... and after the socialists. I mean comon. I've gotta be scarier to you than some wimpy Democrats.

I'm counting on you getting into law school.

That's better.

Okay so I'm late getting in on this and I'm not going to point out individual arguments that I disagree with but I will say this:

-statistics can be made to say whatever you want..for the most part
-outlawing guns won't solve anything
-neither will arming everyone (there are some people that just should not own guns)

I don't think that the "lower crime rate" means too much because there are many things that influence crime rates and just because one type of crime was lower doesn't mean that less people were victims or attackers.

The problem of crime isn't centered around guns anyways, people tend to use the easiest weapon they can find, at the moment that happens to be guns.

What, in your opinion, would be the second easiest weapon behind guns?

WORDS!

But really, knives (or other sharp objects) seem to be up there. Hard to get guns into prisons, and what do inmates use for weapons? Sharp objects.

According to this: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/weapons.htm it would appear that knives as weapons has lost second place to whatever "other" is.

Just out of curiosity, how do you think Columbine or VTech would have gone down had the kids only had access to knives or swords?

Ya know, I don't know that it would have happened at all. At least, not on as large a scale. What makes you think that school shootings are relevant though? The incidence of school shootings is lower than it was a decade ago, they've just been getting more media attention.

Evidence:
http://youthviolence.edschool.virgin...shootings.html

Would you ask the families of the victims if the shootings were relevant? Don't get me wrong, I'm glad the number is going down, but it's still a problem until it reaches zero.

It won't reach zero. I don't understand how you can make that argument. It's like saying that the world isn't okay until it's perfect. Never gonna happen.

And by the way, my sister went to Columbine.

From what I've seen there's only one type of crime that is directly affected by gun laws and that is spur of the moment, rage killings. Guns are there so they're used. But even the affect on that type of crime seems to be minimal.

and by the way..my sister was attending Cleveland Elementary school..
San Diego area...
in 79..when Brenda Spencer let loose ..no shit ..for real..

I go back to the OP question.....and try to relate it to other statistics
that have been around far longer..and are still in question.

We don't know...
we don't have a fuckin' clue
but we pretend,

then we can sleep.

Man, I wish I could pull the "firearm education" card but it never flies with upper class white bread yuppies who only see guns on TeeVee and perhaps figure they're magical death machines manufactured in hell by Smith & Satan or something.

We used to teach our kids sex ed, driver's ed, phys ed, etc... good, useful life skills classes.

Oh well.

...

Human problems that reach zero? You're such an optimistic weenie.

I agree with the whole only see guns on tv thing. There's always a big difference between people who have been raised around guns and those who know them only as weapons. It's the people who only know them as weapons who'd like to see that they're illegal but some of us know that it would never work.

Gun: noun, 1.a weapon consisting of a metal tube, with mechanical attachments, from which projectiles are shot by the force of an explosive; a piece of ordnance.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/gun

A gun is a weapon. You can play with weapons, a la Cromp, but that doesn't make it any less of a weapon. A shovel is a tool, a sandwich is food, and a gun is a weapon. It's really that simple.

Don't make me argue against the sandwich. I'll do it!

...

Define: "Weapon" 1. An instrument of attack or defense against an adversary.

...

"Play." I play with guns? "Play." Wait a friggin' second.

Thing is: Homie don't play that. I engage in a sporting activity as fun and dangerous as motorcycle racing, full contact martial arts, or driving a souped up Eclipse.

Attitudes that gun owners "play" with their firearms is part of the problem here. I'm highly responsible with firearms and always follow the firearm commandments of "Thou shalt not point a gun at that which thou doesn't wish to destroy." and "Thou shalt not place thine finger upon thy trigger lest thou wishes the firearm to discharge." I was a part of a profession that required me to carry quite a few devastating weapons (heavy machine guns, grenade launchers and anti-tank rockets, for example) and I take their power seriously and respect them. Kids play with action figures. Responsible adults don't play with guns. Ya won't see me around my apartment pretending to be Rambo. I have a gun safe where my sporting firearms are locked up when they're not being maintained or used. I don't cuddle them or have a special pillow for them, but I could be persuaded if someone wants to buy me a S&W 629. When I engage in lawfully carrying a concealed firearm for personal defense it remains concealed. Where's the playing here?

I'm using your own words. When you go to a range, you're enjoying using the gun for entertainment. That's playing. It doesn't mean that you're irresponsible or anything, just that they are fun for you.

Some people play with guns, some people hunt with guns, some people have guns on their walls like art, but despite all of these uses, guns are weapons.

So is a car, will.

And lemme tell ya... hunting deer with a rusted out Datsun pickup is fucking stupid.

/cue West Virginians I know

Cars are FAR more fatal, will, if you really want to discuss the dangers of weapons.

The National Center for Injury Prevention and Control (part of the CDC) has a very neat tool which allows you to break injuries and deaths down numerically, and generate tables like: "10 Leading Causes of Injury Deaths, United States
2005, All Races, Both Sexes". I prefer the raw numbers to statistics like "you're twice as likely to die in a car accident than as the result of a firearm", because, although true, it tends to be misleading without the original data.

Seeing the actual numbers is pretty interesting.

I made one for illustrative purposes, and highlighted what we're talking about in red:

http://img380.imageshack.us/img380/4366/deathsdz4.jpg

I think if you're really concerned about unnecessary deaths in the United States, it would be time and money MUCH better spent working on number one killer, in some cases doubling the amount of deaths by firearm.

Check it out here: http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/leadcaus10.html

A quick number crunch with my calculator; If I include suicide AND homicide by firearm, men and women between the ages of 5 and 34 were one and a half times (1.4886) more likely to die in a car accident than as the result of a firearm in 2005.

560+763+10657+7047=19027
44+143+4499+3780+8466 + (84 + 1962 + 2269 + 4315) = 12781
19027 / 12781 = 1.488694

If you don't include suicide, they're 2.2476 times more likely to die as a result of a car accident than at the hands of someone else's firearm.

In the finite economy in which we live, should we spend more money on preventing death by vehicle, or preventing death by firearm? The math here is pretty simple. To drive the point further, which are you more worried about? Being killed by a man with a gun, or being killed by a car? You should be more worried about the car, as it is more than twice as likely to kill you. If you're more worried about the gunman, it's sure not based on the numbers.

This is why it's difficult to have debates on TFP. Do people pay attention to what they post? I'll make it crystal clear:
Gun: noun, 1.a weapon consisting of a metal tube, with mechanical attachments, from which projectiles are shot by the force of an explosive; a piece of ordnance.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/gun

Car: noun, 1. an automobile. 2. a vehicle running on rails, as a streetcar or railroad car.

So, to make things as clear as possible: a gun is a weapon, and a car is a vehicle. While they can be other things (in addition to their primary role), they are always these things. A gun is never not a weapon and a car is never not a vehicle. A car is only rarely a weapon, therefore suggesting a car is a weapon is completely and totally 100% incorrect and anyone who says otherwise needs to be shut down as hard as possible so there's never any confusion.

I expected a lot more than this from you, Jinn.

Edit: and just to put a bow on my argument, heart disease kills many, MANY, times the amount of people that cars do, so we should probably call the human heart a weapon? Or maybe McDonalds hamburgers? How about high fructose corn syrup, considering that diabetes also kills a lot more than cars.

I don't go to the range for enjoyment or entertainment. I go to hone my skills of dropping some violent criminal faster than he can do harm to me. :expressionless:

Oh comon. Of course you have fun there. And don't you try guns that you don't own? Isn't that even more fun? You act like gun ranges are somber or something.

Actually, they kinda are...

You should go sometime.

I dont' try guns that I don't own, simply because I can't afford rental fees. It certainly isn't fun with the cost of ammo as it is. I hate the loud noise, that's not fun. so, to me, ranges aren't somber, they are just a place to train and practice at.

If I paid for your ammo (out of the kindness of my heart), would you then enjoy it?

while I would certainly enjoy taking the extra time away from having to mow my yard or do the dishes, probably not. To be honest about it, the only enjoyment I get is when i'm done shooting and see that i've improved my accuraccy. then it's on to the other million things in my life that need to be done.

I'm not a fan of guns (REALLY, WILL?!), but I'm totally in support of something people can enjoy so long as it's safe. Crompsin really enjoys going to the range. Even I'd probably have fun at a range. Maybe this is a symptom of your taking guns too seriously.

Tell you what, the next time you hit a range, really try to enjoy opening fire on your target... the same way one might enjoy playing basketball or playing chess. This isn't even about whether I approve of guns or not.

Back when I used to go down to Laguna Seca, there was a guy in a '76 Porche 911 who was all business and no fun when he raced. He was a good driver, but he didn't enjoy driving. He was considering leaving. He and I had a similar conversation to the one we're having. He started to enjoy himself and stuck with racing.

The point I'm trying to make is that you should be happy with your hobbies and pursuits.

It's hard for people to enjoy shooting considering all the bad publicity it gets.

But what I meant was that people think if guns as only being used as weapons for killing other people when in reality, only a fraction of bullets fired from guns each day are aimed at people.

maybe i've given you the wrong impression of me then. I'm only serious about guns when it comes to the whys of having them. To me, it is a tool. A tool of self defense and in the broader sense, a tool of freedom.

NOTHING, and I mean NOTHING, beats a good game of chess. :thumbsup:

So it's a chore? Like vacuuming?
Finally something we can agree on. :thumbsup:

Will is correct that guns, rifles and pistols are weapons. They are designed to destroy.

Will, you are incorrect that you are "playing" while shooting. It's like saying that racing is "playing with your car." Playing with either of them can get you or someone else hurt. Kids out drifting on public streets are playing with their cars. People that go to the track to seriously race are not playing, IMO.

Another way to put it, my wife enjoys crochet. When she does it she isn't playing with yarn.

Both are. You play a game. Whether that game is to see who can drive fastest or to see if you can shoot better, it's still a game.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game

I think you're reaching here. A race is not a game, it's a race. By this loose definition I'm playing a game when I ride my bicycle for enjoyment.

no, but the vacuum itself is a tool, THE vacuum itself is a necessary tool. without it, you can't vacuum, right?

will, we may just have to get together online somewhere online and play. :lol:

racing is a sport. shooting is a sport. sometimes sports are games and sometimes games are sports. it seems to me that there is an olympic event about shooting......i think they call that a sport. just saying.

Huh?
You'd likely kick my little white ass. I'm really out of practice.
Whoa, we've agreed twice in a gun thread? :eek:

I still say that shooters don't play with guns and racers don't play with cars.

Runners play with shoes, who'da thunk it?

Try it like this: Runners play, with shoes.

The runners aren't playing with the shoes and the shooters aren't playing with the guns.

I think you just want to use "play" to create a disparaging meaning where none exists, 'cause everyone knows you shouldn't play with guns. By saying we play with our guns at the range it creates the impression that it's childish and reckless.

If that's how you want to do it, I'm OK with it but it's silly.

Perhaps it's the Atlantic Canadian in me but I'm terrified when I read this. It makes me literally scared shitless that people feel the need to "practice" at a local range in case they need to defend themselves.

I'm also really confused with the idea of defense via gun power being a tool for freedom. Maybe it's just me and my crazy socialist logic, but aren't there less... deathy ways of resolving conflict. I don't understand the whole "I'll shoot him before he shoots me" mentality. Seems to just breed this idea that everyone is after everyone, so you might as well say "fuck everyone else, because they are going to fuck me anyways". It's all a little melodramatic to me.

The runners are playing a game when they run. They use shoes when they play. The shoes are tools, not toys, but the purpose they serve is a sport, or a game.