GUNZ !!! BANG!

[Vincent, Thunder God]

... maybe I'm real heartless, but I don't consider 730 deaths to be too many. Then again I don't consider any number to be too many seeing as I believe it's a right to own a gun, and the safety/security arguments are secondary IMO.

It's sad to see you don't understand nik's point about rebellion and defense against the government. That's one of the best reasons for owning a gun.

I think it's even more sad that you don't think 30 000 gun-related deaths (730 of which were accidents) aren't enough to see the problems with your gun laws. To me, one innocent death is more than enough, even if deaths are an enivatable part of our lives. To me, any way to cut down on innocent deaths are more important than feeding American paranoia with gun ownership.

Maybe I don't agree with rebellion because I don't think your government is out of line enough to justify the deaths a rebellion would cause. Maybe I think there are safer ways to rebel, like protesting, or peaceful grassroots organzing. Maybe my government is so well-functioning that I find rebellion against a democracy an odd notion. Maybe I think that many forms of leadership naturally corrupt over time, and that your possible rebellion wouldn't really improve leadership. There wouldn't be enough people to fuel your cause, and the new government is far beyond your costs to initiate. With all these problems, I find it odd someone of your age and maturity would entertain the notion. But it really doesn't matter what I think about that. It's common sense that saving innocent lives is more important than guns for a faulty rebellion.

[Quindiana Jones]

30000 out of 6 billion? Meh. *shrugs*

[theundeadhero]

And most kids of 3 and up would know the dangers of a sharp object. Guns are less obvious. A curious child could more easily die from a gun.

Yeah, it's just completely unimaginable to say a parent should be responsible enough to keep a gun somewhere where's there's no chance kids could get them.

An estimated 16,692 persons were murdered nationwide in 2005

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/offens..._homicide.html
Stats straight from the FBI

about 9,000 of those were from firearms. http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/data/table_20.html
Also straight from the FBI

Numbers of murders in some states that do not allow concealed weapons for 2005:

Illinois: 736
Nebraska: 44
Vermont: 8
Wisconsin: 194

Murders in 2005 in some states that do allow concealed weapons:

Alabama: 374
Arkansas: 186
Idaho: 35
Montana: 18

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/data/table_05.html
Also from the FBI

[Vincent, Thunder God]

And most kids of 3 and up would know the dangers of a sharp object. Guns are less obvious. A curious child could more easily die from a gun.

Yeah, it's just completely unimaginable to say a parent should be responsible enough to keep a gun somewhere where's there's no chance kids could get them.

Spare me the sarcasm please. It's happened before. I'm not saying it's a really prevelant occurance, but you've taken this out of context; it's just one of the ways innocents can die from gun ownership that I listed. Why do you people keep denying the several possible connections between increased gun ownership and increased gun-related deaths? It's simple logic! Anyway...

I remember being told of a case a while back (it might have been in Canada, I can't remember the specifics) when a child got into a gun cabinet that wasn't properly closed and died.

Also... I've been replying to nik0tine so much I missed some of these comments the first time. I'm going to reply to them even though they're a couple of pages old.

If you went to the source I gave you'd realize it's also on a respected Illinois facts page. I just remembered that the numbers themselves were the ones in the film.

Too bad Michael Moore edited the US numbers to include legally justified homicides (self-defense, etc.) to bump the numbers up an extra couple thousand. Very legitimate.

:rolleyes2 He didn't. I specifically remember that the numbers on the site are the same ones as in the film, 11789. I'm not 100% sure, but if there was a difference it was not several thousand. I'm sure that in the film it was almost 12000, just like on the page. You've got to start getting you facts straight.

That's because guns are easier to kill people with.

Guns don't cause murder, they are used in murder because they are efficient.

The fact that they are easy to kill with only makes them even more terrible tools. And seriously... it should be pretty obivious that something that's easy to kill with is more likely to cause deaths by accident than something that isn't.

Also, I think the fact that they are so easy to kill with actually DO encourage murderers. Trying to kill with, for example, a spoon is disscouraging because there's a high probability that you'll fail to kill the victim and get pwn'd yourself. Sure, a knife on the other hand isn't exactly hard to kill with either. But it IS still a lot harder and involves a greater risk than with a gun, and thus I DO think that some people who would kill you in an instant with a gun, actually would think twice before trying to do the same with a knife. And unlike guns, knifes serves other more useful purposes than killing.

Oh well...

Exactly. Efficiency is one of the main reasons that guns themselves can provoke violence.

[theundeadhero]

Why do you people keep denying the several possible connections between increased gun ownership and increased gun-related deaths? It's simple logic! Anyway...

Because you fail to see that other solutions would prevent the same thing in an effort to push stricter gun control.

[Ultima Shadow]

But if there were no guns, the unintentional deaths would go down. A bullet can cut down someone by accident; a sword is virtually impossible to misuse and cut down an innocent. Besides, kids can get to them and set them off by accident...

How often do innocent people get killed by stray bullets? Kids can kill themselves with kitchen knives.

Unintentional shootings are more prevelant in America than you think. See more further below.

And most kids of 3 and up would know the dangers of a sharp object. Guns are less obvious. A curious child could more easily die from a gun.

And it's much easier and more efficient to use a gun. If someone wanted to murder someone from a distance it's easier... a melee weapon can't do that. The effeciency will create more deaths...

I call BS. People murdered an asston before guns were ever invented, and people murder an asston now. If I want to kill you, give me one reason why I wouldn't kill you with a knife if I didnt have access to a gun? In fact, it happens all the time.
Also, when people are killed by guns it's at close range 99 percent of the time. How often do people randomly get sniped? Almost never.

Think about it. Would you want to fight gang wars with swords and clubs, or guns with further ranges? The more efficient, the easier to kill, and this fact could lead to more deaths.

And sometimes just having a gun in the house can make the decision between a homocide or not. Mentally unstable or angry family members would more easily become victims of temptation.

You're creating a bunch of hypothetical situations that are very rare. You can't ban something over obscure, unpredictable events that happen once in a blue moon.

This is only a limited number of ways gun ownership can go sour. And despite your arguments, these can happen more often than you may think. See more about unintentional deaths below.

Furthermore, guns create the need for more guns. Every threat of a terrorist drives fear into you Americans, and you feel the need for guns. If someone takes out a gun even in self-defense, it will result in someone's death.

I think this is a load of garbage personally, but what about criminals who get guns illegally? How am I supposed to defend myself against them?
And don't even start with the terrorist nonsense. Nobody is trying to defend themselves against terrorists.
Most importantly, however, when my government decides to step out of line, I'd like them to know that I have the ability to defend myself against them. In my opinion thats the really important issue here. I'm not worried about a random criminal. I want politicians to know that I have the ability to fight back if need be.

Not that I need to at the moment. However, guns give power to the people and subtract power from politicians. How can that be a bad thing?

I was merely giving some examples of how gun ownership might spin out of control, and how it could at least partially have orchestrated those almost 12000 deaths. There are many other scenarios in which gun ownership can cause deaths. It doesn't matter how many I metion, though, the fact of the matter is that your country has more gun deaths than any other, and there's a reason for that. You may believe that there is no corellation between the laxer American gun laws and those murders have nothing to do with each other, that the murders would have occured anyway.

The fact of the matter is, something caused each of those gun deaths, and I do not think that all of those would have occured if your gun laws were stricter. In fact, I think the majority of them were at least partially related to the gun laws, and some of them may have been completely avoided with better gun laws.

Our arguments will always boil down to the same thing: you think that gun ownership laws have little or nothing to do with the causes of these deaths, and I think they are directly related.

However, before you say that my arguments are hypothetical only, think of your arguments. You basically said you want guns legalized in your country for these two reasons: 1) in the case of a rebellion against your government, you want to be prepared; and 2) in case criminals have obtained guns and plan to attack you.

How is an organized American rebellion against your government and an invading force of gun-bearing criminals not a hypothetical situation? Hell, that's not just hypothetical, that falls into the vein of highly unlikely. Even if you wanted a rebellion, I doubt anyone would join you, and I don't think you're adamant enough to wage a one-man rebellion. I also don't see a point in rebelling agasint the American government, as faulted as it is. And the chance that a criminal would be dumb enough to shoot you with a hard-to-obtain gun (assuming there were gun laws in place) is highly unlikely. We have strict gun laws in Canada, and it is rare to have someone with an illegally obatined weapon to attack innocent bystanders.

And furthermore, despite reason 2), you say that your fears of terrorism have nothing to do with your need for guns. If the fear of enemies who obtained guns illegally and who will possibly attack you isn't a form of terrorism (in which case you "need a gun for protection"), I don't know what is.

You're trying to sidestep the main point here. It doesn't matter how many possible situations I list in which a gun could cause a murder, the fact is your country had almost twelve thousand homocides with guns in 1998, and in 2003 there was a total of 30 000 gun-related deaths including homocides, unintentional shootings. suicides etc. (This is the source. )

730 of those 30 000 were unintentional, wihch means that guns themselves caused those deaths more or less. A sword couldn't cut down an unintended victim unless the wielder was blind, but with stray bullets, it's all too easy. Suddenly all those "hypothetical" possibilites aren't as far-flung as you would beleive.

Just wanted to say that I think this is by far the best post in this thread so far.

It's also one of the overall best posts I've seen in quite a while.

Respect+

[NorthernChaosGod]

... maybe I'm real heartless, but I don't consider 730 deaths to be too many. Then again I don't consider any number to be too many seeing as I believe it's a right to own a gun, and the safety/security arguments are secondary IMO.

It's sad to see you don't understand nik's point about rebellion and defense against the government. That's one of the best reasons for owning a gun.

I think it's even more sad that you don't think 30 000 gun-related deaths (730 of which were accidents) aren't enough to see the problems with your gun laws. To me, one innocent death is more than enough, even if deaths are an enivatable part of our lives. To me, any way to cut down on innocent deaths are more important than feeding American paranoia with gun ownership.

Maybe I don't agree with rebellion because I don't think your government is out of line enough to justify the deaths a rebellion would cause. Maybe I think there are safer ways to rebel, like protesting, or peaceful grassroots organzing. Maybe my government is so well-functioning that I find rebellion against a democracy an odd notion. Maybe I think that many forms of leadership naturally corrupt over time, and that your possible rebellion wouldn't really improve leadership. There wouldn't be enough people to fuel your cause, and the new government is far beyond your costs to initiate. With all these problems, I find it odd someone of your age and maturity would entertain the notion. But it really doesn't matter what I think about that. It's common sense that saving innocent lives is more important than guns for a faulty rebellion.

Why don't we outlaw cars while we're at it? A number of people are killed in automobile related accidents every year.

Then after that, let's go ahead and outlaw alcohol and cigarettes completely, alcohol impairs one's judgment and cigarettes can lead to lung cancer.

Oh, let's get rid of any heavy machinery too. People are maimed or crushed because of them, and even one innocent life being saved is worth the suffering of everyone.

This is a democracy, the greater good for the majority is law.

Oh yeah, let's not forget a little thing called The Constitution of the United States.

Amendment II

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.

[Shlup]

I'm all for guns for everyone, but guns and cars are not comparible. You have to consider more things than just number of deaths.

[Vincent, Thunder God]

Why don't we outlaw cars while we're at it? A number of people are killed in automobile related accidents every year.

Then after that, let's go ahead and outlaw alcohol and cigarettes completely, alcohol impairs one's judgment and cigarettes can lead to lung cancer.

Oh, let's get rid of any heavy machinery too. People are maimed or crushed because of them, and even one innocent life being saved is worth the suffering of everyone.

This is a democracy, the greater good for the majority is law.

Oh yeah, let's not forget a little thing called The Constitution of the United States.

Amendment II

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.

Why compare unrelated objects with the objects in question?

First of all, cars and machinery have another purpose than killing people. Guns don't.

And as much as I'm against the misuse of cigarettes and alchohol, there are already some laws in place restricting the use of them. In a perfect world, neither would exist, but it's much more difficult to "ban" those two (as you say) than it is to restrict gun use.

Why do you think Canada, a great democracry, has decided that better gun laws than yours are for our greater good?

Isn't it sort of odd that we in Canada have absoulutely no need for the protection a gun gives? Isn't it odd that you Americans still think that guns aren't just for killing people, and are worthy forms of protection, when your nation pays this ridiculous notion in full?

It's not for my greater good to have the concern that any pedestrian in Canada could have a gun; and I fail to see how it's for the greater good of Americans, when the only use for a gun is violence.

Besides, you people have been saying that a gun is necessary for your protection, but why don't you think about all those people who don't just want to use an easy-to-buy gun for protection? Wouldn't it just be better to know no one needs to protect themselves from the possibility of a criminal easily buying a gun, than wonder who might buy a gun and not just use it for protection? Will your gun save you when a criminal decides to rob a bank, and as you take your gun out he shoots you? Violence begets violence.

Personally I feel a whole lot safer not wondering who might easily buy a gun than I would with a gun. Besides, just having a gun might make someone think you're on the offensive, and shoot you when they see you have it.

You people are so paranoid it's actually making things worse.

[Madame Adequate]

I think it's even more sad that you don't think 30 000 gun-related deaths (730 of which were accidents) aren't enough to see the problems with your gun laws. To me, one innocent death is more than enough, even if deaths are an enivatable part of our lives. To me, any way to cut down on innocent deaths are more important than feeding American paranoia with gun ownership.

Don't presume I'm American. I'm not; I'm British and I live in Britain. And let me tell you, this country is going to hell. The police can't keep people safe. The government are a pretty darn big threat to freedom and rights at this time. There are a lot of crimes committed by violent, sociopathic, practically feral children and teenagers. There is no reasoning with them, there is no way to be safe - except to be capable of defending yourself. But they don't care about laws, so they carry guns, and knives, and other things law-abiding citizens are not permitted to carry. Which brings me nicely to a point about criminals and guns;

If guns are illegal, most people won't carry/own them. Criminals will, because criminals don't care that it is illegal to do so.

Maybe I don't agree with rebellion because I don't think your government is out of line enough to justify the deaths a rebellion would cause.

Maybe deaths are a secondary consideration to principles.

Maybe I think there are safer ways to rebel, like protesting, or peaceful grassroots organzing.

Maybe you don't know what rebellion entails.

Maybe my government is so well-functioning that I find rebellion against a democracy an odd notion.

... aren't you Canadian? And you think your country is a well-functioning democracy? :chuckle:

Maybe I think that many forms of leadership naturally corrupt over time, and that your possible rebellion wouldn't really improve leadership.

And I'd agree with that. The threat of open, armed revolt is a pretty darn good incentive to make sure governments do not overstep their jurisdictions.

There wouldn't be enough people to fuel your cause, and the new government is far beyond your costs to initiate. With all these problems, I find it odd someone of your age and maturity would entertain the notion.

I'm not, you might note, actually planning a rebellion. Nor is nik or, as best I can tell, anybody else in this thread. But the possibility of a tyrannical, undemocratic government coming about is a very real one - look at the civil rights violations committed by both Blair and Bush over the last five years. Not enough to justify rebellion - yet.

But it really doesn't matter what I think about that. It's common sense that saving innocent lives is more important than guns for a faulty rebellion.

And saving innocent lives is exactly what guns do, which you will find more than adequately backed up by the Kleck Study. http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/kleck.study.html

Also please stop the really valid point and i'm impressed by your thinking., the possibility of rebellion is only ONE reason for gun ownership, don't make out like it's the only one and we're arguing in favor of firearms for some uncertain future possibility and all else be damned. We're arguing for that, but also a bunch of other stuff.

[Alastair|UK]

Damn i have to settle for 101st post

[Ultima Shadow]

And saving innocent lives is exactly what guns do

Major lol.

Yeah, sure. But the amount of lives saved by guns can't even compare to the amount of lives taken by guns. That fact can't be denied.

Also, that site only named amount of cases where someone was injured, not killed. There's quite a big difference between injury and death.


Also, problems with governments are most likely caused by a really bad election system (sorry, America). So I guess it would be better to simply change that instead.

[aquatius]

I hate guns and think they are stupid and wrong.

[Alastair|UK]

i find it funny all these people who have such a big problem with not the
Actual guns but the people behind them personally i dont have a problem with it as my Modern studies teacher keeps saying in Scotland we have just a big a problem but with knives

[Vincent, Thunder God]

I think it's even more sad that you don't think 30 000 gun-related deaths (730 of which were accidents) aren't enough to see the problems with your gun laws. To me, one innocent death is more than enough, even if deaths are an enivatable part of our lives. To me, any way to cut down on innocent deaths are more important than feeding American paranoia with gun ownership.

Don't presume I'm American. I'm not; I'm British and I live in Britain. And let me tell you, this country is going to hell. The police can't keep people safe. The government are a pretty darn big threat to freedom and rights at this time. There are a lot of crimes committed by violent, sociopathic, practically feral children and teenagers. There is no reasoning with them, there is no way to be safe - except to be capable of defending yourself. But they don't care about laws, so they carry guns, and knives, and other things law-abiding citizens are not permitted to carry. Which brings me nicely to a point about criminals and guns;

If guns are illegal, most people won't carry/own them. Criminals will, because criminals don't care that it is illegal to do so.

So you are British; I was mistaken and I apologize. However, there must be better ways to lower gun ownership in Britian without having the whole population carrying guns for self-defence. To me, letting everyone have guns is completely side-stepping the problem.

First of all, do you really think that the innocents will stop dying when they now have the right to carry guns? A criminal is probably more likely to shoot someone who takes out a gun than stop whatever crime he is commiting.

Secondly, wouldn't it be better to actually address the problem (criminals with guns) than introduce something that, in the long run, will just make violence and deaths all the more likely? I'll say it again, in a gun fight between a criminal and an innocent who is protecting himself, who do you think will win? Someone with no experience and who is likely much less agressive, or someone who has experience and is already expressing agression?

There must be a way to better cure the problem. You're suggestion is just a temporary treatment of the problem which could end up worsening it or having no effect.

Maybe I don't agree with rebellion because I don't think your government is out of line enough to justify the deaths a rebellion would cause.

Maybe deaths are a secondary consideration to principles.

Principles, perhaps, but I've never heard of a moral that values innocent deaths over a rebellion. Besides, an American rebellion is pointless; if the rebellion you speak of was actually useful, I might agree that it's more important than a few deaths, but in this case I see no reason for American rebellion, and none in the forseeable future.

Maybe I think there are safer ways to rebel, like protesting, or peaceful grassroots organzing.

Maybe you don't know what rebellion entails.

Gandhi rebelled against the whole British colonizing forces in India wihout an ounce of violence. There is such thing as a passive rebellion.

Maybe my government is so well-functioning that I find rebellion against a democracy an odd notion.

... aren't you Canadian? And you think your country is a well-functioning democracy? :chuckle:

Yes I do. It's at least much better than the American democracy, which values a "melting pot" over multiculturalism and war over peace. Besides, I hardly think a Brit knows enough about our culture to really have a valid opinion on this.

Maybe I think that many forms of leadership naturally corrupt over time, and that your possible rebellion wouldn't really improve leadership.

And I'd agree with that. The threat of open, armed revolt is a pretty darn good incentive to make sure governments do not overstep their jurisdictions.

Ha! As if there's a threat of rebellion in America right now, or in any other democracy! That possibility is probably the furthest threat from the thoughts of the American government!

There wouldn't be enough people to fuel your cause, and the new government is far beyond your costs to initiate. With all these problems, I find it odd someone of your age and maturity would entertain the notion.

I'm not, you might note, actually planning a rebellion. Nor is nik or, as best I can tell, anybody else in this thread. But the possibility of a tyrannical, undemocratic government coming about is a very real one - look at the civil rights violations committed by both Blair and Bush over the last five years. Not enough to justify rebellion - yet.

Of course I realize neither of you are planning one... but nik0tine has said at least twice that the power to rebel is a good reason for increased gun ownership in America. That is why I have adressed the futility and unlikeliness of an American rebellion.

And just the fact that you two are arguing with me over it shows that you value the possibility of one in your countries. To me, it's rather childish wishful thinking, and it would never pull through, nor does it need to.

But it really doesn't matter what I think about that. It's common sense that saving innocent lives is more important than guns for a faulty rebellion.

And saving innocent lives is exactly what guns do, which you will find more than adequately backed up by the Kleck Study. http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/kleck.study.html

Like Ultima Shadow said, guns save less innocent lives than they kill. In fact, if guns didn't exist that need for protection would already be much lower.

Also please stop the really valid point and i'm impressed by your thinking., the possibility of rebellion is only ONE reason for gun ownership, don't make out like it's the only one and we're arguing in favor of firearms for some uncertain future possibility and all else be damned. We're arguing for that, but also a bunch of other stuff.

If you had read any of my other posts in this thread you'd realize this is only one of the "reasons" for increased gun ownership that I've argued. If anything you and nik0tine are the ones who brought it up, and you're the one who's still arguing with the obvious, so I don't see how I'm the one going on about it. At this point I'm not going to bother commenting on rebellions anymore; it's only one facet of the argument and it's already obvious that the possibility for rebellion is hardly justification for the negative aspects of increased gun ownership.