Firearms

[Bob Phillips]

I was reading the posts in this new thread, and came across Zacks. In the things he said he enjoyed, he mentioned firearms.

I want to say clearly and unequivocally that I abhor firearms, and people who enjoy them, love them, whatever they justify it with scare me. IMO there is no justification for unlimited access to firearms in a civilised society (nor capital punishment, but that's another argument).

I know all the arguments for guns, self-defence (must be better to shoot someone that to let them steal your DVD player mustn't it!), it is the people who kill not the guns, etc. etc. A gun owning society has a different ethos than a non-gun society, and so ipso facto the people change and are more likely to use them.

In the West Wing series 2, the Third State of the Union Address episode, Toby is taking part in a TV debate analysis, and there is some Republican arguing that the White House uses the First Amendment to allow all sorts of perversions yet wants to introduce gun control. Toby makes that point that the populations of Great Britain, France, Germany, Japan, Switzerland, Sweden, Denmark and AUstralia is roughly equivalent to that of the United States but in the previous year there were 112 gun deaths in those conutries, 32,000 in the US.

So, are Americans more homicidally inclined, or does gun ownership change social norms, or even rip the social fabric?

[lucas]

So, are Americans more homicidally inclined, or does gun ownership change social norms, or even rip the social fabric?

Sad statistics but cannot be ignored. Yes Bob we Americans as a lot want to kick some ass. See our history for the last 6 years. There does seem to be a small wind of change blowing here but the issue is not behind us.

[Ken Puls]

While we don't see the same gun incidents per capita as the US, we still have too many. My understanding is tha being in such close proximity to our southern neighbours, we send them our marijuana, they send us guns and harder drugs in payment.

Over the last few years Canada has made an attempt at a gun registry which has so far been a waste of billions of taxpayers dollars. The thought was good... list where the guns are so that the police know if they're going into a firefight. The logic sucks though. Criminals do not register guns. Instead, we know have a bunch of people made criminals because they didn't want to fill out HUGE volumes of paperwork.

I really struggle with guns. My father is a hobby farmer and uses his rifles to shoot the coyotes that come after his sheep. I dont' have an issue with that at all. There is also a bunch of hunting legal in Canada (birds and large game), and I'd rather see that done by gun than bow and arrow. (Less cruel to the victims.)

I agree without any arguement on hand guns though. The only people that need those are law enforcement officials. Period.

[Zack Barresse]

I won't argue your points Bob, but only interject my opinion(s). Sadly, you are correct, people kill people, not guns. They are used for things they should not be. I will be damned if some jackass who mis-uses a gun will take away my right to keep and bear arms.

Guns are tools and, sometimes, can be used for enjoyment. I find a certain measure of enjoyment "plinking" away at the firing range. I also enjoy a well run routine or add-in through Excel. All bringing me pleasure. I also like to hunt. I am not an activist, although I feel there are certain boundaries when it comes to hunting game.

Are guns necessary? Absolutely. Are they beneficial? For the majority, no. Hands down no. They are so mis-used it's not even funny. People are killed from guns daily and they just don't seem to learn. I teach my children about gun safety, the purposes for a firearm, how to safely handle them, etc.

The only time they should ever be used on another person is if their life is in imminent danger. Stealing somebody's television set does NOT constitute shooting somebody. Shooting somebody in the back is not self-defense (so long as the person is not, say, shooting behind them whilst running). Somebody coming at you with a knife IS a life threatening situation.

Firearms should not be used for show or power (unless that is to control a life threatening situation, i.e. police, SWAT, military, etc). Firearms should be used safely and responsibly.

[Bob Phillips]

Sadly, you are correct, people kill people, not guns.

I didn't say that, I said that is the argument used. What I said is that having a gun-owning society changes the social norms, it becomes much more 'acceptable' to shoot somebody.

I will be damned if some jackass who mis-uses a gun will take away my right to keep and bear arms.

And therein lies the exact reason why the US will ALWAYS suffer 32,000+ deaths from firearms every year. The anarchist, no-governmnet redneck in the Tennesse mountains uses exactly the same argument, and the next day a Columbine happens.

Guns are tools and, sometimes, can be used for enjoyment. I find a certain measure of enjoyment "plinking" away at the firing range. I also enjoy a well run routine or add-in through Excel.

Guns are weapons not tools, they have one objective, to kill people. No-one is going to use Excel to kill someone, but a gun is a different matter. One of the jobs of a government is to lead the way, not just let its citizens do whatever they wish. In the UK, if there were a referendum tomorrow, the people would vote to bring back capital punishment. Luckily, our government knows, and has known for many years, that it is barbaric it is not a deterrent, and so we don't have capital punishment.

Are guns necessary?

Absolutely not.

Are they beneficial?

Absolutely not.

They are so mis-used it's not even funny. People are killed from guns daily and they just don't seem to learn.

I am not talking about accidents, but guess what, if there were no guns, it would not be possible to have an accident with them. I amtalking about how society is shaped by its rules, or lack thereof.

The only time they should ever be used on another person is if their life is in imminent danger. Somebody coming at you with a knife IS a life threatening situation.

So, they know/think you have a gun, then they get an Uzi. Therein lies madness.

Firearms should not be used for show or power (unless that is to control a life threatening situation, i.e. police, SWAT, military, etc). Firearms should be used safely and responsibly.

I think in your country, the law enforcers have a policy of massive overkill, enough firepower to wipe out a small town, and are far too ready to use it. Sadly, because we seem to pick up on many undesirable American traits, I fear our police are inclining the same way.

[Zack Barresse]

Okay Bob, I see where we disagree, they are on minute differences of points.

I will be damned if some jackass who mis-uses a gun will take away my right to keep and bear arms.

And therein lies the exact reason why the US will ALWAYS suffer 32,000+ deaths from firearms every year. The anarchist, no-governmnet redneck in the Tennesse mountains uses exactly the same argument, and the next day a Columbine happens.

No, you're so very wrong here Bob. That is not the exact reason any of these things will happen. That has nothing to do with those reasons. The reason so many people die from firearms every year is that people are stupid, have little moral values, care little for the welfare of others, the list goes on and on. Having the right to bear arms alone does not contribute to any deaths. It is how the people use that right where casualties occur. I shouldn't pay for somebody else's mistake. It happens, sure, but education is a lot better than reform.

Guns are tools and, sometimes, can be used for enjoyment. I find a certain measure of enjoyment "plinking" away at the firing range. I also enjoy a well run routine or add-in through Excel.

Guns are weapons not tools, they have one objective, to kill people. No-one is going to use Excel to kill someone, but a gun is a different matter. One of the jobs of a government is to lead the way, not just let its citizens do whatever they wish. In the UK, if there were a referendum tomorrow, the people would vote to bring back capital punishment. Luckily, our government knows, and has known for many years, that it is barbaric it is not a deterrent, and so we don't have capital punishment.

I think barbaric is a harsh word Bob. Do you think I'm barbaric? Guns are tools. They can also kill. Some tools kill, some tools fix things, they do a lot of things. Go back to your days as a laddie, some things are tools, some are toys.

Are guns necessary?

Absolutely not.

You're absolutely wrong. Why? Because people suck. There will always be somebody who wants to rob the weak, take from the rich/poor or otherwise do harm to other people. What will one do if they do not know how to defend themselves physically? Get taken advantage of? Would you have crime run rampant and let the criminals do anything they want.

The part about gun control that lawmakers (and others) do not see is that it only keeps the honest people honest. You will always have criminals which won't conform to any laws/policies. If you take away a legal means of self-preservation (which there will always be a need for, look in your history books) then you only give good citizens an illegal means to defend themselves.

Are they beneficial?

Absolutely not.

So there is no benefit when it comes to hunting? What about self-defense? What about those that enjoy "plinking"? These are common attributes of people when it comes to firearms. Just because you don't enjoy these things doesn't mean others don't.

They are so mis-used it's not even funny. People are killed from guns daily and they just don't seem to learn.

I am not talking about accidents...

Nor am I talking about exclusively accidents. I wasn't even thinking about AD (accidental discharges) with that statement.

... but guess what, if there were no guns, it would not be possible to have an accident with them. I am talking about how society is shaped by its rules, or lack thereof.

Please tell me you're joking. There will always be guns. You know that as well as I do. So there will always be accidents with them as well as incidental casualties. Society can be shaped by rules or lack thereof. I think about the UK with that statement. No guns and now taking away knives. What has happened to your crime rate? Do you think that is coincidence? If I were a mugger and I knew that a law abiding citizen had something I wanted, I would be able to take what I wanted through threat of physical harm and know they weren't armed for self-defense. Same thing with Australia, crime rates have risen.

So, they know/think you have a gun, then they get an Uzi. Therein lies madness.

That is madness Bob. How do you make that jump? Sure some people may do that. I know that is not my mentality and I am a gun owner. Are you saying you think I will graduate to an Uzi and gun down innocents? I certainly hope not.

People do stupid things and I believe guns should be regulated. Regulated to no guns at all? That is absurd. I will have a means to defend myself and my family if a situation should ever come to that. Home invasions are more prominent now than ever, even in broad daylight. Will I stand idly by while a stranger comes into my home, uninvited, wants his way with my wife or children or myself? No, I do not think so. Will I start strapping on fully automatics while walking the streets? No. It's just not as simple as you want to put it Bob. There are so many other factors that come into play.

Sadly, because we seem to pick up on many undesirable American traits, I fear our police are inclining the same way.

Ouch Bob, slow down there. The US is not everything that is wrong with the world. All countries have problems, which includes both yours and mine. Your police need to be thinking about that. The criminals in your country have a large advantage over the common citizen with the laws you have in place. If the criminals can out-do the police, what do you think will happen then?

[Ken Puls]

For the record, I do not, have never, and hope to never, own a gun. I do not feel the need. There are less guns here, true, and I feel safer for that. Call me deluded if you like, but I'd rather face attack by knife than gun any day. It's much harder to kill with a knife than a gun.

One of the fundamental differences between our countries, Zack is the right vs the priviledge to own a gun. Guns have one purpose: to kill. Human or animal, their only purpose is to kill. Why anyone should have the right to own a device with that intent, I will never know.

Sorry bud, you'll never convince me of that argument.

[tpoynton]

Not to make light of an interesting and thought provoking thread, but...

No-one is going to use Excel to kill someone

Some students would disagree...

[Zack Barresse]

Yes, right and privilege are very different. Privilege is given by another, generally a government of sorts, set forth by laws and policies. While I, or others, may or may not have the privilege, I believe we should all have the right, if we should so choose. In my belief, everybody has the right to choose, but we are all ruled by the same guidelines to use our tools safely and with good moral standards, as bad things may happen if we do not.

Why anyone should have the right to own a device with that intent, I will never know.

For the same reasons I stated above. Self-defense, hunting, pleasure, etc. If somebody tries to take my life, I feel I have the right to defend myself.

I firmly believe in the saying, "Guns don't kill people. People kill people." Firearms give people a method to do such things, it takes people to pull the trigger(s) and their judgment (good or bad). Taking guns away does not make the world a safer place, it never will. You can apply this to almost any aspect of life. Anything that is mis-used can more or less be construed as a bad thing. Does that mean the "thing" (whatever it might be) is bad and should be taken away? I think you'd be attacking it at the wrong end if you did that.

And, also for the record, I am not trying to influence anyone's view one way or the other. I still have much respect for all here. I do reserve the right to agree to disagree though.

[Bob Phillips]

No, you're so very wrong here Bob. That is not the exact reason any of these things will happen. That has nothing to do with those reasons. The reason so many people die from firearms every year is that people are stupid, have little moral values, care little for the welfare of others, the list goes on and on. Having the right to bear arms alone does not contribute to any deaths. It is how the people use that right where casualties occur. I shouldn't pay for somebody else's mistake. It happens, sure, but education is a lot better than reform.

No you are so very wrong. A gun-owning society has different norm to a non-gun owning society.

Let me pose you a question. Why do the countries I mentioned have 112 gun deaths, and ths US has 32,000+? I am looking forward to hearing your explanation for that.

I think barbaric is a harsh word Bob. Do you think I'm barbaric? Guns are tools. They can also kill. Some tools kill, some tools fix things, they do a lot of things. Go back to your days as a laddie, some things are tools, some are toys.

I said that capital punishment was barbaric. But if you want, use one of those guns you own (just how many guns do you own Zack, it only takes one?) and yes I will call you barbaric.

A gun as a toy is only used to re-inforce those societal norms.

You're absolutely wrong. Why? Because people suck. There will always be somebody who wants to rob the weak, take from the rich/poor or otherwise do harm to other people. What will one do if they do not know how to defend themselves physically? Get taken advantage of? Would you have crime run rampant and let the criminals do anything they want.

We know people have base instincts, but hey, that is why we have society, a society with rules. It is to keep those base instinct under control, not to give rein to hicks!

The part about gun control that lawmakers (and others) do not see is that it only keeps the honest people honest. You will always have criminals which won't conform to any laws/policies. If you take away a legal means of self-preservation (which there will always be a need for, look in your history books) then you only give good citizens an illegal means to defend themselves.

112. 32,000+!

So there is no benefit when it comes to hunting? What about self-defense? What about those that enjoy "plinking"? These are common attributes of people when it comes to firearms. Just because you don't enjoy these things doesn't mean others don't.

Paedophiles enjoy abusing children. Should we allow that?

Please tell me you're joking. There will always be guns. You know that as well as I do. So there will always be accidents with them as well as incidental casualties. Society can be shaped by rules or lack thereof. I think about the UK with that statement. No guns and now taking away knives. What has happened to your crime rate? Do you think that is coincidence? If I were a mugger and I knew that a law abiding citizen had something I wanted, I would be able to take what I wanted through threat of physical harm and know they weren't armed for self-defense. Same thing with Australia, crime rates have risen.

112. 32,000+!

As I keep saying, but you keep ignoring, society is shaped by the rules.

That is madness Bob. How do you make that jump? Sure some people may do that. I know that is not my mentality and I am a gun owner. Are you saying you think I will graduate to an Uzi and gun down innocents? I certainly hope not.

What guns do you own Zack? What did you own 5 years ago, 10 years ago? Are you 'stepping up'?

I People do stupid things and I believe guns should be regulated. Regulated to no guns at all? That is absurd. I will have a means to defend myself and my family if a situation should ever come to that. Home invasions are more prominent now than ever, even in broad daylight. Will I stand idly by while a stranger comes into my home, uninvited, wants his way with my wife or children or myself? No, I do not think so. Will I start strapping on fully automatics while walking the streets? No. It's just not as simple as you want to put it Bob. There are so many other factors that come into play.

Why is it absurd? It is basically what we have over here. It doesn't mean no guns unfortunately, but it does mean that we have a society norm whereby guns are not acceptable, not even for the police. 112. 32,000+!

Ouch Bob, slow down there. The US is not everything that is wrong with the world. All countries have problems, which includes both yours and mine. Your police need to be thinking about that. The criminals in your country have a large advantage over the common citizen with the laws you have in place. If the criminals can out-do the police, what do you think will happen then?

I am sorry if my statements came across in that way. I am not a US hater, I love the place. Without the US we in Europe would not have the democracy we have today, we would be democratic, but we would be a lot less open. And I know that the vast majority of Americans are good, decent people. But there are many things wrong with your country (as with mine), Christian fundamentalism, rampant capitalism, insularity, capital punishment, and your gun culture to name but a few. WE do not need to import the bad. I saw an article recently when Hugo Chavez came to New York and criticised Bush. Some half-baked politician argued that regardless of what he was doing, no foreigner would be tolerated criticising the US PRESIDENT. Sorry, he (any US President) is not God, this one is a dangerous radical, and even if he weren't, democracy means being able to criticise regardless.

And the criminal always has an advantage, the police have to chase to keep up. But climbing on the escalator is no way to keep on the ground floor.

All your arguments could be used for saying that all countries should have the bomb (another facetious argument by your government and mine IMO)!

[Ken Puls]

Why is it absurd? It is basically what we have over here. It doesn't mean no guns unfortunately, but it does mean that we have a society norm whereby guns are not acceptable, not even for the police.

I remember my Mother, who is English, btw, saying that one British Bobby could stop more crime with a simple "what's going on here then?" than 30 of our law enforcement agents with guns. (Sorry for the British comment, Bob. She's not of Wessex. )

[Ken Puls]

Not to make light of an interesting and thought provoking thread, but... Some students would disagree... (that you can't kill someone with Excel)

ROFL!

[Zack Barresse]

A gun-owning society has different norm to a non-gun owning society.

Sure, I'm not arguing that. Of course they are different.

Let me pose you a question. Why do the countries I mentioned have 112 gun deaths, and ths US has 32,000+? I am looking forward to hearing your explanation for that.

I cannot argue that statistic Bob. The only West Wing series I know of is a television drama. I do not know the actual statistics. I do believe the US is much higher in that statistic in reality though. What do I contribute this to? People are stupid. Having a fraction of the population of the US (somewhere around 60M vs 300M) we (the US) are going to have much more of a bad populous than you (the UK) ever will.

I think the laws in and around this country give the ability for people to brew stupidity, I'll not argue that. There are a very many things wrong with this country.

I said that capital punishment was barbaric. But if you want, use one of those guns you own (just how many guns do you own Zack, it only takes one?) and yes I will call you barbaric.

I own a few guns. Different guns for different purposes. I have a shotgun for duck/goose hunting, which I very much enjoy. I have an archery bow for target practicing (I do not hunt with that, although I would contemplate it) and a hand gun for home defense and to take out target shooting.

Shooting, or "plinking", has been a sport for many, many years. Archery as well. They are even Olympic sports. I think that says a lot about the subject. They can be used for fun, to unite nations, to preserve life, to repel wildlife, even to stand up as a people when a government is over-stepping their boundaries (as has been shown in both of our countries histories).

A gun as a toy is only used to re-inforce those societal norms.

There is no gun that is a toy. It can be used for enjoyment, sure; they are dangerous no matter what though. Societal "norms" I do not think are a part of what I am talking about. This subject may add to different societal norms, some may be good, some may be bad.

There is one quote I would like to mention. Just as food for thought...

This year will go down in history. For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration. Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future!

That was said by Adolph Hitler in 1935. There is a lot to learn by, not only this, but past events in history. An armed populous is a safe populous. Yes, it will also lead some paths to destruction and abused by others.

We know people have base instincts, but hey, that is why we have society, a society with rules. It is to keep those base instinct under control, not to give rein to hicks!

Hicks? I think you've got it all wrong there Bob. Hicks are not people with pitchforks and guns. I know a lot of hicks which do not own guns. I grew up as a hick, most of my family are hicks, and most of my family does not own guns. Just because somebody has a gun does not make them a hick.

Paedophiles enjoy abusing children. Should we allow that?

Totally different situation Bob, you cannot even compare the two. It's like comparing apples to oranges, they are not the same basic units of measurement.

As I keep saying, but you keep ignoring, society is shaped by the rules.

Society can be shaped by the rules. They can be shaped by a lot of things.

What guns do you own Zack? What did you own 5 years ago, 10 years ago? Are you 'stepping up'?

I mentioned that above. I owned my shotgun five years ago, was about to purchase my bow. Ten years ago I was too young (legally and mentally) to own any weapons.

Why is it absurd? It is basically what we have over here. It doesn't mean no guns unfortunately, but it does mean that we have a society norm whereby guns are not acceptable, not even for the police.

I refer to the quote I made above.

WE do not need to import the bad. I saw an article recently when Hugo Chavez came to New York and criticised Bush. Some half-baked politician argued that regardless of what he was doing, no foreigner would be tolerated criticising the US PRESIDENT. Sorry, he (any US President) is not God, this one is a dangerous radical, and even if he weren't, democracy means being able to criticise regardless.

See, it is people like that who give the US a bad name. Anybody in the world can state their opinion - and rightfully so - especially about the US President, who is more prominent than most. Foreigner or not, they should be allowed their opinion, I don't care who they are or who they may be criticizing. This particular jacka$$ has his head up his butt.

And the criminal always has an advantage, the police have to chase to keep up. But climbing on the escalator is no way to keep on the ground floor.

There is no such thing as a ground floor. We are always climbing. As a comparative, look at our technology.

All your arguments could be used for saying that all countries should have the bomb (another facetious argument by your government and mine IMO)!

No Bob, that is very different and is again comparing apples to oranges. A very large fundamental difference exists between the two.

[Brandtrock]

Interesting dialogue here. I have fired firearms before, but never owned any. I would be uncomfortable living in a society where only "the authorities" were allowed to own them though. I have never had the desire to own a firearm, and when I did get the chance to shoot the ones (rifles and handguns) at a freind's farm in Minnesota, the frankly scared the hell out of me.

What an enormous amount of responsibility is required to have that kind of power in one's possession.

The biggest problem I see with gun control has been voiced in this thread before: outlaw guns and only outlaws will have guns.

I googled "gun death statistics' just for kicks. The thing with statistics is that they are easily manipulated to suit the desired result.

The gun lobby points out that, while gun deaths do occur, rarely do opponents bring out the point that many lives are saved through defensive gun use. High gun death rates are cited by those who would like to see guns controlled while conveniently ignoring the fact that violent death rates as a whole seem to go unchanged when gun control is practiced. Suicidal individuals with no access to guns will find an alternate way to do the deed.

Any given technology is neither good nor evil in and of itself. The intentions of the individuals or groups using that technology determines that.

Remember that the next time Excel prompts you to enable macros.

Just my

[TrippyTom]

One can compare apples and oranges, and with enough forethought, find a link somehow! This book proves it.
http://www.amazon.com/Freakonomics-E.../dp/006073132X

[Desert Piranha]

Guns are weapons not tools, they have one objective, to kill people.

The statment above is just to weird. Just my opinion. I have owned and used weapons (guns) for the last 57 years. I carry one daily. No not for people, but for Coyotes and Rattle snakes, hunting and target practice. Competition shooting is a sport also.


Drugs would be a more important thing to get all upset about.

[Brandtrock]

Guns are weapons not tools, they have one objective, to kill people.

Perhaps it is a minor point, but guns don't have objectives. Individuals have objectives.

Guns have a function. The sole function of a gun is to deliver the load of munitions in a controlled and directable manner.

If an individual utilizes a gun's functionality to achieve an objective, the gun is in no way responsible for the moraltiy or ethics of that objective.

more I guess.

[XLGibbs]

Wow fun thread!

All I have to say, is guns shouldn't be illegal, but they shouldn't be common property either. Bullets however, should cost 50 Grand each.

Otherwise, I agree with what everyone else says.

[Bob Phillips]

Sure, I'm not arguing that. Of course they are different.

Of course they are, and my argument is that it is different for the worse.

I cannot argue that statistic Bob. The only West Wing series I know of is a television drama. I do not know the actual statistics. I do believe the US is much higher in that statistic in reality though. What do I contribute this to? People are stupid.

It is that TV series I am quoting, but the numbers are correct.

Again though, you are not listening. I can only see two possible explanations for why the numbers are (so much) higher in the US; namely that the citizens of the US are more homicidally inclined than citizens of my country; or that a society where guns are allowed distorts that society, creating an inevitability that they will get used more frequently. Now I do not believe the former, so that only leaves the latter in my view. As yet, you have singulalrly failed to even attempt to argue that point. You just keep saying there are stupid people. There are stupid people over here too, but because guns are not prevalent, most of them don't get the chance to use/abuse them.

There is a hot news topic over here at this moment about vicious dogs. There is a certain type of person who own these dogs, it makes them feel big, and helps to over-compensate for their low self-esteem (IMO). Too often, these dogs are used to try and compensate for these individual's deficencies. I believe these are exactly these are the type of people who would carry guns if we had a society like yours, and INEVITABLY a number of them would use them, and the escalation starts, and we would be where you are now.

Having a fraction of the population of the US (somewhere around 60M vs 300M) we (the US) are going to have much more of a bad populous than you (the UK) ever will.

I think the laws in and around this country give the ability for people to brew stupidity, I'll not argue that. There are a very many things wrong with this country.

Again, you are not listening. You are doing a Harlan on me, arguing something other than what I said to assist your point.

I re-iterate, the population of Great Britain, France, Germany, Japan, Switzerland, Sweden, Denmark and AUstralia is roughly equivalent to that of the United States but we had 112 gun deaths in total in those countries, you had 32,000+ in the US.

I have yet to hear any argument, let alone a convincing one, as to why for a similar sized population sample you have 250 times as many gun deaths (Lord only knows what they multiplier for gun injuries is).

Shooting, or "plinking", has been a sport for many, many years. Archery as well. They are even Olympic sports. I think that says a lot about the subject. They can be used for fun, to unite nations, to preserve life, to repel wildlife, even to stand up as a people when a government is over-stepping their boundaries (as has been shown in both of our countries histories).

So is synchronised swimming, but that isn't sport either, but at least synchronised swimming doesn't also kill people.

I am not arguing that, in the words of your own constituion, we should not have 'regulated militia' that are armed, none of us want to be subject to miltary takeover, but I fail to see anay conection between that and allowing the general populace to own firearms. As I have quoted many times regarding the many countries, gun control works, and as yet neither you nor anyone else has given an argument as to why it doesn't.

There is no gun that is a toy. It can be used for enjoyment, sure; they are dangerous no matter what though. Societal "norms" I do not think are a part of what I am talking about. This subject may add to different societal norms, some may be good, some may be bad.

I was answering your point about having toy guns (as children), but I think you knew that.

There is one quote I would like to mention. Just as food for thought...

this year will go down in history. For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration. Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future!'

That was said by Adolph Hitler in 1935. There is a lot to learn by, not only this, but past events in history. An armed populous is a safe populous. Yes, it will also lead some paths to destruction and abused by others.

I don't think that just by quoting Hitler proves anything, however obnoxious Hitler was. What was the context? Was it in the light of uncontrolled gun access, in which case it is undoubtedly safer. But we don't have full gun registration, we have GUN CONTROL, which means you can't legally own guns except in very strict circumstances. Safer yet.

Hicks? I think you've got it all wrong there Bob. Hicks are not people with pitchforks and guns. I know a lot of hicks which do not own guns. I grew up as a hick, most of my family are hicks, and most of my family does not own guns. Just because somebody has a gun does not make them a hick.

I am referring to hicks with a gun. Maybe your definition of hicks differs from mine, but the thought of ill-educated, none too smart, disenfranchised people all owning guns scares the be-jeebers out of me. Even the thought of you owning one scares me, never mind the less well-balanced.

Totally different situation Bob, you cannot even compare the two. It's like comparing apples to oranges, they are not the same basic units of measurement.

I deliberately picked a provocative subject to see how you would respond. Again, you read the headlines, not the content.

The point is that just because people want to do something, that does not mean the government should allow them to do it. Some things they definitely should not allow individuals to do, paedophilia is one, owning guns is another IMO.

I refer to the quote I made above.

But stiil no not offer a counter argument!.

See, it is people like that who give the US a bad name. Anybody in the world can state their opinion - and rightfully so - especially about the US President, who is more prominent than most. Foreigner or not, they should be allowed their opinion, I don't care who they are or who they may be criticizing. This particular jacka$$ has his head up his butt.

Yeah, but I bet he is funded by the NRA, and is a passionate advocate of unlimited gun access.

There is no such thing as a ground floor. We are always climbing. As a comparative, look at our technology.

I was using that as an analogy, which you are twisting, as that seems simpler than actually making a counter argument.

No Bob, that is very different and is again comparing apples to oranges. A very large fundamental difference exists between the two.

No they are not Zack. You seem to be saying to me that you should be allowed to own guns so that you can defend yourself. By that same argument, Iran should be allowed nuclear weapons because (at the least) Israel has them, and there is a high probability IMO that Israel will use them against Iran one day. So, take the argument forward, Iran should be allowed to develop nuclear weapons.

On a lighter note, of course you can argue apples and oranges. All reasoning is done on the basis of axioms, so by the axiom of apples and oranges are fruit, you can argue apples and oranges. You can even use axioms that are not self-evident in order to take reasoning to new levels (but we are way off-topic here).

[XLGibbs]

America is a unique country. There are big problems with how the founding fathers as it were have crafted the consitution and how it continues to be misinterpreted, especially with the second amendment.

Too many times those in our country who argue against legislation which appears to inhibit the freedoms laid out in the Bill of Rights, simply on the basis that the framers of the constitution intended it that way (in this case, that we should <snip...have the right to bear arms..>). The problem with arguments like that is context. Things were quite different back then. Perhaps everyone should have muskets, as this was the framer's intent?
At the time the Bill of Rights were crafted, the country was still technically at war trying to gain our independence. It was a hostile time, and in many many ways much less civilized (sic) than we are pre-supposed to be now.

Just as they make changes to other elements of the constitution, this is something that should probably change. Different gun laws don't work, the numbers don't lie. I agree with Bob here, the mass availability of guns is part of the problem. People who think that the Right to own was is the Need to own one are the same thing are part of the problem.

Society, and how our country embraces freedom is also part of the problem. Too many times, we take the freedom to <fill in blank> to the extreme.

It is our society that has created the problem over the last 200 years. Our country has created a quarter million professional victims--and it is getting worse. So in typical fashion, our country would respond that it is not our fault that 32K homicides deaths vs 112 in similar sample population elsewhere. Arguing of course that the freedom to own the gun didn't cause the death, an individual did. But didn't society create that individual by giving him the gun?

It is people that pull the trigger, but it is the freedom to own a gun in the first place that creates situations where a gun becomes an option.

I would like to chime in more, but my daughter needs to explain to me the inner works of the Dora / Boots dychotomy regarding how to get to Big Mountain.