Is it Time for the US Government to Ban Gun Ownership?

[ukmicky]

We've all seen the news reports about the virginia tech , isn't about time that the US Government bit the bullet and started protecting its citizens by banning the general public from owning guns or at least make it law that all guns must be stored at registered gun clubs

 

[Evo]

Unfortunately it won't prevent criminals and crazies from getting guns. It will only prevent normal people from having guns. Guns are too widespread in the US.

I do not own a gun.

 

[cristo]

I just don't understand the pros that can come out of citizens being allowed to own guns. To me, it can only spell disaster, as has been shown many times! Perhaps the people voting "no" in this poll can enlighten me on the reasons they think that the general public should be allowed to own guns.

 

[Moonbear]

While laws restricting gun ownership may protect law-abiding people from accidental shootings, I agree with Evo that it's not going to stop the criminals from finding a source and using them for premeditated murder, or from finding some other way of killing people. If this person couldn't get a gun, there's nothing to say he wouldn't have appeared with a bomb or plowed down people on the sidewalk with his car, etc. It's tragic, but there are already gun laws that would prevent him from legally owning a gun, and guns are already prohibited from college campuses. That didn't stop him. Criminals, by definition, don't follow the law.

 

[scorpa]

It doesn't matter if they are prohibited or not, criminals will always be able to get them. Thinking banning them will solve the problem is about as delusional as the Canadian government thinking the gun registration would solve any problems (go figure that the criminals did not register their firearms :P). Even if guns were eliminated there are always other ways to kill such an bombs which have the potential to cause even more death. That being said I do come from an area where nearly everyone owns guns...no one has ever been hurt or killed because people do not use them irresponsibly. That being said the Virgina Tech shooting is a terribly tragedy, and my heart goes out to the victims and their families. I just don't think banning guns would solve the problem.

 

[cristo]

Admittedly, such a ban may not have stopped this incident, but surely the fact that guns are legal means they are a lot easier for people to get their hands on.

Perhaps the question shouldn't be "why should people be banned from owning guns," but should rather be " why should a member of the public be allowed to own a gun." Personally, I see absolutely no reason why a person would need to own a gun, and why they should be allowed to! After all, it is an item whose only use is to do harm.

 

[robphy]

Rather than gun control, comedian Chris Rock suggests instead:
"No, I think we need some bullet control. I think every bullet should cost five thousand dollars. Five thousand dollars for a bullet. Know why? Cos if a bullet cost five thousand dollars, there'd be no more innocent by-standers..."

 

[JasonRox]

It doesn't matter if they are prohibited or not, criminals will always be able to get them. Thinking banning them will solve the problem is about as delusional as the Canadian government thinking the gun registration would solve any problems (go figure that the criminals did not register their firearms :P). Even if guns were eliminated there are always other ways to kill such an bombs which have the potential to cause even more death. That being said I do come from an area where nearly everyone owns guns...no one has ever been hurt or killed because people do not use them irresponsibly. That being said the Virgina Tech shooting is a terribly tragedy, and my heart goes out to the victims and their families. I just don't think banning guns would solve the problem.

The gun registry is good!

They interviewed police officers in Toronto about it and they liked it. Why? Just like you said, crimininals don't register their guns. Hence, you can take them away without any difficulty at all! When you make a gang bust, you can take their guns. Before you couldn't take away the guns, but soon we will have that problem again. Police officers, especially from Toronto, definitely don't feel comfortable not being able to take guns away from criminals.

The only problem I see with the gun registry is for people living in the north where hunting is literally a way of life and such.

 

[ukmicky]

Unfortunately it won't prevent criminals and crazies from getting guns. It will only prevent normal people from having guns. Guns are too widespread in the US.

I do not own a gun.

Hi EVO

Why would a normal citizen require a gun. You may say protection against the crazies but the longer the ban was in force the less guns their will be in circulation for the crazies to get. Their are also non lethal means of stopping someone without shooting them with a bullet.

Also i would say a lot of the crazy people who go out and kill random people don't plan there actions weeks in advance ,they don't go out and buy a gun explicitly to shoot people , but have rather procured them through legal means for legal purposes when their minds were in better order.

 

[ShawnD]

I just don't understand the pros that can come out of citizens being allowed to own guns. To me, it can only spell disaster, as has been shown many times! Perhaps the people voting "no" in this poll can enlighten me on the reasons they think that the general public should be allowed to own guns.

Can you name 1 time it has lead to disaster? I can easily name 1 time it hasn't.
Switzerland
While being the most heavily armed country in the entire world, http://www.crimereduction.gov.uk/statistics/statistics35.htm than England (and Wales), United States, Australia, Canada, Netherlands, Scotland, and Sweden.

Maybe the Swiss are just very relaxed people, but there doesn't seem to be any correlation between lots of guns and lots of crime.

Crime and stats aside, how am I supposed to defend myself without a gun? I'm 5'8", I'm only about 140lb, I'm not a black belt, and I don't have magic powers. If you take away my gun, I'm basically left to be killed by any thug who feels like breaking into my house. Call the cops you say? It takes 5 minutes to kill me. It takes 40 minutes for the police to show up. I would say do the math but there is no math, only a dead me when police show up 35 minutes too late.

 

[scorpa]

Personally, I see absolutely no reason why a person would need to own a gun, and why they should be allowed to! After all, it is an item whose only use is to do harm.

Ever spend any time on a farm? Coyotes, foxes...ect have a habit of trying to get into chicken coops, trying to take down livestock and so on. Are you going to just sit idly by and let them destroy your source of income? Personally I would want to shoot it.

A cow somehow gets injured, say it is attacked by an animal but you get there and the predator runs off. The cow is screaming in agony and there is no way it can be saved. Going to just leave it there in excruciating pain or do the humane thing and shoot it? Hard thing to do but sometimes there is no choice.

I think cops should be able to have guns, but I'm not sure if you were implying that they should or shouldn't so I won't argue that point. I'm assuming you just mean the average person.

 

[Castlegate]

Guns are here to protect you from the people that wish to take them away.

 

[scorpa]

The gun registry is good!

They interviewed police officers in Toronto about it and they liked it. Why? Just like you said, crimininals don't register their guns. Hence, you can take them away without any difficulty at all! When you make a gang bust, you can take their guns. Before you couldn't take away the guns, but soon we will have that problem again. Police officers, especially from Toronto, definitely don't feel comfortable not being able to take guns away from criminals.

The only problem I see with the gun registry is for people living in the north where hunting is literally a way of life and such.

Meanwhile it costs other gun owners, the good law abiding ones a fortune to register them, not to mention all the of crap and paper work you have to go through to actually complete the process. However I do see where you are coming from. But I think gun registry or not, if you are a criminal the police should not have to worry about taking your gun away.

 

[humanino]

Personally I would want to shoot it.

You don't need a deadly weapon to have an animal scared.

 

[cristo]

Maybe the Swiss are just very relaxed people,

Well, perhaps the Swiss are relaxed, and thus an anomaly.

but there doesn't seem to be any correlation between lots of guns and lots of crime.

Well, I am suggesting a correlation between lots of guns and lots of gun related crime to which there is obviously a correlation!

Crime and stats aside, how am I supposed to defend myself without a gun? I'm 5'8", I'm only about 140lb, I'm not a black belt, and I don't have magic powers. If you take away my gun, I'm basically left to be killed by any thug who feels like breaking into my house.

But I would suggest that you're more likely to be shot if you're going to shoot at him! If you feel you need to own a gun to be protected, then fair enough. I'm just saying that it's something I would never dream of doing.

 

[humanino]

Unfortunately it won't prevent criminals and crazies from getting guns.

You sure have heard this story of the kid using his father's gun, killing another kid in kinder garden...

 

[ShawnD]

We've all seen the news reports about the virginia tech

I should also add that mass shootings seem to pop up in places where there are very few guns. Laws are already in place saying you cannot carry a gun on government property in the US, but people seem to forget these laws when they go on a rampage. School shootings? Can't happen, that's a gun-free zone. Post office shooting? Again, that's a gun-free zone so it shouldn't have happened. Then you look at places with assloads of guns such as gun stores, gun conventions, NRA meetings (they probably give you a gun at the door just for photos), and anything relating to farm people (tractor equipment shows, cattle auction, etc), and these mass murders never happen.

If you were to go on a rampage, would you kill people at the post office where nobody can legally fight back, or do you shoot people who are armed and ready to kill you, such as a gun show?

 

[scorpa]

You don't need a deadly weapon to have an animal scared.

Depends on the animal, if it is starving or diseased its not exactly in a reasonable frame of mind. And yes your right you may succeed in scaring it off, but that won't prevent it come coming back at night or when you are gone.

And if you don't want to kill it shoot near it and not at it, now that will scare it

I'm not trying to say that everyone needs to have guns because they don't. I'm just trying to argue that they do have their uses. I will admit I am biased, I've never known life without them and from the time I was very young I was properly educated in how to act around them. We were even given a course in school learning about the different types, how to handle and shoot them...ect and none of us turned to be serial killers.

 

[0TheSwerve0]

Rather than gun control, comedian Chris Rock suggests instead:
"No, I think we need some bullet control. I think every bullet should cost five thousand dollars. Five thousand dollars for a bullet. Know why? Cos if a bullet cost five thousand dollars, there'd be no more innocent by-standers..."

I remember that, not a bad idea. We've got to change the culture, too, people's attitudes.

 

[scorpa]

You sure have heard this story of the kid using his father's gun, killing another kid in kinder garden...

And that is complete stupidity on the part of the father. By the time I was in kindergarten I knew damn well not to touch or go near any firearm, not that it really mattered because they were always locked in a gun safe, to this day I do now know where that stupid key is lol.

 

[ShawnD]

Well, I am suggesting a correlation between lots of guns and lots of gun related crime to which there is obviously a correlation!

That's a BS statistic though. That's like saying being killed by a knife is better than being shot by a gun because it does not include guns. Murder is murder, rape is rape, robbery is robbery. If you want to be safe you'll stick to the areas with lower crime rates, regardless of how those crimes are performed, knife or otherwise. By the same token we should try to reduce crime in any way possible. If that means giving everybody a gun and military training (lol Switzerland), so be it. We already do all kinds of silly things to stop crime, like carry a whistle. Some people even carry pepper spray. They could just as easily use that pepper spray to rob people, but most do not. Guns are really no different.

But I would suggest that you're more likely to be shot if you're going to shoot at him! If you feel you need to own a gun to be protected, then fair enough. I'm just saying that it's something I would never dream of doing.

Guns are not to make a safe situation. They are to make a safer situation. If I try to kill the intruder with a gun then yes there is a chance he will kill me first, but there is also a chance I will kill him first. If I don't have a gun, I have no chance at all. 1 in a million chance of winning is still better than 0 in a million. I won't even include deterrence since that cannot be measured (accurately).

 

[Anttech]

Can you name 1 time it has lead to disaster? I can easily name 1 time it hasn't.
Switzerland
While being the most heavily armed country in the entire world, http://www.crimereduction.gov.uk/statistics/statistics35.htm than England (and Wales), United States, Australia, Canada, Netherlands, Scotland, and Sweden.

Maybe the Swiss are just very relaxed people, but there doesn't seem to be any correlation between lots of guns and lots of crime.

Crime and stats aside, how am I supposed to defend myself without a gun? I'm 5'8", I'm only about 140lb, I'm not a black belt, and I don't have magic powers. If you take away my gun, I'm basically left to be killed by any thug who feels like breaking into my house. Call the cops you say? It takes 5 minutes to kill me. It takes 40 minutes for the police to show up. I would say do the math but there is no math, only a dead me when police show up 35 minutes too late.

There is no comparison between the Swiss and Americans. Probably the gun laws are about the only thing the societies have in common (bar the typical Human foundations we all have) Its comparing apples and pears. Pro-Gun lobbiest like to site that example, and then attempt to make it *fit* to the USA, but it doesnt.

 

[Mk]

The second amendment is there to keep the government on its toes, and we know that. The governed populous is armed and ready if a revolution needs to occur.

 

[Anttech]

Maybe the Swiss are just very relaxed people, but there doesn't seem to be any correlation between lots of guns and lots of crime.

IMO The American Society is getting more and more Masculine (as in the Geert Hofstede sence), examples are such:
It (being the Government) prefer to rattle the saber and go to war before talking.
It is an extremely competitive society who people are typically ambitious and feel the need for material possessions.
Examples like this show that people in general prefer to fight and cause violence than talk about issues.

The Swiss society isn't based on the same principles and it doesn't have the same attributes of the America society. So when 1 thing may work for them, it doesn't mean it will work for an-other.

This was a extreme case, but it is becoming predictable, every few months we see some Kid go bizzerk and start killing people in school or Uni. When it starts happening periodically you have to start thinking their is a problem that is allowing these things to happen, and it isn't just a strange one off...

 

[ShawnD]

There is no comparison between the Swiss and Americans. Probably the gun laws are about the only thing the societies have in common (bar the typical Human foundations we all have) Its comparing apples and pears. Pro-Gun lobbiest like to site that example, and then attempt to make it *fit* to the USA, but it doesnt.

Fine I'll admit the US is a lot different from every other country on earth, but how could Switzerland also be very different from those other countries listed? Surely the Swiss are not some unique race of people who are inherently peaceful while the rest of the world is filled with savages who kill each other the first chance they get.

If you are implying that the Swiss responsible enough to handle automatic rifles while Americans are a bunch of slack jawed yokels, you've just insulted 300 million people.

 

[Anttech]

No I am not saying that, but the American Society is very much more masculine than that of the Swiss, in fact anywhere in Europe.

Point in case, is the *you are a bunch of F*gs, blah blah blah* you heard after the Iran crises for the Brits not going in with violence.

The point is this *problem* keeps on happening, and every few months we all go, *that is terrible* and it happens again and we go again *gosh that is terrible* when will the point be when The Society with this evil problem actually does something about it?

 

[ukmicky]

I should also add that mass shootings seem to pop up in places where there are very few guns. Laws are already in place saying you cannot carry a gun on government property in the US, but people seem to forget these laws when they go on a rampage. School shootings? Can't happen, that's a gun-free zone. Post office shooting? Again, that's a gun-free zone so it shouldn't have happened.

But how many of them shootings which have occurred in places where its illegal to enter with a gun would have taken place if the persons right to own the gun in the first place was removed. Yes i concede there will always be certain people in professions like farming etc who have good reasons to own a long barrelled weapon But concealable weapons shouldn't be allowed.

In the end I think its quite simple if banning the general public in the US from owning guns reduces the number of deaths of the innocent over the long term (which it would) then its has got to be the way to go.

 

[Anttech]

I think this debate is pointless, as I am of the opinion that the Gene is out of the bottle, and there is no way that it can be put back in. However I do NOT concede that I agree with Guns being legal! There arent any good points, and bashing your head on an out of date constitution doesn't make it better.

 

[ShawnD]

When [school shooting] starts happening periodically you have to start thinking their is a problem that is allowing these things to happen, and it isn't just a strange one off...

Guns are very popular in Canada, but Canada does not have mass shootings. Guns are everywhere in Switzerland, and they do not have mass shootings. Guns are everywhere in the US, and there are mass shootings. Clearly Americans are just incapable of handling guns responsibly, correct? Well no not really.
I remember when Columbine happened and the media swarmed all over the story. What they found and kept repeating was how the kids were picked on by bullies to no end. These kids didn't snap because they were crazy. They were just sane enough to fight back the only way they could; through violence. Maybe if schools actually did something to stop bullying in the first place, this wouldn't have happened.


At my high school a few years ago, there was a problem with a few of the popular kids being poisoned by Copper (2) Sulfate in their slurpees. Regardless of what tools are in the hands of tormented kids, they will always find a way to take revenge. America has guns, Canada has poison.
You can't stop violence by taking away weapons; all you can do is try to change behaviors and hope that fixes the problem.

 

[TuviaDaCat]

why the hell do u sell automatics in america?

 

[loseyourname]

But how many of them shootings which have occurred in places where its illegal to enter with a gun would have taken place if the persons right to own the gun in the first place was removed.

The types of automatic assault weapons generally used in public massacres like this are already banned. That doesn't stop people from obtaining them. The only thing that would do that is to completely stop the manufacture.

 

[ShawnD]

In the end I think its quite simple if banning the general public in the US from owning guns reduces the number of deaths of the innocent over the long term (which it would) then its has got to be the way to go.

I agree, but this has shown to be false whenever it has been tried. UK's crime rate did not go down when they banned guns. Neither did the crime rate in Australia. All that changed was how crimes were carried out. Gun violence turned into knife violence. Rape at gunpoint turned into rape at knifepoint. US cops wear bulletproof vests to stop bullets whike English cops wear stab-resistant vests to stop knives. Thugs in the US carry guns. Thugs in the UK http://news.monstersandcritics.com/uk/features/article_1279673.php/Growing_knife_culture_among_young_shocks_Britain .
One is just as bad as the other. Being shot is just as bad as being stabbed. The only difference is that citizens are less likely to get involved in a situation if they don't feel they have the upper hand. If you're sitting in a diner that is being robbed, you can shoot from under the table, so some people might try that and stop the crime. When you have a knife, you're not going to stand up and face the robber to have a knife-fight, so you'll just let the robbery happen. There's no deterrence at all when everybody carries knives.

 

[drankin]

why the hell do u sell semi automatics in america?

Why not? Semi-autos are the most practical form of a firearm, IMO. All my guns are semi-autos. Revolvers are much more difficult to carry concealed. And I carry .45 semi-auto at all times.

"Gun-free" zones are danger zones. That's where human beings are defenseless against a gunman.

 

[Anttech]

Guns are very popular in Canada, but Canada does not have mass shootings. Guns are everywhere in Switzerland, and they do not have mass shootings. Guns are everywhere in the US, and there are mass shootings. Clearly Americans are just incapable of handling guns responsibly, correct? Well no not really.
I remember when Columbine happened and the media swarmed all over the story. What they found and kept repeating was how the kids were picked on by bullies to no end. These kids didn't snap because they were crazy. They were just sane enough to fight back the only way they could; through violence. Maybe if schools actually did something to stop bullying in the first place, this wouldn't have happened. At my high school a few years ago, there was a problem with a few of the popular kids being poisoned by Copper (2) Sulfate in their slurpees. Regardless of what tools are in the hands of tormented kids, they will always find a way to take revenge. America has guns, Canada has poison.
You can't stop violence by taking away weapons; all you can do is try to change behaviors and hope that fixes the problem.

Fine, so what do we as a society do to people who can't live life civil people? We typically take away from them the tools they use to be uncivil, or more specifically we ban them from being allowed to be uncivil.

Same should be for THE society until it can be trusted with the tools to be uncivil. These tools are Guns, but.. as I said its a pointless argument because there is zero chance ever to get rid of the guns.

 

[ShawnD]

The types of automatic assault weapons generally used in public massacres like this are already banned. That doesn't stop people from obtaining them. The only thing that would do that is to completely stop the manufacture.

Unfortunately this is outside of US jurisdiction since many of the guns are not made in the US. Western Europe makes a lot of guns, Russia makes lots of guns, and I think some guns like AK-47s are made in places like Pakistan.

 

[loseyourname]

All firearms are banned in San Francisco.

And to add, the murder rate in San Francisco is higher than in Los Angeles. By 2/10 of a percent, but still.

 

[scorpa]

The types of automatic assault weapons generally used in public massacres like this are already banned. That doesn't stop people from obtaining them. The only thing that would do that is to completely stop the manufacture.

True but that would have to be a worldwide thing. Stop manufacturing them in America, and they just get smuggled in. Ideally most smugglers would be caught but unfortunately...


LOL that cheezy slogan "Guns don't kill people, people kill people" is coming to my head. Even without guns people would still be out there trying to kill each other, it would just turn from "Well I guess I can't get a gun anymore...hey let's look on the internet and learn to make a ridiculously simple bomb with the ability to kill even more people!"

This is a pointless debate really, fun but pointless. People are firm in their opinions and they won't change them. I am firm in the fact that 99% of the population are responsible firearms owners and they should not be banned whle others are firm in the opinion that firearms are completely evil and should all be taken out and destroyed.

Shawn I remember hearing about that slurpee thing on the news a few years back. Weren't some kids stealing it from the science lab or something like that?

 

[loseyourname]

Actually, let me correct myself. Looks like the San Francisco gun ban ended up getting struck down in court.

 

[Francis M]

IMO THis poll is pointless adn this thread should be locked.
The gun debate is an emotionally charged topic to begin with which makes it hard to debate at all any time let alone now.
I espesially don't like the idea of bringing up a poll like this right on the heels of a very public news making gun related incident. It smacks of thinly vieled confrontationalism.
Again I would ask a moderator to please lock this thread as I see no usefull debate coming from it especially so soon on the heels of what happended in the news today at Virginia Tech. T
His thread will just spiral into a flame war at some point and judging by the rhetoric it doesn't seem to be to far off from happening.

 

[Anttech]

hmmm I think you are reading another thread, I don't see any flaming here... It is a healthy thing to debate, we should confront this evil, and not back away from it!

 

[scorpa]

IMO THis poll is pointless adn this thread should be locked.
The gun debate is an emotionally charged topic to begin with which makes it hard to debate at all any time let alone now.
I espesially don't like the idea of bringing up a poll like this right on the heels of a very public news making gun related incident. It smacks of thinly vieled confrontationalism.
Again I would ask a moderator to please lock this thread as I see no usefull debate coming from it especially so soon on the heels of what happended in the news today at Virginia Tech. T
His thread will just spiral into a flame war at some point and judging by the rhetoric it doesn't seem to be to far off from happening.

Agreed, not the time or place for this thread. A flame war is probably inevitable.

 

[scorpa]

hmmm I think you are reading another thread, I don't see any flaming here... It is a healthy thing to debate, we should confront this evil, and not back away from it!

By evil do you mean the evil of guns or the evil of what happened at Virginia tech.

If by evil you mean guns I would have to disagree, a gun is an object it doesn't get up and kill on its own...it takes a person to do that. If by evil you mean the Virginia tech tragedy then I wholeheartedly agree with you.

 

[Monique]

If you were to go on a rampage, would you kill people at the post office where nobody can legally fight back, or do you shoot people who are armed and ready to kill you, such as a gun show?

If that were true, why are there so many gun-related crimes in the US, when the majority of the population owns guns? Or is it only the few people that don't own a gun that are being attacked?

I think it is a false sense of safety. When being in the US the only thing that was on the news was people getting shot.

 

[Bystander]

IMO The American Society is getting more and more Masculine (snip)...

Thirty-two dead and dozens wounded --- at the hand of a single individual? Four planeloads of people flown into three buildings and the ground at the point of a half dozen boxcutters? This country has gotten so "touchy-feely" dependent on conflict resolution specialists and social workers that no one takes responsibility for his own survival.

When a lunatic puts you into the position that someone is going to get hurt, you take steps to see that the lunatic is the individual who gets hurt --- don't sit on your butt waiting for the cops, social workers, and the rest of the touchy-feely crowd to save you --- you're on the spot, not them.

 

[russ_watters]

Crime and stats aside, how am I supposed to defend myself without a gun? I'm 5'8", I'm only about 140lb, I'm not a black belt, and I don't have magic powers. If you take away my gun, I'm basically left to be killed by any thug who feels like breaking into my house. Call the cops you say? It takes 5 minutes to kill me. It takes 40 minutes for the police to show up. I would say do the math but there is no math, only a dead me when police show up 35 minutes too late.

Having a gun ups the ante to the point where you can't afford to lose the game. It is inherrently dangerous to both you and anyone else involved in an altercation for you to whip out a gun in, for example, a bar fight or a mugging. I'm the same size as you, but if I carried a gun in such situations (I've never been in either), I'd be much more afraid of the inherrent risks and consequences of having the gun than the risks of the situation itself.

There are two main types of murders today: gang wars and personal altercations (people killing people they know for personal reasons). The risk of getting killed by someone robbing you on the street or in your house is much, much lower: they don't want to kill you, they just want your stuff. But if you have a gun, then you put their life at risk and they may kill you in a twisted version of self-defense. To me, it just isn't worth the risk.

 

[loseyourname]

Actually, let me correct myself. Looks like the San Francisco gun ban ended up getting struck down in court.

It's kind of too bad. It would have been interesting to see if the ban had any effect on homicide rates, which reached a decade-long high in 2005.

 

[Anttech]

Thirty-two dead and dozens wounded --- at the hand of a single individual? Four planeloads of people flown into three buildings and the ground at the point of a half dozen boxcutters? This country has gotten so "touchy-feely" dependent on conflict resolution specialists and social workers that no one takes responsibility for his own survival.

When a lunatic puts you into the position that someone is going to get hurt, you take steps to see that the lunatic is the individual who gets hurt --- don't sit on your butt waiting for the cops, social workers, and the rest of the touchy-feely crowd to save you --- you're on the spot, not them.

Thanks for proving my point, again.

 

[Anttech]

Having a gun ups the ante to the point where you can't afford to lose the game. It is inherrently dangerous to both you and anyone else involved in an altercation for you to whip out a gun in, for example, a bar fight or a mugging. I'm the same size as you, but if I carried a gun in such situations (I've never been in either), I'd be much more afraid of the inherrent risks and consequences of having the gun than the risks of the situation itself.

Hey here is a first, I think we are in total agreement.

 

[russ_watters]

That's a BS statistic though. That's like saying being killed by a knife is better than being shot by a gun because it does not include guns. Murder is murder, rape is rape, robbery is robbery.

Doesn't that seem a little illogical considering the context of today's events? What are the odds the murderer at Va Tech could have killed 30 people in one room with a knife today?

And how much worse could Columbine have been had the kids been successful in purchasing the .50 cal machine gun they were eyeing at a gun show?

Guns are the weapon of choice of murderers for a pretty straightforward reason: they are by far the most effective tool for the job. We don't know yet how the shooter today got his guns, but we do know that the kids at Columbine were able to easily get the weapons they needed illegally, from a legal vendor (some may have been borrowed too...can't remember). Meaning: it is too easy to cheat the system. There are plenty of straightforward, common-sense things that can be done to help fix the availability issue. And I don't buy the 'genie-out-of-the-bottle' thing: a lot of guns are manufactured a year (I'm not sure how many) and restricting that flow does make a difference:

Regulations that limit the number of handgun sales in the primary, regulated market to one handgun a month per customer have been shown to be effective at reducing illegal gun trafficking by reducing the supply into the "secondary market."

Also, a very high fraction of guns used in crime are bought legally and/or borrowed. Increasing accountability for owners and sellers would make a big difference there. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States#Firearms_market

 

[drankin]

If that were true, why are there so many gun-related crimes in the US, when the majority of the population owns guns? Or is it only the few people that don't own a gun that are being attacked?

I think it is a false sense of safety. When being in the US the only thing that was on the news was people getting shot.

Actually, not a lot of Americans own guns. I don't know the actual ratio but maybe 1 out of 8 (if that) people own defensive firearms, like a handgun or assault rifle. More people have hunting or target rifles that collect dust in a closet but not many people actually exercise their right to possesses defensive firearms.

If you look at the stats, many more people die from car accidents. It's just not as news worthy. Gun violence is "news", car accidents aren't that exciting. So one can get the impression that shootings are happening everywhere all the time. They just get a lot of press.