Originally Posted by Infern0

but then again we're not worried about the king of englands tax increases (sorry! cheap shot!)

Ah the myth of the origins of the Boston Tea Party, it was in fact caused by a tax repeal and the tea smugglers were pissed that the legit product was now cheaper than their illegal hauls of the poms favourite hot beverage.

Sorry off topic but its me fave subject to debunk.

was actually refering to one of the causes for the american revolution (could be wrong, not my best subject)

and hence the clause for the right to arms

Originally Posted by C/1Lt Henderson

"Really, how much does the fact that someone is armed change the amount of crime that is committed?" Well, considering that if someone was armed, the crime could be deterred, I'd say quite a lot, actually.

By the way, as to Cho, was there a B? Anyway...Beside the point.

Ya, my bad the part about him lying was the B. Refer to my argument about people firing their weapons, and refer to the fact that criminals will always be one step ahead of their victims. They will always have the ability to get more powerful weapons then those they prey on.

"Both of these things could have been detected if more effort, or really, more money, was put into gun control."Ok, you pay more money, see how much it actually does...

That doesnt even refute what I said.

"Your excuse that we are "taking away a someones ability to defend themselves" is just that - an excuse. The likelyhood of someone who owns a gun firing them at a criminal is incrediably low. The likelyhood of a weapon finding itself in the wrong hands is exponentially higher. By handing out more guns we arent solving the problem, we are making it worse."
And guess what? My exucuse is the exact reasoning that criminals prey on those without guns...How many times do you hear about an armed person being successfully raped versus an unarmed?

Quite honestly, I'd like to see some sources for you reasoning of the likelI(that's an i. btw)hood that someone wouldn't fire at a criminal, and how the likelihood that a gun would fall into the wrong hands would fluxuate either way wether we gave them guns, or the aquired guns themselves.

Please, dont lecture me on spelling. You misspelled "fluxuate", "wether", "exucuse" and "aquired" just in that last paragraph. That doesnt even count the multiple misspellings of "they".

Id submit that if all crime was reported you would see a lot of crime that isnt stopped. Having weapons about doesnt really mean that crime will stop, it will just become either more brutal or more furtive. What does a lot of crime end up with if the assailant is armed. Say you get robbed. Or you get attacked. But it wont end in you dying. Most crimes of this nature dont end in death for the victim. Imagine now that guns are readily available, everyone can have one. As a criminal that makes shooting the victim the only possible course of action. If you dont, he can just turn around and shoot you in the back as you are running. It makes EVERY crime end in a fatality, instead of just a couple. You are going to have to rephrase and supply your own sources for what exactly you want me to post, because at this point I think your misspellings have confused me as to what you want.

Edit: Maybe this will help you out. This is a fact site full of facts both pro and con on gun control. http://www.justfacts.com/issues.guncontrol.asp

Acorrding to it, about 764,000 crimes a year are defended by firearms. This number out of the total of 7,927,000 crimes per year is an extremely low percentage of gun defense. These are a bit old, a few of the numbers arent correct since the last I have seen, Ill try to find something newer when im off work.

Yes, but that's the total number of violent crimes. Try "Of these, 691,000 were committed with firearms. (12)"And that's the lowest figure in the total of 9 surveys completed. That makes it seem a bit more wise that people would use firearms. And sort of refutes your argument that gun on gun ends in fatalities.



"Between September of 1987 and August of 1992, Dade County recorded 4 crimes committed by licensees with firearms. None of these crimes resulted in an injury. The record keeping program was abandoned in 1992 because there were not enough incidents to justify tracking them."


Interesting...Licensees...AKA legally licensed people...Wonder what the illegal licensed numbers are...


I love the table as well...
Motor Vehicles

43,900

Falls

12,600

Poisonings

10,600

Drownings

4,500

Fires

4,100

Choking

2,800

Firearm

1,400 (1.5% of fatal accidents)

These arent really conclusive for one simple reason. As I said these are old numbers, im going to pull up some of the more recent ones once im off work.

* In the United States during 1997, there were 15,289 murders. Of these, 10,369 were committed with firearms. (2)

The other table shows somewhat higher number for children. I urge you to look up a study by a psycologist by the name of Kellermann, done on victims of domestic violence. It is quite revealing on the subject of guns in the household.

Here is the way it is. The numbers are all over the place. Some show that gun control has an effect. Some dont. I choose to believe that gun control will reduce amount of violent crime, and I have fact behind that. On the same token, you have "some" fact that shows the other way around. If youd like, ill pull up the more recent sources, id only ask that you do the same. But at this point, it seems that neither of us is going to convince the other of anything.

Originally Posted by WNxRogue

These arent really conclusive for one simple reason. As I said these are old numbers, im going to pull up some of the more recent ones once im off work.

* In the United States during 1997, there were 15,289 murders. Of these, 10,369 were committed with firearms. (2)

The other table shows somewhat higher number for children. I urge you to look up a study by a psycologist by the name of Kellermann, done on victims of domestic violence. It is quite revealing on the subject of guns in the household.

Here is the way it is. The numbers are all over the place. Some show that gun control has an effect. Some dont. I choose to believe that gun control will reduce amount of violent crime, and I have fact behind that. On the same token, you have "some" fact that shows the other way around. If youd like, ill pull up the more recent sources, id only ask that you do the same. But at this point, it seems that neither of us is going to convince the other of anything.

Actually, I read it again, and both tables are actually accidents...Still...I never EVER would have guessed that children with no gun saftey knowledge would have a higher accidental discharge rate...Shocking stuff...

Here's what my basic sentiment is. With the proper educational saftey courses, and as long as they are properly licensed, I think the current gun control laws are fine if not too strict. If people pass mediocre background checks, and pass judgment of the clerk selling the weapon, I believe that is enough. Guns aren't the bad thing here, getting rid of them won't help the situation. People who are demented and clever enough to pass said background checks are. Now, I for one know that we don't have the money, at least right now, to fund more in-depth background checks and psych. evaluations. Knowing wether or not a man punched a kid back in 6th grade because of lunch money issues isn't very high on the governments priority list, and shouldn't be on ours. We simply cannot afford stricter gun control laws. It's too much man power and resources that need to be directed elsewhere. Would you rather have better background checks on Bob the gun collector, or Bill the future Secretary of Homeland Security?