Gun control: the results are in?

A more logical appoach would actually be to decrease the amount of guns in circulation. Allowing more guns will just perpetuate the vicious cycle. You have to start at some point with being responsible with gun control.

No more free sales of guns. Making gun ownership restricted. Confiscation of all illegal guns in circulation. It will be difficult in the beginning because you have been irresponsible with guns. But at one point in time the amount of guns in circulation should start to decrease.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Self defense.

That is not a factor of utility because it does no good for anyone. “Self-defense” doesn’t help me if someone else kills someone else due to “self-defense”. Does the majority of the population owning guns give the highest level of happiness to the most amount of people? I doubt it; it puts the society at the edge. If you really don’t want to die, don’t act like a hero.

That number is so incredibly small. 18 people, over a good number of years.

18 people whose lives could still be around today if it weren’t for those “responsible” gun owners. I hope you don’t have a child, because I would really like for you to say that same sentence if that child is killed by one of those “responsible” gun owners. When it comes to lives there is no acceptable risk, I am sorry.

Would you feel back walking up to the family of somebody who died from some bad sushi and saying 'so what it's only 18'? No, because you wouldn't do that.

But you are, your reference here although indirect, is basically telling those families to deal with it. The only difference here is that you aren’t meeting them in person. Secondly if someone died from sushi I am sure that it wasn’t the sushi but the way it was prepared. So there is another false dichotomy, the gun on the other hand is doing what it was built for.

No, most people wish they never have to use it against a person.

And most members of the SS today are sad they killed so many Jews on the Eastern Front, the fact is that they did it, and should not be absolved of their responsibility.

If they have to, then something has gone ery very bad. You can't say, "oh, your not allowed to have a gun because you might use it to defend yourself".

The reason why someone should not have a handgun (I am not against guns of necessity) is because the freedom that allows you to own that gun with relative ease negates any defense because a criminal will have equal access until he is found criminal, by that point it would be too late. See if this of argumentation rang true that everyone should own a gun you would be crazy not to, but most people realize that having gun is more dangerous then any perceived threat.

Yeah, and?

So wait, you expect me to throw he entire population into one bucket as you have? We have reason to mistrust some people.... the majority of people we do not.

Read that sentence and you think about why Ted Bundy, no one would have guess he was a mass murderer. Well educated, successful, middle class, etc. Yet he is one of the most notorious mass murderers of all time. I don’t know about Tanks…I think you got confused…my point is that you will never know, the tyranny of the majority is something we have been warned against.

Be warned…

If someone is going to go off, they have plenty of more destructive options besides guns. The Unabomber, remember that?

Oh because everyone has access to C4, and you easily throw a pipe bomb at a burger, nice try but practically is not on your side.

With other drugs, they change the persons state of mind where they can't think reasonably. Guns don't do that.

Are you serious? Have you seen the conflicts from Africa lately?

As much as you are trying to convince us otherwise, holding a gun doesn't make you want to kill something.

I didn’t say it makes you want to kill something, you are purposely misconstruing my argument, what I am saying is there is a significantly higher possibility of murder with a gun then without, and we don’t know who the gun holder is but innately we trust these people with guns but not our children? My argument is logical, your argument is usually off the mark.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I support gun control.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Done.

Done.

Done when found... can't really ask for anything else.

 

Bullshit. Should we outlaw mace as well? It's only for self-defense (which according to you has no utility)... yet it has been used to incapacitate cops several times, who then got killed.

Yes, compare that to the thousands of times the gun was used to defend themselves.

I had a friend who shot himself. That's still no reason to outlaw guns.

Well then, please never drive again.

Nice try... but unrelated. If you wish to actually address the fact please do so.

No. Most criminals start out small. They don't start out waiving guns around. This has already put them in the category of people who can't buy guns.

But the point is you can't outlaw things just because some people can't be trusted. My example was yet another item which can be misused.

Fertilizer then? Black powder? How many pipe bombs do you think they find in major cities a week?

Yeah, and did you see them before they had guns. The SAME result... just now they use guns instead of machettes. Don't act like it's the guns doing it. That's just their current tool of choice. Do you honestly believe they would be peaceful right now without guns?

And I disagree... and you have yet shown facts to back this up. Instead you've gone off on tangents about the poor parents of dead kids and the SS killing jews.

 

Bullshit. Should we outlaw mace as well?

No because Mace prevents crime, it doesn’t kill the perpetrator, and its effects are not serious.

It's only for self-defense (which according to you has no utility)... yet it has been used to incapacitate cops several times, who then got killed.

Cops are allowed to have guns, they are the only people who I see have a legitimate claim to own guns. The reason why cops should have guns are twofold:

- They have to use the gun responsibly because if they don’t they run the serious danger of losing their job, thus they have a egoistic hook.
- Secondly their job is to defend the population, it’s not necessarily our job.

Yes, compare that to the thousands of times the gun was used to defend themselves.

Although in certain cases the possession of a gun prevents a crime from occurring, the problem is that the stakes are raised to unacceptable levels of danger too persons all involved. How many cases have their been of “self-defense” gone wrong? When a father kills his own son because he thought it was a burglar? Or when the “hero” went to shoot them up, and ends dead on the floor? Yes, the unreported idiocy of bravery.

I had a friend who shot himself. That's still no reason to outlaw guns.

Well yes the idiot who shot himself in the foot has proved that he is not being:

- responsible with guns
- He is costing the tax payer money by draining the health system.
- And he is an idiot who by default lowers utility.

As I said before, we cannot trust people with guns because not only are they able to kill others, but injure themselves or worse.

Well then, please never drive again.

Firstly I never drove (verb), and secondly the car is not designed to kill me, it’s designed to save my life should an unfortunate accident happen. What guarantees does a gun have in its design? A “safety switch”?

Nice try... but unrelated. If you wish to actually address the fact please do so.

I was merely being hyperbolic, the meat of my conversation happened after that comment.

No. Most criminals start out small. They don't start out waiving guns around. This has already put them in the category of people who can't buy guns.

Most criminals start by stealing candy that’s true, but they will grow ever more sophisticated, and brazen. Even by your own admission, they start out small but transform into much more dangerous gun toting individuals eventually. Which in turn only reinforces my stance.

But the point is you can't outlaw things just because some people can't be trusted.

Sure we can, and we always have. Hobbes was a negativist when it comes to human behavior, humans need order, we need limits, and we need to be told what to do. We are indeed “condemned to be free”.

Fertilizer then? Black powder? How many pipe bombs do you think they find in major cities a week?

This is not an argument, because it doesn’t fit the model of the gun, practicality, mobility, and power. You don’t see Grandma’s carrying around bomb belts, you don’t see pipe bombs underneath people’s pillows, etc. It’s really a failed attempt to compare an apple to an orange. Try again, if we were to use your line of argumentation, then people wouldn’t need guns they would all be TNT experts.

Yeah, and did you see them before they had guns. The SAME result... just now they use guns instead of machettes.

In certain instances that is true, but the gun has transformed the battle field. Firstly for a youth a gun is much easier to not only carry around, it’s much easier to use because it does not require much technique meanwhile a machete requires a certain amount of strength and technique. Death and Genocide has been made that much easier with the gun.

Do you honestly believe they would be peaceful right now without guns?

Have I asserted that? If I did then please point that out, don’t be hyperbolic.

And I disagree... and you have yet shown facts to back this up.

All you have shown is that people do kill with guns that guns are doing what they are supposed to be doing. I don’t have to present facts and figures, because we are talking basic human logic, and ethics. I can’t show you a psychological analysis of a person with a gun, but you cannot deny that a gun is innately dangerous.

 

As do guns.

You didn't address the issue. You just said that self defense is not 'a factor of utility'... which is the ONLY reason to have mace.

The stakes are already at that level, regardless of the vicitim owning the gun. If they didn't feel their life was threatened, they wouldn't pull out the gun in the first place.

Yes, and people have also swung bats and knives at 'intruders' who were actually residents. Thankfully, this is already illegal.

Well, actually it was in the head.... and if it wasn't with a gun, it would have been something else.

It's not the government's job to protect us from ourselves. The most they can do is try to educate.

Is there a reason you pointed 'drove' out to be a verb?

No, but that's the result isn't it? After all, you just said 'When it comes to lives there is no acceptable risk'. Well, there is a risk in driving, and according you you that must not be acceptable. Likewise, there is a risk of you dying from cancer due to the coal plant generating your electricity. Remember children, risk is bad.

We face risk everyday, like it or not. The problem is that you think this one is 'too risky'... but have yet to back this up with anything besides 'guns are bad'.

Yes. And just like a car you can do something stupid and bypass the safety.

No.. it doesn't. They are not legally able to buy guns anyway. Introducing more laws to limit people who CAN legally buy them isn't cutting off the supply to the criminals. Better gun tracking, that would do it.... but that's not what you're suggesting.

Limits are fine, if you support them. You haven't supported this one.

Which doesn't actually matter here in the states. Kids aren't allowed to buy guns. Even overseas, the kids don't do the majority of the killing. If you watch, they are generally 'along for the ride'. This was true both before and after guns were introduced.

That makes your point null and void if you aren't asserting that guns have something to do with the conflict. Thing is, they would be at 'war' with or without guns, and people would still be dying.

I'm sorry, but the right to self defense trumps your fright of guns.

As you've said in another thread... the presence of a [gun] isn't the problem, it's the use.

 

As do guns.

You cannot be serious can you, how can you blatantly disregard the second portion of that sentence: it doesn’t kill the perpetrator, and its effects are not serious. That was disgusting, never mind anti-intellectual and below I thought you would do. But I’ve been surprised before here on sci, I move on.

You didn't address the issue. You just said that self defense is not 'a factor of utility'... which is the ONLY reason to have mace.

I never said that mace is a factor of utility either; you put those words into my mouth. All the mace did was temporarily preventing the criminal from doing his deed; it does not mean the criminal will not get another victim later on. The utilitarian aspect of mace is neutral.

The stakes are already at that level, regardless of the vicitim owning the gun.

No that’s not true, because when people are threatened they get on the defensive and are much more reckless as a result. If the criminal encounters no resistance he will simply leave with the stolen goods. That’s a much better trade off then murder.

If they didn't feel their life was threatened, they wouldn't pull out the gun in the first place.

That’s the point, thanks for reinforcing my point. Given a threat to deal with the ante is raised to unacceptable levels.

Yes, and people have also swung bats and knives at 'intruders' who were actually residents. Thankfully, this is already illegal.

Bats, and knives are not innately designed to kill or maim, that is merely a deviant operative use.

Well, actually it was in the head.... and if it wasn't with a gun, it would have been something else.

I don’t know why you would lie about that? Secondly if it wasn’t with a gun he would have had a better chances of surviving, or with significantly less damage done to his body. (I assume he died?)

It's not the government's job to protect us from ourselves. The most they can do is try to educate.

But governments do that all the time, again the notorious examples of drugs, and illegal weapon possession in schools, etc. The point of the government is to protect the population, and if I am not mistaken suicide is illegal as well (I think). It’s not because the govt necessarily cares about us, it’s that the govt doesn’t want to take up the tab in the end for your stupidity.

Is there a reason you pointed 'drove' out to be a verb?

I don’t have a license, and I am ethically against cars until we get truly green cars.

No, but that's the result isn't it?

If we use this as a criteria to ban objects, we would be naked, and living in the deserts because everything has the ability to kill you. The difference which you don’t seem to get is that the gun is designed to kill me, a car is not.

After all, you just said 'When it comes to lives there is no acceptable risk'.

Granted I said that, but the utilitarian aspects of cars far outweigh the risks associated with them, a gun has no such utilitarian aspect. I shouldn’t have been so sweeping that is true, and I reformed my stance.

Likewise, there is a risk of you dying from cancer due to the coal plant generating your electricity.

Of course that is true, but the level of utility of the power plant far exceeds the level of risk. The coal plant is not designed to kill me.

We face risk everyday, like it or not.

Granted, and I for one even stated that before. But most things are not designed to kill us, a gun is one of the rare items that are designed to kill. There is a qualitative difference between guns and a spoon for instance both can kill but the spoon is not meant for that.

but have yet to back this up with anything besides 'guns are bad'.

I don’t think guns are bad, they are merely inanimate objects, it is their use and their reason d’eter that is the problem. The gun left to it’s own devices is doing nothing but collecting dust.

Yes. And just like a car you can do something stupid and bypass the safety.

But to the detriment of yourself and no one else, in a gun if you let go of that safety others are at risk.

No.. it doesn't. They are not legally able to buy guns anyway.

Ah, but chances are those crimes committed before are not going to be reported, much crime goes unreported. A gun is an eventuality, would you give a gun to a guy like .50 cent, and has no “criminal record”? Honestly now?

Introducing more laws to limit people who CAN legally buy them isn't cutting off the supply to the criminals.

Oh I support a total ban of production of handguns except to police.

Limits are fine, if you support them. You haven't supported this one.

Neither have you, this is my simple question to you: Would you want just anyone taking care of your child? Are you this optimistic of the population?

Which doesn't actually matter here in the states.

Oh I don’t care about the US here, don’t divert the issue. Guns have made death, and genocide easier simple and you by default agreed.

Even overseas, the kids don't do the majority of the killing. If you watch, they are generally 'along for the ride'. This was true both before and after guns were introduced.

I doubt you have seen the horrors committed in Sierra Leone, or Uganda where many of the killers are children.

That makes your point null and void if you aren't asserting that guns have something to do with the conflict. Thing is, they would be at 'war' with or without guns, and people would still be dying.
I'm sorry, but the right to self defense trumps your fright of guns.

Firstly of course conflict is going to happen, that is innate human nature. But the difference is not in quantity to which you are implying but rather quality. The quality of crime has increased as a result of guns. If you notice the death rates pre and post guns there is a disconnect with your argument. Guns have changed the average war into one of mass warfare which involves all members of society. That is the result of your coveted “self-defense”.

As you've said in another thread... the presence of a [gun] isn't the problem, it's the use.

No the gun itself in it’s static state is not necessarily the issue, but the gun is not made for being a showpiece its made to be used, and that use is to kill. Hey if you collect guns all the power to you, but make sure you don’t have bullets.

 

Please show these stats, because there haven't been any huge masacares recently (talking about Africa here). Meanwhile, look at the stats others have supplied about the number of murders going up, even though the number of guns and shooting went down. There is a disconnect with your argument.

If you are talking about war in general, yes... guns have made the death toll go up... but the military would fall under the 'allowed' category for the same reasons you said the cops would... so it is a mute point.

That's the point. Most people who buy a gun only hope to use it as a show piece. The only 'use' is to persuade someone from harming you or others.

It all comes back to this. Protecting your life is the greatest utility. For many people, the risk of a gun is outweighted by the benefit.

 

Not in one single incident, but around 11,000 citizens get shot dead each year, that's more than the Iraq War bodycount.

But as you mentioned Africa, let's discuss say, the Rwandan situation. Who would be oppressing whom, and with what? It would be a gun owning militia, oppressing and killing the unarmed populace, wouldn't it? So are you saying that all US citizens should be armed, in case a bunch of other citizens go nutzo with their collection of guns, to prevent a Rwanda style massacre? Do you not think that power is in organisation, and that's exactly what the 2nd amendment actually means?

 

You keep missing the point, over and over. The question is not “Is America a violent society?” Obviously it is.

The questions at hand are “Is America so violent because there are so many guns?” and “Would reducing the number of guns decrease the violence?” Well, let's try to answer those two questions by examining the evidence. There are many countries that have lots of guns (Canada, Israel, Switzerland) but low murder rates. Therefor, it doesn't appear that having access to guns causes a country to be violent. There are also many countries that have tried to reduce the murder rate by taking away guns (England, Brazil, Australia) and in all those countries taking away guns didn't affect the murder rate (except in England, where it went up). Therefor, it doesn't appear that taking away guns is a good way to lower the murder rate. It appears that a country's murder rate is determined by factors other than access to guns. Obviously this isn't absolute proof, but it's certainly strong evidence.

By the way, where did you come up with that 11,000 number? According to the FBI, there were only about 9300 murders with guns last year. http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/ucr.htm

 

Please show these stats, because there haven't been any huge masacares recently (talking about Africa here).

Are you serious?
http://www.droitvp.org/Congo_ICRC.html
http://www.globalissues.org/Geopolitics/Africa/DRC.asp

or

Yes the utility of the gun, what a lovely device should I say.
Meanwhile, look at the stats others have supplied about the number of murders going up, even though the number of guns and shooting went down.

Excuse we aren’t talking about murders, we here are talking about gun induced genocides, don’t shift the subject to fit your line of argumentation.

There is a disconnect with your logic Persol on this one.

If you are talking about war in general, yes... guns have made the death toll go up... but the military would fall under the 'allowed' category for the same reasons you said the cops would... so it is a mute point.

A normal, civilized, and well trained, and lead military yes. 10 year old children who kill, and teenagers who rape and kill in Africa is the war I am talking about. Using your argument I cannot deny rebel leaders their guns to give to children, because it’s a right of some imaginary sense of “utility”.

That's the point. Most people who buy a gun only hope to use it as a show piece. The only 'use' is to persuade someone from harming you or others.

That’s not its purpose I doubt that many gun owners have guns in a collection, without bullets. The point of the gun, and the point of most ownership is to use the gun, and that lowers utility because there is a thing called viligiante justice, tell me is that utilitarian?

It all comes back to this. Protecting your life is the greatest utility.

No it’s not because it does not follow the basic definition of utility, what good does that do for the rest of us when we have to pay for your trial, the medical bills, the ethical and social questions associated with using that gun, etc? There is no factor of utility.

 

Well we were originally talking about murders... until you changed the subject to Africa.

The simple fact is that genocides happened long before the majortiy of the combatants had guns. Not exactly 'induced' by guns is it?

Unless you think a rebel is a legal occupation, yes... you can.

Simple answers. Don' use it unless you have no other choice. If it's between someone murding someone, or me kiling them... guess what I'm going to choose?

This is 'vililanty justice' any more than stabbing a rapist is. It's defense.

 

Well we were originally talking about murders... until you changed the subject to Africa.

And you didn’t seem to have a problem with the shift, so you can’t complain. I have effectively proven my point that genocides and mass murder are easier with guns, and corruption of youth as well with power.

The simple fact is that genocides happened long before the majortiy of the combatants had guns. Not exactly 'induced' by guns is it?

The quantity of those kills is more now (meaning 20th century) then any other century in human history. Why? Surely not because of tactics, they have always been used no the weapons themselves and the relative ease of use for the most unskilled of buffoons.

Unless you think a rebel is a legal occupation, yes... you can.

Obviously being a rebel leader is by definition not legal.

Don' use it unless you have no other choice. If it's between someone murding someone, or me kiling them... guess what I'm going to choose?

Yes, same argument was made when Germany invaded France in 1914; “defense” means many different things to many different people. One person’s defense is not factoring in any utilitarian effort unless that defense is done by the police. So you have yet to prove anything…

This is 'vililanty justice' any more than stabbing a rapist is. It's defense.

You have no right to kill that rapist, he is a bastard and he should rot for what he has done. I would want kill him if I could as well, but that’s not the right thing to do (I can’t even imagine the stress that someone would feel so I am not going to talk for them, but neither should you). Two wrongs surely don’t make a right, and he will get his day in court, we aren’t God and we shouldn’t pretend we are.

 

Sorry chum, I'm not missing the point, you seem to be unaware of the issues as you keep bringing up fallacious points;

The answer to the first, is yes, America is more violent because it has more guns because it commits more gun homicides than many other countries due to it's lax gun control, and widespread gun ownership.

The answer to the second, is also yes, because we don't see the equivalent number of murders per capita via other means than firearms in countries with strong gun legislation, so the murders are not replaced 1:1, so reducing guns _WOULD_ reduce murders.

Fallacy upon fallacy! Canada recently enacted gun registration! It is the free and unaccounted access to guns that is the problem, not the mere presence of them! Switzerland, Jesus, how many times does this ne need to be put to bed? Switzerland has national service, and requires all reservists to keep their issued rifle and ammunition at home in case of call up. Therefore, all Swiss reservists are trained and responsible gun users. they are the very model 'militia' the 2nd amendment mentions, that was the vision. There are serious penalties for misusing the issued rifle and ammo, so much so, they are only misused for suicides. The general population ebign well trained with firearms, means that non-reservists owning private firearms have a higher standard to aspire to also. Israel? are you kidding me? Is Israel a peaceful place? Guns keeping the populace safe from terrorist attacks? I don't think so.

Yes it is. easy and unaccounted access to fireams with no restrictions on second hand sales, or sales of ammunition, puttingloaded guns into the hands of criminalsm and 100,000 weapons stolen from unsecured homes each year. That is your problem. If guns were tied to the owner, via registration,, ammo only sold to license holders, and guns had to be kept secure, some of your problem might go away.

Fallacy! The handgun band was purely an effort to reduce the nuber of people killed with legally held weapons, no some magic bullet to reduce all crime or murder! You're building a straw man here, claiming the UK government had an aim which it didn't achieve.

Actually, the number of murders with guns dropped a little the year after the ban, and the general increase in murder rate stayed fairly constant. What you perhaps have overlooked in your keeness to make spurious connections, is that during this period, there was also a chnage in the way crime figures were collated and reported , making the figures more accurate, and it seems some crimes went unrecorded. So, naturally, we saw an increase post change.

Again, you are focussing on the whole murder rate, not just murder rates with guns, but as guns are used in the majority of your murders, and we have shown that other countries do not enjoy the same pro capita homicide rate via other means, your conclusion is false, and I don't see how you can still make that argument after being presented with thr facts.

Last year, yeah, but I said 'around 11,000 each year' not a specific number for a specific year. I was taking an average. Jumping on the current lower (but still unaceptable) homicide rate proves what, anyway? To what do you attribute the new, lower crime rates? Falling rates of gun ownership? The Brady bill finally having an effect? What exactly?

 

You accuse me of falling into fallacies, but actually you are engaging in numerous fallacies yourself. You assume that guns must be the cause of violence simply because they are often used to commit violence. This is the 'causation/correlation fallacy'. Read more about it here: http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Correlation_implies_causation_(logical_fallacy)

Rather than guns being the cause of violence in America, I think that they are merely the preferred means of violence. My reason for believing this is that, as I've already mentioned, whenever a county takes away people's guns their citizens simply switch to other methods of killing each other.

You obviously haven't actually researched this, you're just assuming it's true because you need to it be true in order for your argument to be correct. There are many countries that have far higher murder rates than the U.S., even though most of the murders are committed without guns. Mexico has very tough gun control laws and most of their murders do not involve guns, but their murder rate is three times as high as the U.S.'s murder rate. Brazil's murder rate is almost four times as high as the U.S.'s but their percentage of murders with guns is actually about 30% lower than in the U.S. Taiwan's murder rate is about 60% higher than the U.S.'s murder rate, even though guns are only used in about 1 in 10 murders.

So there are many countries that have higher murder rates than the U.S., even though they don't often use guns to commit murder.

You're making that same causation/correlation fallacy again. You assume that gun registration must lower murder rates, simply because Canada has gun registration and low murder rates.

Canada's murder rate was already low even before the background checks and registration were put into effect. In fact, the murder rate hardly changed at all when the registration was enacted. If you think that gun registration lowers murder rates, then one would expect to see the murder rate in Canada go down after the registration laws went into effect. The haven't. Canada is yet another example of a county in which gun control laws didn't have much effect on the murder rate.

Exactly! High murder rates are caused by cultural factors, not by mere access to guns!

This is another place where you're just assume that you're correct without actually checking. Even with all it's terrorist problems, Israel has one of the lowest murder rates in the world.

Possibly, or we might just end up like one of the countries that I mentioned above where the murder rate is high even though guns are seldom used. Since it's been established that strict control over ammunition sales etc. didn't lower the murder rate in Canada, why do you think it would work in the U.S.?

Well ok, but what's the point of reducing handgun murders if other types of murder end up increasing? It seems pretty pointless to me. If gun murders go down but other types of murders go up, it doesn't seem like you've really accomplished anything.

You're talking about a recent switch between using 'victim surveys' to using police crime data for determining the level of violent crime. What you seem to have overlooked in your keenness to make spurious arguments is that the murder rate was always based only on police statistics, since obviously you can't have a dead person fill out a survey to see if they were murdered or not. It's true that the method for reporting most kinds of violent crime changed, but for murder it remained the same. Also, it's worth nothing that the murder rate has continued to rise even after the switch in reporting methods.

You haven't 'shown' that other countries don't have high murder rates through means other than guns, you just said it and assumed it was true.

I don't see how you can continue to support gun control when you consider that:
1.There are many countries in the world with murder rates higher than the U.S., even though the percentage of gun murders is far lower.
2.There are many countries with easy access to guns that have a low murder rate.
3.In all the countries that have tried it (that I know of, anyway), gun control hasn't been effective at lowering the murder rate.

Also, I don't understand your focus on only gun murder rates rather than overall murder rates. The entire point of this thread is that gun control laws are pointless because people tend to simply switch to other weapons when guns are taken away. I don't see how people are any better off if shooting go down but stabbings etc. go up. It seems to me that the total murder rate is what one should focus on, since that's what really matters.

 

All we need is a huge government agency to crack down on the import and movement of illegal firearms with a fervor.

You know, because it works so well with drugs.

Oh wait.

 

But to be fair, it is easier to stop the production of guns compared to oh...cocaine.

 

Really?
He certainly is a fearful weakling then. Don't you think so?

So, Bob Munden is not serious? He's just "every idiot," right?



Come on, man... "every idiot" is also able to kill someone with his bare hands.

That will never come to pass.

No.



Persol:

Hah... not.

These guards shot the wrong guy, but no charges were pressed. According to their employer, they responded appropriately.

 

Exactly.

Perhaps you should write a detailed letter to the US DEA informing them of your miracle cure.