Why would you leave a gun where a little kid can get it?Follow

1) Uh not.

2) To determine the likelihood that an individual would die from gun related violence you also would have to know the total population in question. There may be more per 100,000 in the US, but the difference in population would effect the likelihood.

3) Your data only showed intentional deaths not gun related crime.

4) 30%+ more handguns per household yes.

5) I haven't argued that more guns = more safe. In fact I stated that I don't agree with thehandguns for home defense arguement.

And what exactly are you pointing out regarding the firearm ownership in Canada. Are you pointing out that over 5 yrs the % of gun owners dropped from 33% to 17%?

Would anyone like to point out the pure stupidity of this comment?Shush we are enjoying this (well i am anyway)and you have to admit we use smaller posts than Gabji at least.

Just an observation on that graph. It's not even close to exponential (in the traditional sense. technically anything can be expressed exponentialy, but just with a very small exponent). Heck. It's barely even geometric. You are aware that the line projection in that graph is based on picking an exponential equation, right? The program takes the graph and applies an exponential graph to the line projection. If I were to take the exact same data, graph it, and tell the line projector program to draw me a linear line, it would draw a (drumroll!) linear line projection of the data.

At best this shows a very small increase in intentional gun fatalities as the gun density increases. It's almost imperceptibly off the "1/1" line (I'm assuming that's what the value ".9645" is all about). Hardly epidemic, nor really significant. The increase in rate can easily be attributed to simple availablity. Obviously, if there are more guns out there, people will choose to use them more often as a weapon with which to kill someone. Doesn't necessarily mean that the gun made them decide to do so. It just happened to be the most convenient and effective method at hand.


The problem with gun control statistics is that there are so many legal and social variables, that it's virtually impossible to get any clear and rational data and actually interpret it in a sane manner. And of course, you've got two diametrically opposed "sides" to the debate, both of which will mangle any data in a way to present their side of the argument in the best light.

The reason it is unsafe in the first place is because you all have the right to bear arms. If the guns were banned it would be alot harder for petty criminals to get their hands on them making you less likely to get shot in the first place.

The gun crime rate is alot lower in the UK because we long did away with the bearing arms crap, the most powerful firearm we can go and buy is an air rifle and even then its not that simple.

If a rabid animal attacks you then it is either small enough to shoot ergo small enough to keep away or it is big enough to maul you and a handgun bullet would only **** it off unless you get lucky and headshot it.

What issue? I have never even seen a gun outside of work and neither has most of the british public, the only people who have guns are farmers for the most part. Certainly they are not used for home defence.

Guns are so rare and hard to aquire that it's almost unheard of to have them used by any but the most hardened of criminals.

Put it this way, you aren't going to be mugged in London by a guy packing a Handgun.

That is refected in our extremely low gun crime figures.

Lol. Yeah. "everyone knows" it's exponential... The graph is *barely* off the 1/1 slope of a standard linear progression. Do you even know how to read a graph? Sheesh!

So, to even the playing field should we arm more 'law-abiding' citizens or try and un-arm the crooks?

If the number one reason we need guns is to protect ourselves from others with guns, doesn't that seem, well, just ridiculous?

Guns are tools made and wielded by people. There are times when you must protect yourself from the intent of others. You can do this by airbag or by firealarm, as those work best against car crashes and fires. I know that this delves into the nuclear weapons of human on human combat, but having a gun is just about the only deterrent against them. You can buy thicker doors, bulletproof windows, and the like... but you're sacraficing your freedom for it. Isn't there some sort of quote about giving up liberties for safety and seeing what you have left at the end?



The main ambiguity of this statement I think comes from the fact that the milita bit is floating in the center. I would like to point out, for the obtuse among us, that it doesn't not say that people must be in the aforementioned militia.

Basic firearms are not terribly difficult to make. When England's ban went into effect a black market industry sprung up to supply weapons. Some were imported from outside the country, others were shuffled around within the UK, and quite a few were made by blacksmiths who had nothing better to do with their trade skills. It's just not that hard to do.

Criminals love a disarmed populace. It would be like Christmas every day!

I see much unclear as does the Supreme Court. But much of the constitution is unclear or vague and purposely so. How could anyone write a governing document for a new society with any staying power if it's too specific. The interpretation has to change as we change.

I think questioning the definition of a militia and the definition of arms is pretty reasonable. If we declared any weapon an 'arm' we could legally have nukes in our homes.

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state

Me owning a gun does not compromise a well regulated militia. I am not regulated in any military sense nor do I lay claim that I'm owning a gun for the principles of keeping the gummint from going out of bounds. I'm just some yutz with a dangerous weapon at my disposal. Ironicly, the best way for me to draw negative government attention (short of actually killing someone) would be for me to declare that I'm starting my own para-military group and start stockpiling weapons. But that's neither here nor there towards the rights of the common man to own firearms or, more specificly, handguns.

I'm not enthusiastic enough to argue gun control today but that's the jist of the "confusion" to the 2nd Amendment.

Edited out of boredom, but one of the principle arguments is that a firearm in 1776 (I know that's not when the 2nd Amendment was written but humor me) was a hell of a lot different than firearms today. If you were a scurrilous individual wandering the back alleys of Boston, you probably wouldn't want a powder fired musket as your mugging weapon of choice unless you planned to blind them with the powder and club them with the musket. Today, one can easily enough aquire a small piece of hardware that'll put the fear of God into anyone standing on the wrong end of it.

On the other hand, the militaries of the day were armed with much the same weaponry, artillery pieces not withstanding. Today, the military comes with an assortment of automatic weaponry, explosives and other fun stuff out of reach of the common man. Why shouldn't we get access to the same if we're supposed to be keeping the oppressive Washington regime off our streets and from quartering their soldiers in my family room? Hell, even the plucky partisans in the documentry Red Dawn didn't really start making a dent until they'd gotten their hands on some rocket launchers and automatic rifles.

Edited, Mon Jan 30 14:56:58 2006 by Jophiel

Equally ironically, the Second Amendment appears to grant the option to keep and bear firearms for two major reasons:

1) The citizens would have learned how to fire them, reducing the need for training if a well-regulated militia needed to form post-haste.

2) It would eliminate the need for stockpiling weapons for use in a well-regulated militia, as the citizens would already be privately armed.


Militias are not in vogue in the current day and age because we've gone the route of localized police forces and nationalized military. At the time of the writing of the Second Amendment, militias served both purposes.

Gun proponents enjoy arguing that the Second Amendment was written to give the People a way to fight back should the government ever turn to abusive tyranny. If that is so, both of the above provisions would be important (the People have to know how to shoot, and they have to have access to firearms without drawing unwanted government attention, as they would were they stockpiling).