The right to bear arms / Do we really need a survey to tell us this?

[Precision Burrito]

OK, I'm sorry. I saw this forum thread and I had to go make an account so I could make this one post to set a few things strait, because I knew there would be people regurgitating the same arguments from both sides that we've all heard and have never been convinced with. Here it goes (I will post the sources at the end of each point)

1. Gun control
It does not work.

2003- The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention did a study investigating gun control. They examined multiple gun laws including bans on certain kinds of guns and ammunition, licensing and registration codes, waiting periods, laws to keep guns out of the hands of kids, and harsh punishment schemes for law violations. Conclusion: nothing worked very well.
-Robert A. Hahn et al. for the Task Force on Community Preventative Services, "First Reports Evaluating the Effectiveness of Strategies for Preventing Violence: Firearms Laws" (Atlanta: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2003), http://cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5214a2.htm

2004- The National Academy of Sciences does a comprehensive review of 253 journal articles, 99 books, and 43 government publications evaluating 80 gun control systems. Total # of laws or schemes found to reduce violent crime, suicide, or accidents: 0.
-National Research Council Committee on law and Justice, Charles F. Wellford, John V. Pepper, and Carol V. Petrie eds., "Firearms and Violence: A Critical Review" (Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press, 2004)

2.Gun Control in other countries works
No. Just No.

1997- English Parliament bans guns
(I really shouldn't have to back this up with all the brits in this forum. If you don't believe me, look it up)

1998-2005- The number of hand gun related injuries and deaths in England rises 340%. Let me explain that statistic for you. In a matter of 7 years after guns are banned from law abiding citizens, the rate per year of INJURIES AND DEATHS TRIPLED. Conclusion: Banning guns in England increased crime involving guns.
- David Leppard, "Ministers 'Covered Up' Gun Crime," London Times, August 26, 2007, www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article2328368.ece


I could go on to explain how in the U.S. that the police are under no legal obligation to preform with excellence when it comes to protecting live citizens but they are obligated to dead ones, and that historically the police have a dismal response time in most major cities. But I'm to tired to organize and cite sources, so you can disregard this part as factual if it makes it easier for you to sleep at night.

Edit 1:32 GMT
It just occurred to me after reviewing some of these posts before me that some of the individuals on this forum seem to have gotten 2 things rather firmly lodged in their heads
-Being killed by a gun somehow makes you more dead than being killed by other means, say... a rail road tie (wiki it), the reason I bring this up is because a chicago kid was killed with one recently. The assailant did not have a gun, and somehow managed to kill the youngster with a piece of wood that makes a 2x4 look like a twig. Does this mean that we should start creating laws regulating and licensing rail road ties? I don't know, you be the judge.
-This leads me to my next point, inspired by the English knifing comments. YOU DO NOT NEED A GUN TO KILL A PERSON. Almost any single item you can conceive of can be used to kill a person, weapons do not kill people (they have no will of their own). As cliche as it sounds, people kill people.

 

[Rahnzan]

You know what's awesome? England outlaws guns for its citizens yet it has the same percentile of gun-related incidents, violence and death, as the entirety of the United States of America. This, cold hard fact, proves gun laws do nothing. I'd rather be armed and putting holes in a criminal than be unarmed and getting holes put in me.

How is a university that only relates its end data any sort of authority on who gets shot? For all we know, the people they questioned could be gang members, in which case, yeah the likeliness of them getting shot would be pretty high wouldn't it?

I don't doubt facts. What I doubt is what the facts point to, how biased the survey was, and if there was any tampering with the data, like for instance, picking and choosing the surveyors and those they would survey, and whether this study is even factual.

Was this a blind test? Random participants? Exactly who participated?

Did you know cars kill more people yearly than guns do? Maybe we should outlaw cars.

 

[Aesir23]

Gun Control, this is another reason why I'm grateful to live in Canada. I won't pretend that there aren't any gun related crimes here. But as far as I know (I could be wrong though), we don't have the same amount of said crimes as the U.S. where basically anyone and their mother could be carrying a gun.

 

[RexoftheFord]

Honestly, I think the statistic is skewed to start. The only way you're more likely to get shot while carrying a firearm is if you shoot yourself or you're prancing about with your firearm in the open in a state with a concealed firearm law. There are towns where the number of firearms are greater than the number of people where crime is almost nonexistent. Which is odd. The Right to Bear Arms also is not a term meaning "Give any moron a weapon." It used to apply only so that the United States could maintain a steady militia for its defense, but not that we have an entire professional military for that, having the majority of people run around with guns in the open seems a bit off.

This Right also pertains to the use of firearms for hunting, and some people make their livelihood off of hunting. So it would kind of unfair to cut off their Right just cause you're afraid of being shot by a criminal.

Overall, the Right to Bear Arms is not in place so any moron can grab a gun and hit the streets. It was set in place as a measure against the government if they had decided to go all Aristocracy on the people of the United States, to maintain a militia for our country's defense, and indirectly for the sport of hunting. Personally, I think weapons should be licensed to those who qualify with them (take the same test with the weapons as military personnel), and that the sale of weapons should be monitored.

Even if you regulate the firearms of the civil citizens, the criminals will still find ways to use their firearms to do harm. If you take away the measures we have in place against governmental tyranny, the police won't look so nice when they're busting down your door for putting up this opinion.

 

[regal90]

Personally, I think no civilian should be carrying a gun (guns kept at shooting ranges okay aslong as they stay there), but everyone who hasn't got an asbo should be allowed to carry a sword. It's easier to parry and harder to hit the wrong person with a sword, so it's easier to justify having them as self-defence, plus they're harder for kids to use my accident and easier to see when someone has one drawn.

I acctually agree with this.

But on the topic of guns... i personally think the right to bear arms is pretty stupid in general.. but since some people are simply to hard headed to accept that fact, they could at least exercise proper gun control... meaning an actual test, no criminal record, etc..

 

[Berethond]

what about hunters? how would they kill game for meat?

They don't anymore. Most hunting in the U.S.A. is for sport, not out of necessity.
If they REALLY need to kill an animal for food, then they can buy a hunting bow or use traps. You can't conceal a bow, and when was the last time you heard of someone being held at arrowpoint?

Bows are much more expensive, much harder to use, and much less effective. Traps even more so. And, wouldn't you know, there are still huge areas of the United States covered in wilderness. People need guns there.

All right, so I may have spoken a little too quickly. I apologize. How about we make it so that people have to be psychologically examined and determined to be quite unlikely to go off the handle and blast someone's face off before they are allowed to buy a gun?

It's already like that in most states.

 

[Rahnzan]

Agreed; I can't understand how so many americans feel safe carrying a gun in a place full of guns.

The simple logic behind this is you usually dont start crap with a gun when you know you can get shot by someone else's gun. Granted you're a law-abiding citizen who's mentally healthy, you won't ever have to worry. There are two bars, one owner clearly has a gun, the other one doesn't, everyone in the gun owner's bar is also carrying a gun. Which one do you rob? The brainiacs who do pull out a six and start firing into a crowd usually dont care what happens to them in which case waiting til he's out of ammo is a really stupid idea.

By a simple question of statistics,

That are questionable in accuracy.

if you're attacked you're likely to face more than a single aggressor;

In what action packed movie land do you live in? The only situation this would occur would be gang related violence, and if they dont have guns, you're not going to have a lot of time questioning the dangers of handguns when they're using machettes on you. Otherwise no, most gun related incidents are the product of a single unhealthy individual whos going to have multiple guns on him in a gun-bearing society.

at that point you can have the biggest gun in the world, but you'll still be outgunned. In a nation with no guns you always have the option of fighting, intimidating, or simply running like hell.

There is no such thing as a nation without guns. If a criminal wants one, he will get one, and if he doesn't get one, he's going to rob you with a knife or a baseball bat, or a friggen railroad tie, or a screw driver.

Still, I would definitely like my country to enable me to carry a non-lethal weapon.

Oh my god its just one sentence of failure after another with you. There is NO SUCH THING as a non-lethal weapon. Get that silly notion out of your head. Any weapon meant to disable can definitly kill. Even pepper spray. And if you think guns are cruel and evil wait til you've watched someone have an allergic reaction to pepper spray, while they lie on the side of the road, puffed up gasping for air without an e-Pen. There's a slow gruesome death and not something I want to see twice. A gunshot to the head would have certainly been more humane. Accident though, I doubt they meant to kill the guy. Even without a weapon most methods of subdueing can easily kill a man if you dont know what you're doing. Save things like fingerlocks, but if you know fingerlocks you dont really need a taser.

For example, I'd very much like an air taser (or two, akimbo-style ). As it is, we're left with our muscles alone to defend ourselves with, which is a problem for those of us who don't really have any brawn to speak of. Actually we are allowed to carry pepper sprays, but I'm unconvinced about their effectiveness; I've seen too many videos of dumb people who intentionally spray themselves with it, and don't really seem to suffer any seriously debilitating pains.

Akimbo? Losing credibility fast man. One well aimed shot is better than 2 frantically aimed shots. Akimbo? You're foolish. Guns were invented because muscle doesn't cut it. If you're not a master of martial arts, any mugging could end your life, even then all the brawn in the world does nothing. Most of the friends I have abroad carry a knife for self defense because they cant get a gun, and they're no less lethal than any 9mm. The great thing about a semi over a taser is that most people wont fuck with you when they know you have a gun. Whether you're a fat headed american or a grandmother living alone in a single room apartment. "A taser? What does that feel like, a static shock? I can handle it." "Oh bullets? Bullets kill! Screw that."

Personally, I'm thinking a high-power (say, 2-300mW) green laser pointer with an unfocused lens (so it hits a wider area) could make for a decent aggressor stopper. You can't really pound anyone into submission when you've just been temporarily blinded by a blast of photons in your face.

Agreed. What you should do is get a laser torch. I'm for guns, but I'm not about to kill anyone. I do not agree with gun restriction for the soul reason that it does nothing to stem criminal activity, it only stiffles the efforts of honest citizens needing to protect themselves. In America, where we have strict gun control we have the highest rates of gun violence. Our D.C area actually saw a drop in gun violence when they made owning handguns legal. Do we really need a survey to tell us THAT little gem?

I'll tell you what a laser pointer, pepper spray and brawn absolutely wont stop. A crazed lunatic on PCP. Right about then you're going to wish you had a 45. Pepper spray, blindness, and body language doesn't stop everyone.

 

[Valiance]

Lol you bads. Guns are fine. L2P.

(In all seriousness, shit like Columbine and V-tech couldn't happen if one of the places had guards with guns or if other responsible kids showed up with guns...)

 

[ToxinArrow]

I'm saying having a 45 is more likely to kill him, and a bit safer. what part of death is bad don't you understand. and yah it's faster to pull the trigger then throw a knife by roughly half a second, but you can see one coming (pulling up the gun to aim) and can easily miss the other (orienting knife in hand) as for knicks I don't thick you understand what I meant by that. I didn't mean a small cut I meant a gash something that'll get him to react with the usual recoiling effect of momentarily grabbing for that area, another nick, another grab, and again, and cut his gun arm, and kick him over, and call 911 before he bleeds out.

oh yah stabbing him in the back is quite illegal, but I didn't say kill him. mugs you turns to run, throw a knife into his back, call 911 sort it out when they get there. I draw the line at murder that's about it. I prefer knives because they're less likely to kill someone and almost as effective (difference is minimal with training)

so yah I'll still advocate knives over guns. but as it stands I'll probably be getting a gun because the point is moot as carrying knives is fucking illigal ()

When did I say death is good? This entire time I've been saying I'd rather play it safe with a gun, then dick around with a knife. And you mention deep gashes and calling 911 before they bleed out, hell, just sending a hollowpoint past their head will make some people stop. I don't even need to hit him. If we both have knives or I only have a knife and he has a gun, what if he gets ballsy and decides to rush you with it? What if HE is better trained at using a knife than you are? Then what? You can go practice turkey carving on the next guy who holds you up all you want, I'll stick with my Springfield XD.


So let me get this straight: You try to play the 'holier than thou' card on me, with your 'life is sacred, money isn't' schtick, trying to make me look like some kind of murdering unmoral psychopath, and yet you're advocating deliberatly stabbing a person in the back ( or 'throwing it' which you don't know if it is lethal or not when you do it, you could hit a vital organ, or sever their spinal column) then just 'sorting it out when they get there'? First off, that's disgusting, secondly, even if you don't kill him, it's still assault with a deadly weapon, attempted murder, possibly both. Nice morals my friend.

If you are looking for a handgun however, I suggest a Springfield XD-M .40. Good caliber, and a 16+1 capacity. Plus Springfield makes cheap, quality products, and it's a breeze to shoot.

 

[Rahnzan]

Lol you bads. Guns are fine. L2P.

(In all seriousness, shit like Columbine and V-tech couldn't happen if one of the places had guards with guns or if other responsible kids showed up with guns...)

Not a gun law on earth would have stopped those kids. Second hand weapons and psychological problems much.

 

[Horticulture]

(In all seriousness, shit like Columbine and V-tech couldn't happen if one of the places had guards with guns or if other responsible kids showed up with guns...)

Because in an ideal world, everyone on campus would be armed.

 

[scotth266]

Because only officers of the state and hardened criminals deserve weapons. Cough?

Look, it's simple. No government has the right to disarm their populace unless they disarm their police force. Put simply, if PC Bob McBobbity is wandering around with a 9mm pistol then I demand the same right to wander around with one, presuming I am a law-abiding citizen of sound mind, over 21 and otherwise competent in it's use. Why? Because clearly PC McBobbity needs that firearm, and if one exists in a situation where the police need to carry firearms, then denying the right for law-abiding citizens to carry them is not only immoral, it's insane and inhumane as well.

If, however, PC McBobbity only carries a truncheon, then I should not be permited to carry a firearm. Clearly, since PC McBobbity has no need for a firearm, there is no reason for me to have one.


And to forestall any arguments made by the inexorably stupid, I am not saying that the police being armed as, say, a Armed Response Unit, is a bad thing. The fact that some criminals will get a hold of guns means that the police must have some form of armed backup. But if it gets to the state where a beat police officer (i.e. a foot or car patrol officer) has to possess a firearm to protect himself in the course of his duties, then it is wrong to argue that a citizen of the state should not possess that same right to self-protection.

There's an interesting argument. I agree with it wholeheartedly: if a cop must carry a gun, then the civilian should be allowed to carry one as well.

 

[Rahnzan]

Personally, I think no civilian should be carrying a gun (guns kept at shooting ranges okay aslong as they stay there), but everyone who hasn't got an asbo should be allowed to carry a sword. It's easier to parry and harder to hit the wrong person with a sword, so it's easier to justify having them as self-defence, plus they're harder for kids to use my accident and easier to see when someone has one drawn.

I acctually agree with this.

But on the topic of guns... i personally think the right to bear arms is pretty stupid in general.. but since some people are simply to hard headed to accept that fact, they could at least exercise proper gun control... meaning an actual test, no criminal record, etc..

...I'm...I'm inclined to agree?

....QUICK! BAN GUNS!

 

[Rahnzan]

(In all seriousness, shit like Columbine and V-tech couldn't happen if one of the places had guards with guns or if other responsible kids showed up with guns...)

Because in an ideal world, everyone on campus would be armed.

In an ideal world captain sarcastic, anyone proven responsible and healthy enough to own or handle any sort of built-to-kill device would not be denied the option of carrying one. And those that are unstable individuals would be keenly watched.

 

[Threesan]

Really, TC? If you're going to link nonsense statistics derived from studies--lacking controls--used as propaganda, then have at Gun Facts [http://www.gunfacts.info/]. I have my doubts about factoids that may be cherry-picking certain dates and places, but there are many interesting points (assuming they aren't blatant lies, which would be pretty ballsy considering they cite most of their factoids).

This statistic may be out of date but I once read that Washington has the lowest crime rate of any city.

Except for the number of shootings, fatal and non, where it is one of the highest.

London by contrast has a high crime rate, but the rate of shootings are ridiculously low (I know knifings are through the roof but bear with me)

The difference, America allows normal people to buy guns, Britain does not.
No survey really needed. If everyone can legally own guns, everyone can have the potential to shoot each other. If people can't legally own guns, it makes it a lot harder to shoot somebody. It's common sense, not survey material.

Excerpts (and I had to reign myself in to post only this many...):

Minutes of Evidence, Colin Greenwood, Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs, January 29, 2003 ... [There is] nothing in the statistics for England and Wales to suggest that either the stricter controls on handguns prior to 1997 or the ban imposed since have controlled access to such firearms by criminals.

Uncited Since gun banning has escalated in the UK, the rate of crime--especially violent crime--has risen.

The Times, August 24, 2007 Ironically, firearm use in crimes has doubled in the decade since handguns were banned.

Daily Telegraph, April 1, 1996 Comparing crime rates between America and Britain is flawed. In America, a gun crime is recorded as a gun crime. In Britain, a crime is only recorded when there is a final disposition (a conviction). All unsolved gun crimes in Britain are not reported as gun crimes, grossly undercounting the amount of gun crime there.

Lt. Lowell Duckett, Special Assistant to DC Police Chief; President, Black Police Caucus, The Washington Post, March 22, 1996 Gun control has not worked in Washington D.C. The only people who have guns are criminals. We have the strictest gun laws in the nation and one of the highest murder rates. It's quicker to pull your Smith & Wesson than to dial 911 if you're being robbed.

17th Annual National Survey of Police Chiefs & Sheriffs, National Association of Chiefs of Police, 2005 94% of law enforcement officials believe that citizens should be able to purchase firearms for self-defense and sporting purposes.

66% of police chiefs believe that citizens carrying concealed firearms reduce rates of violent crime.

British Home Office You are far more likely to survive a violent assault if you defend yourself with a gun. In episodes where a robbery victim was injured, the injury/defense rates were:
        Resisting with a gun 6%
        Did nothing at all 25%
        Resisted with a knife 40%
        Non-violent resistance 45%

Reported in The Guardian [a UK paper], September 3, 2000 A continuing parliamentary inquiry into the growing number of black market weapons has concluded that there are more than three million illegally held firearms in circulation--double the number believed to have been held 10 years ago--and that criminals are more willing than ever to use them. One in three criminals under the age of 25 possesses or has access to a firearm.

I don't know exactly my position on the issue. But, if you're going to take in propaganda from one side, it would be dishonest to not at least look over the propaganda from the other side. (To that end, does anyone have a compendium of anti-gun propaganda to complement Gun Facts [http://www.gunfacts.info/]?)

 

[AssButt]

I'm saying having a 45 is more likely to kill him, and a bit safer. what part of death is bad don't you understand. and yah it's faster to pull the trigger then throw a knife by roughly half a second, but you can see one coming (pulling up the gun to aim) and can easily miss the other (orienting knife in hand) as for knicks I don't thick you understand what I meant by that. I didn't mean a small cut I meant a gash something that'll get him to react with the usual recoiling effect of momentarily grabbing for that area, another nick, another grab, and again, and cut his gun arm, and kick him over, and call 911 before he bleeds out.

oh yah stabbing him in the back is quite illegal, but I didn't say kill him. mugs you turns to run, throw a knife into his back, call 911 sort it out when they get there. I draw the line at murder that's about it. I prefer knives because they're less likely to kill someone and almost as effective (difference is minimal with training)

so yah I'll still advocate knives over guns. but as it stands I'll probably be getting a gun because the point is moot as carrying knives is fucking illigal ()

When did I say death is good? This entire time I've been saying I'd rather play it safe with a gun, then dick around with a knife. And you mention deep gashes and calling 911 before they bleed out, hell, just sending a hollowpoint past their head will make some people stop. I don't even need to hit him. If we both have knives or I only have a knife and he has a gun, what if he gets ballsy and decides to rush you with it? What if HE is better trained at using a knife than you are? Then what? You can go practice turkey carving on the next guy who holds you up all you want, I'll stick with my Springfield XD.


So let me get this straight: You try to play the 'holier than thou' card on me, with your 'life is sacred, money isn't' schtick, trying to make me look like some kind of murdering unmoral psychopath, and yet you're advocating deliberatly stabbing a person in the back ( or 'throwing it' which you don't know if it is lethal or not when you do it, you could hit a vital organ, or sever their spinal column) then just 'sorting it out when they get there'? First off, that's disgusting, secondly, even if you don't kill him, it's still assault with a deadly weapon, attempted murder, possibly both. Nice morals my friend.

If you are looking for a handgun however, I suggest a Springfield XD-M .40. Good caliber, and a 16+1 capacity. Plus Springfield makes cheap, quality products, and it's a breeze to shoot.

he rushes you stab him, what if he has more training in firearms then you? what if he's a better shot? what if? again you'd be dicking around with a knife because you have no training with a knife. sending a hollowpoint past his head'll either make him run or make him shoot back and run. probably the second if he's a mugger because he'll have about as much adrenaline in his system as you. most other crimes will generally be at close range, except drive by shootings but then you're fucked either way. and yah it's best to call 911 before he bleeds out in case you knicked an artery by accident. as I said you can still accidentally kill with a knife it's just less likely.

I never said I had morals I just said I disprove of murder. fine not in the back hell you don't even need to injure him just trip him up, throwing a knife at his feet'll do it. making you out to be a murderous psychopath? maybe, I wasn't really paying attention. as it stands I'm C/N C/E thus I disapprove of murder but not underhanded tactics.

If you try to engage a thug in a knife fight, chances are both of you will end up in the ICU, the morgue, or prison (whoever survives will usually end up here, this includes you).

 

[RexoftheFord]

Agreed; I can't understand how so many americans feel safe carrying a gun in a place full of guns.

The simple logic behind this is you usually dont start crap with a gun when you know you can get shot by someone else's gun. Granted you're a law-abiding citizen who's mentally healthy, you won't ever have to worry. There are two bars, one owner clearly has a gun, the other one doesn't, everyone in the gun owner's bar is also carrying a gun. Which one do you rob? The brainiacs who do pull out a six and start firing into a crowd usually dont care what happens to them in which case waiting til he's out of ammo is a really stupid idea.

By a simple question of statistics,

That are questionable in accuracy.

if you're attacked you're likely to face more than a single aggressor;

In what action packed movie land do you live in? The only situation this would occur would be gang related violence, and if they dont have guns, you're not going to have a lot of time questioning the dangers of handguns when they're using machettes on you. Otherwise no, most gun related incidents are the product of a signle unhealthy individual whos going to have multiple guns on him in a gun-bearing society.

at that point you can have the biggest gun in the world, but you'll still be outgunned. In a nation with no guns you always have the option of fighting, intimidating, or simply running like hell.

There is no such thing as a nation without guns. If a criminal wants one, he will get one, and if he doesn't get one, he's going to rob you with a knife or a baseball bat, or a friggen railroad tie, or a screw driver.

Still, I would definitely like my country to enable me to carry a non-lethal weapon.

Oh my god its just one sentence of failure after another with you. There is NO SUCH THING as a non-lethal weapon. Get that silly notion out of your head. Any weapon meant to disable can definitly kill. Even pepper spray. And if you think guns are cruel and evil wait til you've watched someone have an allergic reaction to pepper spray, while they lie on the side of the road, puffed up gasping for air without an e-Pen. There's a slow gruesome death and not something I want to see twice. A gunshot to the head would have certainly been more humane. Accident though, I doubt they meant to kill the guy. Even without a weapon most methods of subdueing can easily kill a man if you dont know what you're doing. Save things like fingerlocks, but if you know fingerlocks you dont really need a taser.

For example, I'd very much like an air taser (or two, akimbo-style ). As it is, we're left with our muscles alone to defend ourselves with, which is a problem for those of us who don't really have any brawn to speak of. Actually we are allowed to carry pepper sprays, but I'm unconvinced about their effectiveness; I've seen too many videos of dumb people who intentionally spray themselves with it, and don't really seem to suffer any seriously debilitating pains.

Akimbo? Losing credibility fast man. One well aimed shot is better than 2 frantically aimed shots. Akimbo? You're foolish. Guns were invented because muscle doesn't cut it. If you're not a master of martial arts, any mugging could end your life, even then all the brawn in the world does nothing. Most of the friends I have abroad carry a knife for self defense because they cant get a gun, and they're no less lethal than any 9mm. The great thing about a semi over a taser is that most people wont fuck with you when they know you have a gun. Whether you're a fat headed american or a grandmother living alone in a single room apartment. "A taser? What does that feel like, a static shock? I can handle it." "Oh bullets? Bullets kill! Screw that."

Personally, I'm thinking a high-power (say, 2-300mW) green laser pointer with an unfocused lens (so it hits a wider area) could make for a decent aggressor stopper. You can't really pound anyone into submission when you've just been temporarily blinded by a blast of photons in your face.

Agreed. What you should do is get a laser torch. I'm for guns, but I'm not about to kill anyone. I do not agree with gun restriction for the soul reason that it does nothing to stem criminal activity, it only stiffles the efforts of honest citizens needing to protect themselves. In America, where we have strict gun control we have the highest rates of gun violence. Our D.C area actually saw a drop in gun violence when they made owning handguns legal. Do we really need a survey to tell us THAT little gem?

I'll tell you what a laser pointer, pepper spray and brawn absolutely wont stop. A crazed lunatic on PCP. Right about then you're going to wish you had a 45. Pepper spray, blindness, and body language doesn't stop everyone.

Yeah, I was trying to say this same thing, but I chopped up the argument. This is actually the most elegant post on this issue on this forum. Mainly because you understand that people are in control of the weapon, and that an inept person is more of a danger to themself and the people around them than a stable person who's adept with their firearm. Honestly, I think most people are all high on the propaganda against firearms.

I'm not some gun crazed psychopath like propaganda will have you believe, I own several firearms and have never had to use one. Again, if you're not prancing about like a crazy, you're less likely to be shot by someone. Kids do get hold of firearms, but the issue with them is not the firearms but parental negligence. People could duke it out all day when it comes to this, but once you argue it to the finest degree you'll find the following statement.

People are always going to be behind the weapon whether it's a pointed stick or a nuclear bomb. The majority of people are mentally healthy and aware of their actions. Therefore, people are to be blamed for the problems that occur in society related to weapons. If you use a hammer and accidentally bust your thumb, you don't blame the hammer. Guns are no different. So get over yourself you moral highground, personal accountability avoiding twats.

Rahnzan is excluded from this final statement.