[quote="Wolf-Man":dc8a2][quote="Low spark":dc8a2][quote="Wolf-Man":dc8a2]Americans have such.........odd........views on guns.[/quote:dc8a2]

Yes, we do. nice GUN in the sig by the way.[/quote:dc8a2]

Sure, but I don't keep 20 automatic ones in my house :)[/quote:dc8a2]

I don't have 20 automatics or any kind of gun in my house. Never have never will. I have my daughter learning gun safety, not because I believe they should get one, but because I know for sure that 2 of my neighbors have guns in there houses(for protection?). And no matter how careful people are, mistakes happen(I lost 2 childhood friends to guns, one found his fathers pistol, the had his face blown off by his best friend, who didn't know his new shotgun was loaded)
If you ask most of gun owners, they will tell you the Constitution gives them the right arm themselves. And quite honestly, I've given up on fighting with them about it, I guess their freedom is more important than mine.
Flame me if you want. Freedom of speech is my favorite freedom.

I don't have any intention of flaming anyone. All I'm saying is that Americans (those I know, not all, obviously) are brought up differently from Australians.

I'll see if I can choose the right words here...

Americans, guns = protection.
Australians, guns = aggression.

Americans, whether it be because of your civil war or something, and they way your constitution is, think its odd if you DON'T have guns. The right to bear arms and all that.

Here, its like, if you have a gun, you intend to kill someone, or you wouldn't have it.

I don't have statistics or anything like that to back me up, nor do I really want to. Its just my opinion on how I see the different gun cultures.

yeah, I agree Wolf-Man.....you hear people saying "don't become like Australia" etc.,
but I don't see tough gun laws as reducing my "freedom", I see it as improving Australian society.
It seems to me that the protection argument is valid only because guns are so common in the U.S., seems like everyones packing!
It doesn't mean crims here can't get guns....but it stops a lot of spur-of-the -moment incidents.
Anyway...I agree with our stance.

[quote="Low spark":34b53]But I still think it's important that my daughters understand the dangers involved, and how to handle a gun. Unfortantly we live in a society where to many people have guns that should'nt have them......I'll stop now before I start ranting...[/quote:34b53]

Fortunately I live in a country where civilian owned guns are illegal. There is virtually no chance of a child getting hold of one so teaching them how to handle it is not needed. The best form of gun safety? Not touching.

[quote="Wolf-Man":e3ec5]I don't have any intention of flaming anyone. All I'm saying is that Americans (those I know, not all, obviously) are brought up differently from Australians.

I'll see if I can choose the right words here...

Americans, guns = protection.
Australians, guns = aggression.[/quote:e3ec5]

I can see that, except for me a gun only has one purpose... to kill. That is what it is designed to do. It is an aggressive piece of equipment.

[quote:e3ec5]Americans, whether it be because of your civil war or something, and they way your constitution is, think its odd if you DON'T have guns. The right to bear arms and all that. [/quote:e3ec5]

This is the poorest excuse that one can use. It is 2002, there are no bears or native indians you need to shoot. Before hand weapons served a valuable purpose in a fledgling society. Those who bring up the constitution (and I might add basing your argument on a piece of paper whose other points don't even work in practise is rather poor thinking) need to get their minds out of the 19th century.

As for defending your house... most people end up getting shot by their own guns. The stats just don't support the idea that your property/family is safer with a weapon "guarding" it.

The problem with firearms and firearm related crimes in Australia are not the legally bought and owned guns by responsible and careful gun owners but the influx of illegal black market arms which are readily available if you know who to talk too. I am a sporting shooter, and therefore I love going out for a shoot. Past events have robbed the responsible shooters in Australia of their weapons and this is not right. I dont think fully automatic weapons should be available to the wider public, but semi automatic weapons should be available to, but limited to those who pass the required testing and standards.

More people are killed on roads each year than by gun related incidents, so should cars be banned ?? No, ofcourse not, that wouldnt be sensible. I dont think disarming the responsible public is a smart thing to do or the right thing to do. If people want semi/full auto guns badly enough they will find ways to get them. Disarming the public (the responsible ones) is not gun control, it's mass disarmament in dangerous times. Most people I know who own guns wouldnt even use them for defence, they would just use a plank of wood, golf club or baseball bat, alot cleaner, quieter and easier to use. Do I agree with the Australian Governments stance on gun ownership ?? Fuck no I dont. Full auto rifles, no. Semi auto shotguns and rifles, yes.

Wolf-Man, that Australians, guns = aggression bullshit is exactly why us sporting shooters are shunned or looked down upon. What, do you think all people who own weapons are trigger happy lunatics ?? People have terrible misconceptions about why we shoot and own weapons. It's not for defence it's not for attack, it's for fun, pleasure, and getting outdoors and having a blast. Theres nothing quite like lining up your sights on a target, pulling the trigger and finding you hit dead center, it's a great feeling.

Low Spark, I respect your feelings and your choice. But you have to respect the fact that people will always own weapons, and if they are responsible gun owners there really shouldnt be a problem. You say "their" freedom is more important than yours ?? I disagree, and frankly I find that to be absolute bullshit. Most people who own guns, as I've said are responsible, upstanding citizens who (in the case of Americans) want to protect their family and also go shooting from time to time. How can their freedom be more important than yours if they are within the boundries of the law with their purchased weapons ??

Nice collection of weapons Rudedog :) Teach those beautiful girls of yours the fun AND the danger of what guns can do. Sometimes a scare is the best way to make sure nothing terrible happens.

This is my problem. I think there is something wrong with someone who gets pleasure out of shooting a gun. I honestly believe it is a power issue. You can criticise me all you want for that, but it is how I feel.

As I said, guns are designed, were created for one purpose and one purpose only.... to kill. This is where it differs from your car argument. No offense, but I really don't care whether your sport suffers due to control, if one life is saved from it.

A power issue over what ?? What power am I supposed to be feeling holding a piece a metal ?? Have you ever held and fired a weapon before ?? I doubt it, so I really doubt you understand what you are talking about. Yes they are an instrument of death, but our purpose is not to dish out death and destruction. We are SPORTING shooters, we dont kill anything, we shoot paper targets which dont represent anything living, just a round circle with numbers on it.

I care that a sport I am involved in is being destroyed by anti gun lobbyists who dont have the slightest fucking clue what they are talking about when they are directing insults toward the responsible gun owners. We arent hurting anyone, we mind our own business, we shoot in highly regulated and monitered environments, there are always range and safety officers present (my Father is a range officer) and we all know the dangers that are present when shooting. We are responsible, we take care of visitors who come along and watch, we offer them our weapons to shoot briefly (while watching them like hawks) and we make it clear that guns are deadly and we make no exceptions to that.

If you dont like the fact that we shoot guns for fun and relaxation, then sorry, no offence, but I dont care either. What I dont get is that you play games that represent realistically (in the loosest sense) what guns can do, and you come on here spouting crap about how bad and dangerous they are and that you cant stand them. If you dont like guns, dont have anything to do with them and dont play anything that allows you to shoot people, because as far as I am concerned, thats pretty damn hypocritical on your part.

[quote:4cb68]As I said, guns are designed, were created for one purpose and one purpose only.... to kill. This is where it differs from your car argument. No offense, but I really don't care whether your sport suffers due to control, if one life is saved from it.[/quote:4cb68]


here here

I have fired a gun on a numrous occasions, most of which were during my time in the RAF. :) I know you don't kill anything, but at the end of the day all guns are designed to kill and the majority are used to follow up on that.

[quote:97fde]I care that a sport I am involved in is being destroyed by anti gun lobbyists who dont have the slightest fucking clue what they are talking about when they are directing insults toward the responsible gun owners. We arent hurting anyone, we mind our own business, we shoot in highly regulated and monitered environments, there are always range and safety officers present (my Father is a range officer) and we all know the dangers that are present when shooting. We are responsible, we take care of visitors who come along and watch, we offer them our weapons to shoot briefly (while watching them like hawks) and we make it clear that guns are deadly and we make no exceptions to that.[/quote:97fde]

Except the lax control allows the guns to fall into not-so-responsible hands. As I said, I don't care what happens to your sport if control saves just one life.

[quote:97fde]If you dont like the fact that we shoot guns for fun and relaxation, then sorry, no offence, but I dont care either. What I dont get is that you play games that represent realistically (in the loosest sense) what guns can do, and you come on here spouting crap about how bad and dangerous they are and that you cant stand them. [/quote:97fde]

Video games are completely different. For example, I play Europa Universalis and will send off colonists to parts of the world to expand my Empire (or go to war to do so). Now I don't support the historical action that occurred but it is a game, very simply put.

[quote:97fde]If you dont like guns, dont have anything to do with them and dont play anything that allows you to shoot people, because as far as I am concerned, thats pretty damn hypocritical on your part.[/quote:97fde]

If you don't get the difference between video games and real life then I can't help you. In fact I find it scary that you're confusing the two.

Guy's this was not intended to start an argument over guns. I'm not going to argue with anyone over what is right and what is wrong. You each have your opinion and I respect that.

Just remember that I, Keep my guns locked, via a trigger safety, in a safe and then behind a locked closet door.

In my case. I collect guns to target shoot. I don't hunt. ( come on does any of my guns look like hunting guns )

My kids go through a detailed amount of safety. And to be honest if they were not that interested in shooting they would have given up a long time ago.

Just some facts about my trip to the range.
Time at the range. 3 hours
Number of bullets shot by the kids from the .22 24
Times each child got to shoot the .22 4 times
My daughter who shot the Thompson. Had 4 rounds in clip.
We also spend some time reading the rules at the range. Every time we go. They get a little bored with this but know it's the only way they will every get to shoot.

All the pictures where taken when the last rounds where fired.

We go through a little structured fire practice. I 1st check the gun. In front of them. I then hand it to them. They are thought to check a gun whenever anyone hands it to them without question. this means they see me check the gun. They do not believe it's empty and begin to check it for themselves. When they determine it's empty. They begin to load 3 rounds only. Then with my standing over them, they get to fire. After the last round is fired they check the gun again and hand it to me. Right there in front of them I check the gun again. This takes time and my kids are willing to learn how to handle guns more safely. If more parents teach there kids safety ( with anything, cars, guns, fireworks, bow and arrows, bb guns, sports, swimming ) you would see less fatalities.

I make sure when I show my pictures. That I let everyone know, I and my family practice safe gun handling and respect.

You can say what you want about guns and that is your right. I have know several people who have been killed by guns also.

I also know more people killed by drunk drivers then by guns.

People who do not teach proper gun safety should not be allowed to own, touch or shoot a gun. This goes for a lot of parents. These are the people I blame. Not he guns.

Sorry to rant and sorry to start a "gun" fight. No pun intended.

A fair enough post, but this comment really has nothing to do with the discussion. I could go on for hours about drunk drivers but this post was specifically related to guns. It would be like me bringing it up in regards to the 11th September and how many people terrorists kill.

Good work Rudedog, I see you are very responsible and careful and that is a great thing to see. Child safety when it comes to guns is of the utmost importance and should never ever be overlooked whether at the range or at the home.

I never intended to start a fight over this, this is just a subject that really gets me going. The guns are not to be blamed for the deaths, the person who holds the gun should get the ultimate blame and the Government for their lax control and standards in the first place, any legal gun owner who has gone through the correct channels to buy a gun and gain a license will know that his weapon is in a registry and can be traced, therefore, no gun owner with half a brain will go out and kill indiscriminately, those who have bought a gun illegally, through the black market, are the problem and Customs officers should be doing a better job stemming the flow of black market arms. A gun cannot pick and choose what it kills, it doesnt have a brain, it has a mechanism that is ultimately controlled by the handler, and if that handler is shooting at innocent people than the blame must be squarely pointed toward the user/abuser, not the equipment.

Guns and cars can be compared because they are both dangerous when used irresponsibly. Both can kill quite easily without a problem. The point raised between cars and guns is that both are dangerous, cars obviously more so, and the problem with cars and deaths is once again the person controlling it, not the car itself. So I raised the question, should cars be banned aswell ??

FWB, I know very well the difference between games and real life, dont be so ridiculous. I just dont get that you can enjoy shooting people in games and then when it comes to real life you cant stand guns....I just dont get it.

I do respect peoples wishes to stay away from firearms, that is their choice and their choice alone, but when they start enforcing other people to do the same through their constant lobbying in the courts and other means thats when I get annoyed. I've never forced anyone to hold a gun and fire it and I've never forced my views on another person and made people change their views to go along with mine. Everyone has the right the choose what they want in their life, but when that right is taken away from me, even when I am responsible along with hundreds of thousands of other sporing shooters, that pisses us of and we WILL take a stand.

Thats a weird looking mp-5, its missing tha buttstock from the looks of it and it looks very small. Nice m-4 though :)

Heres my gun

[img]http://homepage.ntlworld.com/gerald.marley/glock-2.jpg[/img]

Blank firing only though. :cry:

As Eddie Izzard puts it: Guns don't kill people? Well they bloody help. If you don't have a gun, you can't shoot someone. Simple. I also don't subscribe to the idea that people will resort to other weapons to do their dirty work. Some may, but it requires alot of effort to kill someone with the likes of a knife. A gun is simple. You shoot, you hit. It requires little thinking. It is also more likely to be fatal in an accident. I just can't see that "girl accidentally stabs herself 10 times with a knife" headline. I also believe you wouldn't have these mass school shootings/killings in the US if guns were banned.

[quote:3fcc0] and the Government for their lax control and standards in the first place, any legal gun owner who has gone through the correct channels to buy a gun and gain a license will know that his weapon is in a registry and can be traced, therefore, no gun owner with half a brain will go out and kill indiscriminately, those who have bought a gun illegally, through the black market, are the problem and Customs officers should be doing a better job stemming the flow of black market arms.[/quote:3fcc0]

The best way to do that, and you can deny it all you want but Britain is a good example of this, is to ban them. Yes we still have a small gun problem (nothing is perfect), but you run a risk here just owning one.

[quote:3fcc0] A gun cannot pick and choose what it kills, it doesnt have a brain, it has a mechanism that is ultimately controlled by the handler, and if that handler is shooting at innocent people than the blame must be squarely pointed toward the user/abuser, not the equipment.[/quote:3fcc0]

That's what makes it so scary. It is indiscriminate. It kills civlians - women and children.

[quote:3fcc0]Guns and cars can be compared because they are both dangerous when used irresponsibly. Both can kill quite easily without a problem. The point raised between cars and guns is that both are dangerous, cars obviously more so, and the problem with cars and deaths is once again the person controlling it, not the car itself. So I raised the question, should cars be banned aswell ??[/quote:3fcc0]

Mate, it is a pointless comment. Cars are not designed to kill, guns are.

[quote:3fcc0]FWB, I know very well the difference between games and real life, dont be so ridiculous. I just dont get that you can enjoy shooting people in games and then when it comes to real life you cant stand guns....I just dont get it.[/quote:3fcc0]

Like I said, I find it scary that you are getting confused. What you see on the screen is a bunch of pixel. It is not a real gun. The "gun" in the game cannot kill, it isn't designed to kill. The same goes for other activities. I like paint-ball, it is a lot of fun and I have no problem with people playing it. Why? Because the "guns" in it are not designed to kill, they cannot kill. These are basically adult versions of tag.

Here's a question, why can't you do your shooting with non-lethal/bullet-using weapons?

[quote:3fcc0]I do respect peoples wishes to stay away from firearms, that is their choice and their choice alone,[/quote:3fcc0]

How about you respect the fact that the majority of people in your country (and mine) don't want guns in their society? The majority want to eliminate, or reduce dramatically, any chance of their kid or themselves being blown away.

[quote:3fcc0] but when they start enforcing other people to do the same through their constant lobbying in the courts and other means thats when I get annoyed. I've never forced anyone to hold a gun and fire it and I've never forced my views on another person and made people change their views to go along with mine. [/quote:3fcc0]

Unfortunately, with your view you do. I don't deny that what I support forces a life-style upon gun users, that they can't shoot, but your belief does the same. It forces many of us to live with guns in our society.

[quote:3fcc0]Everyone has the right the choose what they want in their life, but when that right is taken away from me, even when I am responsible along with hundreds of thousands of other sporing shooters, that pisses us of and we WILL take a stand.[/quote:3fcc0]

See above.

Rude - that is very cool and I agree with the comment that guns owners should have to have safety training. Hunter safety courses are required, why not a gun safety course for first time gun owners. I respect that you are involving the family. My son is still to young to shoot (17 months) and my wife doesnt have much interest although she shot m16s in the airforce.

I have mostly hunting guns myself with those being mostly shotguns, with some deer rifles. Duck hunting has always been my passion, and yes my shotguns are made to kill. Anyone that has much experience with shotguns know that the shottys in MOH are underpowered.

I think I was chatting with you on the server a few weeks ago about some of the guns I got to shoot. I got to shoot a mp5 and a m11, both legal, privately owned, full auto, suppressed. Very cool. I think you mentioned that the semi auto mp5 went for about $4k. The full auto goes for about $7k. The only problem with the class 3 license (full auto) is that you have to give the government the right to enter your house to take the weapon anytime they want with out a warrant or due cause.

Low spark - I respect that you are teaching gun safety even though you are against guns.

I have been around guns my whole life. I love guns. You can never own enough. If nothing else they make good investments. Guns are nothing more than tools. They need to be treated with respect, and gun safety needs to be taught at an early age. They also need to be stored properly and safely. I dont have a gun safe yet, but as my son is getting more and more mobile and curious, I will have one soon.

Nice thread guys. I love a lively discussion. Great post Rudedog. FWB, I couldn't disagree with you more. You say that the most important issue is the "if one life can be saved" theory. If you use this logic, you should encourage gun ownership. As I stated before, the statistics show that guns save more lives than they take. The US government has conducted at least ten studies on this in the last fifteen years, most conducted by an administration that was trying to draw the opposite conclusion, and EVERY study proved that guns save lives. You site gun banning as a solution in Britian. However, crime has increased since the ban.

You mention accidental deaths and of course, this is always tragic. The number of accidental deaths in the US is extremely small. (and in fact is at an all time low in the US). Far less than the number of kids who get into their mom's cleaning supplies and drink something they shouldn't, or the number of kids killed on bikes, or the number of kids killed because their parents didn't make them wear a seatbelt, etc. I know your argument that guns were designed to kill and that makes them different. I somewhat disagree, guns are designed to propel a projectile at a high velocity. Where you aim that projectile is up to you. Some guns are designed solely as good target shooters, but could kill if misused. There are many things in our modern world that are dangerous. Should we ban them all? I understand that in Australia, crime with knives went up are the gun ban and that now there is a movement to ban some knives. Where does it end?

A few additional comments about previous posts: The statement that most people are killed by their own guns is false. The fact is that guns are used more times to prevent a crime than they are to commit a crime. The statement that we would not have any mass school killings in the US if we banned guns, unfortunately, may be false also. The boys in Columbine, Colorado also had homemade bombs. I think if a kid wants to take out several people at his school, he doesn't need a gun to do it.

I think discussing crime statistics and accidental deaths, or whether guns should be allowed only for hunting etc. is irrelevant. The discussion should be about whether or not a human being has a fundamental right to certain freedoms. In America we have many freedoms and they are not always popular. One of the posts says that freedom of speech is the best freedom that we have. But this freedom too, is not always popular and can incite people to kill. If we allowed our police to bust into any house and search it, we might be able to "save one life" but freedom from search and seizure is a human right so we have laws against it. The point is that we must defend our freedoms, even the ones that aren't popular, or we will slowly descend into a society with no freedom. Freedoms are not taken from us in big steps but are whittled away over time. The events of 9/11 have many people talking about the necessity to give up a few freedoms in the name of safety. I believe that it was Thomas Jefferson (I'm not sure, it was one of the Founding Fathers) that said, "A people that gives up their freedom in the name of safety, deserves neither freedom nor safety." Once a freedom is taken away it is almost impossible to get it back. It becomes accepted not to have it. If we ban and confiscate all guns, do you think the people that really shouldn't have them are going to just turn them in? No. I have a couple of guns in my house, but not a single bullet. Do these guns pose a threat to anyone? No. Right now they are just attractive paper weights.

Ok, I think I've vented enough. No more posts from me. (except to correct errors in facts maybe)

I've went to a firing range
 

I'm a Boy Scout and I've gotten Rifle Shooting Merit Badge
I shot .22 bolt action rifles which sights wer of so incredibly much, but there were 2 special rifles that the insructor brought out for the last 3 days, a Mosberg (ecsuse the spelling is it's wrong) and an olympic Biathalon rifle, which sights were actually good, but I'm wondering why he didn't get all the sights set like that. Anyway one of the requirement is to fire 5 shots into a group the size of a quarter. The regular .22s just had sights that looked like a u with an i in it but the two others had a big circle and a smaller circle and you had to get the smaller circle around the black and it was almost gaurunteed to get a hit in there (The Mosberg was a little high). I've convinced myself that it was just because the sights were more accurate, but other people beleived those sight were easier to use. That's because I got all my qualifying targets on the last day during free rifle shooting with those two rifles.

Why cant I do my shooting with non lethal/bullet using weapons ?? What would be the bloody point ?? "Non lethal" rounds are infact very capable of killing and maiming just as much as live rounds, so your point is moot.

I'm not confused, I dont know why you think that. I know what a bullet does when it enters the body, it twists and turns, tumbles and reduces flesh into mush, destroying vital organs severing arteries, either exiting the body or staying inside causing massive trauma. I know what guns do and I know clearly the difference between gaming and living.

You enjoy gaming ? You enjoy shooting pixels ? You enjoy the fact that you are shooting at representations of humans without the blood and gore and know that you are not actually killing anyone ?? Well guess what, WE ARE DOING EXACTLY THE SAME FUCKING THING, ONLY I SHOOT REAL GUNS AT PAPER TARGETS AND YOU SHOOT PIXELS THAT LOOK LIKE HUMANS ON A COMPUTER. We are not hurting anyone and WOULD never hurt anyone. Do you comprehend ? Criminals with illegal guns should be the target of your dislike for guns, not people like me who follow and obey the law to the letter.

You think mass killings wouldnt occur if guns were banned ?? How stupid are you to believe in something like that ?? Guns are readily available all over the place, banning them wont stop anything, dont you understand ?? Black market arms is BIG business, those arms dealers make shitloads and they sell to whomever has the cash. No law, no worries, it's all about money, you got the money, you got a gun, not a problem at all.

Licenses should be made harder to get, psychological tests should be given, background checks, and whatever else is needed to make sure the licensee isnt going to go postal. If new technology that is being created is made public, guns will only be able to be fired with a special ring on the handlers finger. The gun and the ring work in conjunction, without the ring, the gun is useless. Firearms with this particular application built in would make them much more safer.

I never forced my opinion on you or any of you, I stated my feelings, and you stated yours. You think guns are dangerous by themselves, I dont. I like guns, you dont. Simple as that. If you dont like guns, I'm not going to change to suit your needs and neither is anyone else. The majority of people in my country want guns banned ?? Since when ?? The chance of their kids being blown away accidently would be reduced if the owner was smart enough to lock away his weapons, keep ammunition seperate from the guns and locked away in another compartment.

I'm sorry you feel as though you are being given a raw deal here, being made to live with gun owners and all. Seriously, theres nothing you can do about it, so stop your whining. We have put up with shit from people like you for years now, and we arent going to back down, simple as that. Get used to it.

End of discussion.

[img]http://www.landi.net/myguns.jpg[/img]

Where did you get the M4, and how much? I really want to take up target shooting. Seeing how i spent time in the army the M4 is a little nestagia for me. Im really more interested in bolt action scoped rifles.

If anyone has some links to some good sites about rifles and so forth im interested.

Love the pic of the older daughter with the tommy. Laughed pretty good on that one.

you know a gun called tabur?
he was found to be better than the m4

Clearly not, as you keep refering to it.

[quote:8b404]You enjoy gaming ? You enjoy shooting pixels ? You enjoy the fact that you are shooting at representations of humans without the blood and gore and know that you are not actually killing anyone ?? Well guess what, WE ARE DOING EXACTLY THE SAME FUCKING THING, ONLY I SHOOT REAL GUNS AT PAPER TARGETS AND YOU SHOOT PIXELS THAT LOOK LIKE HUMANS ON A COMPUTER. We are not hurting anyone and WOULD never hurt anyone. Do you comprehend ? Criminals with illegal guns should be the target of your dislike for guns, not people like me who follow and obey the law to the letter. [/quote:8b404]

Now, now. Calm down. No need to get uptight and swear.

The pixels are not the same as real life. It is completely different. Od I enjoy the blood? No not really, it makes no difference to my gameplay. In fact I don't play games that are particularly graphic, but that's another point, because even if I did it wouldn't be real. I would not be firing a real gun. I'll say it again, if you can't comprehend that then I can't help you.

I don't dislike you, although with the manner of debating your seem to be stepping into I may soon - what I dislike are guns. Its nothing against you. If no-one was getting shot then fine you can have your weapons, but the fact remains that people are dying from guns and a ban will reduce that.

[quote:8b404]You think mass killings wouldnt occur if guns were banned ?? How stupid are you to believe in something like that ?? Guns are readily available all over the place, banning them wont stop anything, dont you understand ?? Black market arms is BIG business, those arms dealers make shitloads and they sell to whomever has the cash. No law, no worries, it's all about money, you got the money, you got a gun, not a problem at all. [/quote:8b404]

Not at all. Yes a black market will operate, but you could arrest someone for simply possessing a gun. Gun crime has been reduced thanks to the ban we have.

[quote:8b404]Licenses should be made harder to get, psychological tests should be given, background checks, and whatever else is needed to make sure the licensee isnt going to go postal. If new technology that is being created is made public, guns will only be able to be fired with a special ring on the handlers finger. The gun and the ring work in conjunction, without the ring, the gun is useless. Firearms with this particular application built in would make them much more safer.[/quote:8b404]

I don't care about safety, I'd want a ban. Just get your thrills another way instead of shooting off a couple of rounds.

[quote:8b404]I never forced my opinion on you or any of you, I stated my feelings, and you stated yours. You think guns are dangerous by themselves, I dont.[/quote:8b404]

As I said, by you demanding the right to bear arms you place pressure on the rest of us who would like to live in a gun free society.

[quote:8b404]I like guns,[/quote:8b404]

lol. I know. Very scary.

[quote:8b404] you dont. Simple as that. If you dont like guns, I'm not going to change to suit your needs and neither is anyone else. The majority of people in my country want guns banned ?? Since when ?? The chance of their kids being blown away accidently would be reduced if the owner was smart enough to lock away his weapons, keep ammunition seperate from the guns and locked away in another compartment. [/quote:8b404]

<Cough>http://www.rice.edu/projects/topics/quizzes/quiz2.htm<Cough>

[quote:8b404]I'm sorry you feel as though you are being given a raw deal here, being made to live with gun owners and all. Seriously, theres nothing you can do about it, so stop your whining. We have put up with shit from people like you for years now, and we arent going to back down, simple as that. Get used to it. [/quote:8b404]

Hey, I don't live in the US, so at the end of the day I don't really care. I just can't find sympathy for a society that you advocate when someone gets blown away.

[quote:8b404]End of discussion.[/quote:8b404][/quote:8b404]

Ok, but if you don't mind I'll continue it with others here.

Rubbish. Show me the stats.

[quote:dd9c7]The US government has conducted at least ten studies on this in the last fifteen years, most conducted by an administration that was trying to draw the opposite conclusion, and EVERY study proved that guns save lives. You site gun banning as a solution in Britian.[/quote:dd9c7]

Show me the stats. How on earth do you judge it saved a life? I'm sorry mate, but I think you're talking out your rear-end there. Here's a critique of "preventing-crime" "studies":

http://www.guncontrol.ca/Content/TheCas ... tml#arming

[quote:dd9c7]However, crime has increased since the ban.[/quote:dd9c7]

But not gun-related crimes. You are trying to make a link where none exists. Our crime issue is down to other problems. Many pro-gun groups try and use this poor argument.

[quote:dd9c7]You mention accidental deaths and of course, this is always tragic. The number of accidental deaths in the US is extremely small. (and in fact is at an all time low in the US). Far less than the number of kids who get into their mom's cleaning supplies and drink something they shouldn't, or the number of kids killed on bikes, or the number of kids killed because their parents didn't make them wear a seatbelt, etc.[/quote:dd9c7]

And what about non-accidental deaths? The black communities are the worst to suffer from this, but I guess if you're white and middle class it is alright, right? You don't have to live with it.

[quote:dd9c7] I know your argument that guns were designed to kill and that makes them different. I somewhat disagree, guns are designed to propel a projectile at a high velocity. Where you aim that projectile is up to you. Some guns are designed solely as good target shooters, but could kill if misused. [/quote:dd9c7]

You are fooling yourself if you don't think they are designed to kill. That projectile talk is quite frankly a lame way of trying to get around the issue. Guns are supposed to kill. That is why they were invented and that is why they were designed.

[quote:dd9c7]There are many things in our modern world that are dangerous. Should we ban them all? I understand that in Australia, crime with knives went up are the gun ban and that now there is a movement to ban some knives. Where does it end?[/quote:dd9c7]

Knives are, generally speaking, not designed to kill.

[quote:dd9c7]A few additional comments about previous posts: The statement that most people are killed by their own guns is false. The fact is that guns are used more times to prevent a crime than they are to commit a crime.[/quote:dd9c7]

Show me that stats, and don't bring up the police force, because this discussion is about civilian control.

Every year, more than 30,000 people are shot to death in murders, suicides, and accidents. Another 65,000 suffer from gun injuries.

firearms kill about 85 people every day in this country."

http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/200 ... earms.html

If you have a country saturated with guns -- available to people when they are intoxicated, angry or depressed -- it's not unusual guns will be used more often,'' said Rebecca Peters, a Johns Hopkins University fellow specializing in gun violence. ``This has to be treated as a public health emergency.'
http://www.guncite.com/cnngunde.html

I like this paragraph, especially the last line:

Enough of the mindless violence in the United States made possible by easy gun availability. Sure, criminals will find a way to access guns on the black market despite any future ban. But the next time some unbalanced person decides to wreak havoc on a day care center, downtown street or school classroom, let him or her wield a tree branch or throw rocks. Knives of course are effective murder weapons, but not particularly efficient at a distance. Unlike the use of guns with criminal intent, the outlawing of guns in the United States might prove painful for some people, but not fatal.
http://ifrm.glocom.ac.jp/gii/dan20000502en.html

As I said in the another post, get your cheap thrills another way.

[quote:dd9c7] The statement that we would not have any mass school killings in the US if we banned guns, unfortunately, may be false also. The boys in Columbine, Colorado also had homemade bombs. I think if a kid wants to take out several people at his school, he doesn't need a gun to do it.[/quote:dd9c7]

You are being very naive if you think they could've caused the damage they did with just bombs. I believe every single death in that incident was from gun shot wounds. Pipe-bombs are alot harder to kill with, especially if someone is charging straight for you. Have you ever thrown a grenade?

[quote:dd9c7]I think discussing crime statistics and accidental deaths, or whether guns should be allowed only for hunting etc. is irrelevant. The discussion should be about whether or not a human being has a fundamental right to certain freedoms.[/quote:dd9c7]

It isn't irrelevant. Just because you may not be on the receiving end of it doesn't make it unimportant. As for the freedom issue, again, I argued that. I want the freedom of not living in fear of being blasted away.

[quote:dd9c7]In America we have many freedoms and they are not always popular. One of the posts says that freedom of speech is the best freedom that we have. But this freedom too, is not always popular and can incite people to kill. If we allowed our police to bust into any house and search it, we might be able to "save one life" but freedom from search and seizure is a human right so we have laws against it. The point is that we must defend our freedoms, even the ones that aren't popular, or we will slowly descend into a society with no freedom.[/quote:dd9c7]

You are confusing freedom with ancient 19th century values.

[quote:dd9c7] Freedoms are not taken from us in big steps but are whittled away over time. The events of 9/11 have many people talking about the necessity to give up a few freedoms in the name of safety. I believe that it was Thomas Jefferson (I'm not sure, it was one of the Founding Fathers) that said, "A people that gives up their freedom in the name of safety, deserves neither freedom nor safety." Once a freedom is taken away it is almost impossible to get it back. It becomes accepted not to have it. If we ban and confiscate all guns, do you think the people that really shouldn't have them are going to just turn them in?[/quote:dd9c7]

You are clinging to out-dated beliefs.

[quote:dd9c7]No. I have a couple of guns in my house, but not a single bullet. Do these guns pose a threat to anyone? No. Right now they are just attractive paper weights.[/quote:dd9c7]

I don't care what you're doing with yours, I assume you are "responsible" (if you can call someone who owns a gun that ;) ). What I do care about are the morons who have no idea what they're doing. You aren't going to educate them. Have you ever worked in a kindergarten? Have you tried telling a child not to hit someone with their toy? They don't listen. You have to take it away from them. These people are just like that. Call it unfair that they're ruining your fun, but tough. That's the price of life and your "freedom" isn't whether a penny if you're dead.

[quote:dd9c7]Ok, I think I've vented enough. No more posts from me. (except to correct errors in facts maybe)[/quote:dd9c7]

I guess I won't see your stats. Typical, make a claim and then don't back it up.

OK here are the real statistics from the CDC (http://www.cdc.gov) 1999 ( most current year )

Number of death from automobiles
[img]http://members.cox.net/jlandi/cdc_a.jpg[/img]

and now from firearms
[img]http://members.cox.net/jlandi/cdc_f.jpg[/img]

Funny how something not meant to kill, kills more people then something made to kill.

I could have found other "statistics" from the NRA or the anti-Gun groups but I thought a 3rd party would be a little more credible.

[quote:88404]CDC = Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) is recognized as the lead federal agency for protecting the health and safety of people - at home and abroad, providing credible information to enhance health decisions, and promoting health through strong partnerships. CDC serves as the national focus for developing and applying disease prevention and control, environmental health, and health promotion and education activities designed to improve the health of the people of the United States.[/quote:88404]

Ok... and what are you trying to prove. They support the stats I gave. No one here has claimed that more people die from firearms than vehicles... so what's your point? We're discussing guns here, not cars.

Can you find cause of vehicle incidents, i.e. drunk driving, falling asleep, brake failure etc?

So FWB maybe we should ban, knives, sticks, rocks...and so on

[quote="Pfc.Green":ef3a8]So FWB maybe we should ban, knives, sticks, rocks...and so on[/quote:ef3a8]

Green, here's an idea before you join a topic... read the posts. I've already covered this. Sigh. :roll:

[quote=FWB]Green, here's an idea before you join a topic... read the posts. I've already covered this. Sigh. :roll:[/quote:4ef2a]

Ok GOD we all know you know everything in world there is to know. :roll:

[quote="Pfc.Green":711b4]Ok GOD we all know you know everything in world there is to know. :roll:[/quote:711b4]

What kind of a reply is that? Can't you come up with anything better/relevant?

Yes, the person responsible for the vehicle is the cause in every incident you stated. just like guns.

We need to hold the individual responsible not the means. Everyone is so caught up in banning firearms because they are so bad and are meant to kill. When the statistics show vehicles ( not meant to kill ) are more likely to kill someone. We should ban all vehicles!

Sounds kind of stupid doesn't it?

On a side note. This thread started out. Who takes their kids to the range? Not the right to bear arms or gun control.

[quote:adb8a]Rubbish. Show me the stats.[/quote:adb8a]

Most gun control lobbying groups, such as the one you link to, refer to a stat showing that you are "22% more likely" to have the gun in your house used against you, either by a criminal, or by accident. (sometimes they say 40 or 43%, sometimes 18% - they can't make up their minds). This supposition comes from study done by Arthur Kellerman, M.D.. But he readily admits that he used very a very small scale group from "selected" districts because he wanted to make sure he proved his belief that guns should never be in the home. He justified his political bias by stating "People should be strongly discouraged from keeping guns in their homes." Apparently the end justifies the means. Furthermore, he only included cases where the criminal was actually killed. Dr. Edgar Suter refuted Kellerman's findings in the Journal of Medicine of Georgia. Dr. Suter said, "The true measure of the protective benefits of guns are the lives saved, the injuries prevented, the medical costs saved, and the property protected—not the burglar or rapist body count. Since only 0.1% to 0.2% of defensive gun usage involves the death of the criminal, any study, such as this, that counts criminal deaths as the only measure of the protective benefits of guns will expectedly underestimate the benefits of firearms by a factor of 500 to 1,000."

[quote:adb8a]How on earth do you judge it saved a life?[/quote:adb8a]

I agree that this is difficult. As in the case I mentioned earlier, I believe my father's flife was saved by his gun. Can I prove it? No. Can I be reasonably sure that a young guy with a baseball bat who is ramming your door, and who tries even harder to break down that door after he sees the 75 year old liilte guy inside, intends to cause someone serious bodily injury? yes.

This is not an unusual case, "criminologist Gary Kleck notes, "More commonly, guns are merely pointed at another person, or perhaps referred to or displayed, and this sufficient to accomplish the ends of the user." (Targeting Guns, Aldine de Gruyter, 1997, p. 162.) Kleck's 1995 landmark survey of defensive gun uses found guns used for protection as many as 2.5 million times annually, ("Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun," Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, Fall 1995.)"

[quote:adb8a]But not gun-related crimes. You are trying to make a link where none exists.[/quote:adb8a]

Ah, but the point is that crime in general, and even violent crime increased. "Between 1980-1995, Australia's firearm-related death rate was cut nearly in half and its firearm-related homicide rate nearly by two-thirds. (The former decreased 46%, from 4.8 deaths per 100,000 population to 2.6; the latter decreased 63%, from eight per 100,000 to three). In 1995, the annual number of firearm-related deaths fell to its lowest point in the 16-year period." So crime was decreasing in Australia prior to the ban. According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics website, incidences of violent crime increased from 1997 to 1998 (I think this was the first year of the ban) from 161,398 to 172,690, a 7% increase. (violent crime includes murder, attempted murder, armed robbery, kidnapping, sexual assault, etc.)

A few more quotes:

"The number of Victorians murdered with firearms has almost trebled since the introduction of tighter gun laws.
--Geelong Advertiser, Victoria, Sept. 11, 1997.

"Crime involving guns is on the rise despite tougher laws. The number of robberies with guns jumped 39% in 1997, while assaults involving guns rose 28% and murders by 19%."
--"Gun crime soars," Morning Herald, Sydney, Oct. 28, 1998.

"The environment is more violent and dangerous than it was some time ago."
--South Australia Police Commissioner Mal Hyde, reported in The Advertiser, Adelaide, Dec. 23, 1999.

[quote:adb8a]And what about non-accidental deaths? The black communities are the worst to suffer from this, but I guess if you're white and middle class it is alright, right? You don't have to live with it.[/quote:adb8a]

This is a little insulting. Crime is crime regardless of skin color. This statement is like me saying to you that your only concerned about banning guns because you don't want to be "blasted away" and that you don't care about all of the women that are raped because "You don't have to live with it" By the way, in the murder/attempted murder category in the Australian stats they increased from 639 cases to 666 cases, sexual assaults increased from 14,353 to 14,568. I guess you don't want the stats about accidental deaths. But.. 100,000 people of all ages were accidentaly killed in the US in 1999 (sorry that the last of year of stats that I could find). Tragically 824 were from accidental firearm deaths. 42,401 from autos, 13,162 from falls, 12,186 from poisoning, etc - firearms deaths were way down the list.

Your comments about my 19th century values will have to wait until another time - got to pick my daughter up from school - but I will say that freedom is never old fashioned. I think we are looking at this from two different directions. you say that "your "freedom" isn't whether a penny if you're dead" and I agree. But your freedom from the fear of being "blasted away" will not be worth a penny if a guy bigger than you beats you to death or rapes your daughter, etc. I guess it is all in how you look at it.

I'll have to comment on the rest of your post later. You have some good points, but sadly, they are not based in facts. :cry: :wink:

By the way, you also said that non-lethal by definition cannot kill you. Maybe its not designed to, but it can. Remember the actor a few years ago that was killed by a blank firing gun because it was fired too close to his head? Haven't you occasionally read about someone in a crowd getting killed by a rubber bullet that happens to hit them just right? Don't you remember Mama Cass choking on a ham sandwich? (actually I think she had a heart attack while eating a sandwich but it didn't go down in history that way). -- Boy I wish this had spell check cause there's no way I'm gonna proof this.

I personally have a real problem relating car deaths to gun deaths. That's one of the first argument's I here, everytime. Some things about cars & guns, you must have a license to drive(is needed to use a gun?), your car must be licensed(must guns licensed?), you must take driver's ed(is gun safety required before one can get a gun license?) to get a license, you must have insurance on you car(to use a gun does that gun have to be insured?

I think that if a persons is driving drunk, that person is guilty of using an automoble as a deady weapon.

You are missing the point here. Cars are not designed to kill, guns are. Using your argument we might as will give the right to civilians to store/carry anthrax or small pox? Or what about land mines? Or fully-functional tanks (i.e. with a working gun)? We can trust people not to drive down the centre of town and fire a few shells into a building, right? Or at the least it the individual would be to blame and not our lack of control as a society. Right?

You can't trust people. They are stupid. Sorry, but that is the way it goes. Those who moan about being able to fire a couple of rounds off will soon find something else to keep themselves amused. It won't kill them.

I have heard of it. I dont really liek the look of it. That and im used to teh m16 style. You know style is everything... :roll:

Ohh dear. This is where we're going to divert even further. Are you suggesting that killing a burgler is alright if he's trying to enter your house (no matter how small the percentage of this happening is)? Since when did individuals become the executors of the law? Let alone the death penalty issue at stake here.

[quote:4a7cc]Since only 0.1% to 0.2% of defensive gun usage involves the death of the criminal, any study, such as this, that counts criminal deaths as the only measure of the protective benefits of guns will expectedly underestimate the benefits of firearms by a factor of 500 to 1,000."p[/quote:4a7cc]

Did you read all the links I posted? There was one good one which criticised pro-gun studies saying they did the same thing, exaggerated cases of defensive (e.g. getting up when you here a bump in the night).

[quote:4a7cc]
I agree that this is difficult. As in the case I mentioned earlier, I believe my father's flife was saved by his gun. Can I prove it? No. Can I be reasonably sure that a young guy with a baseball bat who is ramming your door, and who tries even harder to break down that door after he sees the 75 year old liilte guy inside, intends to cause someone serious bodily injury? yes. [/quote:4a7cc]

I can't comment because I don't know your father's incident, but no doubt that most cases are exaggerated.

For every time a gun in the home is used in a self-defense homicide, a gun will be used in—

1.3 unintentional deaths

4.6 criminal homicides

37 suicides22

People living in a household with a gun are almost five times more likely to die by suicide than people living in a gun-free home

In 1997 there were 15,690 homicides.

Of these, 8,503 were committed with handguns.

Among handgun homicides, only 193 (2.3 percent) were classified as justifiable homicides by civilians.

For every time in 1997 that a civilian used a handgun to kill in self-defense, 43 people lost their lives in handgun homicides alone
http://www.vpc.org/fact_sht/hgbanfs.htm (those stats are from the FBI. There's alot more interesting info on there)

[quote:4a7cc]This is not an unusual case, "criminologist Gary Kleck notes, "More commonly, guns are merely pointed at another person, or perhaps referred to or displayed, and this sufficient to accomplish the ends of the user." (Targeting Guns, Aldine de Gruyter, 1997, p. 162.) Kleck's 1995 landmark survey of defensive gun uses found guns used for protection as many as 2.5 million times annually, ("Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun," Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, Fall 1995.)"[/quote:4a7cc]

See above.

[quote:4a7cc]Ah, but the point is that crime in general, and even violent crime increased.[/quote:4a7cc]

No, that isn't a point, because you are drawing a conclusion with no actual evidence. Just because crime increases does not mean it is control related. As I said, gun crimes are down. The reason other crime is up... well that's a seperate issue.

[quote:4a7cc]

This is a little insulting. Crime is crime regardless of skin color. This statement is like me saying to you that your only concerned about banning guns because you don't want to be "blasted away" and that you don't care about all of the women that are raped because "You don't have to live with it"[/quote:4a7cc]

Unfortunately crime is not just crime. Racism inflitrates every institution and you are kidding yourself if you think the politicians or the police are the same about the middle-class suburbs as they do about the poor downtown areas.

[quote:4a7cc]By the way, in the murder/attempted murder category in the Australian stats they increased from 639 cases to 666 cases, sexual assaults increased from 14,353 to 14,568. I guess you don't want the stats about accidental deaths. But.. 100,000 people of all ages were accidentaly killed in the US in 1999 (sorry that the last of year of stats that I could find). Tragically 824 were from accidental firearm deaths. 42,401 from autos, 13,162 from falls, 12,186 from poisoning, etc - firearms deaths were way down the list.[/quote:4a7cc]

Australia has quite strict control.... perhaps a link?
Anyway, I concede that accidental (although what exactly that means) death is rather small, but that is still 824 too many. 824 which I believe, if guns were bannedm wouldn't exist.

[quote:4a7cc]Your comments about my 19th century values will have to wait until another time - got to pick my daughter up from school - but I will say that freedom is never old fashioned. I think we are looking at this from two different directions. you say that "your "freedom" isn't whether a penny if you're dead" and I agree.[/quote:4a7cc]

No, I was suggesting your idea of freedom is old fashioned. It is not the same now as it was back then.

[quote:4a7cc]But your freedom from the fear of being "blasted away" will not be worth a penny if a guy bigger than you beats you to death or rapes your daughter, etc. I guess it is all in how you look at it.[/quote:4a7cc]

And you think a gun will stop that? I don't, not one bit. All that happens is that the "bad" guys end up with more weapons.

[quote:4a7cc]By the way, you also said that non-lethal by definition cannot kill you. Maybe its not designed to, but it can. Remember the actor a few years ago that was killed by a blank firing gun because it was fired too close to his head? Haven't you occasionally read about someone in a crowd getting killed by a rubber bullet that happens to hit them just right? Don't you remember Mama Cass choking on a ham sandwich? (actually I think she had a heart attack while eating a sandwich but it didn't go down in history that way). -- Boy I wish this had spell check cause there's no way I'm gonna proof this.[/quote:4a7cc]

Yes, but you're being pedantic. Certain incidents under certain circumstances. :)

FWB - try this link - http://www.ssaa.org.au/gunleg.html

From the short time I looked at these, I cannot tell how Australias gun control laws helped a bit. It looks like it had no effect at all, maybe even a negative effect. It just reinforces the old saying - If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.

If the existing laws in the US were enforced, we wouldn't need new laws. Unfortunately, its easier to create laws than it is to enforce them.

I'm sorry you dont want to hear the car vs gun arguement, but you are not interested in hearing the criminal vs non-criminal arguement, so i guess we are even. What about Switzerland where everyone is required to have a gun in their house? Why are their crime rates so low?

Not the case in Britain. You're also offering stats from a pro-gun site. Now, now, we all know that's not good. :)

However, what I can accept is that this comes down to a case by case issue. I'm not arguing that culture doesn't plays a huge role in this, it probably is the biggest, but sadly it isn't easy to overturn. Perhaps in the likes of Australia the criminal element has not been pushed off guns (this is one of the reasons the British police don't use such weapons, because they argue it causes criminals to resort to them too). You ban them, and perhaps, like here, given time, crooks will get used to not using them due to difficulty in obtaining and punishment for simply owning.

These things take time too. Let's wait some more years and see what happens. You can't expect change overnight.

[quote:ede7e]I'm sorry you dont want to hear the car vs gun arguement, but you are not interested in hearing the criminal vs non-criminal arguement, so i guess we are even. [/quote:ede7e]

It is because it is a pointless comparison. I'm still waiting for a response to my question on legalising fully armed tanks, land mines and anthrax.

[quote:ede7e]What about Switzerland where everyone is required to have a gun in their house? Why are their crime rates so low?[/quote:ede7e]

You've been reading to many NRA publications. No such law exists. The militia keep their guns at home. Maybe that is what is confusing you.

But for your information, the country is now reconsidering its laws after the Friedrich Leibacher incident. EDIT: Here, dug up a link for you:

http://www.eda.admin.ch/washington_emb/ ... unown.html

There it states that not only do you need a permit to buy a gun but you also:

A person who requests such a permit must demonstrate that he needs to bear arms in public in order to protect himself, other persons or goods against specific risks.

What about Japan, which has one of the lowest gun related crime stats in the world and strict gun control?

Im glad to see that RudeDogs thread about taking his daughters to a gun range to teach them gun safty and to have fun. Has been so contorted into a pissing contest about who's more right over gun control.
Why not just say nice pictures, good for you teaching the girls safety, and move on?

lol - and your sources weren't anti-gun?

I went back and read your links. They were all articles, not stats. Hihgly influenced by the authors personal beliefs. The links I sent had actual stats from some Australian buruea. Not the interpertation of the stats, just stats. I got the swiss comment there too.

I get sceptical (sp?) when an article is afaid to share its statistics.

The thing about cars and guns and criminals vs normal citizens is this. Law abiding gun owners have no intent to kill people with their guns. You refuse to acknowledge that. It might be apples and oranges to you, but not to law abiding gun owners. Gun owners arent the problem, criminals are.

Now, now. Even your research says the crime stats for Japan mean nothing. All crimes there are much lower, not just gun crimes. Tsk, tsk.

That's already been accepted. Where I have offered sources they've been from a fairly valid source (e.g. the FBI) or were backed up by another person (e.g. 30,000 people die each year from guns).

[quote:2475a]I went back and read your links. They were all articles, not stats. Hihgly influenced by the authors personal beliefs. The links I sent had actual stats from some Australian buruea. Not the interpertation of the stats, just stats.

I got the swiss comment there too.[/quote:2475a]

Well then it brings questions about the validity of your source as I've shown the Swiss comment was clearly a lie. If they're lying about that, one must question their stats.

At least my "opinions" came from fairly distingushed sources, such as academics, professors... one from Harvard.

[quote:2475a]I get sceptical (sp?) when an article is afaid to share its statistics.[/quote:2475a]

Like I've said, nothing I've said so far has yet to be questioned by other sources.

[quote:2475a]The thing about cars and guns and criminals vs normal citizens is this. Law abiding gun owners have no intent to kill people with their guns. You refuse to acknowledge that. It might be apples and oranges to you, but not to law abiding gun owners. Gun owners arent the problem, criminals are.[/quote:2475a]

And like I said (so you haven't been reading my posts), I'm aware of that, but sorry, tough shit :) . Gun control can reduce the criminal usage of them as Britain and Japan testify. But it goes deeper than this. The cultural indoctrination of guns is undoubtably a huge issue. Having gun users in society fuels the desensitization of them.

[quote:2475a]Now, now. Even your research says the crime stats for Japan mean nothing. All crimes there are much lower, not just gun crimes. Tsk, tsk.[/quote:2475a]

Yes, because there are strict policies concerning all crimes there.