Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[Deleted]

My uncle showed me this earlier today. For the first time, I am actually terrified that the left might succeed in their anti-freedom agenda. This month may very well decide whether America lives or die. Will everything we have worked so hard to build be whisked away by bureaucrats in Washington? Is this the end of the line for America?

Hey Swazi Spring, just reminding you that the country is not going to end and that the democrats are doing what they think is best for it. They're going to have a very tough time passing this bill, and even if they do they're likely to lose the next elections and have it be repealed / not renewed. So relax, everything will be fine.

For what? To attempt to save a few thousand lives?

How can you say that ? What's wrong with you ? Suddenly your right to have fun with your guns is worth more than a life ?
See, this is the problem with this debate. The arguments from the pro-gun sides are so ridiculous that they encourage people to have a shouting match instead of an intelligent discussion. Which is not helped by the fact that it's usually resparked by tragic events that do not encourage rational thinking.

Yes, it can be used as such, but, seeing as the vastest majority of firearms in this country never kill anything it seems silly to proclaim that their sole usage is to injure or kill.

Since the vast majority of firearms in the country are never used beyond entertainment, can you really justify the sacrifices that the legislation implies ?

If you're looking for justified use, maybe I have a bad shoulder so the bat behind the door isn't too effective. Maybe I'd prefer to confront an intruder before they make it in knife range.

Or maybe you should let the intruder run like he's likely to. If not, he's a madman, in which case you should be able to call for help. Madmen usually don't run in packs. They're also less lethal than the people who own guns when they shouldn't in your country.

Maybe I'm a 105-lb woman and I don't want to test my ninja skills against my 220-lb would-be rapist.

There are other ways to defend yourself that don't involve lethal force. Can't you bring the case to justice like civilized people ?

Because the basic notion of freedom in this country is that you are free to do as you please so long as you don't violate others' freedoms, and the state must make a compelling case as to the need to limit or remove those freedoms?

I can provide you with 8523 good reasons a year to limit that freedom.

Do you really think human nature, at it's core, has changed in the last 230 years?

Nope. However, your country has changed a lot in 230 years. The Wild West is long dead.

[Laize]

How can you say that ? What's wrong with you ? Suddenly your right to have fun with your guns is worth more than a life ?
See, this is the problem with this debate. The arguments from the pro-gun sides are so ridiculous that they encourage people to have a shouting match instead of an intelligent discussion. Which is not helped by the fact that it's usually resparked by tragic events that do not encourage rational thinking.

It's not a shouting match. There's nothing to even discuss as far as this side of the debate is concerned.

Anyone talking about banning guns of any kind is talking about punishing well over 100 million gun owners for the actions of a couple thousand.

[bergmann620]

How can you say that ? What's wrong with you ? Suddenly your right to have fun with your guns is worth more than a life ?
See, this is the problem with this debate. The arguments from the pro-gun sides are so ridiculous that they encourage people to have a shouting match instead of an intelligent discussion. Which is not helped by the fact that it's usually resparked by tragic events that do not encourage rational thinking.

How can he say that? Probably because he see other people are free to drink alcohol, which isn't exactly a need or a right, and we don't seem to mind that alcohol kills many more every year than guns do.

Since the vast majority of firearms in the country are never used beyond entertainment, can you really justify the sacrifices that the legislation implies ?

Not sure what you mean here.

Or maybe you should let the intruder run like he's likely to. If not, he's a madman, in which case you should be able to call for help. Madmen usually don't run in packs. They're also less lethal than the people who own guns when they shouldn't in your country.

Why would he run? Did I make a mean face?

There are other ways to defend yourself that don't involve lethal force. Can't you bring the case to justice like civilized people ?

There are. Most of them are more dangerous to oneself, and some are illegal themselves. Bring the case to justice? You mean, let the rape transpire in order to be more 'civilized'? Are you fucking kidding me?

I can provide you with 8523 good reasons a year to limit that freedom.

We could all provide each other with thousands of reason to limit everyone's freedoms. We'd all be guaranteed to live to the ripe old age of boring.

Nope. However, your country has changed a lot in 230 years. The Wild West is long dead.

The Wild West sure is. Too bad Detroit, Chicago, Baltimore, D.C. and many other areas don't know that.

[PizzaSHARK]

Or maybe you should let the intruder run like he's likely to. If not, he's a madman, in which case you should be able to call for help. Madmen usually don't run in packs. They're also less lethal than the people who own guns when they shouldn't in your country.

What happens if he doesn't run?

There are other ways to defend yourself that don't involve lethal force. Can't you bring the case to justice like civilized people ?

You mean let the rape happen? Yeah, that's a fucking awesome idea; by all means, I encourage you to visit a feminist rally and broach your opinions to the ladies gathered there, let's see how they feel about it.

I can provide you with 8523 good reasons a year to limit that freedom.

And I can provide you with 75,000 or more reasons a year that we should be banning alcohol. Oh, wait, we tried that, didn't we? Didn't work.

Nope. However, your country has changed a lot in 230 years. The Wild West is long dead.

Pfft. Tell that to Detroit.

[Grizzly Willy]

Would a taser be an effective alternative to a gun? I mean, if it's a rapist they're going to have to get in close.

[cz75fan]

Would a taser be an effective alternative to a gun? I mean, if it's a rapist they're going to have to get in close.

No it wouldn't unless we make huge advancements in the technology.

[PizzaSHARK]

Would a taser be an effective alternative to a gun? I mean, if it's a rapist they're going to have to get in close.

No. If you miss your first shot, you're screwed. It's also a VERY close range weapon and its effects are temporary at best. You might as well say pepper spray works, just as well.

[Grizzly Willy]

Ah. Wasn't sure about the mechanics involved with firing a taser.

[cz75fan]

Ah. Wasn't sure about the mechanics involved with firing a taser.

Yeah, they are actually illegal in many places because of their ability to incapacitate someone quietly, same with black jacks.

Also, they really aren't much in the way of an "equalizer." I think from the anti-gun side they never really take into consideration the security of women. A taser has potential under extremely specific situations for a woman vs a single attacker. Doesn't do much vs 2 or more in a gang-rape situation though.

[PhaelixWW]

The problem is, every country has a different way of recording crime. Murder is the one that's the most comparable. The USA does not do well in any regard.

And you've said that we need to provide evidence that there is a need for further legislation. How much do you need ? People are getting killed for no reason, repeatedly for over a decade. At this point it's up to you to provide arguments for why the legislation should not be modified.

Done.

You want to talk about context?

The murder rate in the US is at the lowest point since 1963, down 51% in the last 20 years.



The violent crime rate is at the lowest point since 1972, down 47% in the last 20 years.
The aggravated assault rate is at the lowest point since 1977, down 43% in the last 20 years.
The robbery rate is at the lowest point since 1967, down 56% in the last 20 years.



The firearm homicide rate is down 56% in the last 20 years.



The rifle homicide rate is down 66% in the last 20 years.



Arguments that the current regulation isn't effective are misinformed.


And for the people who want to use the UK as a comparison:

The number of firearm homicides is the same as it was 20 years ago, despite the handgun ban.



The number of homicides in the UK has actually gone up 15% in the last 20 years.

[Deleted]

How can he say that? Probably because he see other people are free to drink alcohol, which isn't exactly a need or a right, and we don't seem to mind that alcohol kills many more every year than guns do.

Actually we do. I don't know about you folks over in America, but there are campaigns to warn people against drunk driving every other year here. Driving is very regulated, much more than guns in fact.
That and you folks already tried banning alcohol. It didn't work too well.

Why would he run? Did I make a mean face?

You probably did, but that's not the reason he's running. I'm talking about burglars here, since those are more common than rapists. They don't take risks. They get in, check that there isn't anybody, steal stuff and get out. If there is somebody, they run; unless they're in America in which case they might as well shoot because their life is in danger for entering your property.

The Wild West sure is. Too bad Detroit, Chicago, Baltimore, D.C. and many other areas don't know that.

Surely a federal legislation couldn't help with those could it ?
Admittedly, drug cartels tend to get their hands on weapons even where are gun regulations in place. They're good at getting illegal stuff. They also don't mess with the law-abiding that much either.

The murder rate in the US is at the lowest point since 1963, down 51% in the last 20 years.
The violent crime rate is at the lowest point since 1972, down 47% in the last 20 years.
The aggravated assault rate is at the lowest point since 1977, down 43% in the last 20 years.
The robbery rate is at the lowest point since 1967, down 56% in the last 20 years.
The firearm homicide rate is down 56% in the last 20 years.
The rifle homicide rate is down 66% in the last 20 years.
Arguments that the current regulation isn't effective are misinformed.

So crime has gone down. What does it have to do with the current regulations ?

What happens if he doesn't run?

You've still got baseball bats, knives, other people to help etc. And even if you don't manage to overpower your aggressor(s), at least you're not dead. That's a big improvement.

[miffy23]

This is ridiculous. The people trying to defend gun legislation are just throwing the same dead horse on the road over and over again. Once more I asked - "So why is this still in the constitution today, as it seems out of date", and your answers were "because it's the constitution"....or "don't take my freedom, leftie".

You people are so indoctrinated it's a wonder you can tie your shoes without spewing hate.

To adress some of the absurd claims btw:
The fact that crime has gone down relatively over the years or that other countries have high homicide rates to proves nothing. The US still has an unbearably high homicide and gun-related injury rate, which directly correlates to the number and availability of guns in the country. The numbers are a landslide above and other Western country that does not have such legislation. So please stop shouting random numbers.

Also, comparing one evil to another (alcohol for example), doesn't make the first any better by comparison or justifiable. A kid in school can put up a better argument for keeping their toy - unfortunately, Fox and the right wing media have been screaming murder from the rooftops for decades so it's treated as a valid argument, never mind rational thinking.

Furthermore, i don't know in what twisted world killing a criminal is better than fending him/her off in other ways, non-lethal ways, calling authorities,etc. Noone said to "let a rapist do his thing", that's cheap and sleazy Fox-like rethoric. When you can't find a reasonable argument, call the "offender" pro-murder, -rape, whatever. Simple way of twisting things for other simple minds.

And no, there's no debating the production intent of a gun. It's to kill, nothing else. You may enjoy firing on a range, fine. People do that with bows too. Also a weapon. Noone is "punishing" gun owners for crimes comitted by others. The notion that noone should have to run around with a personal firearm out of fear seems pretty altruistic to me, not mean....do you people even realize how childish your defenses of gun laws sound? It mostly amounts to "because it's MINE!". I'm just waiting for the tantrum and doors slamming.

Stop playing the victim and look at the facts that quite simply, easily and legally obtainable firearms cause unecessary deaths, and as such you should take another look a a constitutional right that has been outdated since roaming horsemen couldn't pillage your farm anymore and, since you've quoted such lovely statistics, since crime is down so much, you obviously don't have that much reason to fear anymore, do you?

I am indeed reading your counter-arguments quite attentively, I was hoping for something more constructive than what the conservative media whips up every day. Haven't seen anything that would convince me of the necessity of deadly weapons in a household.

Stop watching youtube, the TV, etc. Stop believing everything someone else says in the tube. To quote the movie Network: "But, man, you're never going to get any truth from us. We'll tell you anything you want to hear; we lie like hell. We'll tell you that, uh, Kojak always gets the killer, or that nobody ever gets cancer at Archie Bunker's house, and no matter how much trouble the hero is in, don't worry, just look at your watch; at the end of the hour he's going to win. We'll tell you any shit you want to hear. We deal in *illusions*, man! None of it is true! But you people sit there, day after day, night after night, all ages, colors, creeds... We're all you know. You're beginning to believe the illusions we're spinning here. You're beginning to think that the tube is reality, and that your own lives are unreal. You do whatever the tube tells you! You dress like the tube, you eat like the tube, you raise your children like the tube, you even *think* like the tube! This is mass madness, you maniacs! In God's name, you people are the real thing! *WE* are the illusion! So turn off your television sets. Turn them off now. Turn them off right now. Turn them off and leave them off! Turn them off right in the middle of the sentence I'm speaking to you now! TURN THEM OFF.."

[PizzaSHARK]

So crime has gone down. What does it have to do with the current regulations ?

It's pointing out that crime has remained below 1994 levels despite the Assault Weapons Ban expiring in 2004. That gives credence to the idea that this proposed bill will accomplish nothing, because it's an answer without a question.

Correlation does not equal causation, though.

You've still got baseball bats, knives,

So? I'm not going to put someone down in a single hit with a baseball bat or a single stab with a knife. Both weapons require me to place myself in danger to use.

other people to help etc.

What happens if they live alone?

And even if you don't manage to overpower your aggressor(s), at least you're not dead. That's a big improvement.

Man, you're right! If I try to fight back and fail, I just have to endure them aggressively raping me and hoping they won't kill me out of spite or a desire not to leave a witness afterwards!

Definitely a better outcome than me just blowing their fucking head off.

---------- Post added 2013-01-05 at 06:06 AM ----------

To adress some of the absurd claims btw:
The fact that crime has gone down relatively over the years or that other countries have high homicide rates to proves nothing. The US still has an unbearably high homicide and gun-related injury rate, which directly correlates to the number and availability of guns in the country. The numbers are a landslide above and other Western country that does not have such legislation. So please stop shouting random numbers.

Many data have been posted that indicate overall violent crime rates for the US are not hugely ahead of other, comparable countries. Hell, some cities in other countries exceed rates in many areas within the US. We lead on gun crime, but we also have more legal (and that's only legal) guns in circulation than many countries have people, so saying we have more gun crime doesn't really mean anything.

Also, comparing one evil to another (alcohol for example), doesn't make the first any better by comparison or justifiable. A kid in school can put up a better argument for keeping their toy - unfortunately, Fox and the right wing media have been screaming murder from the rooftops for decades so it's treated as a valid argument, never mind rational thinking.

Oh, so it's okay for the anti-gun people to talk about how many people are killed each year by guns, but it's not okay for pro-gun people to point out a great many more people are killed by car accidents, alcohol, smoking, and other such things? Why the double standard?

Furthermore, i don't know in what twisted world killing a criminal is better than fending him/her off in other ways, non-lethal ways, calling authorities,etc. Noone said to "let a rapist do his thing", that's cheap and sleazy Fox-like rethoric. When you can't find a reasonable argument, call the "offender" pro-murder, -rape, whatever. Simple way of twisting things for other simple minds.

Which is exactly what you're doing. The objective has never been to kill the perp, it's to stop the perp, and there are no better means of doing that than with a proper gun.

The police can't be everywhere at once. Even in major cities with large police forces, response times are often over five minutes at best. A lot can happen in five minutes. Why are you willing to risk your safety and the safety of others when there's no need?

And no, there's no debating the production intent of a gun. It's to kill, nothing else. You may enjoy firing on a range, fine. People do that with bows too. Also a weapon. Noone is "punishing" gun owners for crimes comitted by others. The notion that noone should have to run around with a personal firearm out of fear seems pretty altruistic to me, not mean....do you people even realize how childish your defenses of gun laws sound? It mostly amounts to "because it's MINE!". I'm just waiting for the tantrum and doors slamming.

Actually, if you look at the data, they indicate that guns are used more for target shooting and competition than for any other reason, with hunting of course taking the next slot. You keep talking about twisting the facts and putting spin on things, but it's you that's doing that.

Stop playing the victim and look at the facts that quite simply, easily and legally obtainable firearms cause unecessary deaths,

[Citation Needed]

If you're going to troll, do it elsewhere, please. If you want an actual discussion, you need to come bearing facts, not opinions.

And leave the ad hominem at the door.

[miffy23]

So you keep repeating the same arguments as if that would make them any more valid, but i'm the troll for asking the questions?

Again, i fail to see how "blowing their fucking head off" is any better than defending yourself with other non-lethal means. Yes the police can't be everywhere at once, guess what in other countries where not every maniac has instant access to a deadly firearm, they're not needed everywhere. Violence begets violence, it's a simple truth.

I would wager that the risk of actually killing your perp with a gun instead of say, waving a knife in his face, is much higher. But that's speculation on my part. Just like you're speculating that owning a firearm will keep all those bad men from entering homes. Nothing to back it up, it's a question of morality at this point, not facts.

So you'Re also saying that yes, you have more gun crime but also more guns, but they're legal! And...because someone legally owns a gun automatically makes them never ever commit a crime with it? Are you even listening to yourself?

And yes it is ok to talk about gun-caused deaths every year, just as we talk about other unecessary causes of death, like alcohol. This method of pointing fingers at other causes only makes the gun lobby seem childish and petulant, and it's so simple to manipulate others who don't pause to think more critically with it. Drop the rethoric and come up with a valid argument.

I did not twist the facts at any point. The fact that the majority of guns are used for "recreational purposes" does not mean they're not likely to be used in a crime/violence, since that is what they were made for. In fact, i'd wager that if guns were kept under lock at a range and you couldn't take them home with you, a lot of deaths would be prevented. Again pure speculation, but since your side is doing nothing but that, you kind of have to turn it around and show you it could just as well be the other way around.

Firearms cause unecessary deaths. That is not a troll attempt (look up what trolling means please), nor is it a twisting of facts or even an opinion. It's a fact. You may argue again that "hey, cars cause unecessary deaths too". To which i would again say that noone created a car for the sole purpose of shooting a projectile into a living body, wounding or killing a living creature. And before you peg me down as some pacifist hippy, i have nothing against hunting, or shooting at ranges, as i've stated multiple times. You simply cannot compare accidents involving other inanimate objects with a completely different purpose to guns which are inherently lethal in nature.

[PizzaSHARK]

So you keep repeating the same arguments as if that would make them any more valid, but i'm the troll for asking the questions?

Again, i fail to see how "blowing their fucking head off" is any better than defending yourself with other non-lethal means. Yes the police can't be everywhere at once, guess what in other countries where not every maniac has instant access to a deadly firearm, they're not needed everywhere. Violence begets violence, it's a simple truth.

You're an average-sized woman. Big guy breaks into your home with intent of rape. What do you do?

I would wager that the risk of actually killing your perp with a gun instead of say, waving a knife in his face, is much higher. But that's speculation on my part. Just like you're speculating that owning a firearm will keep all those bad men from entering homes. Nothing to back it up, it's a question of morality at this point, not facts.

I never said that; you're putting words into my mouth, which is something you like doing. You like speaking for both sides of the argument so you can automatically win.

Owning a gun would not prevent them from entering my home if they really wanted to, but it gives me the best option to defend myself if need be. That's it; it's an option I receive that someone who does not own a gun does not have, and when it comes to defending myself and those important to me, I want as many options as I can.

So you'Re also saying that yes, you have more gun crime but also more guns, but they're legal! And...because someone legally owns a gun automatically makes them never ever commit a crime with it? Are you even listening to yourself?

Pull your head out of your ass for a second and you'll notice that gun crimes are almost always committed with a gun obtained illegally. Hell, Sandy Hook was committed with illegally obtained guns. Crimes committed by legal gun owners are rare.

And yes it is ok to talk about gun-caused deaths every year, just as we talk about other unecessary causes of death, like alcohol. This method of pointing fingers at other causes only makes the gun lobby seem childish and petulant, and it's so simple to manipulate others who don't pause to think more critically with it. Drop the rethoric and come up with a valid argument.

How is it not a valid argument? You're arguing that guns are unnecessary, and that the privilege of gun ownership causes more deaths than it's worth having. You can say the exact same thing about alcohol (how many people die as a result of drunk drivers every year?) or cigarettes (deaths caused by second-hand smoke?) And it's the same situation, too - a legal item is being used in an illegal manner!

I did not twist the facts at any point. The fact that the majority of guns are used for "recreational purposes" does not mean they're not likely to be used in a crime/violence, since that is what they were made for.

And butcher's cleavers are made for butchering meat, but that did not and does not stop crazies in China from running into a school and trying to carve rump roast out of some kids.

In fact, i'd wager that if guns were kept under lock at a range and you couldn't take them home with you, a lot of deaths would be prevented. Again pure speculation, but since your side is doing nothing but that, you kind of have to turn it around and show you it could just as well be the other way around.

Wrong. You are the one making the assertions here - you are saying that something needs to be changed (gun laws), which means the onus is on you to provide proof to back up these claims. So far, you've provided none, just lots of conjecture without factual basis.

[miffy23]

You're an average-sized woman. Big guy breaks into your home with intent of rape. What do you do?

Use anything but a firearm? I'll not say it's not possible a gun would prevent this from happening, but it's no guarantee, no more than a pepper spray or a knife or a taser would be. Just because a gun is more effective at killing doesn't make the best counteragent for violence.

I never said that; you're putting words into my mouth, which is something you like doing. You like speaking for both sides of the argument so you can automatically win.

Owning a gun would not prevent them from entering my home if they really wanted to, but it gives me the best option to defend myself if need be. That's it; it's an option I receive that someone who does not own a gun does not have, and when it comes to defending myself and those important to me, I want as many options as I can.

That's your right, however the argument I bring is that it's not necessary to own a firearm to defend yourself. Plus, the likelihood of said events actually happening just seems slim. Gun lobbies make it seem like there's constant danger on the streets, maniacs everywhere. So what do we do, arm ourselves to the teeth. Good idea, that'll make us all feel safer from one another.

Pull your head out of your ass for a second and you'll notice that gun crimes are almost always committed with a gun obtained illegally. Hell, Sandy Hook was committed with illegally obtained guns. Crimes committed by legal gun owners are rare.

In this case it's up to you to provide statistics for that, although i'd wager that yes, the majority of crimes are probably committed by illegally obtained guns. However, the fact that such a large quantity was available legally in the first place makes the illegal obtainability more likely. That's a direct causal relation, more guns inside the country, more ways of getting guns. So the two are still connected.

How is it not a valid argument? You're arguing that guns are unnecessary, and that the privilege of gun ownership causes more deaths than it's worth having. You can say the exact same thing about alcohol (how many people die as a result of drunk drivers every year?) or cigarettes (deaths caused by second-hand smoke?) And it's the same situation, too - a legal item is being used in an illegal manner!

And i would personally vote to ban cigarettes and severely restrict alcohol myself too, but it's a completely unrelated matter. You keep complaining about how innocent gun owners are being persecuted for the crimes of others, however pointing fingers at other completely unrelated risks in life does not help your case in any way. The matter at hand is guns. Also, why would someone against gun legislation be for alcohol or cigarettes?? You're trying to make anti-gun arguments seem hypocritical by pure assumption.

And butcher's cleavers are made for butchering meat, but that did not and does not stop crazies in China from running into a school and trying to carve rump roast out of some kids.

Arguing that anything can be used for a rampage does not make guns any safer or less efficient in comparison. If that same guy had had an Uzi, maybe he'd have killed so many more? Again, we're speculating and you're pointing fingers at other, also bad things that are quite unrelated. The fact that other incidents of violence happen around the world not involving guns doesn't make us say "oh, well it's not so bad then is it" and move on.

Wrong. You are the one making the assertions here - you are saying that something needs to be changed (gun laws), which means the onus is on you to provide proof to back up these claims. So far, you've provided none, just lots of conjecture without factual basis.

Already quoted statistics about the amount of guns available and the number of homicides, for example. If you furthermore can'T see the connection between "there is an abundance of guns legally obtainable in the US" and "there's a horrific chain of gun-related incidents over a span of decades in the US", i really don't know what else to say.

[PizzaSHARK]

Use anything but a firearm? I'll not say it's not possible a gun would prevent this from happening, but it's no guarantee, no more than a pepper spray or a knife or a taser would be. Just because a gun is more effective at killing doesn't make the best counteragent for violence.

How so? Tasers are a very close range weapon and take a long time to reload; if you're using an actual prod-type taser, that means you have to get within touching distance. Pepper spray's effects can, to some extent, be resisted and it's also a very close range weapon - effective range is typically a dozen feet or less.

A shotgun or pistol will be effective to thirty yards or more, which is far beyond distances within a house. Getting shot by a shotgun will put the perp down in a single hit, reliably. Getting hit with a large caliber pistol will put them down with one hit, reliably. Getting hit with a medium-caliber pistol will likely put the perp down in one hit. Understand, "put down" means "stop," it doesn't necessarily mean kill. If you're defending yourself to prevent a crime from taking place, the law allows you to stop the crime. It doesn't allow murder, and I don't advocate murder.

That's your right, however the argument I bring is that it's not necessary to own a firearm to defend yourself. Plus, the likelihood of said events actually happening just seems slim. Gun lobbies make it seem like there's constant danger on the streets, maniacs everywhere. So what do we do, arm ourselves to the teeth. Good idea, that'll make us all feel safer from one another.

It's not necessary, no, and I've never claimed it is. But gun ownership gives you a safer, more reliable way to stop a crime than other methods. It's an option, and when it comes to defending myself and others, I like having options.

In this case it's up to you to provide statistics for that, although i'd wager that yes, the majority of crimes are probably committed by illegally obtained guns. However, the fact that such a large quantity was available legally in the first place makes the illegal obtainability more likely. That's a direct causal relation, more guns inside the country, more ways of getting guns. So the two are still connected.

Absolutely. But there are at least 300,000,000 legally owned guns in America; they are not going to simply disappear because you said people can't have them anymore. So what good is banning legal ownership going to do? It's not going to stop illegal ownership, and with that many guns in circulation, I'd contend it won't even have much of a negative impact on illegal ownership.

And i would personally vote to ban cigarettes and severely restrict alcohol myself too, but it's a completely unrelated matter. You keep complaining about how innocent gun owners are being persecuted for the crimes of others, however pointing fingers at other completely unrelated risks in life does not help your case in any way. The matter at hand is guns. Also, why would someone against gun legislation be for alcohol or cigarettes?? You're trying to make anti-gun arguments seem hypocritical by pure assumption.

Because it's something that needs to be noted.

Arguing that anything can be used for a rampage does not make guns any safer or less efficient in comparison. If that same guy had had an Uzi, maybe he'd have killed so many more? Again, we're speculating and you're pointing fingers at other, also bad things that are quite unrelated. The fact that other incidents of violence happen around the world not involving guns doesn't make us say "oh, well it's not so bad then is it" and move on.

It isn't unrelated. If they can't get a gun, they'll get something else. Getting rid of guns does not make crazy people go away or stop doing crazy things.

[miffy23]

How so? Tasers are a very close range weapon and take a long time to reload; if you're using an actual prod-type taser, that means you have to get within touching distance. Pepper spray's effects can, to some extent, be resisted and it's also a very close range weapon - effective range is typically a dozen feet or less.

A shotgun or pistol will be effective to thirty yards or more, which is far beyond distances within a house. Getting shot by a shotgun will put the perp down in a single hit, reliably. Getting hit with a large caliber pistol will put them down with one hit, reliably. Getting hit with a medium-caliber pistol will likely put the perp down in one hit. Understand, "put down" means "stop," it doesn't necessarily mean kill. If you're defending yourself to prevent a crime from taking place, the law allows you to stop the crime. It doesn't allow murder, and I don't advocate murder.

A rapist has to get close to you. Someone breaking into your home with a loaded gun would likely hold you at gunpoint already (because he got a gun easily probably). You are citing gun qualities like from a catalogue, but not in perspective.

It's not necessary, no, and I've never claimed it is. But gun ownership gives you a safer, more reliable way to stop a crime than other methods. It's an option, and when it comes to defending myself and others, I like having options.

Then stop saying that a hypothetical ban on guns would rob you of all options, because there are many more. You'll still have plenty of options and hey, the likelihood of the perp owning a gun is reduced as well. How do you arrive at the conclusion that a gun would stop a crime in a safer way than a pepper spray, tazer etc? That's a far stretch, seeing as how there are plenty of non-lethal methods around.

Absolutely. But there are at least 300,000,000 legally owned guns in America; they are not going to simply disappear because you said people can't have them anymore. So what good is banning legal ownership going to do? It's not going to stop illegal ownership, and with that many guns in circulation, I'd contend it won't even have much of a negative impact on illegal ownership.

Melt them down? Let's say you actually banned guns, then you'd collect them. Plenty would be in circulation and hiding. But in time the number would be gone and the most important factor is they wouldn't be as easily obtainable in the future. You can't argue that there's already so many around it's pointless. You have to start somewhere and think ahead.

Because it's something that needs to be noted.

How exactly does this need to be noted? I'm not going to use any allegories, there would be plenty to be used, but mentioning other factors of danger that are unrelated does nothing pro-guns at all, it just makes a pro-gun argument seem petulant.

It isn't unrelated. If they can't get a gun, they'll get something else. Getting rid of guns does not make crazy people go away or stop doing crazy things.

As you clearly illustrated in the first part of your post, if they get the far more effective means, ie a gun, for their purpose it makes it that much deadlier and devastating. No it wouldn't get rid of crazy people. We wouldn't be putting guns in their hands anymore either. Right now, it's simply too easy.

[Deadvolcanoes]

My uncle showed me this earlier today. For the first time, I am actually terrified that the left might succeed in their anti-freedom agenda. Will everything we have worked so hard to build be whisked away by bureaucrats in Washington? Is this the end of the line for America?

Take a deep breath Swazi. It's a high capacity magazine ban that grandfathers existing magazines. It's not limiting your freedom to own a firearm. It's smart gun legislation that both sides can get behind.

I mean do you believe in any form of gun control? Should 15 year olds be able to purchase and own firearms?

[Fugus]

Hypothetical.....

Guns got banned and they even went so far as to go door to door, fascist style, forcibly taking everyone's guns and destroying them with no ill will from the people for it either.... Here is what would happen....

First, the physically weaker would become HUGE targets for anyone wanting to take by force, especially women.

Second, there would be a new market of illegal weapons being shipped from Mexico along with some scale, fabrication setups going locally to fund sten style guns which would go for a premium price. Since only criminals could actually get them only criminals would have them. One thing about criminals, most of them only have balls as big as their perceived advantage so having them armed in a world where most everyone else is virtually guaranteed to be unarmed makes him a very violent kid in a very big candy store. He really has nothing to fear at that point for the most part.

Net effect, overall crime goes UP, not down. We actually end up with an ever growing number of armed criminals having their way with unarmed people along with the more physically imposing people bullying their way into most things they want with impunity also leaving women and the weaker men virtually defenseless against anyone of any size or anyone that is armed who wishes them harm.

Sorry Miffy, but guns are a great equalizer and holds many would be criminals in check which can be evidenced by the fact that in the US, typically the higher the percentage of legal gun ownership in an area, the lower the overall crime rate is.

Also, thirdly and most importantly, if the US government does go into a tyranny * debatable already one currently* we will want our guns to help take our nation back. FYI, removing the citizens ability to defend themselves is one of the first thing a tyranny tries to do.