life, but also might kill someone.

Alrighty, my logic...

You're taking the guns away from responsible guns owners who don't shoot people anyway, and the number of gun deaths will go down? The only gun deaths I can see that eliminating are where people snap mentally. Even then, you're blaming the instrument rather than the people.

I don't mean taking guns away from just responsible gun owners, I mean taking guns away from everyone. Most people ARE responsible and don't go out shooting people, but there's a few that do. Making guns a lot less accessible will stop most of them, hence dropping the number of innocent people being shot. However, as I initally said to cover myself, some 'bad guys' will inevitably get a hold of guns through illegal means. Thus, restricting gun ownership will prevent a lot of these incidents, but not all.

So- controlling gun will decrease the number of deaths.

"But guns can be used in self defence!" Yes, they can. So it's a weigh up between preventing [most]psychos with guns attacking people, and allowing people a possibility to defend themselves in a scenario that probably will not occur and may be misinterpreted with fatal results.

Why can't I extrapolate from your argument and say, "Look at all the assholes who knowing drive drunk, not to mention all the accidental auto accidents that occur daily! The answer is obvious-if we ban cars, noone will ever die that way again." I'm sure you think that's foolish.

You can't because I'm saying that restricting guns will -reduce- people being shot. I'm not saying that "no one will ever die that way again."

To quote a rather relevant t-shirt I saw once- Gun don't kill people, people with guns kill people.
People will kill each other whether or not they have guns, but guns just make it easier. Are instruments that are designed to kill stuff that vital to law-abiding, responsible people?

 

[JRslinger]

Also,

What's the point of even owning a gun?


Alrighty, my logic...

You're taking the guns away from responsible guns owners who don't shoot people anyway, and the number of gun deaths will go down? The only gun deaths I can see that eliminating are where people snap mentally. Even then, you're blaming the instrument rather than the people.

I don't mean taking guns away from responsible gun owners, I mean taking guns away from everyone. Most people ARE responsible and don't go out shooting people, but there's a few that do. Making guns a lot less accessible will stop most of them, hence dropping the number of innocent people being shot. However, as I initally said to cover myself, some 'bad guys' will inevitably get a hold of guns through illegal means. Thus, restricting gun ownership will prevent a lot of these incidents, but not all.

Thus- controlling gun will decrease the number of deaths.

If you were correct then the U.S. states with the strictest gun laws should always have the least gun crime. This isn't always the case. Then you'll say that these strict gun laws are ineffective because guns will be brought in from states with looser gun laws. This proves my point that as long as there is a demand for guns, a black market will supply them. In addition criminals will be emboldened to commit more crimes now that their law-abiding victims have been disarmed.



If strict gun laws are so effective then why does England have a higher rate of gun crime now compared to before its handgun ban?

Mexico has very strict gun laws, however Strong criminal groups + demand for guns = much gun crime.

A blanket gun ban could stop some of the occasional shooting sprees, but it would do more harm than good.

 

[TMAN10112]

What's the point of even owning a gun?

Let's be honest, how many people do you shoot per day?

Hunting, target-shooting, competition, collecting, tradition?

Guns are used for alot more then killing............

 

[Vuzzmop]

New Zealand has very strict gun laws, and well...very few people die of gun-related injuries.
The US have incredibly lax gun laws, and also have a disgustingly high number of gun-related deaths.
Anyone else see a pattern here?

 

[CargoHold]

If you were correct then the U.S. states with the strictest gun laws should always have the least gun crime. This isn't always the case. Then you'll say that these strict gun laws are ineffective because guns will be brought in from states with looser gun laws. This proves my point that as long as there is a demand for guns, a black market will supply them. In addition criminals will be emboldened to commit more crimes now that their law-abiding victims have been disarmed.

If strict gun laws are so effective then why does England have a higher rate of gun crime now compared to before its handgun ban?

Mexico has very strict gun laws, however Strong criminal groups + demand for guns = much gun crime.

A blanket gun ban could stop some of the occasional shooting sprees, but it would do more harm than good.

You made a good point, though I'd be interested to see all of the stats. The stats that I've seen have generally shown a definite positive correlation between gun-related homocides and levels of gun ownership.

The England handgun law- Only 0.1% of the population had handguns. Gun crime can increase because of any number of factors; economic factors, a larger variety of guns, a poor presence of authorities (Mexico?). Hell, you keep all factors constant and just an increase in population alone will increase gun crime. As it is, gun crime in England has decreased in the period between 2005 and 2006 anyway.

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but you seem to be implying that every criminal who wants a gun will be able to get one illegally anyway. The US surely has good enough law enforcement to have some impact on the black market?

I understand you want to take guns from everyone, not just the responsible guy down the street. But you know what? When your gun ban is enacted, who's going to actually line up and turn his gun in? Your average law-abiding citizen, whom we're not worried about in the first place. Who's going to flip the bird at the new laws? Your criminals and psychopaths aren't going to turn in their weapons until they get caught. So now, Jimmy the burglar KNOWS Joe Mortgage-owner doesn't have any way to protect himself so he's got a much better chance of successfully breaking into that home. So the only crimes I can honestly see a gun ban are "heat of passion" shootings, like you catch your wife cheating for example. I believe you'll just read about more murder by stabbing or beating in those cases.

Ah, and here's the rub. We can debate the effectiveness of gun laws as much as we like, but you're very right- any drastic law will be near impossible to implement. I was making my arguments based on the assumption that every citizen would obey the law and turn in their firearms- I'm debating the effectiveness of a gun ban, rather than the practicality of implementing one. But kudos for pointing that out.

I think you're just arguing semantics in this section, though I may be misunderstanding you. I could've said automotive deaths would be greatly reduced if usage of motor vehicles was reduced to only being legal for governmental use, or something similar. My point remains: ANY tool can be used for good, recklessly, or for evil (forgive the grammar, please)-why should we disallow the use of it to EVERYONE when only a few abuse it?

I'd like to mention a couple of things about my viewpoint, if I may. First, I totally understand where you draw your line by saying that a gun's main purpose is to kill, while the car/extinguisher/defibrillator are more constructive tools. I agree. But I still think the more important distinction is that the gun is merely the tool-the person behind it is the real issue. I do not personally own a gun. I agree that the world would likely be a better place if guns simply did not exist. But the fact is, they do. And criminals already have them and will be able to get them even with a ban in effect. So to me, it just seems like handicapping the good guys. JRslinger (post 116 above) has some good points for my views. Do you see where I'm coming from?

Your point's a considerable one, but one that can't be answered unless in a statistical way, really. "Why should we disallow the use of it to EVERYONE when only a few abuse it?"
Like I said, the only way to reasonably answer that is to effectively weigh up the pros and cons in a quantitative way (which is near impossible, unless you're to go on statistics.) I think that the pros of reduced homocides outweighs the cons- and if I may ask, what do you believe the cons of gunlessness are?

As you mentioned, trying to implement a gun law would take decades, in which time the good guys probably would be handicapped. I do agree with you regarding the problems of gun law implementation, but I'm considering a US that already has gun control.

Oh, and I do understand by what you mean regarding it being the person and not the weapon. However, sometimes dangerous things need to be banned for all because a few abuse them. Again with the semantics, though- a car could be just as dangerous. However a car isn't designed to kill or maim, weapons are. A car has other, more primary uses, and guns don't.

Consider methamphetamines. They're illegal because a select few people use them. Their main purpose is to intoxicate the user, affecting only the person in question. They, unlike guns, are not -designed- to harm others. However, they often do, and have such been illegalised. I hope you can see why I think there's a certain logic in a gun ban.

Well-placed points, though.

Edit: If I have to make my posts any longer than this, I'm going to cry.

 

[Latinidiot]

no guns. it's that easy. no guns at all. hack away with a broadsword, i don't care, but no guns. they is cowards

 

[Sick boy]

No one should be allowed to have guns other than the usual police/military. I believe that no matter what happens guns do not help any situation and I noticed that in the poll only people with mental illiness/criminal record shouldn't be allowed guns, but remember, some people get there first criminal record with a gun -_-

 

[The_ModeRazor]

People shouldn't be allowed to have guns.
They use it to kill one another all the time.
If there were all kinda monsters prowling around inside/outside cities, it would be allright, but since you don't have too much of a chance of getting attacked by a werewolf, it's pointless to have weapons.