[Kaijo]

Originally Posted by Lost Cause

I seriously doubt you'd be satisfied with having "smart guns" only. Eventually one Woukd be used and you'd be out to ban them too!

While you are free to doubt, I have admitted as much that I view a ban as experiment. Knives and chemicals and explosives can still kill people, but I am not advocating banning those. From all the data I have seen(15,000 to 30,000 people dead from guns each year), I have simply come to the conclusion that guns cause more harm then they prevent. There are, of course, individual exceptions.

And note also, that I don't think we should ban hunting rifles or shotguns. Merely that, because handguns cause the vast majority of gun-related death, banning handguns would be the most productive route. I chose to allow smart guns, because from all data I have seen thus far, while the gun owner is generally not a threat and a lawful member of society... the gun owner's family and friends can be. The Newtown shooter's mother was a law-abiding gun owner. Her son wasn't.

That's one thing gun owners need to realize in this discussion; sure, I'll readily admit that concealed-carry gun owners commit crimes at something like 1/20th the rate of the general population and police officers. We fully recognize that *you* are not a threat. What is a threat, are your family and the people you know. Either you gun gets stolen, or used by someone else without your control... and we get the Newtown shooter.

Originally Posted by kyp275

I don't dismiss them, I just don't place nearly as much weight on them due to their limitations as you do. I've never said they should be ignored, but rather that they need to be looked at more closely, and more comprehensive look given that includes other important factors. You want a ban based on studies that only looks at how much guns there are vs. how many gun deaths there are, I want studies that not only look at those two, but also poverty, organized crime like drug trade, gangs, the positive effects of gun ownership etc.

Those, I have not found, if you have one, I'll be more than happy to give it a read right now.

The FBI statistics, if you looked through all their charts, also have gun deaths broken down by sex and race, too. And although I don't have the study handy, I do recall reading that a lot of gun deaths happen in poorer black neighborhoods. So, if you want that angle to take the pressure of guns, I'll freely give it to you.

But correct if I'm wrong... it sounds like you are looking for other things to blame, rather than guns. And I'll admit there are other factors, but one fact *does* remain: as long as people have access to guns, they can kill a far greater number of people, than they ever could without them. You will never remove man's innate ability to commit violence. Violent crime will always be with us. What we can remove, is the ability for a single person to cause death on a mass scale.

Well, I could quote some leftist socialist policies that may alleviate things, as income inequality has hinted at in a study I read awhile back, as one cause of increased crime. So, taxing the rich much more to provide everyone with free health care, and perhaps even a basic income, would do wonders for the crime rate. I think you'd have better luck getting rid of handguns, though.

I was referring to the bit about the GOP ignoring polling results, not the book.

And I brought that up as an example of what people look like, who choose to ignore the gathered scientific data. I don't want to look like that, and I follow scientific consensus, so I tend to side with the published, peer-reviewed studies.