Because it is far less "cruel" to kill an animal with a pointed stick than a firearm...


:rolleyes:

In that case, let's ban cars. Cars are a far more efficient, accessible, and widely used method of killing.

For the year 2000:

0-4 5-14 15-24 25-44 45-64 65-74 75+ Total

All Automobile 900 1,500 10,500 13,300 9,200 2,700 4,900 43,000

Firearms 20 60 150 190 110 30 40 600

These are accidental deaths, murder is another beast altogether.

link for those who wish to know further: http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvacci.html

And that beast is the valid argument. See my post re: homicide statistics. Falls from great heights are also a cause of death, but nobody proposes a ban on those. A gun is, quite simply, the most efficient (not to mention popular) way for one human being to kill another human being that we've stumbled across.

Two flaws:
First, your statistics are for accidental deaths only. Second, automobiles are not built to be a method of killing. It would be impossible to regulate things that accidently kill people (just check out the annual Darwin awards), but we can and should regulate things that are made to kill. I mean if you honestly can't see the different between something specifically crafted to take life and something that accidently does so then I think there is a problem.

On a side note though, I would say that cars should be more regualted on who drives them, how many can be owned, how much gas they consume, and how much they pollute. America is almost as ridiculous in its obsession with automobiles as it is with its obsession with firearms.

The reasoning is not flawed. Our views on the subject differ. You look at a firearm and see death. I look at a firearm and see a tool. There is no inherent value on a tool. Our emotions color inanimate objects based on one's feelings.

I left murder rates out because of a singular unknown. People. A firearm will not fire unless someone picks it up and pulls the trigger. If you were to take firearms away from them, all criminals would do is find another tool to kill with, be it a knife or a bat or a car. People would be just as dead, and there would be a new scapegoat. I chose automobiles as a comparison because there are roughly (give or take a few hundred thousand) an equal number of them in the United States. ( I am only dealing with the US in my discussion, because it is up to other countries to decide how they wish) For an equal number of tools, the accidental death rate is nearly exponential for automobiles.

As you say, there is a problem. However, it is not as you say differentiating between an inanimate object "specifically designed to kill" and something that accidentally does. The problem lies in people not being able to look at a firearm and get past their initial fear and hatred to see it as what it really is: a tool.

Myself, I have had a firearm ever since I was three. Ever since I was old enough to understand English I have had safety and respect drilled into my head.

MuadDib, I would enjoy continuing this debate. Perhaps you could explain your views, since your mentality (no offense intended) is so foreign to me. I promise I will continue to (try anyway) be civil, and I apologize for any slights, and stepping on any toes in advance.

Edit: On a side note, for future reference could we plaese refer to "guns" as firearms. There is a difference; Guns are artillery pieces and naval cannons. Firearms are man portable weapons. Just a pet peeve of mine ;)

Just a few notes:

Knives make it easier to kill, but do you 'fear' them? I personally have a healthy respect for guns and knives, but I don't 'fear' them.

Second, statistics don't support your argument that guns are used just as frequently for bad as for good. It's been posted several times that it is estimated that there are somewhere between half a million (pessimistic) and 2 million (optimistic) defensive gun uses annually. Compare this to the approximately 18,000 annual gun deaths (pessimistic, including justified uses), and the non-biased observer has to conclude that guns are used more often for good. But good uses aren't news worthy...

Third, our founding fathers found guns to be the sine qua non of the revolution and with that memory fresh, wrote the second ammendment. So guns are VERY necessary when the government begins to trample the rights of its citizens. Unfortunately, there are many examples of such cases just in the 20th century alone.

If someone's going to kill you I'd think I'd take quick and painless vs. long and painful. Being run through with a sword or getting stabbed in the face would be a thousand times worse then getting shot.

So should we roll back the speed limits to, say, 40 mph?

Yes, but it's also the most efficient way for one human being to protect themselves from an attack by another human being.

This thread is not about cars or communism....

What scares me is when people that have a gun say they have never fired the thing or have not touched it in years. It would be better to take it to a range and fire it often to make sure it is working properly and so you cna be comfortable using it and KNOW HOW to use it properly. If you have never used it before, how are you going to know how to take the safety on/off?

Hi debaser, yeah my logic for this argument is that its much harder to kill an animal with your bare hands. Just looking through a scope and pulling a trigger really transforms the animal into another 'target', and i dont think its healthy. If people insist on hunting for recreation, then they should do it caveman style- and learn about whats its like to take the life of another creature up close and personal.

almostaugust, you've obviously never been hunting. There is nothing easy or "target" like about hunting. Between the adrenaline and lack of breath, it is damn near impossible to stay steady. throw in less than ideal conditions and itmakes everything very difficult.

I will end my rant now, because it is getting off topic and I don't wish to jack this thread.

Hunting is not easy at all. You almost always have to take an entire day to get one or maybe two kills. Plus you have to cover your scent, and stay completely silent and unmoving that entire time? It's much harder then you're thinking.

Cavemen didn't kill animals with their barehands either really, all the tastey ones run too fast. They threw spears or used an atlatl mostly.

You also want these people taking kills on deer and such, they can overpopulate rather easily and wreak havoc, hunting seasons are a good way of keeping everything in line.

I'm sorry, but I just don't buy the cars/guns comparison and you certainly can not leave murder out of the equation. Sure guns (just like cars) are tools, however a gun is a tool designed to kill. Maybe not people specifically, but nonetheless it was crafted to end life. A car on the other hand is crafted to ease transportation and that can be deadly, but it is still not the point of a car. The knife example is better, but a knife does have purpose outside of death. For the sake of argument though lets just say that a knifes purpose is to kill. That just goes to show that guns are not necessary and only serve to make killing easier.

Also the statistics are their and the misgivings lie in the definitions of terms. A defensive use of a gun can mean any number of things from brandishing it to stating that you have it to discharging it, while an offensive use strictly mean threatening violence and discharging with intent to harm. Furthermore, these statistics, even if accurate, can not anticipate violence (or lack thereof) in a gunless society. In my opinion, firearm ownership falls along the same line of nuclearist concepts of mutually assured destruction. They proliferate because of the fact that they proliferate. Ending them would end the need to have them in defense.

Finally, the founding fathers did see gun ownership as important to defend against tyranny. Unfortunately, this was over 200 years ago in a time where a large citizenry armed with hunting rifles could hope to fend off an oppressors military. In the modern age of tanks and missiles and nukes this is not remotely feasible. If you want to allow gun ownership to check tyranny then you are going to need to legalize military grade weaponry and I don't assume you would endorse that. If you would however we can discuss that point later on.

I beg to differ. The insurgency in Iraq is proving how effective it can be. Imagine that rancor on the scale that you would find here in America. The second amendment is still a very viable check.

For me the main thing is how easy it is to kill someone with a firearm than with a knife. Sure you can kill someone with a knife, but the chances of doing it while stopped at a streetlight are quite slim. Firearms make it easy to kill someone.

As far as hunting goes, I'd like to see an anti-hunter get remotely close to a deer let alone jump on it and kill it with their bare hands. A bit of time in the bush would open up their eyes to this crazy idea.
Their argument is ridiculous.

I dont know I dont think I could bring myself to own a gun. Go to a firing range and shoot one off sure I thought about it. As far as having one in my posession I would have to do some serious thinking. To many people have been killed from stupidity and children due to just out and out carelessness of the parents. It is an interesting topic though. I was watching the news the other day and they came up with this new gun called the Smart Gun. The gun is calibrated for your own personal grip, a computer inside is hooked up to preasure devices and then stores it in memory, the gun will only go off if its in your hands. If someone else happens to pick up the gun and use it nothing will happen.

MaudDib, if you cannot come up with better arguements than knee-jerk emotional responses, there is no point in further discussion. I have yet to see hard facts or any supporting evidence for your claims. Until you can up with credible sources, I am through arguing logic angainst emotion. Hiding behind the justifications of HCI and the like will not help find an ecumenical solution. Only when both sides can find understanding and rationale can a true and fair solution be reached.

Yalaynia, this so called smart gun technology is a joke. It poses serious problems for the misuse/abuse of power. Anything electronic can be cracked, it can fail. What is to stop the government from requiring a failsafe built in so police can be sure of not getting shot? Who will be responsible if your defense firearm fails when you need it, when the police shut it down for their protection? The police? The city? Fat chance. Not to mention the possibility of confiscation.

As for me, there will be an old fashion mechanical firearm waiting when they come confiscating. I have no qualms about that, because they have clearly voided the Constitution.

"O sir, we should have fine times, indeed, if, to punish tyrants, it were only sufficient to assemble the people! Your arms, wherewith you could defend yourselves, are gone...Did you ever read of any revolution in a nation...inflicted by those who had no power at all?"
-Patrick Henry

Some people just don't get it: the government CAN'T protect me and my family from vicious criminals.

Thus, I will do so myself by whatever means necessary. I live in a violent city, and the "necessary means" include gun possession.

Do you use this logic when purchasing a car...or are you still driving around in a vehicle manufactured in the 1940s?

No, but that is not the issue. When I buy a firearm, I make sure it will fire when, and only when, I pull the trigger. Look at how computers are cracked in this day and age. If you put a computer in a firearm, it stands to reason someone (probably the criminals) will find a way to bypass any security built in. When it comes to firearms, I prefer to keep it simple.

How does that even relate???


The idea behind the electronic gun controls was to make one person able to fire the weapon, and other places able to disable them. As far as I know, cars have keys which can be used by more than just the owner.


Computers in cars increase the efficiency. The computers they were talking about putting in firearms would be for disablement.

So what do you suggest? Bending over and pulling your pants down for the government and hope that they will be merciful to you? I'd fight with rocks and bare fists if I had to.

One of the greatest things about a firearm is that it is a great equalizer. An 85 year old grandmother with a firearm is the equal of an 18 year old thug because the usage of a firearm does not require any significant physical strength or ability, unlike a knife or similiar object.

Lastly, I think it is absolutely absurd that some of you out there honestly believe that we can get rid of every firearm in the United States. Did you know that people in Afghanistan have been making fully-automatic AK-47's WITHOUT ELECTRICITY for years? And besides, the government has banned many drugs, but are they completely gone?

First, electronic keys can be generated. So if you want to carry the analogy that far you certainly could. Like cars, only people with keys could fire weapon.

But that wasn't the point. How it relates is the fact that we rely on electronics every second of our modern lives, at much greater danger to ourselves than implementing them in firearms.

Computers in cars don't just enable efficiency. They also control the braking system, the steering, the throttle, the combustion, and etc. At any point in time, millions of people hurtling down the freeway at 70+ mphs expose themselves to far greater danger than a single bullet not firing from a gun.

I'm not trying to convince you of anything. I just think it's a weak argument to claim that electronics in firearms makes them prohibitively dangerous when we use electronics in virtually every life impacting decision each minute.

Smooth, in my old Chevy the brakes are hydraulic, the steering is Rack and Pinion (mechanical), the throttle is mechanical, and combustion is controlled by the distributer.

This however is not relevant. The point Jaseca is trying to make, is the computer itself is not inherently dangerous. Having a firearm that will not fire in a self-defense situation (fear for life) because of computer failure, or the police disabled it for their protect (and to hell with anyone else) or the criminal cracked it so you are stuck holding a very expensive club.

The point being, a firearm that has an increased likelyhood of not going off when you pull the trigger is a liability in self-defense situation.

To take Jaseca's analogy of the car one step further, would you buy a car that could be shut off anytime the police thought it was in their best interest. But it wouldn't be just your car, it would be every car in a certain radius. Except for those of the criminal element who defeat the computer and crack it.

I still cannot see any justified reason why a law abiding citizen would want to own a gun.

Hunting is cruel and immoral, and inefficient, and should be criminalised.

Strange, this comment does absolutely nothing. It is an emotional reaction based in your own fears. I have yet to see any of you whom argue that firearms are bad come up with credible evidence to prove your point. When your side can come up with evidence then we can return this thread to a debate. However as it stands there is no use continuing to argue logic against emotion, because emotion will always win. Not because it is the better way, but for no better reason than people viewing issues through emotion ignore facts and evidence.

You are entitled to your opinion and welcome to post it. However, if you are going to post such inflammatory statements at least have the wherewithall to back them up and logically support them.

[aside] I do apologize if anyone takes offense to my remarks. Quitting smoking leaves me with little humor and less patience. Mods please take my post off if you feel it is not proper/poorly executed.

First, there is no current existing smart gun that I am aware of, so all of this discussion is conjecture, but I will say, that I am not against the concept so long as the failure rate is comparable to purely mechanical firearms.

Comparing electronic guns to cars is foolish, because how often does a failure of a car's electronics result in catastrophy? The answer is very very infrequently.

If you want to make a comparison, try something like a pacemaker.

Would you be comfortable entrusting your life to a device with a failure rate of say, 10 percent? (I didn't think so).

And so it goes with guns, particularly hand guns.

Sure, if your gun fails on the range, not a huge deal.

But if someone is coming at you with a knife or pulling their gun, your gun MUST fire without fail.

So until such reliability is demonstrated, I am steadfastly against electronic guns.

SuperMidget, you keep having digs at posters about the flimsyness of thier arguments. Politics is about making decisions based on ethics, logic and statistics. And yes, there is a place for emotion within this sphere. What do you think about the statistic that a child in the home is 500 times more likely to be shot with a firearm owned by the household rather than that of an intruder? The US has a massive problem with firearms unlike any other developed nation on this planet. Close to 40,000 Americans die each year from gunfire. This is totally amazing and unique. People have every right to feel emotional about this.

You are right almostaugust, I guess I have been a little harsh on other people.

Quote:

What do you think about the statistic that a child in the home is 500 times more likely to be shot with a firearm owned by the household rather than that of an intruder?

The actual number put forth by the Kellerman study was 43, not 500. This is the nonsense ratio. All it really means in the great scheme of things is for every defensive use of a handgun there is 1.3 Accidental deaths, 4.6 homicides, and 37 suicides.

For a more in depth explanation see :
http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdgaga.html

That stat about 500times more likely is total bunk. I mean there are over 100,000 million guns in America alone. That means that there must be nearly 500,000 million accidental gun deaths. Even if the number is 1% that means that there must be 1 million family gun deaths, not even close.
That "stat" is a lie pure and simple.

I'll buy and use a "smart gun" as soon as the police start using them. ( i.e. It ain't gonna happen.)

Just a little math for you guys, 500 times 0 is still 0. Now i'm not saying that there is 0 chance. But 500 times something close to zero is still close to zero. The point is even if that stat were correct it is pointless becuase it doesn't state a base probability to multiply off of.

One more thing about that stat how was it judged? Did they take just take the number of childern shot by household guns in a year and compair it to childern shot by intruders? If they did that is grossly missrepresenting the facts.

There are a lot more childern living in houses with guns than there are childern whose house gets invaded by a gun. I'd like to see a percentage comparison comparing the% of childern living in houses with guns that are shot by that gun and the % of childern whose house is invaded by someone with a gun that is shot. I'm betting that stat would be a lot more revieling. I'm guessing the % for the first one is very very very very small but the percent for the second one is probably up around 5-10% (maybe even higher).

:hmm:

Did you even read the statistic, "Mr Carafano"? And "100,000 million guns" ummm... that's one trillion. And wrong.

I meant to say 100 million guns in the us, sorry not 100,000 million. And the statsitic is still wrong.

Endymon 32 are you FoodEaterLad? Just curious.

I am Endymon32

ok

I'd like to point out that homocide is just as wrong as heterocide. Thank you.