US News: 85 Million Gun Owners Killed No One Today

[siva_chair]

Discuss this and other news headlines you will never see.

:smoke:

[Aaron]

Group of stable, married white guys writes a #1 album.

[1338 h4x0r]

Discuss this and other news headlines you will never see.

:smoke:

'Chevron Texaco Held to Account for Causing Cancer in Indigenous South American Populations'

'Someone Notices, Or Cares'

[McP3000]

US News: Barack Obama Wins 2008 Election

[Der Übermensch]

MXNews 'Steve Gets Laid'

:p

[Iskandar]

US Government Overthrown By Gun-Wielding Hick Militia

[Kingofdudes]

"Alabama Legalizes Sex Toys and 40oz Malt Liquor"

[PerpetualBurn]

MX Forum In Tired Joke Shocker

[McP3000]

Perpetual Burn Is Voted Most Likable Poster Of The Year

[GreyHam]

Jesus is back!

[McP3000]

:'(

[PerpetualBurn]

McP3000 In Bare-Faced Lie Scandal

[TheDMV]

Green Party Rises to power in US.

[DekWannaBFlea]

Spunikmusic's forum 'Politics, News, and World Issues' sees drastic increase in quality, substantive posts.



Irony?

[Drummer300btx]

education on the rise

[Surtr]

Penis

[J Rad]

satirical threads are satirical

[McP3000]

4channers respect rules 1 and 2

[Reaganista]

ya 4chan is world news wtf
S News: 85 Million Gun Owners Killed No One Today
ya i agree it's highly unlikely that such a thing would ever happen over a 24 hour period

[siva_chair]

ya 4chan is world news wtf

ya i agree it's highly unlikely that such a thing would ever happen over a 24 hour period

Or within a lifetime.

[Reaganista]

well i guess we've all had highly improbable lifetimes then since gun owners have killed hundreds of thousands of people during our lives

[siva_chair]

well i guess we've all had highly improbable lifetimes then since gun owners have killed hundreds of thousands of people during our lives

Nowhere near the millions listed. Plus that doesn't count criminals killing criminals, self-defense, or suicide.

Not to mention that they are used an estimated 2.5 million times a year to prevent crime.

[Reaganista]

ok but none of those interesting bits of trivia have anything to do with your headline

[siva_chair]

ok but none of those interesting bits of trivia have anything to do with your headline

And none of your posts have anything to do with intellectual discussion, yet you still post here.

[Reaganista]

ok but that doesnt have anything to do with your headline either

[BridgeToSolace]

Not to mention that they are used an estimated 2.5 million times a year to prevent crime.

What type of crime? Your fake headline only mentions murder :)

Illegally owned weapons are owned legally at some point :smash:

Besides, most people didn't kill anyone today :p

How about...

900 Million Muslims Cause No-One Harm Today

Or for Steve...

2.4 Million West Bank Palestinians Killed No Jewish Babies Today

[siva_chair]

What type of crime? Your fake headline only mentions murder :)

That has nothing to do with the fact that they prevent that many crimes.

Illegally owned weapons are owned legally at some point :smash:

And you aren't going to uninvent guns, so they are always going to be around. They make them in prison ff sake.

Besides, most people didn't kill anyone today :p

No **** the point was that guns themselves aren't responsible for those murders any more than cars in of themselves are responsible for traffic fatalities.

[BridgeToSolace]

That has nothing to do with the fact that they prevent that many crimes.

No **** the point was that guns themselves aren't responsible for those murders any more than cars in of themselves are responsible for traffic fatalities.

So guns can't kill people, but they can prevent crimes? At least be consistent with your annoying and hackneyed metaphors. If you want to make a point, make a point. The headline thing wasn't clever or funny.

And how many crimes do they facilitate and aid, btw?

And you aren't going to uninvent guns, so they are always going to be around. They make them in prison ff sake.

You can end the war on Drugs and turn it into the War On Illegal Firearms. I'd like to see that.

[siva_chair]

So guns can't kill people, but they can prevent crimes?

I never said they can't kill people, I said that they require a person's intent/carelessness to kill people. Very similar to an automobile.

Though I will say they are a pretty effective at crime prevention, even just sitting there.

At least be consistent with your annoying and hackneyed metaphors. If you want to make a point, make a point. The headline thing wasn't clever or funny.

I am being consistent, much like you are at failing to grasp the points.

And how many crimes do they facilitate and aid, btw?

Less than the number that they prevent.

You can end the war on Drugs and turn it into the War On Illegal Firearms. I'd like to see that.

If the war on drugs were to end then illegal firearms wouldn't nearly be as much of an issue, anyway. I'm willing to bet most illegal firearms are possessed by individuals within the drug trade.

[J Rad]

Nowhere near the millions listed. Plus that doesn't count criminals killing criminals, self-defense, or suicide.

Not to mention that they are used an estimated 2.5 million times a year to prevent crime.

you do realize right that 99% of gun crimes are committed by criminals with either illegal weapons or stolen weapons and these crimes are not generally committed by legal registered gun owners right

edit: wait i think i misread you i think we're on the same side here

[BridgeToSolace]

I never said they can't kill people, I said that they require a person's intent/carelessness to kill people. Very similar to an automobile.

Though I will say they are a pretty effective at crime prevention, even just sitting there.

I am being consistent, much like you are at failing to grasp the points.

How is not a completely failure of consistency to assert that guns prevent crime but people kill people?

A gun without a person deters no more crime than anything else.

To support this, gun stores have been robbed before.

http://www.pe.com/localnews/inland/stories/PE_News_Local_S_guns01.429b6f6.html


Less than the number that they prevent.

I hate to that guy (read: haxxor), but numbers plz. I highly doubt that the number of crimes facilitated by long range weaponry (ie. not a knife) is less than 2.5 million (by the way, does that number include police officers?).

Also, 2.5 million isn't the be-all-end-all. Between 1987 and 1990, David McDowall found that guns were used in defense during a crime incident 64,615 times annually. 20% of those were police officers, too.

If the war on drugs were to end then illegal firearms wouldn't nearly be as much of an issue, anyway. I'm willing to bet most illegal firearms are possessed by individuals within the drug trade.

I'm not sure if I follow this.

[J Rad]

Illegally owned weapons are owned legally at some point :smash:

no actually a lot of them aren't

they come off the assembly line get packed into crates and are purchased by black market arms dealers these guns were at no point owned legally

[BridgeToSolace]

no actually a lot of them aren't

they come off the assembly line get packed into crates and are purchased by black market arms dealers these guns were at no point owned legally

Who are the black market people buying these from? The factory? The factory's workers?

Smith and Wesson owns those guns as they are being constructed until they are legitimately sold to another legal entity.

So you're wrong :)

Unless people are illegally manufacturing guns, which I don't think is too common in this country.

[siva_chair]

How is not a completely failure of consistency to assert that guns prevent crime but people kill people?

A gun without a person deters no more crime than anything else.

The point was a person doesn't have to shoot the gun for it to be an effective form of prevention, whereas, unless you pistol whip someone to death, you have to pull the trigger (which requires a conscious and willfull action) to kill someone with it.

To support this, gun stores have been robbed before.

http://www.pe.com/localnews/inland/stories/PE_News_Local_S_guns01.429b6f6.html

I don't really see what this has to do with anything.

I hate to that guy (read: haxxor), but numbers plz. I highly doubt that the number of crimes facilitated by long range weaponry (ie. not a knife) is less than 2.5 million (by the way, does that number include police officers?).

Sterling Burnett, National Center for Policy Analysis, “Suing Gun Manufacturers: Hazardous to Our Health”,1999

That means guns are used 65 times more often to prevent a crime than to commit one. (Taking the above's estimate of 2.5 million gun defenses each year, divided by the FBI estimates of crimes
committed with a firearm.)

Also, 2.5 million isn't the be-all-end-all. Between 1987 and 1990, David McDowall found that guns were used in defense during a crime incident 64,615 times annually. 20% of those were police officers, too.

That figure only accounts for when a firearm is fired in self-defense. Most of the time just the presence of a gun is plenty of a deterrent.

I'm not sure if I follow this.

Most illegal firearms are possesed by people within the drug trade. If the war on drug ceases and you take away the huge profits associated with the drug trade (via legalization or whatever), you eliminate these individuals from having a need to acquire illegal weapons. It is the same story as with prohibition in the earlier part of the 20th century. Organized crime wants to have a monopoly on firearms.

[siva_chair]

Who are the black market people buying these from? The factory? The factory's workers?

Smith and Wesson owns those guns as they are being constructed until they are legitimately sold to another legal entity.

So you're wrong :)

Unless people are illegally manufacturing guns, which I don't think is too common in this country.

That is retarded. That is like saying that people could steal a chemical truck and use the chemicals irresponsibly, so we just shouldn't make the chemicals. Afterall, those chemicals were legally owned at one point in time!

[J Rad]

Who are the black market people buying these from? The factory? The factory's workers?

Smith and Wesson owns those guns as they are being constructed until they are legitimately sold to another legal entity.

So you're wrong :)

Unless people are illegally manufacturing guns, which I don't think is too common in this country.

um no smith and wesson doesn't own those firearms once they are purchased they are the property of the recipient in the transaction idk maybe you're five-years old or something but this is pretty simple to follow

the manufacturer makes the weapons >> a black market distributor buys the weapons >> these illegal firearms are sold to criminals

maybe i could draw you a picture or something i get the impression you understand things better when they involve diagrams

[Amit]

i agree with jrda and siva but i enjoy watching siva get angry what should i say in my post :confused:

[siva_chair]

i agree with jrda and siva but i enjoy watching siva get angry what should i say in my post :confused:

I don't really get angry at internet posts. People can continue to be idiots if they want, and I'll continue to call them that. That's all.

[BridgeToSolace]

The point was a person doesn't have to shoot the gun for it to be an effective form of prevention

Someone has to fire a weapon at some point for a criminal to assume that they would be killed in a different situation for the weapon to act as a deterrent.


That means guns are used 65 times more often to prevent a crime than to commit one. (Taking the above's estimate of 2.5 million gun defenses each year, divided by the FBI estimates of crimes
committed with a firearm.)


65 times? This is complete and blatant ****.

http://www.sputnikmusic.com/forums/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=16287369

According to the National Crime Victimization
Survey (NCVS), almost 43.6 million criminal
victimizations occurred in 1993, including 4.4
million violent crimes of rape and sexual assault,
robbery, and aggravated assault. Of the victims
of these violent crimes, 1.3 million (29%) stated
that they faced an offender with a firearm.

In 1993, the FBI's Crime in the United States
estimated that almost 2 million violent crimes of
murder, rape, robbery and aggravated assault were
reported to the police by citizens. About 582,000
of these reported murders, robberies, and
aggravated assaults were committed with firearms.
Murder was the crime that most frequently involved
firearms; 70% of the 24,526 murders in 1993 were
committed with firearms.

Murder is what I'm mostly worried about. Theft is far more trivial.

That figure only accounts for when a firearm is fired in self-defense. Most of the time just the presence of a gun is plenty of a deterrent.

misread the wiki article >_>

Still, only one study. Not saying it's necessarily wrong, but it's hardly enough to base fact upon.

Most illegal firearms are possesed by people within the drug trade. If the war on drug ceases and you take away the huge profits associated with the drug trade (via legalization or whatever), you eliminate these individuals from having a need to acquire illegal weapons. It is the same story as with prohibition in the earlier part of the 20th century. Organized crime wants to have a monopoly on firearms.

http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/163496.pdf

The variation among arrestees in drug
use and other characteristics is considerable,
but the study results are remarkably
consistent when it comes to
gun ownership, other weapon-related
behavior, and attitude toward firearms
use. They show that selling drugs, belonging
to a gang, or being a juvenile
male are the factors most influential in
shaping this behavior and the attitudes
related to it. In this respect the study
helps confirm the role of gangs and
drug markets in increasing access to
and use of guns.

In any case, just because you make drugs legal doesn't mean people wont illegal sell drugs.

um no smith and wesson doesn't own those firearms once they are purchased they are the property of the recipient in the transaction idk maybe you're five-years old or something but this is pretty simple to follow

I said the exact same ****ing thing. Reread what I wrote. owns those guns as they are being constructed until they are legitimately sold to another legal entity. Pretty simple to follow, no?

the manufacturer makes the weapons >> a black market distributor buys the weapons >> these illegal firearms are sold to criminals

80% of gun-using criminals got their guns from friends, family, or theft.

That is retarded. That is like saying that people could steal a chemical truck and use the chemicals irresponsibly, so we just shouldn't make the chemicals. Afterall, those chemicals were legally owned at one point in time!

guns =/= other things

Do those chemicals have other, more legitimate uses besides target practice? Are illegally owned chemicals a big problem? Legal gun ownership isn't really an issue, it's illegal gun ownership, and one of the ways to stop illegal gun ownership is to stop legal gun ownership.

[Amit]

I don't really get angry at internet posts. People can continue to be idiots if they want, and I'll continue to call them that. That's all.

well that's all i enjoy then!

[siva_chair]

Someone has to fire a weapon at some point for a criminal to assume that they would be killed in a different situation for the weapon to act as a deterrent.

Yeah and unless you are a complete and braindead idiot, you know that a gun can kill you.

65 times? This is complete and blatant ****.


No, it's math.

http://www.sputnikmusic.com/forums/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=16287369

Umm? :confused:

According to the National Crime Victimization
Survey (NCVS), almost 43.6 million criminal
victimizations occurred in 1993, including 4.4
million violent crimes of rape and sexual assault,
robbery, and aggravated assault. Of the victims
of these violent crimes, 1.3 million (29%) stated
that they faced an offender with a firearm.

In 1993, the FBI's Crime in the United States
estimated that almost 2 million violent crimes of
murder, rape, robbery and aggravated assault were
reported to the police by citizens. About 582,000
of these reported murders, robberies, and
aggravated assaults were committed with firearms.
Murder was the crime that most frequently involved
firearms; 70% of the 24,526 murders in 1993 were
committed with firearms.

Murder is what I'm mostly worried about. Theft is far more trivial.

Even if your statistics are right, it still shows that firearms are used in deterrance of crime more often than they are used for crime. By quite a bit, still.

misread the wiki article >_>

Still, only one study. Not saying it's necessarily wrong, but it's hardly enough to base fact upon.

It isn't even the only one. It's just the one that was most accessable to me at this time.


http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/163496.pdf

The variation among arrestees in drug
use and other characteristics is considerable,
but the study results are remarkably
consistent when it comes to
gun ownership, other weapon-related
behavior, and attitude toward firearms
use. They show that selling drugs, belonging
to a gang, or being a juvenile
male are the factors most influential in
shaping this behavior and the attitudes
related to it. In this respect the study
helps confirm the role of gangs and
drug markets in increasing access to
and use of guns.

This seems to agree with what I was saying about illegal firearms being possessed primarily by gang members and members of the illegal drug trade.

In any case, just because you make drugs legal doesn't mean people wont illegal sell drugs.

No kidding.

And outlawing guns won't stop people from shooting one another.


80% of gun-using criminals got their guns from friends, family, or theft.

That is because most of them can't legally own firearms. This just reinforces the point we have been saying all along.

guns =/= other things

You mean like torture?

Do those chemicals have other, more legitimate uses besides target practice? Are illegally owned chemicals a big problem? Legal gun ownership isn't really an issue, it's illegal gun ownership, and one of the ways to stop illegal gun ownership is to stop legal gun ownership.

No sorry you fail.

well that's all i enjoy then!

Awesome because I don't mind calling people idiots who deserve it. Makes me feel glad that it causes others enjoyment.:thumb:

[BridgeToSolace]

Yeah and unless you are a complete and braindead idiot, you know that a gun can kill you.

No, people can kill you.

No, it's math.

1+4 = 10 is math, but it's all bullshit.

Umm? :confused:

Wooops, pasted the wrong thing.

I meant to paste: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/guic.htm

Which is the department of justice statistics. Unless the FBI statistics are directly in conflict with the DOJ's, 65 times is complete and utter horse ****.

It isn't even the only one. It's just the one that was most accessable to me at this time.


Because it's the only one :p

I searched. Most people just cite that particular study.

This seems to agree with what I was saying about illegal firearms being possessed primarily by gang members and members of the illegal drug trade.


When have you mentioned gang members in this thread?

No kidding.

And outlawing guns won't stop people from shooting one another.

I know. You have to get rid of guns. Outlawing is a step towards that goal.

That is because most of them can't legally own firearms. This just reinforces the point we have been saying all along.

It reinforces that criminals get their guns from legal sources. which supports my point that we need to get rid of legal guns to get rid illegal guns.

You mean like torture?

Yeah :p

No sorry you fail.

nou

[siva_chair]

No, people can kill you.

That's right. And they can do it very easily if there is a gun at their side. You would be an idiot to mess with that person.


1+4 = 10 is math, but it's all bullpoop.

Actually that is just a nonsensical statement of numbers and not really math. You fail again.


Wooops, pasted the wrong thing.

I meant to paste: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/guic.htm

Which is the department of justice statistics. Unless the FBI statistics are directly in conflict with the DOJ's, 65 times is complete and utter horse ****.

It also depends on the year of each study.

Because it's the only one :p

I searched. Most people just cite that particular study.

Ok but none of that really matters because you have yet to show how that study was false.


When have you mentioned gang members in this thread?

Well, most gang members are, in fact, involved in the drug trade.


I know. You have to get rid of guns. Outlawing is a step towards that goal.

You aren't going to get rid of guns. Sorry, but there will always be people who know how to make them, and there are always going to be ones the government doesn't know about.


It reinforces that criminals get their guns from legal sources.

Through illegal means. Burglers also usually get their contraband from legal sources as well.

which supports my point that we need to get rid of legal guns to get rid illegal guns.

Not really because that would be retarded. Illegal guns will exist regardless of the status of legal guns.

Notice how countries who have banned pretty much all firearms STILL have a degree of gun crime?

[Smokey D]

Notice how countries who have banned pretty much all firearms STILL have a degree of gun crime?

Again you engage in intellectual dishonesty by failing to acknowledge how many more crimes are committed with guns in the US. This statement is completely disingenuous.

[BridgeToSolace]

It also depends on the year of each study.

Okay...guns prevent 65 times more crime than they facilitate.

Based on the available Keller (I think that's his name) statistics, guns prevent 2.5 million crimes are so a year.

So, 2.5 million divided by 65 would be the number of crimes facilitated by guns.

38.5 thousand crimes facilitated by guns, according to your data.

The DOJ of that year said about 1.3 million crimes use guns. You're telling me that gun crime has gone DOWN by more than a million within the last 20-30 years in that way? Seriously, it's ****.


Ok but none of that really matters because you have yet to show how that study was false.


Show me the statistic that says that nationally there are around 40 thousand gun involved crimes a year. (not just crimes when they are fired, since the 2.5 million doesn't account for that either)

If you can't, then it's false.


Well, most gang members are, in fact, involved in the drug trade.

And will be when drugs are made legal. I don't even remember where this started, it's going in circles.

You aren't going to get rid of guns. Sorry, but there will always be people who know how to make them, and there are always going to be ones the government doesn't know about.

Of course not, but you should take every step to do so. You're never going to get rid of sexually transmitted diseased, but you should still tell kids to have safe sex.

Through illegal means. Burglers also usually get their contraband from legal sources as well.

But the only way to get rid of the illegal mean is to get rid of the weapons to begin with. Or perhaps making all guns only able to fire if they are held by the hand print of the person who purchased the gun. I'd be fine with that, if it was secure enough.

The problem with legal guns is that there's no way to keep them with the buyer.


Not really because that would be retarded. Illegal guns will exist regardless of the status of legal guns.

Notice how countries who have banned pretty much all firearms STILL have a degree of gun crime?

You obviously have to do more than just make them illegal. That's why I said we should divert our resources from the war on drugs and move it to the war on illegal firearms.

[siva_chair]

Again you engage in intellectual dishonesty by failing to acknowledge how many more crimes are committed with guns in the US. This statement is completely disingenuous.

So is saying that getting rid of legal guns will get rid of illegal guns. Which was why I responded with that.

Okay...guns prevent 65 times more crime than they facilitate.

Based on the available Keller (I think that's his name) statistics, guns prevent 2.5 million crimes are so a year.

So, 2.5 million divided by 65 would be the number of crimes facilitated by guns.

38.5 thousand crimes facilitated by guns, according to your data.

The DOJ of that year said about 1.3 million crimes use guns. You're telling me that gun crime has gone DOWN by more than a million within the last 20-30 years in that way? Seriously, it's ****.

I'm pretty sure the statistic was for guns used in crimes, not just the presence of them and I apologize for that misconception.

But if you want, we can use your statistics and it still results in guns being used more to prevent crime than to cause it.

Not to mention that 90% of all crime in the US doesn't involve a firearm of any type. Also, the same source (DOJ) for your information also reports "Even in crimes where the offender possessed a gun during the commission of the crime, 83% did not use or threaten to use the gun."



Show me the statistic that says that nationally there are around 40 thousand gun involved crimes a year. (not just crimes when they are fired, since the 2.5 million doesn't account for that either)

If you can't, then it's false.

Actually you can commit a crime with a gun without firing the weapon. It's still assault with a deadly weapon if you threaten someone with it. Assault with a deadly weapon is still a crime.

And will be when drugs are made legal. I don't even remember where this started, it's going in circles.

You suck the profit out of the illegal drug trade, you drastically diminish the incentive to engage in it. See: Prohibition and the gangsters/bootleggers from the early part of the 20th century.

Of course not, but you should take every step to do so. You're never going to get rid of sexually transmitted diseased, but you should still tell kids to have safe sex.

Yes but what you are suggesting is equivalent to trying to ban sex.
But the only way to get rid of the illegal mean is to get rid of the weapons to begin with. Or perhaps making all guns only able to fire if they are held by the hand print of the person who purchased the gun. I'd be fine with that, if it was secure enough.

The problem with legal guns is that there's no way to keep them with the buyer.

That is a very stupid reason to ban anything.

You obviously have to do more than just make them illegal. That's why I said we should divert our resources from the war on drugs and move it to the war on illegal firearms.

Or how about we not target legal firearms at all and not infringe on the rights of responsible citizens. Yay for freedom!

[BridgeToSolace]

You suck the profit out of the illegal drug trade, you drastically diminish the incentive to engage in it. See: Prohibition and the gangsters/bootleggers from the early part of the 20th century.

Ehhh, that was more because prohibition alcohol was generally an inferior product, and much different. It's not easy to make whine illegally, but moonshine was cheap and easy and very shitty. Drugs are a little different, if my understanding is correct.

Yes but what you are suggesting is equivalent to trying to ban sex.

Except sex has far more convincing reasons for me to keep it around other than target practice and self defense.

That is a very stupid reason to ban anything.

Not really, although it only works if taking away all guns would decrease murders/killings and such. It might not. Neither side has established cause and effect very well.

Or how about we not target legal firearms at all and not infringe on the rights of responsible citizens. Yay for freedom!

You eventually need to target legal firearms to target illegal firearms. We can start with illegal, though.

I still like my "making guns only able to fire if they are held by the hand print of the person who purchased the gun."

[Amit]

It's not easy to make whine illegally

lol

I still like my "making guns only able to fire if they are held by the hand print of the person who purchased the gun."

a reciprocating bone saw or even a hacksaw would make for really gruesome "gunjackings" then

didn't you see shoot em up?

[siva_chair]

Ehhh, that was more because prohibition alcohol was generally an inferior product, and much different. It's not easy to make whine illegally, but moonshine was cheap and easy and very poopty. Drugs are a little different, if my understanding is correct.

I made a whole bunch of wine last year in college. It isn't hard to make good tasting wine on your own.

It also isn't hard to manufacture a lot of illegal drugs.

The fact is that when you take away the outrageous profits associated with any market, you eliminate the incintive to protect that product with violence.

Except sex has far more convincing reasons for me to keep it around other than target practice and self defense.

Sorry that staying alive is on my "important list."

Not really, although it only works if taking away all guns would decrease murders/killings and such. It might not. Neither side has established cause and effect very well.

Well the fact that the murder rate has steadily gone down while gun ownership (handgun in particular) has gone up would suggest that guns have little or nothing to do with murder rates.

You eventually need to target legal firearms to target illegal firearms. We can start with illegal, though.

Or better firearm education.

I would love to see firearm education as an elective in schools.

I still like my "making guns only able to fire if they are held by the hand print of the person who purchased the gun."

That eliminates resale value as well as multiple people being able to use them in a single household.

A better thing would be to increase proper firearm handling and use through education.

[Aaron]

US leads by example in an effort to assist greenhouse gas emissions.

[BridgeToSolace]

It also isn't hard to manufacture a lot of illegal drugs.

Depends on the drug.

Sorry that staying alive is on my "important list."

Mine as well. I still don't own a gun and do not plan to.

Might go a firing range with a gun 'nut' friend at some point. If it's not everything it's cracked up to, I'll be pissed.

Well the fact that the murder rate has steadily gone down while gun ownership (handgun in particular) has gone up would suggest that guns have little or nothing to do with murder rates.

And nearly every single type of crime in Washington DC decreased significantly the year that they banned gun ownership.

Neither of these examples offer anything by a correlational perspective. Thus, they aren't really convincing to anyone who isn't already convinced :p

They sound nice, but they're fairly worthless.

Or better firearm education..

Better general education is the best way to stop crime and such, I'd bet. I'd rather see better funding for courses which offer better critical thinking opportunities than spending money on gun courses.

That eliminates resale value as well as multiple people being able to use them in a single household.

There shouldn't be a resale value. That's the point. You should not be able to give your legally owned and purchased firearm to someone who is neither licensed nor qualified to own a gun.

A better thing would be to increase proper firearm handling and use through education.

Again, I fail to see the benefit of this. School time should be spent doing better and more productive things.

[siva_chair]

Depends on the drug.

The point was that lots of drug manufacturing isn't hard.

Mine as well. I still don't own a gun and do not plan to.

Then if you are faced with a situation where a gun would help preserve your life, you will be ****ed.

Might go a firing range with a gun 'nut' friend at some point. If it's not everything it's cracked up to, I'll be pissed.

I encourage everyone to go and do this. It is a lot of fun, though if you are a shooting higher caliber weapons, it can get expensive.

And nearly every single type of crime in Washington DC decreased significantly the year that they banned gun ownership.

In 1976, Washington, D.C. enacted one of the most restrictive gun control laws in the nation. The city's murder rate rose 134 percent through 1996 while the national murder rate has dropped 2 percent.

This is from the FBI Uniform Crime Statistics.

Among the 15 states with the highest homicide rates, 10 have restrictive or very restrictive gun laws.


Neither of these examples offer anything by a correlational perspective. Thus, they aren't really convincing to anyone who isn't already convinced :p

They sound nice, but they're fairly worthless.

Except they show that the more guns =/= more crime.

Better general education is the best way to stop crime and such, I'd bet. I'd rather see better funding for courses which offer better critical thinking opportunities than spending money on gun courses.

Well no doubt about better education.

But I still think it would be wise to implement gun safety as an elective.

There shouldn't be a resale value. That's the point. You should not be able to give your legally owned and purchased firearm to someone who is neither licensed nor qualified to own a gun.

No you should be allowed to resale your gun.

Again, I fail to see the benefit of this. School time should be spent doing better and more productive things.

Gun safety can be very productive.

[BridgeToSolace]

In 1976, Washington, D.C. enacted one of the most restrictive gun control laws in the nation. The city's murder rate rose 134 percent through 1996 while the national murder rate has dropped 2 percent.

This is from the FBI Uniform Crime Statistics.

http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/dccrime.htm

In 1976 and 1977, every single type of crime when down significantly compared to 1975.

Among the 15 states with the highest homicide rates, 10 have restrictive or very restrictive gun laws.

Which happened first? Do they have restrictive gun laws because of the high homicide rates or no?

But I still think it would be wise to implement gun safety as an elective.

Could really fill a semester course with gun safety?

No you should be allowed to resale your gun.

You should not be able to sell your gun without a third party to establish that everyone in the transaction is a legal gun owner. There's no reason for there to be waiting period for guns purchased from stores and not from people. The reason why current gun legislation is not satisfactory is because there's no mechanism to make sure that guns STAY in the hand of legal gun owners.

Gun safety can be very productive.

oic. It's beneficial because it's productive?

[siva_chair]

http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/dccrime.htm

In 1976 and 1977, every single type of crime when down significantly compared to 1975.

And look they went right back up. I'm thinking banning guns did nothing.

Which happened first? Do they have restrictive gun laws because of the high homicide rates or no?

And look at how great it did! All this shows is that gun control doesn't really work.


Could really fill a semester course with gun safety?

Sure. Once you get through general safety, you could learn general maintanence and target practice. Plus you could learn defensive firearm techniques and tactics. There is a lot more to defensive pistol shooting than pointing and pulling the trigger.

You should not be able to sell your gun without a third party to establish that everyone in the transaction is a legal gun owner. There's no reason for there to be waiting period for guns purchased from stores and not from people. The reason why current gun legislation is not satisfactory is because there's no mechanism to make sure that guns STAY in the hand of legal gun owners.

You aren't very familiar with FFL regulations and whatnot, are you?


oic. It's beneficial because it's productive?

Most productive things tend to be beneficial....

[beastman168]

They found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq

[Linkinbassist]

The UN weapons of mass destruction in Iraq

even moar lolz!

Boris Johnson becomes mayor of London

Oh wait...

[Futue te Ipsum]

Paid overtime for junior doctors

[Linkinbassist]

Cambridge lowers undergraduate entrance conditions

[Futue te Ipsum]

Getting an A at A'level becomes hard

[muthafunkabass]

Rev. Wright the new pope!

[Futue te Ipsum]

on that subject:
German cracks funny joke

[Linkinbassist]

Germany Invades Poland Again

[beastman168]

OPEC makes oil free!

[Der Übermensch]

Xenu invades Earth. Scientologists say "We told you so!"