More shootings.

[Zen Badger]

Well Brian sure seems to be arguing for the total banning of guns.

I think.

---

I should probably point out that my dick is actually of above-average size and girth, though I also have a fascination with guns, and I am not afraid of not being able to possess guns under the strenuous registration requirements I listed. Largely because I wouldn't be able to, but I no longer live in a ghetto.

Though, apparently NEAR one.

Don't get me wrong. I like guns too. And I think they're great fun.
But I also applaud our governments moves to limit the numbers and availability of said guns.

But right-wing lunatics like A Theist can't see that. All he can think of is his love of his penis substitute.

[A Theist]

Well Brian sure seems to be arguing for the total banning of guns.

I think.

---

I should probably point out that my dick is actually of above-average size and girth, though I also have a fascination with guns, and I am not afraid of not being able to possess guns under the strenuous registration requirements I listed. Largely because I wouldn't be able to, but I no longer live in a ghetto.

Though, apparently NEAR one.

Don't get me wrong. I like guns too. And I think they're great fun.
But I also applaud our governments moves to limit the numbers and availability of said guns.

But right-wing lunatics like A Theist can't see that. All he can think of is his love of his penis substitute.

All he can think of is his love of his penis substitute.

...you're the kid who's talking about penises....obviously it's your fetish.....

[Zen Badger]

Don't get me wrong. I like guns too. And I think they're great fun.
But I also applaud our governments moves to limit the numbers and availability of said guns.

But right-wing lunatics like A Theist can't see that. All he can think of is his love of his penis substitute.

All he can think of is his love of his penis substitute.

...you're the kid who's talking about penises....obviously it's your fetish.....

I'm just crushed by your witty and rhetorical comeback.......

No.... really........

[Anymouse]

I object to the term "crazies" being used in place of "criminals."

Aside from unjustly painting the mentally ill as potential criminals, both the Department of Justice and NIMH point out that the mentally ill are eleven times more likely to be the victims of violence than the average person, and the disabled four times more likely.

On the issue of obtaining guns as a criminal, with such laws as no background check to buy them from a neighbour, E-bay, gun shows, &c, there is effectively "no ban" on criminals obtaining guns. And you can always steal your neighbour's.

Homicide statistics by firearm of course do not include suicide by firearm or accidental death by firearm of children.

The II Amendment, while its militia clause was only (in the last twenty years) interpreted to mean "anyone with money to buy a gun" rather than how it is written, does not prohibit the stringent regulation of firearms.

And note that New York has released its firearm related deaths for this year, and in keeping with its strict laws on gun ownership had its lowest homicide rate this year by firearms in living memory.

But the idea "its hard so we can't do it nor should we try" (expressed by many here, and in most First World countries when they implemented such laws) is not a reason not to try. If that logic were to prevail in other areas of thinking, we would not have science and technology.

And even the few firearms laws we do have are not enforced, and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms is a captive agency of the NRA. The NRA has successfully blocked the appointment of a bureau chief since the middle of GW Bush's term. It is filled by part-timers who fly in from New York and Boston (lawyers) two days a month.

If the laws were actually enforced, the mentally ill or those who had been hospitalised in the past could not obtain weapons. Long-barrel guns (scatterguns and rifles) are not regulated, nor even registered. (Because no one ever commits homicide nor suicide with a shotgun or rifle).

Glenn Beck on the radio yesterday claimed that we need to examine the issue without "knee jerk" reactions. He defined those as gun-control regulations.

Saying "guns don't kill people, people kill people" has to be one of the most intellectually-dishonest memes ever devised by the NRA. It is equal to "electricity doesn't electrocute people, electricians do." That is the purpose of guns. They have no purpose other than killing. (I suppose you could use a pearl-handled revolver to hammer nails or a rifle as a prybar if they were unloaded, but there are better tools for that.

[A Theist]

That is the purpose of guns. They have no purpose other than killing. (I suppose you could use a pearl-handled revolver to hammer nails or a rifle as a prybar if they were unloaded, but there are better tools for that.

Oh no no no....I have to disagree...There's nothing better to drive nails with than this baby right here!....The DeWalt AR 16 nail rifle! This sucker can drive 16 penny nails into a 4x4 post from 200 yards!....."Hey Honey! Stop shakin' and hold that post up straight!"

[CapnAwesome]

The II Amendment, while its militia clause was only (in the last twenty years) interpreted to mean "anyone with money to buy a gun" rather than how it is written, does not prohibit the stringent regulation of firearms.

And note that New York has released its firearm related deaths for this year, and in keeping with its strict laws on gun ownership had its lowest homicide rate this year by firearms in living memory.

A couple of points in response to these two statements. First you totally incorrect about the interpretation of the second amendment coming to mean personal ownership of a gun in the last 20 years. People have owned personal firearms since the beginning of this country. George Washington in fact owned personal firearms, as did many of the founders. I don't know where you got that piece of information.

Second, firearm related murders are irrelevant, who cares how you are murdered. If my loved one is stabbed to death, do I go "Well phew, at least it wasn't a firearm." This is a blatantly propagandized statistic that has no relevance on actual murder rates. The UK has less "handgun deaths" than Switzerland, but 5 times the actual murder rate. Get the difference? So the actual murder rate is the important statistic.

Yes, New York's actual murder rate has fallen too. But so has the murder rate for the entire country. In places where gun regulation hasn't changed at all, we've seen the same drop in murder and violent crime. You have to look at these statistics in a larger context to really understand their significance, or lack thereof.

[Zen Badger]

That is the purpose of guns. They have no purpose other than killing. (I suppose you could use a pearl-handled revolver to hammer nails or a rifle as a prybar if they were unloaded, but there are better tools for that.

Oh no no no....I have to disagree...There's nothing better to drive nails with than this baby right here!....The DeWalt AR 16 nail rifle! This sucker can drive 16 penny nails into a 4x4 post from 200 yards!....."Hey Honey! Stop shakin' and hold that post up straight!"

This would be more your style I think...



Then you could stroke it aaalllll niiiight looooong.

[Cato]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4kU0XCVey_U

[Whateverist]

Second, firearm related murders are irrelevant, who cares how you are murdered. If my loved one is stabbed to death, do I go "Well phew, at least it wasn't a firearm."

Beg to differ. Guns are called the great equalizer for a reason. A kid or a cripple can put a bullet in you a whole lot easier than they can put a knife in you. Not much strength is required to pull a trigger.

This is a blatantly propagandized statistic that has no relevance on actual murder rates. The UK has less "handgun deaths" than Switzerland, but 5 times the actual murder rate. Get the difference? So the actual murder rate is the important statistic.

Important for what? The UK is probably more culturally diverse which may go a ways toward explaining why there is more strife there. I'll bet Japan which is even less culturally diverse will turn out to have an even lower murder rate. What has that to do with the efficacy of gun control?

If the UK didn't have such stringent hand gun laws they might have rates approaching our own. Surely you don't think it is their oppressive gun laws which accounts for greater murderous rage than in Switzerland. Commonsense tells us that the availability of guns will lead to more impulsive murders than other weapons. No one ever went on a mass murder rampage with a knife or blunt object.

Yes, New York's actual murder rate has fallen too. But so has the murder rate for the entire country. In places where gun regulation hasn't changed at all, we've seen the same drop in murder and violent crime. You have to look at these statistics in a larger context to really understand their significance, or lack thereof.

Again, statistics which don't make the case against what you want to believe don't automatically support your position either.

[CapnAwesome]

If the UK didn't have such stringent hand gun laws they might have rates approaching our own.

I'm going to zero in on this, because I love to repeat myself. The UK used to have similar gun laws to the United States, which changed in 1963. Before their gun laws changed, the UK still had a much lower murder rate than the US. They have always had a lower murder rate. After 1963 the UK's murder rate went up, not down. http://www.murderuk.com/misc_crime_stats.html

That's why comparisons between the US and UK, or Japan and the US are not valid. The UK has always had a lower murder rate than the US, even when the gun laws were the same. There is absolutely nothing to indicate they might have rates approaching our own. Nothing at all supports that position, and the history of gun possession in the UK is totally against it. I feel like if I repeat myself on this enough, I can get people on here to stop trying to compare the UK and the US and think they are making a point.