But the fact is, all evidence points to you being wrong on all of your points, if you look at other countries that have gun regulation. They are not ran by a dictator, they have a much lower murder rate, and fewer criminals get their hands on guns.

Fact is I haven't seen any evidence that proves me wrong, it's your turn.



"Report: Murder Rates Remain Same in Tough Gun Law States"
http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=95436&page=1
"Rising Gun Ownership Has Helped Cut Murder Rates for Americans Over 25, New Study Says"
http://www.independent.org/issues/article.asp?id=482
"Stossel Links Gun Control to Higher Crime"
http://newsbusters.org/node/12556
Shows data representing states with and without conceal permits
http://www.rkba.org/research/suter/s...cw.4sep95.html
" The British government banned handguns in January 1997 but recently reported that gun crime in England and Wales nearly doubled in the seven years from 1996 to 2003. Since 1996, the rate of serious violent crime has soared by 88%, armed robberies by 101%, rapes by 105% and homicide by 24%."
http://www.nysun.com/article/25547

http://law.jrank.org/pages/1301/Guns-Regulation.html

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=4706
"Restricting firearms has helped make England more crime-ridden than the U.S."
http://www.reason.com/news/show/28582.html


Yea right.

KNIVES LINKED TO DARTMOUTH SLAYINGS
http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P1-42982766.html


"There's something in criminology called the valve theory: If you shut off one avenue, another avenue opens up," said Andrew Karmen, a professor at John Jay College of Criminal Justice. "If it's more difficult to get guns, people might turn to knives."
http://www.galleryofguns.com/shootin...es.asp?id=1829

A convicted killer who died in Folsom prison last month has been linked by DNA tests to the unsolved knife slayings of six people in the East Bay in the 1970s and early '80s, authorities said yesterday.


http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...9/MN167984.DTL

Mamoru Takuma, who is standing trial for the murder of eight students in a knife attack at Ikeda Primary School in Ikeda, Osaka Prefecture, said Thursday he had thought often about committing mass murder since his...
http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2...6-10024415_ITM

A Ukrainian immigrant accused in the slayings of six relatives was found hanged in his jail cell early today
http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-331150.html

'We Did It' letters eyed in NY stabbings
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080307/ap_on_go_co/times_square_blast_letters;_ylt=AtH50Zhu1gHhjkZo_j .uuJ6s0NUE


You could kill a grip of people with a knife, you could walk the isles at wal mart slitting people's throats just as quick as shooting them, hell and not even make a sound.

You could lock a classroom door and start slicing people up, and the people in the next room wouldn't have a clue, hell atleast if you were shooting people many more would be alerted by the noise.

So why not just outlaw all weapons and make a mandatory self-defense course for all?

Oh, in related argument, I read on CNN today that College Students in some school in Texas I believe are pushing for the right to bear weapons in the classroom, I for one find this appalling and hope that nothing gets passed like this, I don't want to have some shithead having the right to have a gun on campus, because after that gets passed the kids will have them in the high schools etc etc. Fuck that.

That right to bear arms in classrooms is bullshit. It would cause more chaos. Instead of hearing about the brawls in schools, we'd have more frequent school shootings.

Oh, most definately.

I totally agree, here is the link where I read the article at.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/04/14/campus.guns/index.html

Stupid fucking kids and professors. Just think about it, that would be the worst idea, ever.

Sorry, I just saw this since it was bumped. You're saying guns kill a comparable number of people on COLLEGE CAMPUSES to cancer in general? That's a bold allusion. Sensationalism at it's worst, KA. I expected more ;).

That wasn't my point. My point was that it's a relatively small amount of people, if you look at the big picture, but cancer is still a big problem.

Sure, if you banned guns in general they might be harder to access for the average person. There will be a huge market for importing illegal firearms much like modern drug smuggling. Millions if not billions that would be spent on domestically produced firearms will be sent to other countries, quite possibly to terrorism sponsoring agents. Banning stuff outright is working so well. Look at the war on drugs and prohibition.

Anyways, it's not like all the guns in this country are in dealers' hands right now. There are literally generations of firearms in this country. To rid the country of ALL of them would require some sort of authoritarian police state.

Why don't you outlaw cars? We'll all be a lot safer then and you're for sure hundreds of times more likely to die from a car accident than be shot on a college campus. You act like it's a huge plague that kills many thousands of students a year. No, it's the exception not the rule. SENSATIONALISM!

Alternatively, if the media didn't give attention to these kids he might not have wanted to get a gun and blow them all away. They don't need the media immortalizing them once they blow people away. They need love while they're still stable. The level of detail some of these kids put in is just crazy. Thank God they're using guns and explosives. You don't have to aim for that.

Blaming it on the media is simple. Shifting the blame from the poor, emotionally troubled teen to the ruthless media is easy. However, it is nothing more than irresponsibly exculpating the perpetrator. The kid pulled the trigger; not the media. The gun was a vital part to implementing his plan; not the media. This is what we know. What his motivation behind the shooting is mere speculation.

Just like saying if he hadn't had the gun he would have been deterred is speculative. You can't say these things because he did have a gun and we don't know what would have happened.

It's pretty easy to speculate the continuous coverage given to these troubled youths who end it all riddling people with bullets is an incentive. These kids are martyrs to other fucked-up kids. If it hadn't been popular in the news perhaps some of these tragedies would not have happened. Just like reporting famous suicides statistically increases suicides near the time of the reporting (at least according to my psychology professor who is a published doctor.)

Am I advocating censoring the media? No. I'm for rights. I'm sorry some people have to die, but just like how I don't agree with the over zealous anti-terror measures that are taken. I don't believe taking a right away from people is the right thing to do. I don't think tylenol should be outlawed if a bunch of people kill themselves with it. After all, I don't particularly like headaches :).

I have a drug charge so I'm not aloud to buy a hand gun. :(

Ooooo, ouch! One of my favorite things to do is go out back and shoot the old .22. But kids having that on campus would really piss me off. I just might end up needing to bring mine for self defense.

Maybe in future years every citizen will need a gun for self defense. You never know what might happen. But has everone noticed that school and college shootings has gone up? It's like where are all these psychopaths coming from...:weird:

http://www.svrc.net/Files/Murders.pdf

I'd blame it on the culture. Then again, there was a famous shooting at a texas university by an ex-marine that racked up quite the body count also.

It is defiantly culture. We grow up knowing nothing but violence so when we can we act violent.

Allowing guns on campus would be the worst possible scenario.

It would make bulling so much easier. I would most likely be the target yet again. I worked so hard to get rid of that.

Asamin, do you mean bullying by guns :confused: what the hell. The cops would stop that before it would start. And the body count and suicides would be tremendous if bullying went to that lvl (wait, doesn't that already happen in Philly right now?).

I have a Yugoslavian SKS :D (among other guns). Fun gun to shoot and cheap ammo ftw.

I'm neutral about guns on campus. I can see both ways and I'm definitely not expert enough to make a judgment.

I don't care about guns or gun laws. In my opinion they are just like a hammer or a saw. A tool. Nothing more and nothing less.

But they are a tool designed explicitly for their efficacy in ending life.

Welcome back, by the way.

We are talking about if Guns were allowed in school. A hypothetical situation.

I don't intend on ending any lives when I go to the shooting range.

Yet many people have them for precisely that reason.

And you too are subject to everyday human emotion. Sure, everyone likes to think they are above average. Everyone likes to think they are more in control of themselves and their emotions than the common man. Truth is, everyone is subject to the rage inherent in humans. Guns are a medium for expressing this rage in a fatal way.

I understand that you like your gun for sport. However, is it necessary to issue concealed handgun licenses for you to enjoy your sport? Is it necessary for you to keep your gun at home to enjoy your sport? Would it not be as much fun if your gun were kept at a less accessible place, such as a shooting range?

Furthermore, if basketball was the cause of 10,000 homicides per year, I would be all for illegalizing it. My main goal is preservation of human life. I think it is a worthy goal. I think it is a goal that the government should strive for. Personal liberty is great. However, when your tool endangers other's right to life, your liberty to posses that tool should be secondary.

"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
- Benjamin Franklin

I suppose you could argue on the grounds of the word "temporary" or even "essential," but the spirit of the quote is still relevant I believe. I'm growing weary from the trend that people have been following as far as giving up rights for marginally less chance of dying.

Yes but think of recent laws. One says that should you assualt anyone with any tool it counts as assualt with a deadly weapon. I know a lot of guns are made for ending life why else would you want a rifle that spits out some 200 rounds a second? But a weapon is anything that someone uses to enhance the damage done to their target. Meaning a hammer (which could be used to end life just as easy) could be labelled as such. I agree that some guns are a little ridiculous to give to someone who lacks the mental training and discipline of a soldier. No one needs to have the ability to tear another person into shreds at the pull of a trigger.

Of course no one will help me try to legalize dueling again :haha:

So my question is this. If you should take away people's guns would the people who get so enraged or tempted to kill another human being not resort to using other tools? Hammers? Knives? Rope? Chains? Shoes? Thus my arguement is not against guns but against the users. I think we should have laws that make people go through the needed training a soldier does to own a gun. Wouldn't that be a more effective law? I know many people would start riots over having their guns taken away. Because the constitution says they have the right to bear arms (which could mean they have the right to hang a pair of bear arms on their wall but alas no one would go with me on that one) in case their government becomes tyrannical. Of course how does a government become tyrannical when it's a democracy? Could I not then go and buy a gun and declare war on our government because they do things that I am against. Because by the end of the day when someone forces you to do something you don't want to do it's technically oppression. You can see where I would go with this. The never ending reasons as to why it would be less effective then just mentally conditioning people.

You would have less oppostion towards it. Then doing something that goes against the constitution.

EDIT: Thanks for the re-welcome. I actually forgot my password and username for the last few days lol.

Brilliant.

Of all the founding fathers of America, I respect Benjamin Franklin the most. That said, their words should not be our dogma. They may have been brilliant. They may have been right about many things. Their words may have a poetic draw that I can not hope to match. But if what they said endangers human life, if what they said is discordant with modern life, if what they said is discordant with modern evidence, fuck 'em.

That said, I agree with that quote to a large extent. I wouldn't say that they don't deserve liberty, and in my opinion everyone, regardless of how heinous, deserves life, but I agree with the spirit of that quote. But if we're arguing based on that quote, diction is important. Whether or not a liberty is essential is important. If we're fighting to keep unessential liberties and sacrificing life for these unessential liberties, we should quickly come to the realization that we have not made it out of the dark ages quite yet.

I find it so strange that people cry when a close relative dies, but they are quick to dismiss 10,000 deaths per year basically as a small margin of chance. Are we so used to violence that we are that immune to death? If that's the case, God help us.

Your response brings up another quote I remember. It's much more recent though. Seems like disregard for the founding fathers' wishes. This is the basis of our government and our success over the past couple centuries.

“Stop throwing the Constitution in my face,” Bush screamed back. “It’s just a goddamned piece of paper!”

I'm not trying to trivialize 10,000 people dying annually, but when compared to the greater population it's just not that much. There are MANY things that could be done that could reduce the amount of deaths annually by 10,000. They could lower to speed limit to a crawl, closely monitor our diets, not allow us to perform any dangerous actions. However, if we wanted to do that we'd have to get rid of more liberties.

I think I said this earlier in the thread, but I think it's important that, when using the words of the founding fathers, you take them as they meant them at the time. Back then, there weren't guns readily available that could mow down a bunch of people. Usually you had one shot and you had to spend 5 minutes reloading.

Yeah, it was in the civil war that we invented our first machine gun, the gattling gun. But it also had to be reloaded, and was the size of a cannon. No where near efficient as the guns we have today...

Why would I leave something that I payed hundreds of dollars for in the possesion of someone else? What other item do we do that with?

My guns are not only for the range. I hunt probably 5 times a year and I have them in a safe. My best friends family once had their entire house robbed at gun point by 4 men. They had cut the phone line and had no weapons or way of contacting people. This was in a wealthy neighborhood. For this reason I keep my handgun in a smaller safe that is easy to open, right near my bed. I'm not paranoid but I do have the right to protect myself and I will do so if needed. Seeing the look on their faces for the next month was enough to scare me.

I will have guns as long as criminals do. I'm not going to apply for a CCW license or anything but I will keep guns in my home to protect myself and my family if I ever have one. I understand why people don't like guns and I understand why some want them banned but they need to understand that some of us wish to be able to protect ourselves.

Guns were efficient means of killing people then and are now. You can't say "our founding fathers were too naive to think that weapons would get more efficient." Have you read the constitution? These were some very intelligent fellows, and anyways, you can't begin to say you understand the context of their minds. No one really does.

Not unless we go back in time or ressurect them. Quick! Someone cast redemption!

Sadly I ran out of MP conjuring up my debate point earlier.

Although I would have to ask. How serious did they think those 4 armed men were about shooting them. Sounds to me like they were really just thieves that were good at bluffing. If there were less robbers then I might be inclined to think you would need protection but when 4 people not only rob you but manage to destroy any chance of needing to kill you it sounds like they had a plan and got some information on the people living there. Meaning that they were not there to harm anyone. Thus protection was not needed anyways.

You can always tell smart and careful people from wildly violent people when they rob a place. If they come in shooting then yes you get protection. If they come in quietly and accidently wake you up then you would know they wanted no contact with you. They most likely just wanted stuff and there would be a chance that their guns were not loaded or even usable. They were just holding them as a means of keeping you away.

You cannot just use an event like that to deal an absolute. This is no game sadly. So therefore you need to get all of the info on the event. It's not exactly an air tight case on support because for all we know the robbers were not after the people. Meaning they had no intent of assualt or abuse thus what would you protect yourself from? You need to tell people if they were thugs or sneak thieves. Sneak thieves often use their skills at acting to rob when they need to but most of the time they are gone with your stuff before you know it. A thug would be the one that comes in shooting and asks you for where all your stuff is. Thus one would conclude that he never cased the place. Those are the ones that are often caught later on anyways.

Your paragraph on the robbery would have had the opposite effect of what you intended in a case because it's really just proving that you want to own a gun out of fear. Which is not a good thing when trying to help against people who want guns banned.

They had an Uzi an AK-47, a handgun, and a shotgun. I wouldn't try to call someones bluff after they tied up myself and my family at gunpoint, then shot both of my dogs after they tried to interfere. Protection is the very last reason I own a gun. My very first gun was given to me by my father the day I turned 18. It was the gun my grandfather bought when he turned 18, then in turn gave it to my dad when he turned 18 and my dad gave it to me. I took a liking to shooting at the range and to hunting so I bought multiple guns. I have never bought a gun with safety and protection in mind btw. I'm not some crazy redneck gun collector or anything. I have 4 guns and don't intend on buying anymore.

btw someone called the cops on me for having a gun in the back of my car the other day....:rolleyes: it visibly had a trigger lock, the chamber was open to show it wasn't loaded and I had a stack of targets (i had obviously just come from the range) this was at a 7-11