Slashdot Mirror

There's something about American culture that makes people think a gun is a solution instead of an accident waiting to happen, and we're seeing this attitude bleed over into other countries

There is no strong correlary, either positive or negative, between gun ownership and crime rates.

Check out the murder rates in the top five gun owning countries (among those with good gun ownership stats) on this chart; Norway, Switzerland, Canada, US, Finland. They range from the bottom of the chart to the top.

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvinco.html

I'm a big advocate of gun ownership (for reasons that are outside the scope of, and unrelated to, this thread). I would like the chart to show strong correlation between gun ownership and reduced crime - because it would make it easier to argue my case. But it doesn't. Nor does it show anti-correlary. The simple fact is that the causes of violent crime are vastly more complex than simple solutions like less guns, more jails, or a better social net. We kill a lot in the US because we're a relatively violent society - for a bunch of reasons. Not because we have access to guns.

http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndmea.html
"A state of preparedness obtained after persistent and rigorous training?" The only rigorous training the hick with a gun rack in his pickup has is drawling, persistent use of "ain't", and Nascar watching.

You mean, like the illusion that owning a handgun will somehow protect you from violence? Or the illusion that, in a truly violent situation, you will have the wherewithal to use your gun safely and effectively?

The most US-centric report about the idea that the United States is filled with gun-toting violent crazies still fails to exonerate the United States entirely. The key column here is Firearm Homicide. The rest are just there to confuse you, pointing out that violent deaths don't always involve guns. Duh. While it's true that Estonia, Brazil, Mexico and Northern Ireland have higher Firearm Homicide rates than the US; Canada, Germany, Singapore, Japan, England, Australia, Norway, Ireland, Israel and Spain have only 25-50% of the Firearm Homicide rate per 100,000. OK, so there's more violent people out there, but even statistics that are attempting to prove your point have a difficult reality to overcome.

Here's the other side of the coin, which is what most people think of when they think of the United States and their gun problem. The numbers aren't substantially different, but the presentation sure is. Gotta love statistics -- I had to read these two articles for 30 minutes before posting to be sure I didn't put my foot in my mouth.

It is not irrelevant that the Bill of Rights submitted to the states in 1789 included not only what are now the first ten Amendments, but also two others. Indeed, what we call the First Amendment was only the third one of the list submitted to the states. The initial "first amendment" in fact concerned the future size of the House of Representatives, a topic of no small importance to the Anti-Federalists, who were appalled by the smallness of the House seemingly envisioned by the Philadelphia framers. The second prohibited any pay raise voted by members of Congress to themselves from taking effect until an election "shall have intervened." See J. Goebel, 1 The Oliver Wendell Holmes Devise History of the Supreme Court of the United States: Antecedents and Beginnings to 1801, at 442 n.162 (1971). Had all of the initial twelve proposals been ratified, we would, it is possible, have a dramatically different cognitive map of the Bill of Rights. At the very least, one would neither hear defenses of the "preferred" status of freedom of speech framed in terms of the "firstness" of (what we know as) the First Amendment, nor the wholly invalid inference drawn from that "firstness" of some special intention of the Framers to safeguard the particular rights laid out there.

It is not irrelevant that the Bill of Rights submitted to the states in 1789 included not only what are now the first ten Amendments, but also two others. Indeed, what we call the First Amendment was only the third one of the list submitted to the states. The initial "first amendment" in fact concerned the future size of the House of Representatives, a topic of no small importance to the Anti-Federalists, who were appalled by the smallness of the House seemingly envisioned by the Philadelphia framers. The second prohibited any pay raise voted by members of Congress to themselves from taking effect until an election "shall have intervened." See J. Goebel, 1 The Oliver Wendell Holmes Devise History of the Supreme Court of the United States: Antecedents and Beginnings to 1801, at 442 n.162 (1971). Had all of the initial twelve proposals been ratified, we would, it is possible, have a dramatically different cognitive map of the Bill of Rights. At the very least, one would neither hear defenses of the "preferred" status of freedom of speech framed in terms of the "firstness" of (what we know as) the First Amendment, nor the wholly invalid inference drawn from that "firstness" of some special intention of the Framers to safeguard the particular rights laid out there.

The First Amendment only refers to what Congress shall not do, but the ACLU defends the hell out of it in the states. Just because you can interpret a line of the Constitution in one way doesn't mean that you are right, and if there is any interpretation of the text that speaks to an individual right then why is the ACLU not defending that?

I am not going to address how wrong you are, because it's entirely irrelevant to the actual discussion at hand. I'll just point you to one article, written by a man who is widely regarded as being on the short list of preeminent constitutional law scholars. You don't have to agree with him, but when reasonable (and, in fact, brilliant and informed) minds can reach the conclusion that there is an individual right at stake, what justification does the ACLU have for ignoring it? It's hypocrisy, regardless of how you personally feel about the Second Amendment.

You keep using that term. I do not think it means what you think it means...

It ROCKS!

I usually carry my Kel-Tec P32, which has a Pocket Slipper Laser Aimer. Sits in the front pocket like a PCA or wallet. http://www.smartcarry.com/xsl.jpg

Guns And Laws

http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm

Nice, small gun

http://www.gunblast.com/KelTec_P3AT.htm and

http://www.gunsandammomag.com/ga_handguns/keltec_0 92304/ Lifetime guarantee. .32 caliber, $250~ Slightly larger and more money: http://www.waltheramerica.com/firearms/ppks.cfm

Florida gun laws

http://www.packing.org/state/index.jsp/florida

If you know anyone with young children who need gun safety training http://www.nrahq.org/safety/eddie/materials.asp

The official police academy book for gun laws in Florida http://www.floridafirearmslaw.com/indexbook.shtml

The ethics of owning guns http://www.a-human-right.com/introduction.html

Florida's concealed carry permit office http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/weapons/index.htm l

FAQ http://www.guncite.com/index.html and http://gunscholar.com/

Purchase From Dealer

There is no license or permit required to purchase a firearm (rifle, shotgun or handgun) in the State of Florida. However, at the time of purchase an "instant background check" is performed by the dealer calling an 800 number that connects him to the Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE). The FDLE operator uses the basic information about you provided by the dealer (name, address, birthdate, Social Security Number, etc.) to check the state and federal computers to determine whether or not you have a criminal record, domestic violence conviction or are subject to a restraining order. If you have a clean record, FDLE tells the dealer that you are Approved, and the sale takes place. If there is a problem with your record the dealer is told that you are Disapproved, and he may not sell you the firearm. Assuming that you are "approved", you may take a rifle or shotgun home immediately. In the case of a handgun, you must wait three days to take it out of the store, a so-called "cooling-off" period. If you are approved, the state distroys the record of the call for the instant background and the dealer keeps a written record, which is later checked by the ATF. From a dealer, the minimum age of a rifle or shotgun is 18; for a handgun it is 21. Persons holding a valid Florida Concealed Weapon License are exempt from the handgun waiting period. Persons holding a Florida Concealed Weapons License must have the Instant Background Check performed. Sale or Transfer Between Individuals

There are no formal requirements for the sale/transfer of a firearm between individuals. However, it is a crime for you to knowingly transfer a firearm to an underaged person, or to a person who you know to be otherwise disqualified (such as a person previously convicted of a felony). For private sales, the minimum age for a rifle, shotgun, or handgun is 18 and no waiting period or background check.

Special County Requirements

In accordance with a Constitutional Revision passed by the voters in November of 1998, any County within Flor

Which suggests to me that guns are probably the easiest way to kill someone.

Which further suggests that if there were fewer guns, people would have to try harder to kill other people.

Problem being, what if it's your infirm grandmother, defending herself against a big guy breaking into her house with a knife? Yes, it would be harder for her to kill the bad guy. Considering that (if she can't run away, and we assume that if he's going after a little old lady he's beyond being talked out of this) it's kill him or be killed or seriously injured herself, that's not a good thing.

And that's not a rare case. Estimates of defensive firearms uses range from 108,000 to 2.5 million, depending on whose numbers you believe. The DOJ puts it about about 1.5 million per year. That's about 500 per 100,000 population - about two orders of magnitude more people will use guns defensively, than will be murdered by any means. Even if you take the 108,000 figure, you get 36 per 100,000, six and a half times the total murder rate and nine times the rate of homicides commited by firearm.

I'm not sure if the stats for "numbers of homicides" means individual deaths, or "incidents" (which may involve multiple deaths).

It means the number of deaths. A mass murder is multiple homicides.

I think you'll find that statistically there are a *lot* more deaths per "incident" when guns are involved.

If you want to commit mass murder, guns are not the way. Bombs or fire, that's the ticket. For a high body count you need to blow up or set fire to a building, not go on a shooting rampage.

On the other hand, if someone does go on a shooting rampage, you'd better hope you're in a state with concealed carry laws and that someone will shoot back. (It was only after the infamous Luby's massacre that Texas, followed by other states, changed the law to allow law-abiding citizens to carry firearms on their person.)

Um, maybe you should check out the WHOLE REST OF THE WORLD.

Yes, one should. One would see countries like Switzerland and Israel where people have easy access to guns, and a murder rate much lower than in the U.S.

We Americans stab and bludgeon each other to death more than most other nations commit total muders.

In the U.S. firearms are used in only 71% of murders. With a base homicide of 5.6 per 100,000 people, that give 1.6 non-gun murders per 100,000.

According to stats here (a bit old, admittedly), that's more than the total muder rate in Denmakr, Austria, Switerland, France, England, Belgium, Japan, Sweden, Germany, Norway, New Zeland, Ierland, the Netherland, Spain, Greece, or Kuwait.

If all guns disappeared from the U.S. tomorrow, and we pretended that guns were never used defensively and that people wouldn't turn to other methods of killing each other, the U.S. would still have about two and half times the murder rate of Japan (0.62/100,000).

Our problem with violence does not rest in our guns.

These numbers are all from the CDC.

http://webapp.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate10_sy.h tml

My queries are for the years 1999-2002 (all they have), the entire U.S., all races, both sexes, all ages. (four year totals)

Unintentional death by falling : 57,760
Unintentional Pedestrian deaths: 24,079
Unintentional Drowning : 13,739
Unintentional death by burning : 13,642
Unintentional Firearms deaths : 3,164
Unintentional Bicyclist deaths : 3,099

You can also break it down by age range. If we're worried about the teen years, we can look at ages 12-18. (four year totals)

Unintentional Pedestrian deaths: 1,561
Unintentional Drowning : 1,495
Unintentional Firearms deaths : 494
Unintentional Bicyclist deaths : 453
Unintentional death by burning : 423
Unintentional death by falling : 306

Younger still, ages 1-11: (four year totals)

Unintentional Pedestrian deaths: 2,118
Unintentional Drowning : 2,870
Unintentional death by burning : 1,920
Unintentional Bicyclist deaths : 371
Unintentional death by falling : 292
Unintentional Firearms deaths : 164

Accident-wise, young kids have a lot more to worry about than guns. And teenagers are almost as likely to die on their bicycles. God forbid they're bicycling to the swimming pool... or even worse, *walking* to the swimming pool ... but yes, there are gun accidents.

Non-accidental deaths:

It's interesting to note that more than half of violent deaths attributed to firearms are suicide. Whenever you read an article in the media that mentions the number of gun deaths it's a good bet that they're including suicides.

• Violent deaths by firearm: 113,160 (includes suicides)

• Suicide by firearm: 67,162

Now I, personally, don't mind if people kill themselves. More power to them. I do agree that that there is a lower barrier to entry when using a gun and understand that depressed people might not be the best people to own guns, but gun control isn't really the solution to depression.

So, anyway, taking out suicides leaves us with:

• "legal intervention": 1,192 (cops killing criminals?)

• Homicide by firearm: 44,806 (11.2K per year)

As compared to

• Non-firearm homicides: 26,794 (6.7K per year)

So, more people are definitely intentionally killed by guns than by any other single cause, roughly 11K people per year.

But...

How many times are guns used defensively? Since defensive gun use isn't something that is reported (like an offensive gun use is), numbers are harder to find. Here is the page I have bookmarked with the only numbers I've ever seen. (refers to Gary Kleck's survey and a DOJ-sponsored study, and has a table of the results of 13 other surveys). (Gary Kleck is a criminologist at FSU - and, no, he's not an NRA member. http://www.criminology.fsu.edu/p/faculty-gary-klec k.php)

• http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdguse.html

Summary: Kleck thinks defensive gun use happens 2.5M times per year, other surveys listed range between 770K and 3.6M. The DOJ study thinks it's 1.5M times per year.

Let's aim low and go with 1M defensive uses per year. The question posed at the book club was "when does the ratio become w

And I challenge you to find any statistic that at least vaguely indicates that keeping loaded guns at home is a good idea.

Here you go:

An unloaded gun is worthless for defense, so we can assume that the vast majority of guns used in the between 108,000 and 2.5 million (depending on whose numbers you beleive) annual defensive gun uses in the U.S. are loaded, or are at least stored so that they can be quickly and easily loaded.

In 2003, 730 people per year were killed by firearms accidents.

So, there were between 153 and 3,425 times more defensive gun uses than accidental gun deaths.

Firearms accidents are very rare, you are much more likely to have a fatal fall (17,229 in 2003), or drown (3,306). Indeed more people choked on food (875) than were killed by gun accidents. But falls, drownings, and chokings seldom make the news, while accidental shootings often do.

When they said; A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. They knew what them meant.

They did indeed. However, word meanings and connotations change with time. Today many people think the "militia" is synonmyous with the National Guard (when in fact, the Guard has been part of the Army since 1933), and "well-regulated" means "operating under a large set of rules"; but at the time, it was clear to the authors that "militia" meant "every able-bodied man young enough to fight", and "well-regulated" meant "prepared and trained in military skills".

The meaning of "arms" has also changed: at the time, it was understood to mean the sort of weapon carried by an infantryman. Heavier weapons would be refered to as "cannon"; so Amendment II doesn't mean you have a right to a howitzer on your front lawn. But people arguing against the Second Amendment today often attempt a reductio ad absurdum which includes WMDs under "arms".

(Some people evidently also seem to think that "shall not be infringed" somehow means "can be limited by the government", but that's a linguisitic drift that's harder to account for.)

Anyway, point being that what is absolutely clear and precise to one audience, can still be interpreted differently by another (especially if the two group have different motivations).

"observed on every street by the police via surveillance cameras"

That's just a lie. Either that or you are spouting out of ignorance. Read the rest of the thread. ALL OF IT.

I also consider not letting every tom, dick and harry have a gun an advantage over the U.S. since we have drastically lower violent gun deaths than the US.

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvintl.html

Of course I understand that you would hold the opinion that the risk of everyone having a gun is outweighed by the benefit of being able to overthrow the government whenever you see fit. I'm aware of all the arguments for and against so we dont need to go through it all again here, since no one ever reaches a conclusion, I'm sure you wont be able to convince me, and i wont be able to convince you.

"Well-educated leadership being necessary to govern a State, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed."

Does the above statement say that only the leaders can read books?

Most people killed by gunfire (in the U.S.) are done so in domestic disputes. It is a fact:

That is a myth, not a fact.

Most are killed by suicide, year after year after year.

Over here in England, there's relatively little gun crime. Due to the 1997 ban on handguns, guns any more lethal than hunting rifles or shotguns (which need licenses to possess) are very expensive (if you can find someone to vend one to you) and will get you detained at her Majesty's pleasure for a good long time if they catch you with one. Ball Bearing guns are treated in a manner similar to switchblades - they aren't allowed out in public, and threatening somebody with them is likely to get you in serious trouble.

Less than 10% of the police force is armed, and these particular officers are only deployed in emergencies like bank heists, terrorist alerts and the like. As a result, firearms aren't leaked into society through the police force (check the firearm saturation here. Homicide levels in the USA were 5 times what they were in the UK (admittedly, the survey was carried out about a decade ago and the number has been falling, and both countries use slightly different methods for deciding what's a homicide and what isn't, but 5 times?).

In my opinion, all this stuff about video games causing murderous feelings to arise is down to a few isolated incidents, where it's the gun that causes the deaths, but games are cited as the reason. It's not as if this type of media hasn't been blasted in our faces since the first action movie. The argument that 'games make you the killer' is nonsense - they're people on the screen, and all the gamer is doing is moving control sticks.

Not like that's what the NRA would tell you, but don't you think they might be a little biased on the subject?

Like the antigun camp is baised?

Evidence of an Individual Right
In his popular edition of Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England (1803), St. George Tucker (see also), a lawyer, Revolutionary War militia officer, legal scholar, and later a U.S. District Court judge (appointed by James Maidson in 1813), wrote of the Second Amendment:

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, and this without any qualification as to their condition or degree, as is the case in the British government.

Thomas Jefferson had much to say about people being armed:

No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms.
Draft Virginia Constitution, 1776.

Many of the USA's Founding Fathers knew the only way to prevent government tyranny was with an armed populace, as Jefferson said "When the government fears the people, there is liberty. When the people fear government, there is tyranny."

Not like that's what the NRA would tell you, but don't you think they might be a little biased on the subject?

Like the antigun camp is baised?

Evidence of an Individual Right
In his popular edition of Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England (1803), St. George Tucker (see also), a lawyer, Revolutionary War militia officer, legal scholar, and later a U.S. District Court judge (appointed by James Maidson in 1813), wrote of the Second Amendment:

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, and this without any qualification as to their condition or degree, as is the case in the British government.

Thomas Jefferson had much to say about people being armed:

No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms.
Draft Virginia Constitution, 1776.

Many of the USA's Founding Fathers knew the only way to prevent government tyranny was with an armed populace, as Jefferson said "When the government fears the people, there is liberty. When the people fear government, there is tyranny."

• United States 14.24
• Brazil 12.95
• Mexico 12.69
• Estonia 12.26
• Argentina 8.93
• Northern Ireland 6.63
• Finland 6.46
• Switzerland 5.31
• France 5.15
• Canada 4.31
• Norway 3.82
• Austria 3.70
• Portugal 3.20
• Israel 2.91
• Belgium 2.90
• Australia 2.65
• Slovenia 2.60
• Italy 2.44
• New Zealand 2.38
• Denmark 2.09
• Sweden 1.92
• Kuwait 1.84
• Greece 1.29
• Germany 1.24
• Hungary 1.11
• Republic of Ireland 0.97
• Spain 0.78
• Netherlands 0.70
• Scotland 0.54
• England and Wales 0.41
• Taiwan 0.37
• Singapore 0.21
• Mauritius 0.19
• Hong Kong 0.14
• South Korea 0.12
• Japan 0.05.

Here are gun-related deaths per 100,000 people in the world's 36 richest countries in 1994:

United States 14.24;
Brazil 12.95;
Mexico 12.69;
Estonia 12.26;
Argentina 8.93;
Northern Ireland 6.63;
Finland 6.46;
Switzerland 5.31;
France 5.15;
Canada 4.31;
Norway 3.82;
Austria 3.70;
Portugal 3.20;
Israel 2.91;
Belgium 2.90;
Australia 2.65;
Slovenia 2.60;
Italy 2.44;
New Zealand 2.38;
Denmark 2.09;
Sweden 1.92;
Kuwait 1.84;
Greece 1.29;
Germany 1.24;
Hungary 1.11;
Republic of Ireland 0.97;
Spain 0.78;
Netherlands 0.70;
Scotland 0.54;
England and Wales 0.41;
Taiwan 0.37;
Singapore 0.21;
Mauritius 0.19;
Hong Kong 0.14;
South Korea 0.12;
Japan 0.05.


source
Supposedly from a Centre For Disease Control study conducted in 1998 based on 1994 data. I can't find the actual study on the CDC website, so take with a grain of salt.

You mean you approved your pet conservative cause that is not proven to reduce crime because you won't pay for the services that are?

Take a look at Switzerland, higher gun ownership than the US and less violence. The US is a more violent country in general than many other industrial nations, guns have nothing to do with it.

I really hope you don't have kids at home since guns are wildly more likely cause harm accidentally than be used for self-defense.

That's pure 100% Handgun Control Inc bullshit. Guns are used far more often in self defense than in accidental deaths. There are as many as 2.5 MILLION defensive uses of firearms every year in the US and less than 15,000 accidental deaths total, far less if you only count children, even counting "children" like HCI does up to age 24.

Funny, it looks like the Founding Fathers (you remember them, they were the ones who WROTE the Constitution and Bill of Rights) think that the Second Amendment is an INDIVIDUAL right.

Right or wrong as you may be, it also looks as though much of what you quote was not actually said--at least not by OUR founding fathers.

Look out Glock, Sig-Sauer is kicking your ass! You can't pay for publicity like that! Alas, the MP5s get product placement but until we can throw out some unconstitutional laws, they're out of reach for us mere subjects.

Absolute bullshit.

What a great idea. I'm sure this will work just as effectively as the USA executing alleged murderers - brutal as it sounds, it has at least reduced the murder rate to one of the lowest in the world.

I'm not sure if that was sarcasm, but in case it wasn't ... We're actually in the top 10, we're very much one of the highest. Here's a well documented report on the issue.

An older article, though its more about gun deaths I believe it is still relavent.

~Rebecca
(Posted anonymously as this has nothing to do with cell phone viruses)

Zero violent crime rate? Not hardly. It's roughly 1/6th that of the US, which is (IIRC), roughly that of Britian.

The US has an uncharacteristically high violent crime rate, but the actual rate of violent crimes committed with guns is lower than quite a few other countries (and not all. There's another flip side: some countries have a higher murder rate, but most of the murders are committed by means other than firearms, despite the ready availability of firearms (even more available than they are in the US, sold by street vendors, etc.).

My point being: studies have shown that there's little correlation between a country's crime rate and the weapons available legally (or illigally, for that matter). Murder and violence are much more a cultural aspect, just as sex is. Our cultural achievements will obviously reflect the mentality and values of the culture.

Sorry I couldn't be more specific concerning country names; I've got to head out the door in a couple minutes and I don't remember many specifics from the research I read.

Here is one of the sites which I found such information on, as I was curious about the safety of owning a firearm (there's been a rash of killings, break-ins, and other loonies in the area, and I'd like to protect my family). There were others, but that was the only one I bookmarked as it was the best documented one of the bunch....

(Sorry if this is a bit off topic... oops, I'm late!)

Maybe you don't quite get the phrase "gun culture". Check http://www.guncite.com/cnngunde.html. The U.S. rate for gun deaths in 1994 was 14.24 per 100K. In England it was 0.41. If we had strict gun control, then our cops could make like Bobbies and carry nightsticks instead of guns, and the kid would have been "grabbing for air" (get it?).

I don't get America.. "Violent video games cause kids to commit crimes, we should ban them." Yet every motherfucking person in the Bible belt owns at least one Gun. Perhaps the kid wouldn't have shot the cops if he couldn't have got access to a Gun.

Before you moderate me flamebait.. please bear in mind that around fifty eight thousand Americans are killed by guns every year. Yes, that's around eleven times as man as in 9/11 and that is EVERY year. Bush would do a better job of protecting americans by removing firearms than countering terroism. You're more likely to be killed by a pig than a terrorist - and your around a million times more likely to be killed by a gun than by Osma.

America needs to stop living in fear and start addressing the real threats to society - one of them being the gun culture.

Yours Sincerely,

AC

According to this site, we have 4 murders per 100,000 people whereas the UK has 1 per 100,000.

According to this site, we have 5.7 murders per 100,000 people whereas the UK has 1.41 per 100,000, so the 1 to 4 ratio seems to be corroborated. This second site seems to be more of a pro-gun site and explains that many facts are distorted re: gun homicide vs. gun suicide as well as the fact that the homicide rate in Britain did not change much following their ban of guns. This site also mentions that Canada has less households w/ guns (29% vs. 39%) but they also do have about 1/3rd the murders. I don't know how that works out per capita though.

So. Basically you are simply wrong according to these sites. You only addressed one comment and that's all I really have time to address in your rebuttle.

So maybe my statement is wrong. Or maybe yours is. But it's difficult to find info that does not have an agenda behind it. My biggest complaint with your comment was that you make a blanket statement like that. "Gun control laws don't work".

And when I have some time, I'll look into the assault ban. It was my understanding that this was a ban on full auto guns. Semi auto were still legal I believe. I'd rather here your comments on why you don't think that technological solutions to the things that make people want to ban guns won't work...

I mean, hell, the idea that a hacker could take your gun and exploit the "biometrics identity thingy", kill someone and frame you for the murder would be a better argument then "what if there is blood on the handle".

I'd also appreciate an argument where you don't feel the government should have a record of all gun owners because in the event of a dictatorship these people would be easier to "round up".

I mean basically we can argue stats and causes and everything else and we'll never really know because even the researchers and police have a motivation to sometimes skew the stats.

I suggest you take a look at this site Operation Self Defense that is collecting published news stories of individuals who have used a firearm to defend themselves. You may be quite surprised by the number of stories present and the fact that they are only from the last SIX months. And as stated that's the number of published stories, there are and estimated average of 100,000 to 2.5 million Defensive Gun uses in the US every year as sited by 13 different studies and lets not forget the latest study by the National Academy of Sciences. Compare that to the Brady Campaign's claim of an average of 30,000 deaths a year in the US that involved a firearm and that over 50% of those are suicides and only 3% are considered accidental leaving less than 15,000 deaths a year. Even using the lowest estimates there are almost 7 times the number of people saved from injury or death than killed by firearms every year and only 1 in seven of those defensive uses results in the defender actually firing the gun!

So, please, before making such statements as you have you should review the data and understand that beliefs are completely irrational and unfounded. Instead you should look into taking a firearms training course and learning to defend yourself so that if, God forbid, you should ever be faced with such an occurrence you are capable of defending your life and the lives of those around you instead of being a victim at the hands of those that wish to cause you harm.

I suggest you take a look at this site Operation Self Defense that is collecting published news stories of individuals who have used a firearm to defend themselves. You may be quite surprised by the number of stories present and the fact that they are only from the last SIX months. And as stated that's the number of published stories, there are and estimated average of 100,000 to 2.5 million Defensive Gun uses in the US every year as sited by 13 different studies and lets not forget the latest study by the National Academy of Sciences. Compare that to the Brady Campaign's claim of an average of 30,000 deaths a year in the US that involved a firearm and that over 50% of those are suicides and only 3% are considered accidental leaving less than 15,000 deaths a year. Even using the lowest estimates there are almost 7 times the number of people saved from injury or death than killed by firearms every year and only 1 in seven of those defensive uses results in the defender actually firing the gun!

So, please, before making such statements as you have you should review the data and understand that beliefs are completely irrational and unfounded. Instead you should look into taking a firearms training course and learning to defend yourself so that if, God forbid, you should ever be faced with such an occurrence you are capable of defending your life and the lives of those around you instead of being a victim at the hands of those that wish to cause you harm.

It works in lots of other places.

That site was produced by totalitarians, delusional psychotics and people of sub-human intelligence.

They neglect to mention places with fierce gun prohibitions, but murder rates higher than the US, such as Mexico, Taiwan and the Philippines. (They actually do mention Mexico, but they don't show us the total murder rate, instead throwing in some bullshit "firearm deaths" statistics to keep from being discredited.)

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvintl.html
http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvinco.html

Gun prohibition has never reduced crime in any place at any time. Therefore, the purpose of gun control is control.

It works in lots of other places.

That site was produced by totalitarians, delusional psychotics and people of sub-human intelligence.

They neglect to mention places with fierce gun prohibitions, but murder rates higher than the US, such as Mexico, Taiwan and the Philippines. (They actually do mention Mexico, but they don't show us the total murder rate, instead throwing in some bullshit "firearm deaths" statistics to keep from being discredited.)

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvintl.html
http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvinco.html

Gun prohibition has never reduced crime in any place at any time. Therefore, the purpose of gun control is control.

http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndpur.html
http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndmea.html
http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndcont.html

Mother Jones has always been written by untermenschen and delusional psychotics.

http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndpur.html
http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndmea.html
http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndcont.html

Mother Jones has always been written by untermenschen and delusional psychotics.

http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndpur.html
http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndmea.html
http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndcont.html

Mother Jones has always been written by untermenschen and delusional psychotics.

Sorry, but arming everyone to the teeth makes things worse, not better. This has been proven everywhere else internationally.

Not true.

Refutation. I'd like to know how you can tell when an intruder intends to just steal your DVD player, rather than kill you and rape your wife and daughter.

Crime is exponential in nature. America's population is as much as 5 times larger then some of the places you listed (or places you may have implied), the exact rate of increase I don't know, but I do know that means that America's murder rate should be significantly higher then 5 times what ever country you sampled. The following data was pulled from here. Now unfortunately the data is slightly old, but for everything I'm citing, its all less then a decade, which is reasonable. As stated earlier, the United States' population is approx. 5 times that of England's, because of the exponential increase in crime, our numbers should be at least (if not much higher) then 5 times England's. However, the United State's total homicide numbers are only 4.04 times larger. It seems we are doing something right. Our homicides by firearms are significantly larger, but all that this proves is that if you take away someone's gun, there are still plenty of ways to kill someone, and the folks from England seem to do just fine in finding alternatives. Germany seems to be doing pretty good as far as first world countries go, and interestingly enough, they fall just in range of a reasonable exponential increase when comparing them to the US. It seems that despite all of the hype that England gets for its gun laws, something is still lacking. Keep in mind, that Germany and America both have a significantly higher number of households with guns then England does. So although our numbers are large, they are no worse then is expected and better then Englands when you take into account other factors. My point being that humans will kill regardless of what you give them (or take away). Most murders, as far as the US goes, and I'd assume the rest of the world in general, is crime on crime anyway. Some would argue that we should just let the criminals keep killing eachother, whether you find that a sane oppinion is a personal preference. ( I personally would change that statement around a bit,as crime on crime murders still do affect normal law abiding citizens) I hope this helps in getting a better oppinion or at least a more clear picture from a different point of view.
Regards,
Steve

I'd just like to say I love how the media and some police organizations would have you believe that the expiry of this ban allows "machine guns" to fall into civillian hands.

The basic fact is that machine guns in general for civillian use were first banned in 1934. In the mid 1980's (I think 1984), another law was passed limiting legal sale of machine guns to civillians with the proper clearances to pre-law dates.

Therefore, not only is the general populace barred from purchasing a machine gun unless subjected to FBI background checks and other measures, anyone who gains such permission is only allowed to purchase one built before 1984.

For more information, here's a link:
Gun Control: Machine Guns

• You don't need any sort of training or a license to purchase an automobile, and you're not required to register it.
• When you buy a car there's no background check, regardless of whether you buy it from a dealer or a private seller.
• You can buy any sort of car you want, and make any kind of modifications to it that you want, without violating any laws (with the caveat that you may run afoul of emissions laws in your state.)
• The ONLY time you need to register the car and obtain a license is when you want to drive the car on the public roads.

• You don't need any sort of training or a license to purchase an automobile, and you're not required to register it.
• When you buy a car there's no background check, regardless of whether you buy it from a dealer or a private seller.
• You can buy any sort of car you want, and make any kind of modifications to it that you want, without violating any laws (with the caveat that you may run afoul of emissions laws in your state.)
• The ONLY time you need to register the car and obtain a license is when you want to drive the car on the public roads.

Hitler had disarmed the Jews long before they were being carted off for slaughter.

The only one quoted in that link who was in the congress writing the constitution was Madison. The others didn't write it, so they can't know what it was supposed to mean.

True, but all are considered Founding Fathers: Patrick Henry is a major figure in the founding of our country, and Samuel Adams and Richard Henry Lee were signers of the Declaration of Independence. And their opinions were clearly that citizenry should be armed.

But, fair enough. Here's a more in-depth analysis, including chunks of cited text from Alexander Hamilton, who *was* involved with the Constitution.

But as for embezzlers- an embezzler has already proved he's a thief. People who commit one crime frequently commit others.

An embezzler *shooting* someone?

I'd be curious to see the statistics on that.

Its risk mitigation- he's more likely to move onto another crime, possibly ciolent, than the average person. Especially since he'll likely become desperate- its very hard for an ex-con to get a job, who would trust a known embezzler?

Does removing his rights (and his political voice, as I'm complaing about above -- sorry, the way we treat people who have committed crimes really frusterates me) help him become a member of society again?

CNN clearly shows that gun crime is way down, even Gun Nuts agree that the rate of gun crime is way down, and the Justice Department numbers back this up.

Saying the rate would have dropped anyway is disingenuous as it is totally un-provable. We can't say that the bill prevented crime %100, but we can be %99.9 sure that that is the case.

Much like comparing the gun culture of Switzerland and Israel to the anti gun culture of Japan (former two have low homicide rates, lots of guns, latter has relatively high murder rates, low guns) its the culture that makes the difference, not the guns.

A study of data from the early 90's:

Japan's annual homicide rate has been progressively decreasing for a decade and now stands at 1.2 per 100,000. It is reported that 97% of murders are solved - the highest clearance rate in the world.

Total homicide rates for the same period were 2.6 in Switzerland and 2.7 in Canada.

Norway, like Switzerland, is a small heavily-armed country. It is estimated that 35% of Norwegian homes contain firearms, but homicide rates in 1990 and 1991 were 1.2 and 1.5 per 100,000 - comparable to those in Japan, North Dakota and England.

A more interesting table (1990s) for 1st world nations has the following tidbit:

Firearn homicide for:
US = 3.72
Switzerland = 0.58
Japan = 0.02

I, too, was wondering why you left the 2nd Amendment off the list, as allowing citizens to own firearms seems to be a prerequisite to guaranteeing them their other rights.

At any rate, Bush's is the first administration in many years to adopt, as official policy, that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right - not a collective one. See CBS news.

If anyone want to engage in a serious study of gun rights as protected by the 2nd Amendment, I suggest reading this site in its entirety as a starting point. Then do your own research.