The best argument against gun control, in one picture.

[Nobel Hobos]

http://webappa.cdc.gov/cgi-bin/broker.exe?_service=v8prod&_server=app-v-ehip-wisq.cdc.gov&_port=5081&_sessionid=SdPc46RcL52&_program=wisqars.percents10.sas&age1=5&age2=9&agetext=5-9&category=UNI&_debug=0

For ages 5-9, firearms were involved in 2.7% of accidental deaths. That’s 876.

http://webappa.cdc.gov/cgi-bin/broker.e ... I&_debug=0

For ages 10-14, firearms were involved in 7.0% of accidental deaths. That’s 2,591.

http://webappa.cdc.gov/cgi-bin/broker.e ... I&_debug=0

For ages 16-24, firearms were involved in 2.8% or 8,649 deaths.

http://webappa.cdc.gov/cgi-bin/broker.e ... I&_debug=0

For ages 25-34, firearms were involved in 1.8% or 4,892 deaths.

It falls off the top ten list right about the time age and disease enter the picture as major concerns, which is not likely to be a coincidence.

http://webappa.cdc.gov/cgi-bin/broker.e ... I&_debug=0

However, from 5-65, firearms is still a top 10 cause of accidental death at 2.1% or 23,560. As you can see above, it’s a much higher risk to children and young people (7,250 from 5-18).

During that same time for 5-19, there were 30,543 Firearm deaths due to violence.

According to the FBI, 2/3 of the victims of gun violence are criminals. I think it’s fair to assume this most often applies to people who are slightly older but it should be considered.

There were 18,149 suicides using firearms for the same age group.

In case you’re doing the math, that means if you purchase a gun to defend your family, it’s far more likely that your children will either be accidentally killed with that weapon or that they will use it in a suicide than it is that you will even have the opportunity to use it in defense against another firearm.

http://www.domesticviolencetips.com/index.php/4

Note that only about 20% of murders that are not by family members occur within the home.

About 6 in 10 spousal murders use firearms. About 16% of homicides were spousal homicides (I’m including boyfriend/girlfriend here).
In other words, about 10% of all murders are against a significant other and most occur in the home. Most other murders occur outside the home. As such, a very strong argument can be made that it’s HIGHLY unlikely that a gun will be used within the home for anything but injuring another family member.

Keep in mind, these are deaths not injuries. It’s fair to assume that violent use of guns has a higher percentage of deaths than accidental use simply by addressing that one has purpose and is aimed and one is accidental. Anyone who would like to is welcome to prove me right or wrong on that by looking it up, but it wasn’t my purpose.

If gun ownership prevented all 16% of murders that occur in the home by non-intimates (about 3500), you’d still have a similar number of deaths, either accidental or violent, among family members. That’s not including suicide by firearm.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline ... /guns.html

As for where criminals get guns, it is mostly believed that those guns were acquired from legal sources. That means they either came from licensed dealers or were stolen from legal gun owners (according to this article about 10 to 15% of illegal gun use is done with stolen guns).

I don’t have a direct conclusion, but it’s pretty clear that people who advocate for gun usage aren’t actually addressing a lot of the issues. Most criminals acquire guns through legal dealers and owners. It’s very reasonable to suspect that limiting the legal dealers and owners would also decrease access to guns. Comparing US cities isn’t a valid test since there is nothing stopping the transport of weapons from one city to another. It’s not as if US cities have customs checking for imports from other cities.

It is questionable, however, how much that would limit gun violence much like drug control hasn’t limited cocaine usage. In fact, I would argue that expense of drugs is responsible for the rise in crime. We made criminal drug activity very, very profitable. Gun control done similarly improperly would just as thoroughly make illegal gun activity more profitable.

In other words, those who advocate gun control also don’t address a lot of the issues. The most important of these is whether or not the steps most propose actually accomplish anything.

Since my statistics and analysis are "flawed", I expect you'll be able to walk through this post and tell me precisely what is wrong with it. I'll wait.

Also, how ya coming on that economic model where theives don't pay for housing?

I'll once again provide this just for some fun. Nothing about this thread suggests that anyone will ever try to actually address the facts, but let's give people the benefit of the doubt.

Unfortunately, it's not possible to read your CDC links. Sometimes the CDC gets into world-wide stats, so it's worth checking. Other numbers peg the U.S. accidental firearm death rate at 0.5% -- comparable to bicycle accidents at 0.7%.

Jocabia's argument compares gun accidents which kill, against gun use which saves lives. Apples with apples, and irrespective of other benefits (eg, recreational pleasure). To compare with the risks of bicycle accidents requires that you also weight the benefits (compare the benefits of a bicycle with those of a gun). This would obviously be contentious, and unnecessarily complicating.
Are you saying that 0.5% is an acceptable risk ? It sounds pretty high to me.
I take on the risk of riding a bicycle. It seems worth it for the benefits to me, and the risk applies only to me ... so nobody should try and stop me.
The risks to others of a gun I might own, means that others (collectively) do have a right to limit or ban my use of one.

Of course, one of the responsibilities of exercising one's right to possess a firearm is to handle, store, and shoot safely. Accidental deaths have dropped over the years, which is a good trend, yes?

Anyone can agree with that (well Darwin Awards but anyway). My guess is that it's a combination of factors. Fewer households having a gun at all, and the guns concentrating in the hands of people who take them more seriously. Gun control laws which limit places they can be legally taken, how they're stored, who can have one (it's not just felons, misdemeanors can also disqualify). Public awareness from many sources (no thanks to Hollywood tho).

Finally, the rational trend to eliminate threats to life and health: you start with the ones which are serious threats and easy to fix, and after that you have to split effort between the serious threats which are hard to fix and the minor threats which are easy to fix.

Which category do you think a 0.5% risk to life falls into ?

[Nobel Hobos]

Just to clarify: some cyclists really should not be allowed to do what they do on public roads, because it DOES pose a threat to others. I like being an anonymous dude on a bicycle, but I don't want the other dicks to spoil it for me. I support registration and licensing for cyclists on public roads or paths, and an essential part of that is license plates.

Just like cars. If a cyclist wants to fart around on private property, or on a deserted track in a park, it's their problem. If they're farting around where they can harm others (in traffic or near pedestrians) they don't deserve to ride. More rules apply on a road than apply generally, and they should apply to bikes too.

[Grave_n_idle]

The statistics basically show that - if you own a gun, you're more likely to kill or hurt someone in your own household (accidentally, or deliberately) or have someone else in your household hurt themselves or another (accidentally or deliberately) - than fire it at someone in defence.

I've owned guns my entire life. Many firearms, of pretty much every type, style, legal classification, age, caliber, and method of operation.

I've still alive. So are all the people who have lived in the same home. The only time I've ever been hurt by one is from something stupid, such as Garand Thumb.

All those who want to ban guns because they kill miss one important thing.

On the subject of missing something, the person who presented the statistics and the person discussing the statistics - both have been arguing about regulation, not bans. Your strawman is obvious and irrelevant.

And your anecdotal 'evidence' does little to affect the statistics already presented.

[Grave_n_idle]

if england was as large as the US they would have a higher crime rate.

You understand that some degree of relative proportion is inherent in the word 'rate', yes?

[Intestinal fluids]

I take on the risk of riding a bicycle. It seems worth it for the benefits to me, and the risk applies only to me ... so nobody should try and stop me.
The risks to others of a gun I might own, means that others (collectively) do have a right to limit or ban my use of one.

Is this your standard for if others should have control over what you choose to do with your life? If you like baseball and choose to carry a baseball bat around, or you like carrying tree branches, since it could be a threat to others, do they have a right to ban your behavior? Knives are dangerous weapons that pose a risk to others, should you be banned from using a knife? You could kill someone if you hit them on the top of the head with a hardcover book. Should only paperbacks be allowed to be carried on public streets? Some people are deadly allergic to peanuts, should you be banned from carrying them around since your behavior threatens another?

If you banned everything that could pose a threat to others we would all be locked naked in our own empty padded homes.

[Denecaep]

This picture was taken by a friend of mine in Atlanta, Georgia. I know it looks shooped, but it's legit. It's a small picture from a crappy camera.

Discuss?

I'm sure someone else has said this, but this picture is obviously shopped because the sign is perfectly angled to the camera, and there isn't any shadow or anything compared to the background.

[Les Drapeaux Brulants]

Unfortunately, it's not possible to read your CDC links. Sometimes the CDC gets into world-wide stats, so it's worth checking. Other numbers peg the U.S. accidental firearm death rate at 0.5% -- comparable to bicycle accidents at 0.7%. Of course, one of the responsibilities of exercising one's right to possess a firearm is to handle, store, and shoot safely. Accidental deaths have dropped over the years, which is a good trend, yes?

Eh, I'll fix the links later, but given it's gotten no actually analytical response, it's not all that likely to be worth it.

It is a good trend, but I don't think it's that low. Even NRA doesn't appear to have it that low. They have it low as percentage of total accidental deaths but that's not really relevant to the point. It's necessary to look at the actual rate.

I'm not sure if this link will work, either, but it's a table from the CDC that declares accidental firearm deaths for all ages (rates age adjusted) to be 0.2 per 100,000 population. A WAG makes that number about 600 for a population of 300,000,000.

Injury mortality: US/State, 2001-2006 (Source:NVSS)
http://205.207.175.93/HDI/TableViewer/tableView.aspx

In another report on 2006 mortality rates, the statement appears, "Firearm suicide and homicide, the two major component
causes, accounted for 54.6 and 41.4 percent..." That's 98 percent of all firearm deaths, so my WAG is believable. 38396 total in 2006, 98 % intentional injuries, leaves about 750 as accidental.
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr57/nvsr57_14.pdf

I've gotten lost in the numbers. Am I missing your point?

[Jocabia]

Unfortunately, it's not possible to read your CDC links. Sometimes the CDC gets into world-wide stats, so it's worth checking. Other numbers peg the U.S. accidental firearm death rate at 0.5% -- comparable to bicycle accidents at 0.7%. Of course, one of the responsibilities of exercising one's right to possess a firearm is to handle, store, and shoot safely. Accidental deaths have dropped over the years, which is a good trend, yes?

Eh, I'll fix the links later, but given it's gotten no actually analytical response, it's not all that likely to be worth it.

It is a good trend, but I don't think it's that low. Even NRA doesn't appear to have it that low. They have it low as percentage of total accidental deaths but that's not really relevant to the point. It's necessary to look at the actual rate.

I'm not sure if this link will work, either, but it's a table from the CDC that declares accidental firearm deaths for all ages (rates age adjusted) to be 0.2 per 100,000 population. A WAG makes that number about 600 for a population of 300,000,000.

Injury mortality: US/State, 2001-2006 (Source:NVSS)
http://205.207.175.93/HDI/TableViewer/tableView.aspx

In another report on 2006 mortality rates, the statement appears, "Firearm suicide and homicide, the two major component
causes, accounted for 54.6 and 41.4 percent..." That's 98 percent of all firearm deaths, so my WAG is believable. 38396 total in 2006, 98 % intentional injuries, leaves about 750 as accidental.
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr57/nvsr57_14.pdf

I've gotten lost in the numbers. Am I missing your point?

Yes, because I was always focused on family members. The danger to people over about 34 is a low percentage of actual risk. It's actually a top 10 for accidental death from 5 to 34. That's why I broke it down. People above 34 drag it down considerably. That wouldn't apply to children which was my point. In families with children, the danger is significant.

[DaWoad]

Guns put too much power into the hands of morons, anyone can use a gun and take a persons life, with no thought.

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.

It doesnt say anything about individuals, only a well regulated militia. Just think of the idiots there, they could kill you with a pull of the trigger.

It does say "the people". What exactly that means I don't know and don't much care (it's not my constitution) ... just pointing out that the "right" applies to "the people" and not to "a .. Militia". Read it again.

It says the people have the right to keep and bear arms in order to form a "well-regulated" militia. Well regulated is right in the actual statement of the right.

OK. The purpose of the well regulated militia is described too: to protect the State. They were worried about Canadians or something ...

I consider it very poorly worded. It qualifies the right with a purpose and a means (to protect the state, by means of a militia), but then states the right in a way that it is very hard not to take as a statement of an individual right.

Does "right of the people" mean "right of each of the people" ? Are the arms kept by individuals, or are they available only while serving with a militia (eg, stored in an armoury, to be used only according to orders). Are the arms "borne" individually (eg worn in a holster) or is it in a collective sense (ie, only as part of a militia) ?

When there is such protracted disagreement about the meaning, surely it isn't too disrespectful to suggest that the wording could have been better ?

be afraid be very afraid, our attack beavers are nearly complete! them, along with teh bearcav. will be attacking any day now then only armed civillians will be able to stop us!

(Actually I think they were more worried about a military despotism, a valid fear IMO, but that was in the days when a millitia stood half a chance. Now? not so much. )

[Grave_n_idle]

Guns put too much power into the hands of morons, anyone can use a gun and take a persons life, with no thought.

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.

It doesnt say anything about individuals, only a well regulated militia. Just think of the idiots there, they could kill you with a pull of the trigger.

It does say "the people". What exactly that means I don't know and don't much care (it's not my constitution) ... just pointing out that the "right" applies to "the people" and not to "a .. Militia". Read it again.

It says the people have the right to keep and bear arms in order to form a "well-regulated" militia. Well regulated is right in the actual statement of the right.

OK. The purpose of the well regulated militia is described too: to protect the State. They were worried about Canadians or something ...

I consider it very poorly worded. It qualifies the right with a purpose and a means (to protect the state, by means of a militia), but then states the right in a way that it is very hard not to take as a statement of an individual right.

Does "right of the people" mean "right of each of the people" ? Are the arms kept by individuals, or are they available only while serving with a militia (eg, stored in an armoury, to be used only according to orders). Are the arms "borne" individually (eg worn in a holster) or is it in a collective sense (ie, only as part of a militia) ?

When there is such protracted disagreement about the meaning, surely it isn't too disrespectful to suggest that the wording could have been better ?

be afraid be very afraid, our attack beavers are nearly complete! them, along with teh bearcav. will be attacking any day now then only armed civillians will be able to stop us!

(Actually I think they were more worried about a military despotism, a valid fear IMO, but that was in the days when a millitia stood half a chance. Now? not so much. )

I think they were mainly worried about occupation, although I'm not convinced they would have ignored the thread of (internal) despotism.

[Les Drapeaux Brulants]

Unfortunately, it's not possible to read your CDC links. Sometimes the CDC gets into world-wide stats, so it's worth checking. Other numbers peg the U.S. accidental firearm death rate at 0.5% -- comparable to bicycle accidents at 0.7%. Of course, one of the responsibilities of exercising one's right to possess a firearm is to handle, store, and shoot safely. Accidental deaths have dropped over the years, which is a good trend, yes?

Eh, I'll fix the links later, but given it's gotten no actually analytical response, it's not all that likely to be worth it.

It is a good trend, but I don't think it's that low. Even NRA doesn't appear to have it that low. They have it low as percentage of total accidental deaths but that's not really relevant to the point. It's necessary to look at the actual rate.

I'm not sure if this link will work, either, but it's a table from the CDC that declares accidental firearm deaths for all ages (rates age adjusted) to be 0.2 per 100,000 population. A WAG makes that number about 600 for a population of 300,000,000.

Injury mortality: US/State, 2001-2006 (Source:NVSS)
http://205.207.175.93/HDI/TableViewer/tableView.aspx

In another report on 2006 mortality rates, the statement appears, "Firearm suicide and homicide, the two major component
causes, accounted for 54.6 and 41.4 percent..." That's 98 percent of all firearm deaths, so my WAG is believable. 38396 total in 2006, 98 % intentional injuries, leaves about 750 as accidental.
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr57/nvsr57_14.pdf

I've gotten lost in the numbers. Am I missing your point?

Yes, because I was always focused on family members. The danger to people over about 34 is a low percentage of actual risk. It's actually a top 10 for accidental death from 5 to 34. That's why I broke it down. People above 34 drag it down considerably. That wouldn't apply to children which was my point. In families with children, the danger is significant.

Same report, better link... http://205.207.175.93/HDI/TableViewer/t ... eportId=71
Looking at unintentional deaths from firearms, I don't see any age group that has a mortality rate of more than 0.4 per 100,000. I don't know what the total population of 18- year olds is, but I'd say it's far from being a top ten cause of death.

[Les Drapeaux Brulants]

I'll once again provide this just for some fun. Nothing about this thread suggests that anyone will ever try to actually address the facts, but let's give people the benefit of the doubt.

Okay, I found the data that you are using, WISQARS, right? Only it's not what you present. I'm looking at accidental deaths by firearm for 2006.
Ages 1-4 -- 1.7 percent -- 13 deaths.
Ages 5-9 -- 1.7 percent -- 18 deaths.
Ages 10-14 -- 1.9 percent -- 23 deaths.
Ages 15-24 -- 1.2 percent -- 193 deaths.

This is the page I'm using for the reports.
http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/leadcaus10.html
I just can't make the data come out the way you present. Even when I expand the range from 1999 to 2006, I can't match percentages or numbers.

[Dazchan]

My views are simple:

Have as many guns as you want, but they must be registered to you. Once registered, you become responsible for it. If a child plays with your gun and kills themself, you get charged with murder. If your gun is stolen and used to rob a bank, you're an accessory to armed robbery, etc.

Basically, it becomes your responsibility to know where your gun is and what it is doing at all times.

Here is a summary of the System in Great Britain (not the UK because Northern Ireland has different Laws):

With a few specialised exceptions, all firearms in the United Kingdom must be licensed on either a firearm certificate (FAC) or a shotgun certificate.
Shotguns (Section 2 Firearms under the 1968 Act as amanded) are defined in UK law as smoothbore firearms with barrels not shorter than 24" and a bore not larger than 2" in diameter, no revolving cylinder, and either no magazine or a non-detachable magazine that is not capable of holding more than two cartridges.[6] This effectively gives a maximum three round overall capacity, while shotguns with a capacity exceeding 2+1 rounds are subject to a firearm certificate. Shotguns thus defined are subject to a slightly less rigorous certification process.

A firearm certificate differs from a shotgun certificate in that justification must be provided to the police for each firearm; these firearms are individually listed on the certificate by type, calibre, and serial number. A shotgun certificate similarly lists type, calibre and serial number, but permits ownership of as many shotguns as can be safely accommodated. To gain permission for a new firearm, a "variation" must be sought, for which a fee is payable, unless the variation is made at the time of renewal, or unless it constitutes a one-for-one replacement of an existing firearm which is to be disposed of. The certificate also sets out, by calibre, the maximum quantities of ammunition which may be bought/possessed at any one time, and is used to record the purchasing of ammunition (except,where ammunition is both bought, and used immediately, on a range under s11 or s15 of the Firearms Acts).

To obtain a firearm certificate, the police must be convinced that a person has "good reason" to own each gun, and that they can be trusted with it "without danger to the public safety or to the peace". Under Home Office guidelines, gun licences are only issued if a person has legitimate sporting or work-related reasons for owning a gun. Since 1946, self-defence has not been considered a valid reason to own a gun. The current licensing procedure involves: positive verification of identity, two referees of verifiable good character who have known the applicant for at least two years (and who may themselves be interviewed and/or investigated as part of the certification), approval of the application by the applicant's own family doctor, an inspection of the premises and cabinet where guns will be kept and a face-to-face interview by a Firearms Enquiry Officer (FEO) also known as a Firearms Liaison Officer (FLO). A thorough background check of the applicant is then made by Special Branch on behalf of the firearms licensing department. Only when all these stages have been satisfactorily completed will a licence be issued.

Any person who has spent more than three years in prison is automatically banned for life from obtaining a gun licence.[7] Similarly, persons applying for licences with recent, serious mental health issues will also be refused a certificate.

Any person holding a gun licence must comply with strict conditions regarding such things as safe storage. These storage arrangements are checked by the police before a licence is first granted, and on every renewal of the licence. A local police force may impose additional conditions on ownership, over and above those set out by law. Failure to comply with any of these conditions can mean forfeiture of the gun licence and surrender of any firearms to the police.

Taken from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politi ... ed_Kingdom

Edit: What do you think of this? Sensible? Scotland has a problem because they are forced to accept this law from England, and they want to make it more strict.

It sounds okay to me - I think we have similar laws in Australia.

My previous posts were geared more towards the US . Since they seem to think that a 200-year-old piece of paper overrides common sense, I was trying to find a solution where they are allowed to bear arms, but doing so becomes almost undesirable.

[Krazniastan]

My counter is: Carrying a gun gets you shot in the back.

I love bumper sticker wars.

You'll never know when I am carrying a pistol. Concealed Carry means Concealed.

This. I think gun control should be focused not on where guns are, but rather on keeping guns out of the hands of criminals. It should also focus on keeping guns secured around children. Children killed accidentally by guns should be considered a homicide. I believe that if children are found with guns they got through their parents in anything other than a controlled environment (like a range or out hunting) that the source of those guns should be guilty of attempted homicide or something equivalent. In other words, the penalty for gun negligencce should be extreme.

I believe that guns violence and accidents can be addressed, but we have to go after the sources of guns for both of those.

Guess what?

Its already illegal to sell, buy for (Strawman purchase), or steal a gun. Most guns used in crimes are stolen, FYI, and last I checked, theft is a crime. . . .

And I personally believe that a gun safety class should be taught in public schools. The Eddie Eagle program the NRA, (Don't dismiss it cause its an NRA program, it is a good, unbiased program.) is a pretty good one, as are the 4H and various State Hunter Education classes. There was a study done a while back that had some interesting data on how such classes reduced accidental shootings by as much as 80%.
Additionally, the thing about most 'child gun death' statistics is that they often include 'children' up to 24 years of age. Which conveniently means they include the gang bangers who get killed as a part of their criminal lifestyle.

I don't want to see criminals have guns. But criminals won't obey the law. They don't care if they break one law, or 100. Criminals will always get a gun if they want one. If they can't get one, they'll use a knife, which is just as lethal. (Check some of the statistics involving the genocide in Africa. Most aren't killed by guns, but by machetes, making it the true weapon of mass destruction on that continent.) If they intend violence, they will commit it. That is why they are criminals.

To deny someone a right because others have misused it is lunacy. If someone abuses it, they should be punished to the extent of the law. But to punish millions of people for doing nothing wrong, well, it won't be pretty.

[Blob-land]

What I don't understand, is why some Anti-Gun people think that all guns are bad, if they are in the hands of a civillian. If you own a gun, keep to all rules and regulations, and don't use them in threatening ways (like MOST people do!), your not going to do anything wrong. On the other hand, if you own a gun, don't care about the regulations, and point it at people constantly, then you've got a problem.

[Jocabia]

Just to clarify: some cyclists really should not be allowed to do what they do on public roads, because it DOES pose a threat to others. I like being an anonymous dude on a bicycle, but I don't want the other dicks to spoil it for me. I support registration and licensing for cyclists on public roads or paths, and an essential part of that is license plates.

Just like cars. If a cyclist wants to fart around on private property, or on a deserted track in a park, it's their problem. If they're farting around where they can harm others (in traffic or near pedestrians) they don't deserve to ride. More rules apply on a road than apply generally, and they should apply to bikes too.

With the exception of licensing in most places, the same rules apply to bicycles that apply to other vehicles.

[Jocabia]

I take on the risk of riding a bicycle. It seems worth it for the benefits to me, and the risk applies only to me ... so nobody should try and stop me.
The risks to others of a gun I might own, means that others (collectively) do have a right to limit or ban my use of one.

Is this your standard for if others should have control over what you choose to do with your life? If you like baseball and choose to carry a baseball bat around, or you like carrying tree branches, since it could be a threat to others, do they have a right to ban your behavior? Knives are dangerous weapons that pose a risk to others, should you be banned from using a knife? You could kill someone if you hit them on the top of the head with a hardcover book. Should only paperbacks be allowed to be carried on public streets? Some people are deadly allergic to peanuts, should you be banned from carrying them around since your behavior threatens another?

If you banned everything that could pose a threat to others we would all be locked naked in our own empty padded homes.

They aren't similar threats. Unless I actively try to hit you with a bat, I'm totally unlikely to do so. However, they would very much restrict whether or not I could walk around with a pitching machine or in particular if it starting become a problem that people were firing them off by accident.

Bullets can travel through car doors or windows of homes or even walls in some cases. They don't have the proven utility of a knife that outweighs their risk. It's not just the risk that determines how something is regulated but also the amount of risk for the amount of use. What percentage of the population use knives? What percentage of the population are killed by them? You think that's even remotely comparable to guns?

[North Calaveras]

id actually think more people are killed by sharp objects than my guns in the USA

[Jocabia]

What I don't understand, is why some Anti-Gun people think that all guns are bad, if they are in the hands of a civillian. If you own a gun, keep to all rules and regulations, and don't use them in threatening ways (like MOST people do!), your not going to do anything wrong. On the other hand, if you own a gun, don't care about the regulations, and point it at people constantly, then you've got a problem.

If only that were true. It doesn't bear out in reality. People make mistakes. When it comes to guns mistakes cost lives.

[Caninope]

Guns put too much power into the hands of morons, anyone can use a gun and take a persons life, with no thought.

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.

It doesnt say anything about individuals, only a well regulated militia. Just think of the idiots there, they could kill you with a pull of the trigger.

It does say "the people". What exactly that means I don't know and don't much care (it's not my constitution) ... just pointing out that the "right" applies to "the people" and not to "a .. Militia". Read it again.

It says the people have the right to keep and bear arms in order to form a "well-regulated" militia. Well regulated is right in the actual statement of the right.

Aha! My personal area of expertise on this particular subject. All of the following statements are supported by the case of DC v Heller, which was decided by SCOTUS in 2008.

The militia is not a militia as we think of: rather the connotation was that of a group making up all able bodied citizens, which they were naturally a part of.

Well regulated =/= Regulated by law: SCOTUS ruled (acting on a brief from linguists) that well regulated means "well trained"

[Junkyland]

This is pretty much the gun control in America.

[Spendor]

Seen written on a helmet: "My finger is my safety".

[Jocabia]

My counter is: Carrying a gun gets you shot in the back.

I love bumper sticker wars.

You'll never know when I am carrying a pistol. Concealed Carry means Concealed.

Which just means I have to shoot first.

This. I think gun control should be focused not on where guns are, but rather on keeping guns out of the hands of criminals. It should also focus on keeping guns secured around children. Children killed accidentally by guns should be considered a homicide. I believe that if children are found with guns they got through their parents in anything other than a controlled environment (like a range or out hunting) that the source of those guns should be guilty of attempted homicide or something equivalent. In other words, the penalty for gun negligencce should be extreme.

I believe that guns violence and accidents can be addressed, but we have to go after the sources of guns for both of those.

Guess what?

Its already illegal to sell, buy for (Strawman purchase), or steal a gun. Most guns used in crimes are stolen, FYI, and last I checked, theft is a crime. . . .

And I personally believe that a gun safety class should be taught in public schools. The Eddie Eagle program the NRA, (Don't dismiss it cause its an NRA program, it is a good, unbiased program.) is a pretty good one, as are the 4H and various State Hunter Education classes. There was a study done a while back that had some interesting data on how such classes reduced accidental shootings by as much as 80%.
Additionally, the thing about most 'child gun death' statistics is that they often include 'children' up to 24 years of age. Which conveniently means they include the gang bangers who get killed as a part of their criminal lifestyle.

I don't want to see criminals have guns. But criminals won't obey the law. They don't care if they break one law, or 100. Criminals will always get a gun if they want one. If they can't get one, they'll use a knife, which is just as lethal. (Check some of the statistics involving the genocide in Africa. Most aren't killed by guns, but by machetes, making it the true weapon of mass destruction on that continent.) If they intend violence, they will commit it. That is why they are criminals.

To deny someone a right because others have misused it is lunacy. If someone abuses it, they should be punished to the extent of the law. But to punish millions of people for doing nothing wrong, well, it won't be pretty.

Oh, well, shit, it's already illegal. Then why worry at all about how ciminals get guns? It's already fixed.

You're right. Criminals won't obey the law so our focus has to be on catching them or discouraging them. There is little evidence that arming people will actually accomplish that, so I think maybe I'm going to suggest we go further in punishing those who do not properly keep their weapons or follow proper procedures in selling them. Further tracking of weapons would help us do that.

As far as accidents, I think I'm not going to vote for politicians that base their policies on a single person. I think, maybe, it would be wiser to look at the actually accidents that occur with gun ownership instead of pretending you have dick to do with the probability of gun violence in our society.

I did not include murders in child deaths. I used accidental deaths as I made clear. You're welcome to look up the origin of my statistics on CDC yourself. Your little gangbanger theory is right out for that reason and another. I also accounted for gun murders that are against other criminals. Funny how that works, eh?

[Jocabia]

id actually think more people are killed by sharp objects than my guns in the USA

Ah, yes, more bumper stickers. Almost like arguments, but shorter and less intelligent.

[North Calaveras]

ah actually a bumper sticker is something you see on the bumper of a car my freind ^^