Everyone is scared, everyone has guns.

[mrsleeve]

Ummm You cant blame the inanimate fucking object. I can sit your ass down in chair at my kitchen table take any weapon in my house, load it, chamber a round Cock it take the disengage the safety and set it on the table pointing at your chest and walk away and you WILL NOT DIE. (not that I would ever think of doing this though) You could take every meal and sit there for the rest of you days in front of that loaded and cocked weapon and it will not kill you, you will die of old age before it kills you. You children and their childminder could continue on with you legacy and sit in the same chair for the next hundred year and none of them will die of a gun shot wound from that weapon sitting on the table.

I also never said our laws dont work, they do, they make it harder for people who are not supposed to have weapons to get them. Is it a 100% fool proof system NO, but name me something that is please? Its not that I am saying fuck it to give up, I am saying there is enough laws lets enforce the one we have better, before we try fixing things with more laws that will not effect the motives and abilities of those that will break the laws anyway. Guns are already banned on all school grounds and most universities, since there is a law why do people keep going into such places with them, that law should stop them right??? No all those laws do is STOP ME and those like me that are law abiding citizens.

As to the tool vs law debate portion of the argument. You cant drive a car in the US until you are 16 (in general) why is that. Same reason you cant have cant drink until your 21 (in general and who follows those laws bad example shame on me) or buy a hand gun until your 21 (in general). It has been thought practical and prudent by the legislature and society that you should be of a certain age (where in general you have a level of maturity which is a debate for a totally different thread) and understanding about what you are doing and the responsibility of certain actions.

Would I hand my 11 year old a nail gun sure I would, but under my direct supervision, just the same as I would do with nearly any firearm I own. Would I allow them to use any one of my dangerous power tools, sure I would if they wanted and ask to and under my direct supervision only.

Its hard to have a debate about the population and the crime rate in this country. Yes we have lots of criminals that get into shoot outs with each other. That really is the bulk of gun crime. But when you federal govt and chief LE agency is forcing dealers to make illegal sales to known criminals and allowing those sales to walk back into Mexico and confiscating air-soft guns and tossing owners of malfunction AR's into prison shows a lack of priorities on the part of LE on this.

[cale]

I really don't think you're reading exactly what I'm saying. It's not stupid to say that more variables introduce more problems. I'm not blaming it on population, just that it is a contributing factor. If you want to go per capita, going off of the a per 100,000 people. Many countries with much lower populations than Canada and the US have much higher firearm homicide rates. Countries that are developed. Countries such as Brazil, Mexico, and Jamaica. While having a much lower gun ownership rate. Which brings up my original point earlier in this thread that "saying it doesn't happen elsewhere is naive."

Brazil, Mexico and Jamaica are all third world countries, they are by no means developed.

Gun ownership rate has shown absolutely no correlation to homicide by said gun, globally.

And, the simple fact of the matter is. There are 300,000,000 guns in the US. And in 2009, there were 11,493 firearm related homicides. Yes, gun ownership is higher. Yes, we have some more firearm related homicides. But it is in no way correlated to gun ownership.

I disagree with you 100%, and depending on who your source is many experts do as well.

Ummm You cant blame the inanimate fucking object.

I'm not blaming the gun, I'm blaming those who make the inanimate object accessible quite readily.

As to the tool vs law debate portion of the argument. You cant drive a car in the US until you are 16 (in general) why is that. Same reason you cant have cant drink until your 21 (in general and who follows those laws bad example shame on me) or buy a hand gun until your 21 (in general). It has been thought practical and prudent by the legislature and society that you should be of a certain age (where in general you have a level of maturity which is a debate for a totally different thread) and understanding about what you are doing and the responsibility of certain actions.

A vehicles function is to move you and objects from A to B, misuse of that vehicle can result in injury yes..but that is a risk associated with using it. Injury is by no means the intent. The same is true with alcohol, it is not intended to harm an individual.

A firearms sole purpose is to wound or kill living things, every time it is used is with the intent to do damage or to practice doing damage. Death is not a byproduct of the use of a firearm, it is the achievement of the intended design. I'm not going to tell you they are the same as a car/hammer/booze/stick because you're never going to agree. I think your vision of what they really are is clouded by the casual approach people have towards guns in America. You may be responsible and respectful sure, but they're still an everyday object to you. It's this casual approach that the OP started this thread for in the first place I believe.

[Farbin Kaiber]

Nature made water quite readily accessible, and we haven't banished water from the planet, but we have passed laws that protect children from pools and being unattended in similar areas.


Lots of people still drown each year.

[Victell]

Nature made water quite readily accessible, and we haven't banished water from the planet, but we have passed laws that protect children from pools and being unattended in similar areas.


Lots of people still drown each year.

So we shouldnt have those laws then?

[Farbin Kaiber]

No, I'm saying we shouldn't be adding new laws like limits to how much water a single citizen can posses, or where they can possess water.

[Victell]

No, I'm saying we shouldn't be adding new laws like limits to how much water a single citizen can posses, or where they can possess water.

Thats a disingenuous distinction as you know those laws are not about water posession, but responsible control over who has access to potentially dangerous bodies of water.

We have vehicular and licensing laws that govern the access and use of our cars, these potentially dangerous projectiles that we enjoy, yet people are still killed by the thousands. Does that mean these laws are useless? Of course not. Should we probably have more comprehensive and frequent licensing requirements because of these deaths? Yes

[Pl3wA]

lets switch to a strictly sword based ecosystem. no guns, just medieval weapons. that'd be badass. ahh, one can dream

[Farbin Kaiber]

I'd like to wield a huge battlehammer.

[mrsleeve]

^
Can I re-purpose my 22oz estwing framing hammer from a building tool to a battle hammer and use it as a back up to my hand and half broad sword for close in hand to hand work????

[evandael]

Nature made water quite readily accessible, and we haven't banished water from the planet, but we have passed laws that protect children from pools and being unattended in similar areas.


Lots of people still drown each year.

you're really grasping for something clever and relevant, but again, you've failed.

[cale]

But what if the water was in a barrel, and I shoot the barrel to get the water out...

[Kershaw]

i agree with the whole guns dont kill people, people kill people, but how can you not concede the point that guns make it very easy to kill a lot of people very quickly?

if guns were outlawed, like china or britain, these crazies would use knives. and that does happen. the only difference is that they dont kill 26 people, they wound a lot and kill very few.

of course, i do think that outlawing guns in the usa will never happen. you just cant make a few hundred million guns disappear.

[mrsleeve]

^
Um well maybe. This is by far not even close to the worst school massacre in US history, Bath School Massacre in 1927 45 dead and 58 wounded mostly kids, and no firearm was used.

http://freepages.history.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~bauerle/disaster.htm

Look at Mexico, guns ARE BANNED in private citizens hands and they have one of the worst epidemics of gun and violence in general in all the world. By those that dont care to follow those laws. They are free to victimize and terrorize the general populace that is unable to defend them selves.

I disagree with you 100%, and depending on who your source is many experts do as well.

Ummm there are over 300m people in the US, according to most sources both pro and anti firearm, say about a 1/3 of which are firearms owners. There are conflicting numbers between the averages of 2 or 3 firearms per owner. Now lets be reasonable here that puts 200m on the low side to 300m+ on the high side of firearms in priavte hands.

According the FBI and most other govt sources the violent crime rate and and gun crime rates are continuing to drop in the US amid rising firearms ownership.


from the FBI them selves

I'm not blaming the gun, I'm blaming those who make the inanimate object accessible quite readily.

you blame is still miss placed. why not blame the fools that commit crimes in general not just with a firearm.

A vehicles function is to move you and objects from A to B, misuse of that vehicle can result in injury yes..but that is a risk associated with using it. Injury is by no means the intent. The same is true with alcohol, it is not intended to harm an individual.

All depends on the motive and the intentions of the operator just like with a firearm. ANy object can be used for good or evil, no matter the primary or originally intended purpose

A firearms sole purpose is to wound or kill living things, every time it is used is with the intent to do damage or to practice doing damage. Death is not a byproduct of the use of a firearm, it is the achievement of the intended design. I'm not going to tell you they are the same as a car/hammer/booze/stick because you're never going to agree. I think your vision of what they really are is clouded by the casual approach people have towards guns in America. You may be responsible and respectful sure, but they're still an everyday object to you. It's this casual approach that the OP started this thread for in the first place I believe.

I dont have a causal approach to firearms, I have been taught from a very early age that they are dangerous if not handled and used properly, just like a wood splitter, a hammer, a saw, a cutting torch, a car, a tractor, or anything else in day to day life. I have been taught since child hood what happens when you point a firearm at something and pull the trigger. I make a living with high intensity radioactive source material, that is by far more dangerous than a firearm. But with proper handling and respect for the possible danger involved you can use it in a safe and prudent manner.

I can understand your point and from your perspective I can see how it might seem I am casual about firearms. I honestly can, I grew up with firearms and necessary part of life growing up on a farm, I have been handling and using them since I was around 8 or so. I am comfortable with them and they are a integral part of my life and always have been. Just because I am comfortable with them by no means equates a lack of respect for the power they hold or lack of understanding of the danger they can represent when not handled properly.


Cale I have book that might help avail you of some of these fallacies you hold about guns, accessibility, crime and criminals . Its entitled More Guns Less Crime by John Lott. I know its from 1996, but the principals are still valid.
http://www.amazon.com/More-Guns-Less.../dp/0226493636

[Victell]

[mrsleeve]

^

Tell that to madam Fienstien of CA. this only adds fuel to her fire, and resounding strength to her plans after the 1st of the year that were in the works long before this.