[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by Zeeb 

He could have planted some type of bomb, but building a decent one from available materials takes a certain technical know how that most don't have(even abortion clinic bombers couldn't get a death count that high). A molotov cocktail or a pipe bomb wouldn't likely kill 30 people either.

Andrew Kehoe killed 45 people in 1926 with bombs planted in a school.

I don't believe people are getting more violent, people have always been violent, and will kill other people (or look the other way while their neighbors are carted off and killed by someone else to the tune of a few million or so) in so much as they feel it's acceptable. It's a sad fact of human nature.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by Zeeb 

I agree that gun violence is more complicated than dealing only with the weapons themselves and those causes should also be addressed. A person's motivations have everything to do with the deaths caused by guns. However, a gun makes it very easy for a deranged individual to express his motivations much more efficiently and deadly than if that weapon weren't available to that person. A gun is immediate--you can kill a great many people while you're still angry or depressed over something. I don't think the VA tech shooter would have been able to kill over 30 people with a knife--come on. He could have planted some type of bomb, but building a decent one from available materials takes a certain technical know how that most don't have(even abortion clinic bombers couldn't get a death count that high). A molotov cocktail or a pipe bomb wouldn't likely kill 30 people either.

There are complicated reasons why people seem to be getting more violent and there is often contradictory research. There is one common denominator among theories of gun violence and that's the gun itself--that's why people focus on it--and rightly so.

You apparently chose to ignore the fact that people are not getting more violent, as evidenced by the DOJ links I provided, instead choosing to continue the unsubstantiated rhetoric of sensationalism. People also kill each other in a number of ways besides guns; it's not about the guns, it's about people who think they need, for whatever reason, to use violence to achieve their objectives.

As to your assertion that a bomb wouldn't likely kill 30 people either, you're wrong. The most deadly school attack was not the one at VT, as was widely reported by the media. It was one in Bath, MI, which killed 38 people, 80 years ago, by a bomb.

http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll...=2007704280398

Don't, however, let any facts get in your way.

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

The whole reason gun bans exist in countries like Norway or Japan is because the culture itself is anti-gun. Creating a ban in a country like the US wouldn't magically fix our gun violence problems. In the context of our culture it would indeed simply disarm the law abiding citizens while those criminally minded people who really wanted one, would get one.

I completely agree with this.

[Zeeb]

Originally Posted by KarlG 

You apparently chose to ignore the fact that people are not getting more violent, as evidenced by the DOJ links I provided, instead choosing to continue the unsubstantiated rhetoric of sensationalism. People also kill each other in a number of ways besides guns; it's not about the guns, it's about people who think they need, for whatever reason, to use violence to achieve their objectives.

It also states on the very first link you provided that most often crimes are committed with handguns. Of course people kill each other in all kinds of creative ways, however according to the link you provided, more often than not people are killed with these guns you say aren't an issue.

Originally Posted by KarlG 

As to your assertion that a bomb wouldn't likely kill 30 people either, you're wrong. The most deadly school attack was not the one at VT, as was widely reported by the media. It was one in Bath, MI, which killed 38 people, 80 years ago, by a bomb.

So you have to go back 80 years to find a situation in which a number of kids were killed with dynamite -- and this is supposed to convince me that banning guns would make no difference and violent individuals would turn to making bombs? Dynamite isn't as easy to get and is more tightly controlled than it was in the 20's. There will always be the occasional bomb going off due to terrorism and the like--it is not common. Those people have unusual access and funding to produce these things. We're talking about depressed or angry individuals who in the heat of the moment need to satisfy an urge--they aren't gonna sit down and build a bomb. They're gonna do what is immediate, satisfying and easy--grab a gun and shoot their girlfriend, boss or family member.

Originally Posted by KarlG 

Don't, however, let any facts get in your way.

No worries, so far you've provided nothing to back up your assertions.

[OldManMac]

The facts still remain that you're far more likely to die of any of a number of other reasons than murder, yet that is what you hysterically focus on. And the facts still remain that violent crime has dropped considerably in the last dozen years, yet you hysterics need something to talk about at the water cooler, so, once again, you focus on the method instead of the solution. It's cheap and easy to talk about gun control; it's much harder to figure out how to prevent angry and depressed people from killing others in the first place. You might want to learn something about statistics...............Nah, who am I kidding; then you'd have to admit that you live in a world where there are no gaurantees as to how long you'll live, and you wouldn't have anything to talk about at the water cooler.

I wonder why aren't mourning the 104 Americans who died in Iraq in April, the sixth deadliest month in an unjustified invasion that's lasted longer than WWII?

[Zeeb]

Originally Posted by KarlG 

The facts still remain that you're far more likely to die of any of a number of other reasons than murder, yet that is what you hysterically focus on.

Did I miss something? Wasn't this thread about gun violence and not the myriad of other ways people die. Start up a thread about car accidents if you want to talk about that.

Originally Posted by KarlG 

And the facts still remain that violent crime has dropped considerably in the last dozen years, yet you hysterics need something to talk about at the water cooler, so, once again, you focus on the method instead of the solution. It's cheap and easy to talk about gun control; it's much harder to figure out how to prevent angry and depressed people from killing others in the first place. You might want to learn something about statistics...............Nah, who am I kidding; then you'd have to admit that you live in a world where there are no gaurantees as to how long you'll live, and you wouldn't have anything to talk about at the water cooler.

Once again, I agree that we should pursue other causes such as why people tend to commit these acts. However, while that is being sorted out what should we do in the meantime? Should we continue to allow people to have access to guns so that you can show it off to your friends and take it to the firing range every once in awhile? Despite all the other reasons why people die with handguns, they are still begin killed by the handguns themselves--that's at least one part of the problem that can be addressed now.

Originally Posted by KarlG 

I wonder why aren't mourning the 104 Americans who died in Iraq in April, the sixth deadliest month in an unjustified invasion that's lasted longer than WWII?

Why? Because this thread isn't about those issues. Do you always try to derail the topic when your argument falls apart?

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by Zeeb 

Did I miss something? Wasn't this thread about gun violence and not the myriad of other ways people die. Start up a thread about car accidents if you want to talk about that.



Once again, I agree that we should pursue other causes such as why people tend to commit these acts. However, while that is being sorted out what should we do in the meantime? Should we continue to allow people to have access to guns so that you can show it off to your friends and take it to the firing range every once in awhile? Despite all the other reasons why people die with handguns, they are still begin killed by the handguns themselves--that's at least one part of the problem that can be addressed now.



Why? Because this thread isn't about those issues. Do you always try to derail the topic when your argument falls apart?

I was pointing out the fact that gun violence is an infinitessimaly small reason for people dying in the U. S. and that you're never going to eliminate it, because, as others have correctly noted, we should indeed allow citizens to have handguns to show off to their friends and take to the firing range, as those aren't the people who use them to kill others. Law abiding citizens shouldn't have their guns taken away because criminals have them, and are going to get them no matter what. Roughly as many people die from alcohol related car accidents every year as do from homicides, so should we take people's cars away, because a few drunks are going to drive whether they have license or not, or whether they're drunk or not? The real problem is that we, as a society, accept a certain amount of homicides, car accidents, etc., because we're apathetic and we don't believe it will happen to us. There's a cost/benefit ratio that we don't think about, because it won't happen to us; it always happens to the other guy. You could see that philosophy at work at VT, when people made their usual stupid statements that "this kind of thing never happens here," yet, now that it has some are going to the opposite extreme, fallaciously thinking that they're going to solve this problem by taking away guns. Somebody waves a banner in their face and uses emotional rhetoric to agitate them, and they fall in like sheep, speciously thinking that they've got the solution, and if only the rest of the country could see it like they do, things would be so much better. That, of course, is utter nonsense. Rational people don't kill anyone, whether it's with a gun or not! If you believe that taking away citizens' guns is going to solve the crime and murder problem, then you don't understand our culture and its violent history. As has already been stated several times, violence and gun crimes are actually decreasing; if you think they're going to be completely eliminated by taking away the guns of people who don't commit those crimes, you're sadly mistaken. It's not my argument that is falling apart.

[Zeeb]

Originally Posted by KarlG 

I was pointing out the fact that gun violence is an infinitessimaly small reason for people dying in the U. S. and that you're never going to eliminate it, because, as others have correctly noted, we should indeed allow citizens to have handguns to show off to their friends and take to the firing range, as those aren't the people who use them to kill others.

I'm so sure about that. The VA tech shooter bought his guns legally as did you(I'm assuming you have one). Should I trust that you will handle your weapon responsibly simply because you say you're responsible?

Originally Posted by KarlG 

Law abiding citizens shouldn't have their guns taken away because criminals have them, and are going to get them no matter what.

Criminals often steal their guns from law abiding citizens.

Originally Posted by KarlG 

Roughly as many people die from alcohol related car accidents every year as do from homicides, so should we take people's cars away, because a few drunks are going to drive whether they have license or not, or whether they're drunk or not? The real problem is that we, as a society, accept a certain amount of homicides, car accidents, etc., because we're apathetic and we don't believe it will happen to us.

These are other social ills and dealt with in a totally different manner. One size does not fit all yet you keep trying to connect dissimilar situations. It would be very difficult for the economy if people's cars were taken away since they couldn't get to work or the mall easily. The economy wouldn't suffer one bit if we did away with guns.

Originally Posted by KarlG 

There's a cost/benefit ratio that we don't think about, because it won't happen to us; it always happens to the other guy. You could see that philosophy at work at VT, when people made their usual stupid statements that "this kind of thing never happens here," yet, now that it has some are going to the opposite extreme, fallaciously thinking that they're going to solve this problem by taking away guns. Somebody waves a banner in their face and uses emotional rhetoric to agitate them, and they fall in like sheep, speciously thinking that they've got the solution, and if only the rest of the country could see it like they do, things would be so much better. That, of course, is utter nonsense. Rational people don't kill anyone, whether it's with a gun or not! If you believe that taking away citizens' guns is going to solve the crime and murder problem, then you don't understand our culture and its violent history.

Taking away people's guns will not solver the murder problem--but it may severly curtail it. I will once again refer to the DOJ links you handily provided earlier that stated the majority of homicides are committed with guns. . .

Originally Posted by KarlG 

As has already been stated several times, violence and gun crimes are actually decreasing; if you think they're going to be completely eliminated by taking away the guns of people who don't commit those crimes, you're sadly mistaken. It's not my argument that is falling apart.

If homicides/crimes are decreasing(which I don't dispute btw) than what do you need your gun for? If its purpose is not to protect you from the hordes of criminals banging at your door ready to rob and kill you than why are you fighting so hard to retain it?

A question for you--what need in you is satisfied by having a deadly weapon handy if crime is decreasing and crime is as rare as you say it is? Does it give you a sense of power? Is it connected with your identity? Or, do you simply idolize the action heroes you see in movies and seek to emulate them?

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by Zeeb 

I'm so sure about that. The VA tech shooter bought his guns legally as did you(I'm assuming you have one). Should I trust that you will handle your weapon responsibly simply because you say you're responsible?

He bought his gun legally because of a loophole in the law, which the governor has now closed with an executive order. Yes, you should trust me to handle a weapon responsibly, because the facts are that rational people don't kill others. And, if you don't trust anyone else to be rational and not out to get you, then that would explain why you want to take guns away from people. It would also explain why you apparently believe that no one is to be trusted except you, which is of course a fallacious belief, and an irrational one, as the odds are overwhelmingly in your favor. For some reason, this is something that you just choose not to grasp. If you don't trust anyone, don't expect anyone to trust you; that would make for a pretty scary world, one that's apparently great for those who suffer from delusions that relatively minor problems are big ones and that they have the solution.

Criminals often steal their guns from law abiding citizens.

I'd like to see some proof of that.

These are other social ills and dealt with in a totally different manner. One size does not fit all yet you keep trying to connect dissimilar situations. It would be very difficult for the economy if people's cars were taken away since they couldn't get to work or the mall easily. The economy wouldn't suffer one bit if we did away with guns.

You're correct, they are dissimilar, but the methods for dealing with them should similar. If you get caught driving drunk x number of times, you should lose your car, or go to jail. The problem with that, of course, is that it would place an extra burden on society, as far as costs go, as we'd have to hire far more police officers and build far more jails. That isn't going to happen because of the "it always happens to the other guy" attitude, and people would resist tax increases fiercely for something they see no benefit to. As it is now, here in Michigan, police officers across the state are being laid off, and we're releasing 5,000 prisoners by the end of June, due to budgetary problems. The willpower of the people to solve these problems, including the gun issue, just isn't there. We could solve all of our social ills tomorrow, but we dont' want to pay for that, so we accept a certain amount of possible inconvenience as a cost of that.

Taking away people's guns will not solver the murder problem--but it may severly curtail it. I will once again refer to the DOJ links you handily provided earlier that stated the majority of homicides are committed with guns. . .

I'd like to see some proof that taking away the average person's gun is going to severely curtail homicides. People who buy their guns legally and keep them for home defense and target shooting, hunting, or collecting, aren't those who are typical criminals. This is something else the gun control crowd doesn't understand, but keeps repeating ad naseum. Here in MI, the voters enacted a "shall issue" Concealed Weapons permit law in 2001. The anti-gun crowd went livid, blathering on and on that everybody was going to go out and get a gun and that we'd all kill each other, because of issues like road rage and home invasions, and that we'd become a state of barbarians. They claim the same thing in every state that changes their laws to shall issue. None of that has happened in the six years since the law's been enacted. The number of people who got CCW permits hardly crept up from the number who had them before, when one had to provide proof of a need for CCW permit, such as carrying large amounts of business related cash, or transporting legal drugs, etc. Once again, hysteria is used by ill informed people to attempt to carry out their agendas, and it was shown for what it was, irrational fear. That, I believe, is what drives the anti-gun crowd; they're fearful, non-trusting people who can't, or won't, recognize their fears as what they are; irrational. They want so bad to have some gaurantee that no one is going to attack them, or cheat them, or suffer them some injustice, that they attempt to build coccoons around themselves, thinking that this will magically save them from an imperfect world. They don't look at the odds, because that would shatter their beliefs, and they "just know" they're right. Emotion, rather than reason, drives them.

If homicides/crimes are decreasing(which I don't dispute btw) than what do you need your gun for? If its purpose is not to protect you from the hordes of criminals banging at your door ready to rob and kill you than why are you fighting so hard to retain it?

A question for you--what need in you is satisfied by having a deadly weapon handy if crime is decreasing and crime is as rare as you say it is? Does it give you a sense of power? Is it connected with your identity? Or, do you simply idolize the action heroes you see in movies and seek to emulate them?

It doesn't matter to you what I want a gun for. I don't own one, BTW, although I have owned a rifle and shotgun in the past, and I'm thinking of someday buying a pistol. This is another flaw in the anti-gun rhetoric; questioning gun owners' reasons for having them, as if those against gun ownership are somehow the arbiters of who gets to own what, based on their decisions. When I lived in northern lower MI, I owned a rifle and a shotgun, and I used the rifle to shoot chipmunks, which were making nests in my car heating system, and for target practice, because I could, and because I didn't, and shouldn't, have to explain why I wanted one. I wound up selling them because I moved back to the Detroit metro area, and I no longer had time to use them, but, in the end, it's none of your business. I don't know what you do for hobbies or enjoyment, but, as long as it isn't harming someone else, it's none of my business, yet you seem to want to make it your business to inquire why I should own a gun. Your various questions as to my motives for defending gun owners indicates that you think you can somehow project your fantasies onto me, and none of them are true. I'm not John Wayne, I don't connect guns with my identity, and I don't idolize action heroes (as a matter of fact, I rarely watch any violent movies or tv, and I read a lot, but it's entirely nonfiction). The questions you ask show that you make assumptions about people you don't even know, because you need some reason to do so.

The bottom line on this issue is this; taking guns away from law-abiding citizens isn't going to keep people from getting killed, and it isn't going to deter the criminal element from getting weapons. The vast majority of those who are violent criminals, become so relatively early in their life, as they're triggered by a number of factors, and they have no respect for the law at a relatively early age. It's already against the law for them to own guns; taking guns away from law abiding citizens isn't going to change their anger and distrust, nor deter them.

[Zeeb]

Originally Posted by KarlG 

He bought his gun legally because of a loophole in the law, which the governor has now closed with an executive order. Yes, you should trust me to handle a weapon responsibly, because the facts are that rational people don't kill others. And, if you don't trust anyone else to be rational and not out to get you, then that would explain why you want to take guns away from people. It would also explain why you apparently believe that no one is to be trusted except you, which is of course a fallacious belief, and an irrational one, as the odds are overwhelmingly in your favor. For some reason, this is something that you just choose not to grasp. If you don't trust anyone, don't expect anyone to trust you; that would make for a pretty scary world, one that's apparently great for those who suffer from delusions that relatively minor problems are big ones and that they have the solution.

I don't expect anyone to trust me with a weapon because since I'm advocating that they be banned, I would not be permitted to own one myself. Pistols are designed for killing people. They aren't for hunting although people take them to the firing range and call it a "sport", the targets they are firing at are often shaped like people. The governor did close the loophole that allowed the shooter to purchase the weapon. The loophole was that his involuntary mental health treatment was not provided to the gun dealer at the time of purchase. However, it is not clear whether someone who has been treated for severe depression or mental illness voluntarily would still be able to buy a gun in that state.

Originally Posted by KarlG 

I'd like to see some proof of that.

Some reading for you:

Flint Journal News Now: Four teens suspected in gun thefts

Teenage boys charged with gun theft

Teen arrested in gun thefts - Orlando Sentinel : Winter Garden

Originally Posted by KarlG 

You're correct, they are dissimilar, but the methods for dealing with them should similar. If you get caught driving drunk x number of times, you should lose your car, or go to jail. The problem with that, of course, is that it would place an extra burden on society, as far as costs go, as we'd have to hire far more police officers and build far more jails. That isn't going to happen because of the "it always happens to the other guy" attitude, and people would resist tax increases fiercely for something they see no benefit to. As it is now, here in Michigan, police officers across the state are being laid off, and we're releasing 5,000 prisoners by the end of June, due to budgetary problems. The willpower of the people to solve these problems, including the gun issue, just isn't there. We could solve all of our social ills tomorrow, but we dont' want to pay for that, so we accept a certain amount of possible inconvenience as a cost of that.

Well hey, we're talking about a theoretical ban, the whole point is to try to get people to care about gun violence, drunk drving, etc. However, if people don't care, then you're correct--nothing will be done. No argument there. I know that Michigan has been economically in the dump for years now and probably doesn't have the funding for such initiatives--it probably should be a federal ban anyway.

Originally Posted by KarlG 

I'd like to see some proof that taking away the average person's gun is going to severely curtail homicides. People who buy their guns legally and keep them for home defense and target shooting, hunting, or collecting, aren't those who are typical criminals. This is something else the gun control crowd doesn't understand, but keeps repeating ad naseum. Here in MI, the voters enacted a "shall issue" Concealed Weapons permit law in 2001. The anti-gun crowd went livid, blathering on and on that everybody was going to go out and get a gun and that we'd all kill each other, because of issues like road rage and home invasions, and that we'd become a state of barbarians.

Rarely does a law get passed with an instantaneous and obvious effect. Social ills tend to be cumulative and build up over a long period of time. In 20 years I wonder what the situation will be as people slowly realize they can now conceal their weapon.

Originally Posted by KarlG 

That, I believe, is what drives the anti-gun crowd; they're fearful, non-trusting people who can't, or won't, recognize their fears as what they are; irrational.

When I lived in Royal Oak and would drive into downtown Detroit to visit my friends there I would remember more often than not all of the responsible gun owners firing their weapons into the air for fun in public. Irrational? I heard it, I saw it--its not something I made up Karl.

Originally Posted by KarlG 

They want so bad to have some gaurantee that no one is going to attack them, or cheat them, or suffer them some injustice, that they attempt to build coccoons around themselves, thinking that this will magically save them from an imperfect world. They don't look at the odds, because that would shatter their beliefs, and they "just know" they're right. Emotion, rather than reason, drives them.

I'm not looking for any guarantees. People will still rob, murder, rape and cheat each other gun ban or no--but there are things we can do to lesson these problems. Just because we're overwhelmed by these issues doesn't mean we shouldn't have the courage to address them.

Originally Posted by KarlG 

It doesn't matter to you what I want a gun for. I don't own one, BTW, although I have owned a rifle and shotgun in the past, and I'm thinking of someday buying a pistol. This is another flaw in the anti-gun rhetoric; questioning gun owners' reasons for having them, as if those against gun ownership are somehow the arbiters of who gets to own what, based on their decisions. When I lived in northern lower MI, I owned a rifle and a shotgun, and I used the rifle to shoot chipmunks, which were making nests in my car heating system, and for target practice, because I could, and because I didn't, and shouldn't, have to explain why I wanted one.

Oh, it matters a great deal what you're buying a deadly weapon designed to kill people for. I couldn't disagree more. You seem to think its just another type of possession like a computer or a table.

I'm not keen on banning hunting rifles since a good argument can be made suggesting that they are most often used for sport and rather messy when used for murder. I do question why you would arbitrarily shoot chipmunks for target practice however. What's wrong with cans? They can't squirm?

Originally Posted by KarlG 

I wound up selling them because I moved back to the Detroit metro area, and I no longer had time to use them, but, in the end, it's none of your business. I don't know what you do for hobbies or enjoyment, but, as long as it isn't harming someone else, it's none of my business, yet you seem to want to make it your business to inquire why I should own a gun.

All right so my "hobbies" which include reading and going out with friends don't have the potential to kill anyone or inflict harm. By comparing gun ownership to "hobbies" you do what a lot of gun owners do that makes everyone else nervous--you minimize the responsibility you have when owning one.

Originally Posted by KarlG 

Your various questions as to my motives for defending gun owners indicates that you think you can somehow project your fantasies onto me, and none of them are true. I'm not John Wayne, I don't connect guns with my identity, and I don't idolize action heroes (as a matter of fact, I rarely watch any violent movies or tv, and I read a lot, but it's entirely nonfiction). The questions you ask show that you make assumptions about people you don't even know, because you need some reason to do so.

The bottom line on this issue is this; taking guns away from law-abiding citizens isn't going to keep people from getting killed, and it isn't going to deter the criminal element from getting weapons. The vast majority of those who are violent criminals, become so relatively early in their life, as they're triggered by a number of factors, and they have no respect for the law at a relatively early age. It's already against the law for them to own guns; taking guns away from law abiding citizens isn't going to change their anger and distrust, nor deter them.

Yes, criminals will still find ways to get guns under a gun ban. However, it will get much, much harder and more expensive for them to obtain those weapons over time. This puts them out of reach for petty criminals which comprise the majority of gun violence.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by Zeeb 

I don't expect anyone to trust me with a weapon because since I'm advocating that they be banned, I would not be permitted to own one myself. Pistols are designed for killing people. They aren't for hunting although people take them to the firing range and call it a "sport", the targets they are firing at are often shaped like people. The governor did close the loophole that allowed the shooter to purchase the weapon. The loophole was that his involuntary mental health treatment was not provided to the gun dealer at the time of purchase. However, it is not clear whether someone who has been treated for severe depression or mental illness voluntarily would still be able to buy a gun in that state.

Some reading for you:

Flint Journal News Now: Four teens suspected in gun thefts

Teenage boys charged with gun theft

Teen arrested in gun thefts - Orlando Sentinel : Winter Garden

Well hey, we're talking about a theoretical ban, the whole point is to try to get people to care about gun violence, drunk drving, etc. However, if people don't care, then you're correct--nothing will be done. No argument there. I know that Michigan has been economically in the dump for years now and probably doesn't have the funding for such initiatives--it probably should be a federal ban anyway.

Rarely does a law get passed with an instantaneous and obvious effect. Social ills tend to be cumulative and build up over a long period of time. In 20 years I wonder what the situation will be as people slowly realize they can now conceal their weapon.

When I lived in Royal Oak and would drive into downtown Detroit to visit my friends there I would remember more often than not all of the responsible gun owners firing their weapons into the air for fun in public. Irrational? I heard it, I saw it--its not something I made up Karl.

I'm not looking for any guarantees. People will still rob, murder, rape and cheat each other gun ban or no--but there are things we can do to lesson these problems. Just because we're overwhelmed by these issues doesn't mean we shouldn't have the courage to address them.

Oh, it matters a great deal what you're buying a deadly weapon designed to kill people for. I couldn't disagree more. You seem to think its just another type of possession like a computer or a table.

I'm not keen on banning hunting rifles since a good argument can be made suggesting that they are most often used for sport and rather messy when used for murder. I do question why you would arbitrarily shoot chipmunks for target practice however. What's wrong with cans? They can't squirm?

All right so my "hobbies" which include reading and going out with friends don't have the potential to kill anyone or inflict harm. By comparing gun ownership to "hobbies" you do what a lot of gun owners do that makes everyone else nervous--you minimize the responsibility you have when owning one.

Yes, criminals will still find ways to get guns under a gun ban. However, it will get much, much harder and more expensive for them to obtain those weapons over time. This puts them out of reach for petty criminals which comprise the majority of gun violence.

Obviously, we're not going to agree, as you seem to make assumptions, incorrectly in my view, that everyone is out to get you, and you seem to have no trust in your fellow man. Apparently, you are the only one who's trustworthy. There are also a couple of points I'd like to clear up. I did not "arbitrarily" shoot chipmunks for target practice; I clearly explained that I shot them because they were making nests in my car heating system. I also did use cans for target practice, set up in front of a wood pile.

Your statement that attempts, feebly, to equate gun ownership to owning a computer or a table, and then attempts to extrapolate that out to irresponsible gun ownership, shows more of the projection that you have issues with, as you feebly attempt to make a point that gun owners are not responsible people. That's a specious argument at best, and all it really shows is that you're willing to grasp at any straw in the wind to attempt to make a point.

Except for ten years living in northern lower MI, I've lived in the Metro Detroit area since 1953, and I was working less than two miles from the 1967 Detroit riots when they happened. I've been to Detroit many, many times over the years, and I have yet to see people randomly shooting their guns into the air, which you claim. I've driven through every area in the city, and I'm certainly not naive enough to think that it isn't a violent place, where too many people get murdered. but none of those killers are worried about a gun ban; they'll get them anyway.

Your assertion that it takes time for the realization that the new CCW permit process is in place is incorrect. People who own guns and have an interest in owning them would know what the laws are, especially as much as this was in the news. People who have no interest in owning a gun wouldn't care whether they can own one. As has been stated several times already, and as you indicate you are aware of, violent crime is decreasing, even though more people can own weapons now. Your assertion that more people will buy them as they become aware that they can carry them is another projection on your part, hoping that it will come true so that it serves to justify your inaccurate analysis.

As to being "overwhelmed" by these issues, and not having the courrage to address them; that's already been covered by the fact that most people simply don't care unless it happens to them, and, for some reason, you can't seem to grasp the fact that there are far more pressing issues that kill far more people annually than gun crime, and, with the amount of resources available, it makes more sense to address those issues if resources are limited, which they are. Twice as many people commit suicide every year as are killed by guns and violent acts, and well over ten times as many attempt it annually. I'm not going to go into the list of things that cause more deaths than homicides, as I'm sure you're well aware of them; for some reason, you seem to place more importance on this issue. My guess is that it's because it's something that's in the news frequently, and you, like so many other Americans, thrive on sensational news headlines, while ignoring the reality that more Americans die from other causes than homicide, by an extraordinarily large margin. As for me, I'll stick with reality, and not overly concern myself with dying as one of the 15,000, out of 300 million; the odds are so largely in my favor that it's not even worth caluculating the extremely small percentage points of it happening. There are simply bigger fish to fry out there, and I don't live my life in irrational fear of others.

[finboy]

Originally Posted by Zeeb 

All right so my "hobbies" which include reading and going out with friends don't have the potential to kill anyone or inflict harm.

When you go out, do you drive? That's dangerous, and someone innocent could get killed. Better you should stay home unless the state decrees that your car use is "necessary." If you drink when you go out with friends... well, enough said.

[vmarks]

I just want to observe that it's interesting, people who have such great reverence for the First Amendment also exhibit such disdain for the Second Amendment.

[Zeeb]

Originally Posted by finboy 

When you go out, do you drive? That's dangerous, and someone innocent could get killed. Better you should stay home unless the state decrees that your car use is "necessary." If you drink when you go out with friends... well, enough said.

I've covered the driving bit. Driving/transportation is absolutely necessary for the economy and people's general well-being. There is actually a USE for a car and it has intrinsic value.

A gun on the other hand has no intrinsic value to society, other than for law enforcement/military. It is purely designed to kill or injure people. What other uses are there? Can you fry bacon with it?

Comparing guns(which are designed for violence and death) repeatedly to aspects of life which have risks, such as driving, is a completely pointless argument. To continue with your logic, why shouldn't I legally allowed to posses a nuclear weapon? I promise I will be responsible with it and since I said so you can believe me and not worry. The thing is, I don't believe that the U.S. military is sufficiently providing me with enough security from rogue states like Iran. Therefore, if I get nervous I want to be able to defend myself, my property and my God-given right to bear arms by destroying Tehran.

[BRussell]

I think you're right on this KarlG. There's no doubt that we are a violent culture, but our love of guns is more of a symptom than a cause. You could have some effect on gun deaths by passing more gun control laws, and you could make it a bit more difficult for the likes of Cho to get guns easily, but in order to have any significant effect, you'd have to enact such draconian laws that they simply wouldn't be accepted in our culture.