General Gun Control DISCUSSION Thread

[Lost Cause]

Originally Posted by Kyuu

Hey gun people...



http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/h...-show-18259364

Why so nervous?

Obviously the idiot never checked to see if it was unloaded before he left home!
And who's nervous?

[Vexx]

Some days I'm of the opinion that Americans may be becoming too stupid to own guns (or automobiles, power appliances, running water...) 8P

[maplehurry]

Originally Posted by Archon_Wing

But... but 2 people were hurt due to gun violence! Sure they might have been thugs, but that woman had no right to resort to violence.

Correct.

Innocent until proven guilty. The woman had no right to shoot them.

Not even police had any right to shoot at anyone (since they are assumed innocent) before they are judged guilty by court.

[kyp275]

Originally Posted by maplehurry

Correct.

Innocent until proven guilty. The woman had no right to shoot them.

Not even police had any right to shoot at anyone (since they are assumed innocent) before they are judged guilty by court.

Not sure if serious

[Kyuu]

Originally Posted by Lost Cause

Obviously the idiot never checked to see if it was unloaded before he left home!
And who's nervous?

It's them itchy trigger fingers.

[Kaijo]

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

Because if the system fails, we need to have parity with at least infantry so that we may remove said dictator.
It is as simple as that.
Without arms to wage war against such a dictatorship we have little or no chance of removal.

Yes, this is repeated over and over: "we need arms to wage war against a dictatorship that may happen." But I haven't had anyone tell me exactly how that will happen. Tell me how your shotgun or rifle, is going to defend us against a plane that is bombing us. Or a drone. Or an armored tank rolling through the streets.

That comment is ridiculous.
The Mohajadeen defeated the Soviet military with only small arms, after 27 years of war and the Soviets were using tanks, attack helicopters, and the like. In fact, we are losing in Afghanistan to similar forces.

You are forgetting all the assistance the mujahideen got. The US, Turkey, Britsish, Swiss, and China, among others, provided tons of weapons (guns and missiles... the latter of which we aren't legally allowed to possess) to Afghanistan. And this was a case of invasion by another power; the mujahideen simply annoyed the Soviets for 27 years until they got fed up and left.

So, are you saying that you expect the US people to get assistance from other countries if our president becomes a dictator? That our best hope is to annoy him for 27 years and he, the government, and the military that is against us... will just leave?

Yes, primarily because the "gun murders" in the US aren't not broken down by illegal firearms, criminal on criminal murders, and gang related murders. If we are going to talk about infringing on the rights of law abiding citizens, then we have to find the numbers for them. Meaning how many murders are non-gang, non-criminal on criminal, and non-legal weapons.
That becomes something of a chore and then attempting to compare that to the UK which uses their own method of criminal statistics poisons the waters even further.
Thus it really does become an "apples to oranges" scenario since we are talking about making policy based on statistics that are not compatible in the first place when any attempt at being specific is tried.
Thus we are stuck with generalities like violent crime.

Sorry, but you can compare someone killed by a gun in one country, vs. someone killed by a gun in another country. That's apples to apples. Whether they were shot by a gang member, or a family member, or a stranger is irrelevant right now. The fact of the matter is, the UK has VASTLY less gun death than the US has. No ifs, ands, or buts.

That is a complete non sequitur.
The crime reports within the US are uniform, and thus states can be compared.

And you'd be surprised to find that hospitals and police around the world keep cause of death certificates, and thus it is a simple matter to go through and find out how many died via guns. Thus, those statistics are comparable. Look, we're talking about gun death. You wandered off and attacked the strawman of violent crime. You did a good job knocking down the strawman, though.

What we are actually left with is the question: "Does this policy infringe on the rights of citizens?"
Short answer with regard to current gun control proposals is yes.
As I have already illustrated.

So, regardless of who is injured, terrorized, harmed, or killed... the only thing that matters is that I have a gun?

Who is tossing out the data?
I'm just using the data that is most compatable because it is the only way I've seen thus far to make any sort of accurate comparison.
The UK has been declared the most dangerous country in Europe, and according to the Telegraph has more violent crime than the US. I'd say they would know.

Okay, so one news article, we're starting to get somewhere. Still, you're hung up on the violent crime strawman argument. As your video noted before, though, the UK covers a TON of crime under the violent crime label. If I shoplift and bump into a clerk on the way out, that's a violent crime in the UK. I wonder... would people trade MUCH less gun deaths, for an increase in shoplifting? I know I would. I wonder what those mothers of Newtown children would say?

Which is precisely why we need armed teachers, guards, and administrators in schools.
That way, it doesn't matter what the weapon of choice is, there is a chance of reducing the number of dead significantly. Whereas no ban on any gun will do that as even Mayor Bloomberg has admitted with regard to the Newtown shooting.

Really? There was an armed officer at Columbine. He wasn't able to prevent much. Virginia Tech had an entire armed security force.... and they weren't able to prevent anything. There was a shooting at Fort Hood, a damn military base, and the soldiers all around weren't able to prevent it. The first armed officer to engage the shooter, wasn't able to stop him, either.

Look, in the best case of armed personnel at a school, the shooter *still* manages to kill someone people before being shot. In the best case of banning/heavily regulating... that person might kill or injure one or two people with a knife, before being subdued.

And you're forgetting all those teachers and administrators who are NOT comfortable using a gun, or having one near their children. Would you propose shoving a gun into their hand anyway? Force them to do something they don't want?

No, you have to deal with the reality that the 2nd amendment hasn't been repealed or revised.
There is no such thing as "gun crime" that is another made up term used by hoplophobes.

Seriously? You think "gun crime" is a made-up term, designed to inflame? What do you call a crime where someone has died or been injured by a gun?

If a handgun ban would work, Chicago wouldn't be the warzone it is right now.
CCW permits have worked best, and that is the path we as a nation need to follow, lest the violent crime skyrocket and get worse.

Because it is easy to get guns from states where there is no ban. Buy in Arizona, casually walk across the states to Illinois, and sell the guns on the streets. The only way a gun ban will work, is across the entire US, since we do much better at securing our borders. Yes, not 100%, but since the US is one of the biggest producers of guns, without us, the number of guns around will plummet dramatically.

I already have, whether you'll accept it or not is moot.

I told you, "Do thing A, and you can change my mind." You did thing B and said, "I have done thing B, which is what you said will change your mind." Where A and B are different things. I will repeat: Do thing A. Change wikipedia if you feel it's sources are wrong. If the sources really are wrong, then you have a duty to change it, to stop it from spreading false information! Once you do, my mind will change. That is what it will take.

Wikipedia is NOT a valid source of information, especially when dealing with politically charged subjects such as gun control.

Not this argument again... Look, you don't understand how wikipedia works. Yes, it can have false information, but that is when you go to where the sources are. Does the information have a source? Does the source actually have that information in it? If yes, then the wikipedia information is valid. Wikipedia is only as good as it's sources... and people willing to invest the time to correct it when it is wrong. Wikipedia is merely the avenue for verifiability, for the collection of of sources, to give information on a topic.

Your job is to attack the source, not wikipedia. You can attack wikipedia when there is no source, or when the source is wrong or does not give the information wikipedia quotes it has having. You currently have not done any of this.

Oh, well, here is one for you by Professor Gary Kleck and Don B. Kates.

Ooh, finally! Well, this is book I'd have to buy, unless I can find it online to read. But I can look up some reviews and read summaries. It seems to be the work of two criminologists, who, according to the summaries, wanted to cut through the extreme rhetoric on both sides to get to the truth. Sounds good so far. Let's see what some reviews say...

In one chapter, they dissect the methods of the gun control movement and conclude, perhaps with some reason, that the limited gun control measures currently being sought are part of a strategy toward banning all handguns. But this position is derided as the result of the "absolutist" and "prohibitionist" views of "anti-gun zealots." The authors argue that this zealotry has pushed the NRA into opposing even moderate gun controls, such as licensing and registration, for fear of eventually losing their right to own guns. Their attack on the "liberal media bias" may convince some readers, but the authors take it to a ridiculous extreme: the media's depiction of gun owners is a "bigoted stereotype that would be recognized and denounced as such if directed against gays, Jews, African-Americans or virtually any group other than gun owners." - Publishers Weekly

Huh, where have I heard the term "liberal media bias" before... Fox news, was it? I gotta say, when they hit such notes, it doesn't bode well for their cause. In any event, they don't seem as even-handed as they might claim. Found this pro-gun review, too, which talks about how great the book is, and has this gem:

"The book contains chapters on all the important topics. Kates begins with an excellent review of the role played by doctors and medical publications. He demolishes the fake studies and exposes the hijacking of medical research to support a political agenda. Numerous quotes document the often ludicrous claims of anti-gun "researchers" and the blatant censorship of information by medical journals. His use of the term, "overt mendacity" is a polite way of saying that the anti-gun doctors simply lied."

Wow, all those medical doctors are lying? They are involved in a huge conspiracy? Why isn't the media reporting on this!? Oh, that's because it is the liberal media, and they are complicit, right? Every single doctor and media person (other than Fair and Balanced Fox news) is in on the great conspiracy!

And yes, it has to be a conspiracy, because any "lying" on medical papers will be caught, or exposed in another paper. Never underestimate the ego of a scientist, who can show up another scientist by showing him to be wrong. I'll let people judge for themselves, this book and what it says. And I shall read through it myself when it arrives, but I gotta say, I have my doubts.

Now, are you going to read through all 15 sources on wikipedia?

That is correct, and the police currently have military-grade arms, so you just made my point for me that miliary arms are what are protected and thus any ban on them is unconstitutional.

So, you agree that I should be allowed to own a surface-to-air missile, as that is a military grade arm in service today. That if the government tried to ban citizens from having them, that would be an infringement on the 2nd amendment, right? So, will you stand with me in telling the government that I should be allowed to own as many surface-to-air missiles as I want? That my purchases of them should not be observed or tracked in any way, shape or form?

After all, I want my right to bear arms to defend myself and my family from possible government tyranny, and the government has planes and helicopters and drones.

You know, I'll close with this:

"So this isn't really about the constitution or efficacy of regulation or intruder defense. it's about how perilously close some people in this country feel they are living to a tyrant's rule.... But now I get it, now I see what's happening. So this is what it is. Their paranoid fear of a possible dystopic future prevents us from addressing our actual dystopic present. We can't even begin to address 30,000 gun deaths that are actually, in reality, happening in this country every year. Because a few of us must remain vigilant against the rise of imaginary Hitler." - Jon Stewart, Scapegoat Hunter

[Lightning_Wing]

Originally Posted by maplehurry

Correct.

Innocent until proven guilty. The woman had no right to shoot them.

Not even police had any right to shoot at anyone (since they are assumed innocent) before they are judged guilty by court.

Understand, that is not what the police have going through their heads when they go for lethal force.

[Kaijo]

You know, I have an interesting question for gun owners. A sort of "what would you do in this situation" kind of thing.

Let's say another "terrorist" attack happens, maybe multiple ones at the same time, all involving al quaida sympathizers who shoot up various places at the same time: schools, hospitals, train stations, airports, etc. Several hundred to a thousand people die. In response to this, a majority of the population finally pushes Congress into enacting a gun ban. You can own a single air rifle if you wish, but have to have a license and a thorough background check.

And before you ask, they get around the 2nd amendment by saying that, yes, someone can have other guns, but only if they are in a state-sanctioned militia unit. They argue that knives are arms, too, and thus they aren't truly infringing because you can still have arms, just not guns (except the aforementioned air rifle... and we'll throw in a musket, too).

So, congress passes these laws, and thus the police and the feds go out through the country collecting all the guns. So, your nightmare scenario is here, and it is something the majority of the populace want (call it 51% if you want). They are now knocking on your door, and have come for your guns, as the fear has been stated often enough.

What do you do? Do you hand them over and continue to fight in the system to get the law repealed? Do you shoot, or threaten to shoot the feds at your door? Do you disappear into the countryside with fellow gun owners and hide, while working up a guerilla unit?

I am trying to understand what exactly gun owners plan to accomplish, in the oft-stated nightmare scenario, but tweaking it a bit to make it a bit more realistic. Help me to understand what it is you would hope to accomplish, and what your plan of action would be.

[kyp275]

Originally Posted by Kaijo

Sorry, but you can compare someone killed by a gun in one country, vs. someone killed by a gun in another country. That's apples to apples. Whether they were shot by a gang member, or a family member, or a stranger is irrelevant right now. The fact of the matter is, the UK has VASTLY less gun death than the US has. No ifs, ands, or buts.

And it would be a flawed comparison if your goal was to determine the root cause of the problem.

Seriously? You think "gun crime" is a made-up term, designed to inflame? What do you call a crime where someone has died or been injured by a gun?

Depends on the nature of injury, if it's self inflicted, an accident, if inflicted by another, assault with a deadly weapon; for death, it'll be suicide, murder, or justified homicide.

This is why there's no "penis crime" when it comes to rape, or "fist crime" under battery, "knife crime" in a stabbing etc. As for being made-up... well, technically every term in every language is made up by someone, but I think what he was getting to was that anti-gunners tends to use the term with an implication that those crimes were caused by guns - and not the person using them.

since the US is one of the biggest producers of guns, without us, the number of guns around will plummet dramatically.

...only to be filled with illicitly manufactured weapons and the black market, only difference is that it'll be primarily the criminal elements of society that will have access to new sources of weapons.

We've banned alcohol before only to have it backfire in the most spectacular fashion back in our face; We've banned drugs - with the same result, slower perhaps, but no less spectacular.

But hey, what the hell, just because mass banning has never worked before doesn't mean we shouldn't keep doing it.

You can attack wikipedia when there is no source, or when the source is wrong or does not give the information wikipedia quotes it has having. You currently have not done any of this.

You're missing the point here, much like when we were debating the issue. A large part of the problem lies with the interpretation of the data (which again are often compiled using different standards and definitions).

All too often this is what you see:

US have more guns than UK > US have more gun deaths than UK > gun causes deaths.

which would be fine if the US and UK were two lab mice and guns are viruses, but quickly becomes problematic if you apply it to the real world, where there are far more factors that influences human behaviors.

And yes, it has to be a conspiracy, because any "lying" on medical papers will be caught, or exposed in another paper.

Not exactly:

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/...cience/308269/

There are few things in the world as malleable as statistics.



and as much as I like Jon Stewart, he's no more of an expert on this issue than any of us. but since he raised that 30k figure again, I figure I'll ask you this:

Why not ban alcohol(75k+ deaths, 10-20k from drunk driving) and cigarettes (300k deaths, 58k+ from second hand smoke)?

alcohol ban has been tried once before, but there was the AWB, and cigarettes certainly have never been banned before - will you support a ban on alcohol and cigarettes?

Originally Posted by Kaijo

antigunner's wetdream.

Setting aside the sheer impossibility of your scenario (it's about as likely as the new Red Dawn movie), the first thing that would come would be a legal challenge, the second part would be... well, nothing - long guns are not registered in michigan, they can't seize what they don't know.

Although I have to say that if the US ever devolves into a place where you have the police going house-to-house kicking down door to take everyone's gun... it's probably time to move to another country.

[hyl]

Originally Posted by kyp275

Why not ban alcohol(75k+ deaths, 10-20k from drunk driving) and cigarettes (300k deaths, 58k+ from second hand smoke)?

Huge loss in losing out the sin taxes

[Kaijo]

Kyp, once again, you're dodging (and the post I made was in reply to someone else, not you). If you're not going to straight-forward address things, then don't bother to reply. In fact, the mods already spoke on you and me, which I decided to abide by. So, partly that, and partly that you didn't really address my honest inquiry, then I am going to refrain from addressing your posts. I only make this post, so that everyone else understands why I am not going to address your post responses. In fact, I already answered your alcohol question once before, so that kinda shows that you aren't really reading my posts. In such an atmosphere, it is impossible to have any discussion.

[kyp275]

Originally Posted by Kaijo

Kyp, once again, you're dodging (and the post I made was in reply to someone else, not you).

I'm sorry, I didn't realize this was your PM section.

the mods already spoke on you and me

which was directed at the uncivil tone the discussion was sinking into, so unless you want to bring it to that level again...

you didn't really address my honest inquiry, then I am going to refrain from addressing your posts.

Please point out where I did not address your honest inquiry. Looking back at what I wrote, I certainly think I explained myself pretty clearly when I responded to your issues about the gun-crime term, effects of a ban, accuracy of medical studies.

In fact, I already answered your alcohol question once before.

Not quite. Your response was that alcohol ban was tried once before and it didn't work, so there's no need to try it again.

In comparison, there was the assault weapons ban, that also didn't work, so under your logic, why should it be tried again? Hell, let's just remove the alcohol part all together and make it even simpler.

Why not ban cigarettes?

oh, and while you're at it, let's do a reverse of what you were doing:

please show me a study that scientifically shows irrefutably that gun ownership is the root cause of the violent crimes and murders in the US, while taking into account population density, social-economic situation - ie. an actual comprehensive look on the whole picture.

Originally Posted by hyl

Huge loss in losing out the sin taxes

shhhh, haven't you heard? any law is worth trying if it can save even one life!!

[hyl]

Originally Posted by kyp275

shhhh, haven't you heard? any law is worth trying if it can save even one life!!

I am not sure if you are serious by that or not, because i can think of several stupid laws that can save a select few people. Like banning certain type of food or ingedients, because people who have allergies might kill themselves by accidently consuming it.

But the sin taxes are IMO a good reason for not banning tobacco and alcohol

[GundamFan0083]

Originally Posted by DonQuigleone

I don't think we should form laws based on "appeasement" thinking.

No we should not appease the hoplophobes.
After all the definition of appeasement is as follows (not from wikipedia, I do not consider them a valid source of information):

1.
to bring to a state of peace, quiet, ease, calm, or contentment; pacify; soothe: to appease an angry king.

2.
to satisfy, allay, or relieve; assuage: The fruit appeased his hunger.

3.
to yield or concede to the belligerent demands of (a nation, group, person, etc.) in a conciliatory effort, sometimes at the expense of justice or other principles.

You have ended your own argument because the gun control side of this argument is the appeasement side.
They are the ones attempting to criminalize 80,000,000+ people and threatening to use force against them if they don't comply by registering and turning in their weapons.
The constitutional side of this isn't the one that is the aggressor, they are the ones defending their rights that were established 220+ years ago.

The lawful side of the argument is the one protecting a portion of the law which already exists within the US Constitution, the appeasement side is attempting to undermine that law through inferior statutory acts as a means of neutralizing the 2nd amendment without going through the proper constitutional process.

If they even threaten to take up arms in order to threaten the government into changing the law, they should be put on trial for treason. Fortunately our armed forces are currently powerful enough to put down such domestic terrorists.

The US only has 1.4 million people in the military and most of them are overseas. If 10% of the gun owners in the US oppose new regulation 8-10,000,000 people, then we will have a new government overnight.

The problem with the current talk around the second amendment is that it encourages this kind of thinking, the idea that you can intimidate the government in order to get your way.

Wrong, it is the hoplophobic gun control group that is attempting to intimidate through emotional diatribes and propaganda. They are the ones having to try and manipulate the conversation away from the truth and focus on emotion because if only facts are used, they lose the argument.

Some might argue that guns inflict more damage then is necessary to the common defense (that would be the belief in Britain and Ireland), and for the uncommon defense ("war") we have the armed forces, reservists and if necessary conscription.

That may be fine for the UK, but not the US.

The difference between nerve gas and guns is merely one of degree. There isn't a fundamental difference between the two (besides the fact that one is really over the top, but many would say the same of a machine gun). The question is where you put the post that seperates "necessary for the common defense" from "over the top weapon of mass destruction". Right now that line is around a rocket launcher, but there's no reason it could be shifted somewhat to include, say, all semi-automatic weaponry.

Actually the bottom of the scale is semiautomatic weaponry as other types of weapons below that are obsolete and not used as standard weaponry by other militaries of the world. I mean, unless NATO and other countries are going to go back to bolt actions and revolvers.
You see, the standard is what infantry use, I am of the opinion that the 2nd amendment has already been violated with Reagan's FOPA of 1986.

What if the "militia" engages in armed insurrection against the US government, or indeed other parts of the "militia"?

Yeah, and what if the Mexican army decides to try and take back California?
It isn't likely and thus not a concern so long as the political party in power does not attempt to deprive the citizens of their right to a Republican form of government and/or infringe on the rights protected by the Bill of Rights.

Perhaps the second amendment gives a false sense of security. The gun makes you think you're free, when in fact you aren't.

I would partially agree with that by saying I think that the 2nd amendment has placated a large number of Americans to the violations of the other amendments in the Bill of Rights.

In all likelihood, if the people rose up against an elected "tyrant" the last thing they would likely do is restore the constitution, they'd probably create some kind of "people's dictatorship", be it fascistic or communist.

The issue is that tyranny seldom comes from within the government, more usually it comes from without, from the most radical elements of society arming themselves to overthrow the government.

Governments are comprised of people who always seek more and more power, so I firmly disagree. Government always degenerates into tyranny of one sort or another. Whether Imperial, theistic, socialist, fascist, or otherwise is irrelevant.

Even if they're just a minority, they can still use deceit and intimidation to overcome the greater majority and take control of the state, like in Italy or Germany. If you want an education in how democracy is destroyed, reading about those two is quite informative.

Already have, and I'd add Russia to that since the Bolsheviks were the minority.

Originally Posted by Kaijo

Yes, this is repeated over and over: "we need arms to wage war against a dictatorship that may happen." But I haven't had anyone tell me exactly how that will happen. Tell me how your shotgun or rifle, is going to defend us against a plane that is bombing us. Or a drone. Or an armored tank rolling through the streets.

Your thinking is too primitive and reflects the failure of the gun control crowd's threat of using the US military to wage war against the American people. Because that is what you are saying when you say there will be planes bombing, drones being used, tanks rolling through the streets, etc. You assume that this would be some kind of conventional war. Think again.
It would be a counterinsurgency operation and the US doesn't do well against those, and never has. Vietnam, Somalia, Afghanistan, etc, have all proven how poorly large scale mechanized groups are against small decentralized guerilla groups.
Thus you need to educate yourself on the guerilla wars of the 20th century before you make such silly statements.

You are forgetting all the assistance the mujahideen got. The US, Turkey, Britsish, Swiss, and China, among others, provided tons of weapons (guns and missiles... the latter of which we aren't legally allowed to possess) to Afghanistan. And this was a case of invasion by another power; the mujahideen simply annoyed the Soviets for 27 years until they got fed up and left.

No I'm not, I'm aware of the fact that large factions of the military will not go along with a gutting of the 2nd amendment and thus any revolutionaries would have actual ordiance from the US armed forces very quickly.
You forget that an all volunteer military isn't there to impose the will of a dictator, it is there to protect its people.

So, are you saying that you expect the US people to get assistance from other countries if our president becomes a dictator? That our best hope is to annoy him for 27 years and he, the government, and the military that is against us... will just leave?

Again with this assumption about the miltitary. You have a very puerile understanding of this situation and it shows.

Sorry, but you can compare someone killed by a gun in one country, vs. someone...

Nice try, but I already shot you down on this, proved it, and now all you can do is reset back to your failed argument.

So, regardless of who is injured, terrorized, harmed, or killed... the only thing that matters is that I have a gun?

Nice BS question.
If you choose to be a victim that is your business, but you have NO right to ask anyone to give up their arms to join you.

Okay, so one news article, we're starting to get somewhere. Still, you're hung up on the violent crime strawman argument. As your video noted before, though, the UK covers a TON of crime under the violent crime label. If I shoplift and bump into a clerk on the way out, that's a violent crime in the UK. I wonder... would people trade MUCH less gun deaths, for an increase in shoplifting? I know I would. I wonder what those mothers of Newtown children would say?

Wrong it is the fact of the matter when dealing with this argument it is disingenuous to attempt to label it a strawman when the facts support that violent crime is the issue here, not made up terms like "gun crime".
Or are you saying that the police should be disarmed as well, since they deal with more violent crime than murder and they're armed with real assault rifles, grenades, and use standard size magazines?
I already ommitted the minor crimes listed in the UK home office crime report for 2010. The Telegraph did the same thing and said so right at the begining of their article.

Analysis of figures from the European Commission showed a 77 per cent increase in murders, robberies, assaults and sexual offences in the UK since Labour came to power.

This isn't about your red herring of shop lifting, this is about violent crime with a weapon (rape, murder, robbery). And yes the UK has a higher rate and you can't handle that fact becuase it destroyed your argument.

Really? There was an armed officer at Columbine. He wasn't able to prevent much.

No, he was not there to defend the school. That Jefferson county Sheriff was the truancy officer and he was away at lunch. There was no armed security there no matter how much the Brady Campaign, the Gun Policy Center, or the other hoplophobic gun control groups wanted there to be.
They are lying, and attempting to twist the facts to fit their agenda.
You parrotting their lies only makes you look foolish.

Virginia Tech had an entire armed security force.... and they weren't able to prevent anything. There was a shooting at Fort Hood, a damn military base, and the armed soldiers all around weren't able to prevent it.

You're making a great case for allowing students and teachers to be armed since that is the only thing that would have stopped Cho.
Disarming the popluation would do nothing to stop a determined madman, since gasoline, and other weapons can be just as effective if not moreso.
On top of this, the campus police at VT were not patrolling classrooms, they patrol the grounds and respond to calls for help. If there is one thing all of these attacks from the 1764 Pontiac Rebellion Massacre onwards, teaches us is that they are SUPRISE attacks. That means you have to have an active defender right there at the place and moment of attack to stop an active shooter.
Police cannot help with that, they are responders not defenders.
Get that though your head.

Here is what we need more of, even though he didn't fire his weapon:

At Fort Hood, that was a gun free area, all administration areas in the military are, and no gun control law would have stopped the Ft. Hood incident since the perp was a military soldier. The military already has strict gun control and it did nothing to stop the terrorist attack.
So once again your argument crumbles all around you. You keep shoving out the strawmen and red herrings to no avail.
In short, you can't bullshit me.

Look, in the best case of armed personnel at a school, the shooter *still* manages to kill someone people before being shot. In the best case of banning/heavily regulating... that person might kill or injure one or two people with a knife, before being subdued.

Wrong again, as I already illustrated, but let's add another one shall we?
Norway.
They have laws far, far stricter than the United States yet Anders Breivik shot and killed 77 people.
Lot of good gun control did there huh?
Or how about the taxi driver in the UK that went ballistic over a decade after their gun control laws passed?
He killed 12 people in Cumbria, UK.

And you're forgetting all those teachers and administrators who are NOT comfortable using a gun, or having one near their children. Would you propose shoving a gun into their hand anyway? Force them to do something they don't want?

No I would propose that the school board make a choice, do they wish to risk another shooting or fire the teachers that refuse to protect their students.
Those teachers are responsible for those children while they are in their care, and that means protecting them with a gun.

Seriously? You think "gun crime" is a made-up term, designed to inflame? What do you call a crime where someone has died or been injured by a gun?

Murder or an accident, which is how Title 18 classifies it, there is no "gun crime" in the American jurisprudence. It is a propaganda term just like "gun safety" that is being peddled now or "assault weapon".
It is identical to Edward Bernays' "Torches of Freedom."

Because it is easy to get guns from states where there is no ban.

Wrong again.
It is ILLEGAL to send firearms across state lines without going through an FFL dealer. An FFL dealer cannot sell weapons or accessories that are banned in one state from a state where they are not banned. Also, a firearm or reciever (not even a complete weapon) MUST go from one FFL dealer to another across state lines, and thus every transaction has to go through a background check when arms cross state lines legally.
What you're illustrating is the illegal transfer of arms and no gun law has been able to stop that since 1968.
So all you've done is prove that gun control doesn't work.

Good job.

I told you, "Do thing A, and you can change my mind."

No, I showed that no matter how much information is presented to you, you will ignore it because your mind is made up. You have emersed yourself in lies and the emotion of the issue rather than the facts.

Not this argument again...

Yes, this argument again because wikipedia is a cesspool of quackery.

Ooh, finally! Well, this is book I'd have to buy, unless I can find it online to read. But I can look up some reviews and read summaries. It seems to be the work of two criminologists, who, according to the summaries, wanted to cut through the extreme rhetoric on both sides to get to the truth. Sounds good so far. Let's see what some reviews say...Wow, all those medical doctors are lying? They are involved in a huge conspiracy? Why isn't the media reporting on this!? Oh, that's because it is the liberal media, and they are complicit, right? Every single doctor and media person (other than Fair and Balanced Fox news) is in on the great conspiracy!

Wow there was an Epic Fail on your part.
Professor Kleck used to be the loudest voice against John Lott until he went through and examined the facts of this issue.
It caused Professor Kleck to change his mind and realize that there is in fact a bias within the medical community. And why wouldn't there be? They only see the criminal portion of this issue, not the number of firearms that actually save lives.
That's not conspiracy, that is simply a bias due to profession.

Now, are you going to read through all 15 sources on wikipedia?

15?
I checked through the 52 sources of the article you linked to on wackypedia:


1.^ Carter, Gregg Lee (2002). Guns in American society: an encyclopedia of history, politics, culture, and the law. Santa Barbara, Calif: ABC-CLIO. pp. 262. ISBN 1-57607-268-1.
2.^ Theodore, Larissa (2008-03-29). "GUNS: A RIGHT OR A SOCIETAL ILL?". Beaver County Times and Allegheny Times. "Gun violence by definition is people breaking the law, and drugs are a huge part of it in inner cities...It's not the gun that is causing them to commit the act."
3.^ Courtesy link to archive.org copy of Michigan Partnership to Prevent Gun Violence: Statistics
4.^ Encyclopedia of Public Health: Gun Control
5.^ Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence: Kids and Gun Violence
6.^ "About us," Brady Center to Prevent Violence, undated
7.^ "Targeting Criminals, not Gun Owners," NRA-ILA; 8/17/06
8.^ a b "2011 Global Study on Homicide". United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC). Retrieved 2012-12-18.
9.^ Cook, Philip J., Gun Violence: The Real Cost, Page 29. Oxford University Press, 2002
10.^ Committee on Law and Justice (2004). "Executive Summary". Firearms and Violence: A Critical Review. National Academy of Science. ISBN 0-309-09124-1.
11.^ Kellermann, A.L., F.P. Rivara, G. Somes, et al. (1992). "Suicide in the home in relation to gun ownership". New England Journal of Medicine 327 (7): pp. 467–472. doi:10.1056/NEJM199208133270705. PMID 1308093.
12.^ Kellermann, AL, Rivara FP, et al. "Suicide in the Home in Relation to Gun Ownership." NEJM 327:7 (1992):467-472.
13.^ Miller, Matthew and Hemenway, David (2001). Firearm Prevalence and the Risk of Suicide: A Review. Harvard Health Policy Review. p. 2. "One study found a statistically significant relationship between gun ownership levels and suicide rate across 14 developed nations (e.g. where survey data on gun ownership levels were available), but the association lost its statistical significance when additional countries were included."
14.^ Cook, Philip J., Jens Ludwig (2000). "Chapter 2". Gun Violence: The Real Costs. Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-513793-0.
15.^ Ikeda, Robin M., Rachel Gorwitz, Stephen P. James, Kenneth E. Powell, James A. Mercy (1997). Fatal Firearm Injuries in the United States, 1962-1994: Violence Surveillance Summary Series, No. 3. National Center for Injury and Prevention Control.
16.^ "Suicide in the U.S.A.". American Association of Suicidology.
17.^ Kleck, Gary (2004). "Measures of Gun Ownership Levels of Macro-Level Crime and Violence Research". Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 41 (1): pp. 3–36. doi:10.1177/0022427803256229. NCJ 203876. "Studies that attempt to link the gun ownership of individuals to their experiences as victims (e.g., Kellermann, et al. 1993) do not effectively determine how an individual's risk of victimization is affected by gun ownership by other people, especially those not living in the gun owner's own household."
18.^ Lott, John, John E. Whitley (2001). "Safe-Storage Gun Laws: Accidental Deaths, Suicides, and Crime". Journal of Law and Economics 44 (2): pp. 659–689. doi:10.1086/338346. "It is frequently assumed that safe-storage laws reduce accidental gun deaths and total suicides. We find no support that safe-storage laws reduce either juvenile accidental gun deaths or suicides."
19.^ United Nations Office of Drugs and Crime. "Global Burden of Armed Violence".
20.^ Federal Bureau of Investigation, "Guns are the weapon of choice", Associated Press, 2011.
21.^ "Questionnaire for the Seventh United Nations Survey of Crime Trends and Operations of Criminal Justice Systems, covering the period 1998 - 2000". United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC).
22.^ a b "The Seventh United Nations Survey on Crime Trends and the Operations of Criminal Justice Systems (1998 - 2000)". United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC). Retrieved 2008-06-19.
23.^ WISQARS Injury Mortality Reports, 1999 - 2005, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
24.^ Henry E. Schaffer, Don Kates and William B. Waters IV: Public Health Pot Shots--How the CDC succumbed to the Gun "Epidemic." Reason Magazine
25.^ Pro-Gun Groups & Anti-Gun Groups--Does Anti-Gun Researcher David Hemenway Have Something To Hide? NRA-ILA, 3/24/06
26.^ Australia — Gun Facts, Figures and the Law gunpolicy.org
27.^ Guns in Azerbaijan gunpolicy.org
28.^ Guns in Barbados gunpolicy.org
29.^ Guns in Belarus gunpolicy.org
30.^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u Gun Laws Comparison gunpolicy.org
31.^ a b c d e f g 1999 figures; 2000 figures not available
32.^ Guns in Chile gunpolicy.org
33.^ Guns in Denmark gunpolicy.org
34.^ 1998 figures; 1999 and 2000 figures not available
35.^ NDR: Grundwissen privater Waffenbesitz
36.^ Hungarian Weapons Law davekopel.org
37.^ Guns in Paraguay gunpolicy.org
38.^ Guns in Poland gunpolicy.org
39.^ Guns in Portugal gunpolicy.org
40.^ Guns in Qatar gunpolicy.org
41.^ Guns in Slovakia gunpolicy.org
42.^ Guns in Slovenia gunpolicy.org
43.^ Guns in Spain gunpolicy.org
44.^ Guns in Ukraine gunpolicy.org
45.^ Guns in Uruguay gunpolicy.org
46.^ United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime: Homicide Statistics web page; 2011 Global Study on Homicide - Homicides by firearm statistics data Excel spreadsheet, with figures to 2010. Accessed 5 January 2012
47.^ "United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, Crime Data".
48.^ "The Relative Frequency of Offensive and Defensive Gun Uses: Results from a National Survey". Violence and Victims 15 (3): 257–272. 2000.
49.^ a b Cook, Philip J. (2000). Gun Violence: The Real Costs. Oxford University Press. ISBN ISBN 0-19-513793-0..
50.^ Crime Is Not the Problem: Lethal Violence in America. Oxford University Press. 1997. ISBN 0-19-513105-3.
51.^ Annest JL, Mercy JA, et al. "National Estimates of Nonfatal Firearm-Related Injuries: Beyond the Tip of the Iceberg." JAMA 273:22 (1995):1749-1754.
52.^ Garbarino, James. "Children, Youth, and Gun Violence: Analysis and Recommendations". Princeton-Brookings.

Wow, let's see how impartial those wiki sources are shall we?

First I'll list the Gun Control Advocate groups/individuals used by highlighting them in red on the list above.

Greg Lee Carter is a member of the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence.
Philip J. Cook is a contributor to the Brady Campaign.
David Hemmenway is a member of the Joyce Foundation (gun control group).
Dr. Author Kellerman is a contributor to the Brady Campaign.

There are 26 citations from gun control groups and their sympathizers.

Now I'll highlight the 2nd amendment rights groups and their contributors in blue.

Gary Kleck, John Lott, Don kates, and David Kopel are thrown into the blue category since they support the facts about the 2nd amendment and this issue.
There are only 6 cited.

The rest are "neutrals/unknowns" and they comprise only 19 citations.
As far as the 2nd amendment is concerned, wikipedia is bias to the extreme.
Now, don't cite wikipedia again to me because I will dismiss it out of hand as propaganda.

So, you agree that I should be allowed to own a surface-to-air missile, as that is a military grade arm in service today. That if the government tried to ban citizens from having them, that would be an infringement on the 2nd amendment, right? So, will you stand with me in telling the government that I should be allowed to own as many surface-to-air missiles as I want? That my purchases of them should not be observed or tracked in any way, shape or form?

Could you be any more childish?
I've already shown you numerous times what constitutes a weapon for the common defense. A surface-to-air missile system is crew served and is NOT useful for the common defense. Or do you not know what a SAS is?



That is a SAS.
Or did you mean a shoulder-launch anti-aircraft rocket?


Because there is a huge difference between those.
If you meant a shoulder launched anti-aircraft missile, then no, it has no use for putting down an insurrection, nor upholding the laws of the union. It may be useful to repel an invasion, but not necessary.
Now, I will not enterain your inane question again, so don't ask it, or I will ignore it.

After all, I want my right to bear arms to defend myself and my family from possible government tyranny, and the government has planes and helicopters and drones.

I doubt you'd be able to defend yourself from a rabid squirrel let alone the government.

You know, I'll close with this:

"So this isn't really about the constitution or efficacy of regulation or intruder defense. it's about how perilously close some people in this country feel they are living to a tyrant's rule.... But now I get it, now I see what's happening. So this is what it is. Their paranoid fear of a possible dystopic future prevents us from addressing our actual dystopic present. We can't even begin to address 30,000 gun deaths that are actually, in reality, happening in this country every year. Because a few of us must remain vigilant against the rise of imaginary Hitler." - Jon Stewart, Scapegoat Hunter

Your position is so weak you have to resort to a comedian?
Yet you'd dis Professor Gary Kleck or John Lott?
Yeah, you're not bias on this issue are you Kaijo?

[DonQuigleone]

The difference is that people kill themselves with smoking and alcohol. While people kill other people with guns.

[kyp275]

Originally Posted by hyl

I am not sure if you are serious by that or not, because i can think of several stupid laws that can save a select few people.

That's actually what the White House said during the revealing of their gun control proposal - that if it saves the life of even one child, then it's worth doing.

But the sin taxes are IMO a good reason for not banning tobacco and alcohol

Not gonna argue with that, but then that's not the standard the anti-gun crowd are using.

Originally Posted by DonQuigleone

The difference is that people kill themselves with smoking and alcohol. While people kill other people with guns.

Well, people certainly have no qualms about grouping suicide as part of the gun death statistic, so I don't see why smoking and alcohol should get a self-inflicted exemption.

Even if we remove the self-inflicted portion, that brings gun down to what, 10-12k, alcohol to 10-20k (drunk driving), and smoking to 58k (second hand smoke), which IMO is still a valid comparison.

[Vexx]

Um ... smoking and alcohol DO kill or hurt other people than the user. Second-hand smoke. Income diversion of lower income people from necessities. Driving while intoxicated. Committing violence while intoxicated.

All social arguments for banning (though we tried that already). We're having more luck with smoking with group consensus and social adaptation.

Random note: I find the inclusion of a shooter as one of the dead in a murders/suicide to be misleading.

[Ithekro]

Wikipedea is a source to get to sources. It is those sources cited that would need checking. It can be useful, though not as much on hot political subjects because it can be censored by the users. If the sources cited pan out, it where it can be useful.


Though in watch the back and forth, I am under the impression that the best way to provide information to Kaijo at this time would be to provide sources for pretty much everything one mentions and perhaps have an extended bibliography at the bottom. As a historian I should be doing that, but I am very much out of practise. If nothing else it would give a scientist papers and studies to go though, which has been what has been asked for. Bias does not seem to be an issue, just send it all so it can be reviewed and let the scentific method proceed in that case.

The rest of you seem to have more issues with what bias is being used by whatever author or group. But let the scientist have everything, since that was what was stated to be desired to form or reform an opinion.

Such an act might also reduced the back and forth that sometimes gets heated, or sometimes gets redundant. Also it would provide others with sources they might not be aware of prior to the posting as we've seem there seems to be a very wide gap in what people think when it came to handheld weapons and the incidents that they have been involved in the last 100 years or so. Plus gaps in government knowledge when it comes to the US Constitution, US Law, and how the sytem is suppose to work.

Also the realites of scale. There was a small debate on the police and size of the United States. I would point out that even urban areas in the Western states are very spread out. Urban Sprawl is a fact out here. We build cities outwards for many miles rather than building up into skyscrapers like they do on the East Coast or in older cities in Europe where they are building in defined areas existing hundreds of years and contained by the city or towns next to them. Out here you have uban areas built in what was the wilderness and have been expanding into it for a hundred years or more. Just check out places like Los Angeles that's urban area has spread to something that is nearly the size of say Israel. A large part of that is under the LAPD, and they are notorious for not understanding the people they are serving. Some claim it is because they have been a patrol car force since nearly the beginning of the 20th century due to the scale of the area they patrol. This as oppse to police that walk there patrols who get to know people. In LA, the cops don't have time to know people...they patrol in their cars. They are quite armed though, but since they don't know the people all that well, they do not always know who is suppose to be there and who is not.

[DonQuigleone]

Yes, but second hand smoke is not a crime of commission, no one thinks "I'm going to roast that guy's ass with this smoke".

Likewise, no one starts to drink thinking "I'm going to go out driving and kill me some pedestrians".

And, of course, it's still not a valid comparison, because we do pass laws to reduce the likelihood of those things causing deaths:

RE second hand smoke: In most western countries and American state workplace smoking bans are now in effect. Most people do not have to be exposed to second hand smoke in the course of their work. Being exposed to second hand smoke is now pretty much restricted to within homes.

RE Drunk driving: It is an arrestable offence! We have carried out anti-drunk driving campaigns to in order to reduce drunk driving deaths (And they have worked! We have less drunk driving deaths now then at any time in the last 50 years!). For instance barmen are in many places now allowed to knowingly serve alcohol to someone who is over the limit, and they know will be driving. They are also legally obligated to provide non-alcoholic beverages in order to facilitate designated drivers.

Whereas for guns, in the last 10 years, the USA has done NOTHING to try to reduce gun related deaths. In fact, what few restrictions there were have been gutted at the behest of the gun lobby, and so we are where we are at now.

[Kaijo]

Originally Posted by kyp275

I
Not quite. Your response was that alcohol ban was tried once before and it didn't work, so there's no need to try it again.

In comparison, there was the assault weapons ban, that also didn't work, so under your logic, why should it be tried again? Hell, let's just remove the alcohol part all together and make it even simpler.

Why not ban cigarettes?

Fine, you want the answer to this again? What I actually said, was that banning alcohol caused more deaths, then with it legal. I didn't say anything about whether it worked. In fact, drinking levels did go down, from what I understand, so in that measure it worked. But I, and many others, didn't believe the loss of lives was worth the cost. To me, it is simply a matter of what saves more lives.

Cigarettes? Actually, you'd get no argument from me about banning them, since second hand smoke has a harmful effect on others. And thus I'd be willing to try a cigarette ban, and see if it works. Just as I am willing to try a gun ban and see if it works. Now, if I was a gun nut, I'd be saying, "No! We shouldn't try something to see if it works!" Because I'd be a gun nut then, instead of a scientist who wants to experiment and see if something works or not.

It's not like there are a hundred other countries out there who have a gun ban or heavy regulation and thus dramatically lower deaths via guns. Oh wait...

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

[/I]Your thinking is too primitive and reflects the failure of the gun control crowd's threat of using the US military to wage war against the American people. Because that is what you are saying when you say there will be planes bombing, drones being used, tanks rolling through the streets, etc. You assume that this would be some kind of conventional war. Think again.
It would be a counterinsurgency operation and the US doesn't do well against those, and never has. Vietnam, Somalia, Afghanistan, etc, have all proven how poorly large scale mechanized groups are against small decentralized guerilla groups.
Thus you need to educate yourself on the guerilla wars of the 20th century before you make such silly statements.

What kind of tactics do you think a dictator is going to use? Honestly, have you even heard of Saddam Hussein who gassed and bombed his own people? You really think, that if your imaginary Hitler takes control, he is going to content himself with suppressing dissent by conventional warfare? Do you really, truly, honestly think your imaginary Hitler is going to go easy on you? The whole point of a tyrant and dictator, is that they do whatever the hell they want!

You know, if I decide we need people to protect us from a tyrannical government gone out of control, I'll be damn sure that it isn't you. You're going to get me killed. "Don't worry, Saddam would never drop chemical weapons on us."

No I'm not, I'm aware of the fact that large factions of the military will not go along with a gutting of the 2nd amendment and thus any revolutionaries would have actual ordiance from the US armed forces very quickly.
You forget that an all volunteer military isn't there to impose the will of a dictator, it is there to protect its people.

Thank you for proving we don't need guns. Because according to you, enough of the military will side with the civilian population.

Nice try, but I already shot you down on this, proved it, and now all you can do is reset back to your failed argument.

Did you, really? You went after violent crime, when the conversation is gun deaths. So please, tell me again, how one person dead in one country from a gunshot wound to the head, is different from someone else in another country who is dead from a gunshot wound to the head.

Nice BS question.
If you choose to be a victim that is your business, but you have NO right to ask anyone to give up their arms to join you.

I have every damn right, when your gun is more threatening to me, then anything else. You scare me far more than any terrorist. And you aren't helping to make me feel anyway at ease that gun owners are responsible, level-headed people. Society has a right to decide for themselves what is more threatening, and take steps to mitigate that threat. A gun poses more risk to those in a home and those that the owners know, that a home where there is no gun. FBI's own statistics, by the way, and they kinda track this thing. But I suppose you'll call them biased and false, and any other name you can think of.

Wrong it is the fact of the matter when dealing with this argument it is disingenuous to attempt to label it a strawman when the facts support that violent crime is the issue here, not made up terms like "gun crime".

Take a look at the damn thread title. There is gun, right there. Seriously, you're going off track, and I've tried to warn you. If you aren't going to stay on the topic of guns, well, you might want to check up on the forum rules about offtopic posts. From now on, in order to comply with the forum rules, I will have to ignore anything about violent crime if a gun isn't part of the discussion. Sorry, but I don't want to go offtopic.

No, he was not there to defend the school. That Jefferson county Sheriff was the truancy officer and he was away at lunch. There was no armed security there no matter how much the Brady Campaign, the Gun Policy Center, or the other hoplophobic gun control groups wanted there to be.
They are lying, and attempting to twist the facts to fit their agenda.
You parrotting their lies only makes you look foolish.

That's not the point. The point is there was an armed officer right there, and he failed to stop the shooters. He did approach them and fire shots, and they retreated back into the building. You think there is some great big difference between whether the officer is inside the school, or just outside? Regardless of whatever spin you want to add, there was an armed officer right there, and he failed to stop the shooters.

At Fort Hood, that was a gun free area, all administration areas in the military are, and no gun control law would have stopped the Ft. Hood incident since the perp was a military soldier. The military already has strict gun control and it did nothing to stop the terrorist attack.
So once again your argument crumbles all around you. You keep shoving out the strawmen and red herrings to no avail.
In short, you can't bullshit me.

Actually, a good gun control law would have searched the guy as he got on base. Seriously, he was packing tons of heat, and no one did any kind of pat down? Oh, and how well did the first person with a gun do to stop him? Answer: not very.

Wrong again, as I already illustrated, but let's add another one shall we?
Norway.
They have laws far, far stricter than the United States yet Anders Breivik shot and killed 77 people.
Lot of good gun control did there huh?

And they haven't had a single massacre since. Nor have they had particularly high gun death rate. I don't know about you, but I'd gladly 77 dead per year due to guns, vs. 30,000 dead per year to guns. You feel differently, though, apparently. Actually, it might be beneficial to look at how Norway has dealt with the situation, a year afterward. They've made no move to push guns into the hands of people. Man, they must have had several more massacres by now, or a lot of gun deaths and... wait, their gun homicide rate is only 0.04 per 100k? Wow. That's the same as the UK!

Or how about the taxi driver in the UK that went ballistic over a decade after their gun control laws passed?
He killed 12 people in Cumbria, UK.

Sure, I'd toss in an extra 12. I'm still doing math, but 77+12 still comes out less 30,000. And 0.04 is still less than 3.6.

You're making a great case for allowing students and teachers to be armed since that is the only thing that would have stopped Cho.
No I would propose that the school board make a choice, do they wish to risk another shooting or fire the teachers that refuse to protect their students.
Those teachers are responsible for those children while they are in their care, and that means protecting them with a gun.

Putting these together, because it seems to show that you are in favor of firing teachers that don't want to have a gun. Which is a personally valid opinion for you to have. And at this point, if this is how you truly believe, then I can't see you are any different from Alex Jones; there is no middle ground with you, no compromise. To you, it's all guns with very little to no regulation. That is the only option.

Well, there is one more option: I could shoot you. Walk up behind you and pull the trigger, and you'd be dead. Your gun being precious little defense against me. Wouldn't you agree? Sure, someone *might* shoot me eventually... but I could have your family dead by then, too.

That is the world you want to live in. I don't. And there are many more people waking up to that possibility. And instead of going, "Yeah, this kinda sucks. In order to empathize, I'll agree, let's try some heavy regulation for awhile and see if it works" you'd rather say, "Screw you, you ain't takin' my guns!"

Wrong again.
It is ILLEGAL to send firearms across state lines without going through an FFL dealer. An FFL dealer cannot sell weapons or accessories that are banned in one state from a state where they are not banned. Also, a firearm or reciever (not even a complete weapon) MUST go from one FFL dealer to another across state lines, and thus every transaction has to go through a background check when arms cross state lines legally.
What you're illustrating is the illegal transfer of arms and no gun law has been able to stop that since 1968.
So all you've done is prove that gun control doesn't work.

Perhaps I wasn't clear. The reason Chicago has had problems, is because it is damn easy for anyone to buy a gun in Arizona, and then travel to Illinois. There is no border checks along the way, no way for anyone to know. And people who do illegal things, don't care about the law. That's why any ban needs to be applied country-wide to have any sort of positive effect. I'm not saying it would work, only laying out the conditions in which in would need to showcase it's effectiveness (or lack thereof). The problem is that you can buy guns anywhere and illegally take them into Chicago, since state lines don't have checkpoints. I'd rather get rid of guns, then allow police or any other government agency to search me at anytime.

No, I showed that no matter how much information is presented to you, you will ignore it because your mind is made up. You have emersed yourself in lies and the emotion of the issue rather than the facts.

Okay. So the FBI lies. The UN lies. Scientists lie. The media lies. Everyone is lying, and thus everyone is against you. And you aren't paranoid, because people really are out to get you and your guns.

15?
I checked through the 52 sources of the article you linked to on wackypedia:

Yes, 15. Remember this all started with the firearm death rate chart by country? Allow me to relink it for you. Although it is up to 19 now.

But I've changed my mind, don't bother. To you, anyone who comes to a conclusion that more gun regulation is needed is, by definition, biased. And probably a part of the liberal leftist media.

The rest are "neutrals/unknowns" and they comprise only 19 citations.
As far as the 2nd amendment is concerned, wikipedia is bias to the extreme.
Now, don't cite wikipedia again to me because I will dismiss it out of hand as propaganda.

Though, if I agree to toss out the rest, we still have 19 left. Though I'm sure you'll dig through them and find liberal leftist media, or lying doctors, or evil men waiting in the shadows, who were behind them.

Could you be any more childish?
I've already shown you numerous times what constitutes a weapon for the common defense. A surface-to-air missile system is crew served and is NOT useful for the common defense. Or do you not know what a SAS is?



That is a SAS.
Or did you mean a shoulder-launch anti-aircraft rocket?


Because there is a huge difference between those.
If you meant a shoulder launched anti-aircraft missile, then no, it has no use for putting down an insurrection, nor upholding the laws of the union. It may be useful to repel an invasion, but not necessary.
Now, I will not enterain your inane question again, so don't ask it, or I will ignore it.

Oh, feel free to ignore it. But you don't want to defend my right to bear arms, as a stand against a government that may become tyrannical. (Oh, and actually I just wanted some stinger missiles, but now that I think about it, I want more than that). But in your world, the government, no matter how tyrannical it may become, would never said planes or drones against it's own people. Except for that one time when Obama used a drone to kill an American citizen. Wait, that would never happen. There is no way an American president would set that precedent, and no way the military would go along with it.

Your position is so weak you have to resort to a comedian?
Yet you'd dis Professor Gary Kleck or John Lott?
Yeah, you're not bias on this issue are you Kaijo?

Your source was someone who could fit right in on Fox news. Though, I understand how you'd have to counter that with, "Well... Your sources are a giant conspiracy of doctors, that almost every doctor and media person is in on!"

But yeah, I'm biased. If I have to be, I guess I'm biased in favor of those who routinely save lives and have a strong feeling about wanting to prevent more deaths. If there is a giant conspiracy of doctors, and I had to choose, I think I'd pick the conspiracy of doctors, over the gun nut crowd. One of those groups saves vastly more lives every day, then the other does. Call me crazy, but that's the side I'm gonna take.

You know what? I give up. Fine, I'll admit it. We're only here to take your guns. I'm in on it, the doctors are in on it, the scientists are in on it, the media is in on it, the government is in on it... we're all against you, and trying to take your guns, and we'll twist anything and make up any numbers we want to accomplish it. And only you, and your brave little plucky band of gun owners, are the only thing standing in our way. Curses!

Edit: Ithekro, it's not so much that I want annotations and a bibliography for everything, just that I base my beliefs upon the scientific evidence gathered thus far. So, if someone wants to change my mind, they have to prove the evidence false. If they have problems with my sources, they are welcome to knock them out. Of course, the only real argument against them so far, has been; "They're biased! Or cannot possibly be correct because there is so much data that no human could possibly gather or correlate it all!" or "The US is different than everyone else because we're special! You can't compare us to any other English countries like Canada or the UK or Australia, etc." Which aren't really arguments to a scientist. People are welcome to put forth arguments without sources, it's just that, odds are, it won't convince me. Show me a study that goes through numbers, shows it's methodologies, and allow me to judge it. Because, right now, I'm relying on multiple, multi-year studies by various scientific journals, the UN, and the FBI's own numbers. As well as looking at every other country on Earth to see what has worked elsewhere, and what hasn't. But apparently that's a no-no because Americans are dumber or something. I might almost agree with that.