[Warlock]

Yes let's just remove the MEANS of murder not the actual person doing it or the reason or the will.

Blame it all on the gun! How did I miss it! I've been wrong all this years!!!

Ok seriously.  Point is you can preach ban guns all you want. It won't stop murder or suicide.

If someone wants to kill someone else, they will.

Try actually having capital punishment. You murder someone, you get put down. Yes I mean murder. Not man slaughter, etc. You're convicted of actually going after someone with the intent to kill them, you end up 6 feet under.

[Spicious]

Ok seriously.  Point is you can preach ban guns all you want. It won't stop murder or suicide.

If someone wants to kill someone else, they will.

No one's arguing that banning guns would stop violent crime. It's a question of ease.

Try actually having capital punishment. You murder someone, you get put down. Yes I mean murder. Not man slaughter, etc. You're convicted of actually going after someone with the intent to kill them, you end up 6 feet under.

How would that help?

Guns are so attractive as weapons because they're designed to do just that

And knives, or any kind of blades, aren't?    The entire reason for the existence of knives was to make hunting more efficient, as well as making it easier to dismember the animal carcass.

Knives are used to prepare food. How many guns can do that? Can you seriously claim that killing with a knife is as easy as killing with a gun?

[General Battuta]

Guns are so attractive as weapons because they're designed to do just that

And knives, or any kind of blades, aren't?    The entire reason for the existence of knives was to make hunting more efficient, as well as making it easier to dismember the animal carcass.

if I was going to kill myself, I wouldn't want to A) see it or B) feel it.  

Then poison yourself.  Without firearms, just as many people would kill themselves.  If you were going to kill yourself, you probably A) wouldn't care if you saw it or B) wouldn't care if you felt it.

What you're saying is that a knife or a golf club is just as effective a weapon as a firearm, when, truly, they're not in the least bit the same.

They don't have to be the same to be just as effective.  Dead is dead.

Murder by firearm is easier because it's a matter of point-and-shoot

By the same logic, so is defense by firearm, which is what I've been arguing for the whole time.

Moron. The trick is to educate the people before they become criminals.

No need to name call.  But amusing nonetheless.

You have no data for most of your assertions here. This argument in general is a bit vapid, actually.

If you've used firearms in comparison to knife combat training (I've done a bit of both), you'll know a firearm is a far easier way to kill -- especially on a psychological level.

[Scotty]

I was stating as a counter-point to "guns are meant to kill people" that so were knives.  My argument had no bearing on the ease of killing.  Besides, if someone is going to kill someone with anything it will still be psychologically difficult.  It may be easier to actually commit the murder, but living with it is something else entirely.

[General Battuta]

I was stating as a counter-point to "guns are meant to kill people" that so were knives.  My argument had no bearing on the ease of killing.  Besides, if someone is going to kill someone with anything it will still be psychologically difficult.  It may be easier to actually commit the murder, but living with it is something else entirely.

Unfortunately irrelevant to murder statistics.

I haven't actually weighed in on this, but I will say I want hard data on gun control before I commit to one viewpoint.

As a scientist, psychology suggests to me that availability heuristics mean murders will drop if guns are banned -- for the same reason organ donation rates are higher under opt-out systems than opt-in. People go with what's easy, and if it's not easy, people don't do it.

THAT SAID.

People often argue that banning abortion will lower abortion rates. When, in fact, banning abortion affects abortion rates not at all, and women simply have more unsafe abortions -- leading to more deaths.

So I would be unsurprised to learn that banning guns does not affect gun violence.

[Nuclear1]

I was stating as a counter-point to "guns are meant to kill people" that so were knives.  My argument had no bearing on the ease of killing.  Besides, if someone is going to kill someone with anything it will still be psychologically difficult.  It may be easier to actually commit the murder, but living with it is something else entirely.

And my point was that while some knives are intended for killing, plenty of other knives are used to spread butter and cut material.  Name me one firearm that's not intended to kill or cause harm to someone or something.

[Warlock]

High Max, if you can't handle debating without insulting, leave. Scotty didn't insult anyone, yet you're attacking him.

Oh and of course there's no end to this debate insight, if there were an end, I'd assume those in much higher positions than us that have been debating this issue much longer with much better facts and research would have actually come to a conclusion and action would have been taken, one way or another, for better or worse.

Name me one firearm that's not intended to kill or cause harm to someone or something.

Paintball gun So hard to resist that one.

[Nuclear1]

[Warlock]

Oh .....and a Starter's Pistol and Flare Gun as well


Sorry ....long day and it's near/past time I should have passed out....especially being 4.5hours before I have to be up driving 2 hours to work again  lol Thank god for helpers with driver's licenses

[karajorma]

Paintball gun So hard to resist that one.

So we ban all guns except paintball guns then. After all, most muggers would also think twice about taking on someone carrying one of those too.

[Janos]

Paintball gun So hard to resist that one.

So we ban all guns except paintball guns then. After all, most muggers would also think twice about taking on someone carrying one of those too.

*spranggg*
"OUCH MY ****ING EYE"
*pinggg*
"GODDAMNIT"
*pinggg*

[Inquisitor]

Paintball and flare guns are modified from the original source, as it were.

Its arguable, but not certain, that blades were created originally for making killing easier. That depends entirely on the anthropologist or archaeologist you talk to. There is some interesting evidence to point that they may have been extensively used for food preparation, and some interesting (lack of) evidence that they were used for killing.

Guns on the other hand, were manufactured to kill Paintball guns are a very recent adaptation of the concept to SIMULATE killing

For the record, I disagree with the original article. I am for well, centrally regulated control of these tools, at least on the scale of drivers licenses.

*Points at the UK*

For better or worse we are talking largely of american ownership, and for better or worse we have 2nd amendment issues and an extremely long history with these tools. In this country, that euphemism would be true. Prohibition springs to mind, and GB's point on abortion is extremely interesting (as much from what it possibly means as it does from a philosophical argument method when dealing with conservative blowhards*).

-edit-
*Or liberal ones for that matter.

[karajorma]

For better or worse we are talking largely of american ownership, and for better or worse we have 2nd amendment issues and an extremely long history with these tools.

Ah, finally we get around to the constitutional argument. So it says that Americans can carry weapons. So what?

If the 2nd amendment is valid then you should be able to justify it without having to refer to the 2nd amendment in order to do so. I can justify the 1st or 5th amendments fairly easily off the top of my head. Otherwise you're simply arguing that you should be allowed to have guns because you've always been allowed to have guns. And that's no argument at all.

[Inquisitor]

Genie out of the bottle, not to mention it sets bad precedence on revoking granted rights. 200+ years of historical momentum.

Once a right is granted, its hard to revoke it. Especially if you are talking about Americans. We take it seriously.

What you are suggesting is a bit too utopian a view to be realistic. We have them, we believe we have reasons to carry them on occasion. They are not going away in the United States.

We should strive to make the situation as safe as possible and keep them out of the hands of people who are not fit. That includes criminals as well as idiots.

"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."

The people should have the right to defend their homes from attack, foreign or domestic, to be able to take up arms in defense of their country, a right that the british attempted to take away in the 1700's For better or worse, its one of hte things that started that little tiff we had a couple hundred years ago.

Is it viable now? I dunno. I do know I have reasons to be armed on occasion. Safeguarding things greedy people want. Those greedy people could be foreign or domestic. The likelihood of it happening is low enough not to require a police escort, the the consequences of it happening are high enough to take some precautions. That's pure risk assessment and mitigation. In the unlikely even that something were to happen, that something is likely to be lethal. So, in those circumstances I carry a weapon.

I have carried weapons many times in the past for non-criminally focused reasons though:

It was standard practice to take a weapon, often a rifle, when out on the farm. Groundhogs dig up huge holes that wreck tractors posing a life threatening circumstance, they also could create a situation where the cattle could break a leg, threatening the viability of the herd. We were to identify the holes to fill in, and shoot the poor little critters to thin their population. We also had the traditional "fox in the hen-house" problems. You protect your land.

Additionally, I spent time doing field work out west. It is highly dangerous to spend any time in the back country of the American west. Between the people who might think you a claim jumper, and the various wild animals that might decide you are a tasty snack, you go armed. Period. You'll find that to be the case of many nationalities in many wildernesses. People who did field work in Alaska were issued .45's to help them convince grizzly bears that they were not worth snacking on (note, the cartridge was big enough to hurt the bear and make it go away, but not big enough to kill it). Bears, boars, wolves, coyotes, rattlesnakes. Some would hunt you, some would attack if startled. All of them were dangerous, and being armed helped make sure you at least survived the encounter. I carried a pistol in those days for those reasons.

That's three separate classes of activities that have repeatedly called for arming myself. That right is what the 2nd amendment allows for, in addition to the rhetoric about defending ourselves against an unjust government or foreign invaders.

[Liberator]

What's being lost in the general conversation is the following:

The Constitution of the United States, and by extension the Federal Government, does not grant rights to the individual.  It merely enumerates some of them.  It does however grant specific, and limited , to the Federal Government.

http://www.usconstitution.net/

My general dissatisfaction with Washington is that they are perpetually trying to exceed they're Constitutionally limited power.

[Inquisitor]

I should stop before I am irretrievably linked to Liberators political ideology

[Liberator]

lawl 

[Warlock]

LOL yes let's not delve into such things as the President forcing a president of a non-government company out of his job.

Besides let's also not forget one other core reason for the 2nd Amendment's protection of our right to bear arms, in case the citizens needed to raise against the government....again.

Granted, this issue would be compeltely different in this day and age, but that was one of the original reasons.

Don't forget, the 2nd Amendment does not grant said right, it only protects it.

[Warlock]

So just because someone doesn't beleive your view of things we're not seeing the light, selfish and stubborn? Yet you're claiming the culture as a whole is rude? 

See ...some of us believe, that you can't have safety and peace by removing rights of the people, any people. Now mind you I am talking about rights and not privledges here, big difference there.

Removal of rights is never the answer. That's one of the current problems in this country. 50% attempt to force their views on the other 50% and vice versa, all the while both attempting to yank rights away here and there.

Just recently here in VA they decided on the non-smoking ban in all resturants and bars, regardless of owner's choice. Now I'm completely fine with a non-smoking place, and matter of fact most places my wife and I eat at are already non-smoking and if not I sit in non-smoking anyways.  But it should be that buisness' right to decide which kind of customer base they wish to serve. If you don't like smokers at while you eat,...then you don't go to a place that allows smoking. Ultimately the costumers, by simle matter of which places get buisness and manage to survive, will decide which is best. It should never be forced on a buisness/person.

Transfat ban. You know, maybe I WANT to eat some trans fatty foods at one time or another. It's my right. Yes make them state which food as which/how much in it. But it should be for the person eating to decide. If they get all fat and unhealthy....they have medical insurance and it'll go up more do to poor health. Let them make the call and deal with it. I do not need my government to "look out and protect me from myself."

sorry got a bit off topic there eh? )

[Liberator]

Again, Laws do not explicitly give rights, merely enumerate and explain them.

Rights are inherent to the individual, not the State.

They are modified, not eliminated, by the Social Contract.

To give up a right voluntarily is considered to be selfless, or heroic

To take a right from someone is considered criminal or evil.