Reality Check: Liberal handgun ban

[Ani_Ibi]

rlg94086:

Your argument is sound and I agree with you, but I would remove the last statement. The Vatican is saying you need to protect yourselves and others. One could argue that the best way is to remove guns from the population and only allow the police to have them.

I don’t agree with that argument because A) an armed government with an unarmed populace is a recipe for facist dictatorship and B) you would not be able to get the weapons out of the hands of criminals.

Sir Knight:

My point exactly.

I’m in.

 

[Sir_Knight]

Achatius:

But I don’t really agree that that is the right way to go about defend youselves.

Please tell me what would be a more effective means of individual self-defense than a firearm?

No futurist lasers, phasers and stuff like that but items which I can readily purchase today.

 

[Sir_Knight]

Achatius:

With this in mind it can be said that criminals would not want a shoot ut, they just want to have your telly and run off, so if you just let them and claim on contents insurance, this has provided a better situation for everybody surely? No bloodshed, or taking of lives, and no opportunity for terminal accidents.

Unless they are high on drugs which is the case in a lot of instances and they are robbing in order to get money to buy drugs …

Unless they do not wish to be identified …

Unless they are attracted to the victim and decide to rape her …

Unless … a lot of things that we can’t account for!

 

[Achatius]

Except it gives criminals free reign knowing they can invade any home and take whatever they like whenever they want.

Better to have that mentality within criminals than to have to take the Holy spirit from inside someone, take away God’s gift of life to that person i think.

But we don’t have guns in Britain, and criminals don’t just invade homes at will, due to the existence of police and neighbourhood watch, locks and burgar alarms.

 

[Libero]

If thats how you feel, better not put your kids in a car or let them ride their bikes in the street.

Bikes - helmets
Cars - Seat belts
Guns - protective force fields - oops they dont exist. Further more, and accident with a gun will most likely have worse effects than one with a bike.

 

[Sir_Knight]

Achatius:

There is a difference between letting your child ride a bike and leaving a possibilty that you will shoot them.

And why would you shoot your own child for riding a bike?

 

[Achatius]

Sir Knight:

Please tell me what would be a more effective means of individual self-defense than a firearm?

No futurist lasers, phasers and stuff like that but items which I can readily purchase today.

Try a lock, a burglar alarm, and a telephone.

Unless they do not wish to be identified …

How does their identification have a relevance?

 

[Achatius]

And why would you shoot your own child for riding a bike?

I think that you have misunderstood the meaning of my statement. I was merely saying that there is a much greater chance that a child will die due to the gun ownership than with him riding his bike.

 

[wabrams]

Libero:

Bikes - helmets

Doesn’t do much good if they get hit by a speeding car.

Libero:

Cars - Seat belts

They’ve been known to kill small children. Plus, it doesn’t do much good if you get run over by a semi.

Libero:

Guns - protective force fields - oops they dont exist.

No sound arguement so you just make something silly up?

Guns - lock in a safe, keep ammunition seperate from the weapon.

Libero:

Further more, and accident with a gun will most likely have worse effects than one with a bike.

Not if the child gets hit by a car.

Remember, you are the one who said that no matter how slim the possibility, you don’t want to put your kids in harms way.

 

[wabrams]

Achatius:

I think that you have misunderstood the meaning of my statement. I was merely saying that there is a much greater chance that a child will die due to the gun ownership than with him riding his bike.

Prove it.

 

[Achatius]

wabrams:

Doesn’t do much good if they get hit by a speeding car.

That is true but it still doesn’t provide a good argument as to why we should not provide gun control.

wabrams:

They’ve been known to kill small children. Plus, it doesn’t do much good if you get run over by a semi.

Don’t know what a semi is, but seat belts save many lives, and ditto previous remark regarding its appropriateness when establishing a case against gun control

 

[Philip_P]

Cars are indeed dangerous - which is why we have intensive regulation regarding their use, such as speed limits, licensing, areas where you cannot use them, etc.

It is only reasonable that similar regulation apply to guns. I don’t favor a universal ban on gun ownership. I do favor allowing communities to regulate guns based on what they feel is appropriate for their community. There is nothing wrong with banning the carrying of guns in public, any more than there is anything wrong with banning large trucks on small streets, or setting speed limits, or no parking zones.

 

[Achatius]

wabrams:

Prove it.

“In 1999, there were 3,385 firearms-related deaths for children ages 0–19 years”

“194 children (ages 5-14 years) in the US were killed while riding bikes”

There is a difference in age range, but i don’t think this accounts for the huge gap between figures. In fact, if we take the death rate of this age range, and then increase the age range to 0-19, whilst increasing the death rate in the same proportion, the death rate is still only increased to 285.9. (P.S. I am not very good at explaining maths )

 

[2shelbys]

“In 1999, there were 3,385 firearms-related deaths for children ages 0–19 years”

“194 children (ages 5-14 years) in the US were killed while riding bikes”

There is a difference in age range, but i don’t think this accounts for the huge gap between figures. In fact, if we take the death rate of this age range, and then increase the age range to 0-19, whilst increasing the death rate in the same proportion, the death rate is still only increased to 285.9. (P.S. I am not very good at explaining maths )

What does account for the huge gap, and the fact that is never mentioned by anti-gunners is that the figure you quote of 3,385 deaths in those aged 0-19 includes young criminals shot by police, intended victims, and each other. The overwhelming majority (well over 90%) were not “children” accidently shot but were criminals (largely gang members) who got themselves shot as a result of their own actions.

 

[wabrams]

Achatius:

That is true but it still doesn’t provide a good argument as to why we should not provide gun control.

There already is gun control, it’s just not equally applied.

Achatius:

Don’t know what a semi is, but seat belts save many lives, and ditto previous remark regarding its appropriateness when establishing a case against gun control

A semi is a tractor trailor truck. Again, there is gun control.

 

[Libero]

No sound arguement so you just make something silly up?

Guns - lock in a safe, keep ammunition seperate from the weapon.

But you see, your law states that most can legally own a gun, however not that many own them responsibly, whilst you do, and thus it is less likely there will be an accident, alot of people are not so careful.

 

[Achatius]

2shelbys:

What does account for the huge gap, and the fact that is never mentioned by anti-gunners is that the figure you quote of 3,385 deaths in those aged 0-19 includes young criminals shot by police, intended victims, and each other. The overwhelming majority (well over 90%) were not “children” accidently shot but were criminals (largely gang members) who got themselves shot as a result of their own actions.

Of the figure that I gave, 214 were unintentional, 1,078 suicides, 1,990 homicides. These are all figures that could be seriously reduced if Guns came under much more rigorous control!

 

[wabrams]

“In 1999, there were 3,385 firearms-related deaths for children ages 0–19 years”

“194 children (ages 5-14 years) in the US were killed while riding bikes”

There is a difference in age range, but i don’t think this accounts for the huge gap between figures. In fact, if we take the death rate of this age range, and then increase the age range to 0-19, whilst increasing the death rate in the same proportion, the death rate is still only increased to 285.9. (P.S. I am not very good at explaining maths )

Link?

 

[Sir_Knight]

“In 1999, there were 3,385 firearms-related deaths for children ages 0–19 years”

“194 children (ages 5-14 years) in the US were killed while riding bikes”

There is a difference in age range, but i don’t think this accounts for the huge gap between figures. In fact, if we take the death rate of this age range, and then increase the age range to 0-19, whilst increasing the death rate in the same proportion, the death rate is still only increased to 285.9. (P.S. I am not very good at explaining maths )

There is a 19 times greater chance that a child will be killed by an car than by a gun but nobody has a problem with people owning and buying cars even though they kill 19 times more children than firearms do.

 

[wabrams]

Libero:

But you see, your law states that most can legally own a gun, however not that many own them responsibly, whilst you do, and thus it is less likely there will be an accident, alot of people are not so careful.

Anybody can buy a bicycle, but a lot of people don’t pay attention to traffic laws and get hurt.

The same can be said about of lot of things, so whats’ your point?