Uhhh....so what? And no, not all guns used improperly kill or injure - a misfire or a gun shot does not guarantee a "hit" on a person, anymore than an out of control vehicle guarantees an accident.

So...once again...the mental midgets are wrong...

But if you want to get right down to it, 32,000 automobile deaths. You want to start takling about non-lethal injuries and destruction of property of cars versus guns? It will make guns look like teddy bears.

Why are all you selfish bastards so fixated on keeping your cars? You stupid libtards should be all over eliminating the pollution-mobiles.

Ohhhh.....wait....I see....it impinges upon your personal freedom.

Got it....check. Hypocrites on parade...

Cars should absolutely go away once we've devised a suitable alternative. Too many people require them for their daily lives now in order to commute. I'm open to an argument that guns are an absolute necessity to have, and not just something desirable by some to have.

y2k - But I don't see you screaming like a bitch to get rid of them and find a replacement like you do about guns.

It is blatantly clear to *anyone* with a shred of intellectual honesty that you people care *far less* about people dying as you do about *how* they die...whether or not you can make an issue out of it.

You look at things with comparable kill rates - such as cars versus guns - and (most of you) ignore The fact that you are just as likely to die from one as the other….and in fact, probably less likely to die of a gunshot given where and how gunshot deaths occur. So…given that you are more likely to die in a car than by a gun…and yet most of you don’t openly and loudly advocate removing personal cars from the street, it is clear that you don’t care about dying and people being killed against their will – you are only concerned about an issue.

Take it to the next step – the American diet, fast food, packaged food, etc which is causing a massive health crisis and killing thousands….where are all you loud-mouthed hypocrites calling for people to stop killing their children and burdening the health care system?

None of you…very few at any rate…have even a shred of intellectual integrity.

Your blatant political philosophies are so obvious it makes one want to puke.

y2k - There is no single thing in this world, other than oxygen and food, that is "absolutely necessary" to have. That's just another childish thought game with no practical use.

But...I will ask it again -- please tell me by what means I am allowed to protect my family from an armed home invader if you take away my arms? You gun-grabber *all* ignore this point...

"I'm open to an argument that guns are an absolute necessity to have, and not just something desirable by some to have."

Ranchers protecting their livestock from predators... Nuff said.

@krellin: "Steephie - thanks for demonstrating what a true mental midget you are. You know, it is totally feasible to get rid of personal automotbiles as well - they are by no means necessary, as a robust public transportation could replace the personal automobile with a long list of benefits, starting with massive reduction in deaths by automobile. Followed by new government jobs, massive reduction in pollution (for all you that need to "save the planet" etc. In the long run, any good and decent liberal would be fighting tooth and nail for the elimination of the personal automobile - which is a purely selfish, expensive, polluting contraption.

A gun serves a very valid purpose -- other than the simple enjoyment of target shooting and hunting, ir provides for *personal protection*, as it is *impossible* for the police to be everywhere at all times to prevent people from being attacked.

You, perverse and disgusting person that you are - would rather criminals be *guaranteed* that their intended victims are unarmed so as to ensure that all criminals have the upper hand against law-abiding citizens. I can think of no more hateful and evil a concept that forcing the disarming of citizens and depriving them the ability to protect themselves."

Apart from the mental midget-part and the fact that you leave a few important facts untouched, we agree then.

I ONLY said that your statistics were simply pushing me the wrong way, and therefore I considered it a bad argument.

As for guns or no guns, in my idea of a perfect country, guns are not a right but a privilege you have to earn. Just getting old enough won't do for me. I can think of a few people under 18 that would make me feel safer if they have a gun, and I can think of a shitload of people above 18 that would make me be afraid of going outside or opening the door without a Kevlar burka. 18 means nothing to me. I think you have to be sure someone is a good, stable person and knows how to fire a gun.

That said though, the USA is not my perfect country. Legal or illegal, guns will come or be produced there. Everyone who wants one can get one there. This may be hard to imagine for some across the Atlantic, but here it's really not that easy. The easiest way is to get a license.

Another thing is simply the US ways of things. If the citizens had to hand in their guns, the world would be a different place, and I think it would be a worse one. I simply don't think the US would be able to handle it's control very well. One 'rogue' president and the country could very well be on the verge of collapse, IMO. While I still think 18/16 is a silly requirement, very restricted gun ownership (like, only militaries and police or something, no exceptions) would be dumb in the US.

In Europe, much less so, but I'm still against completely banning guns or anything like that.

So I mostly think things are just about fine on both sides of the Atlantic when it comes to guns, although both sides could use some 'bug fixing'.

I think the gun control debate is somewhat one-sided.

Most gun people support gun control. Intelligent anti-gun people support gun-control. The rest of anti-gun people (e.g. most of them) like to imagine that someone is going to press a button somewhere and that guns are going to evaporate. These are typically the people the people who are least informed on the issue.

If you put the banter from such people aside, the actual dialog centers around effectively supplying guns to people who should have them, while effectively restricting the legitimate sale of guns to people who shouldn't have them.

Your average gun person doesn't want your local crazy person, drug dealer or militia guy to have firearms either. The anti-gun kids usually are woefully unapprized of that and related facts.

The actual controversy related to guns, at the adult discussion level, centers around a complain from gun people (and the gun lobby as well, heh) that proposed restriction measures will be overly invasive of the good guys who we want to have guns. On the 'liberal' side of the issue, their complaint is that too many goofs take place under existing restrictive measures.

This is an important problem - many would be happy if someone, perhaps someone on this forum, could think of a way to accurately and cheaply screen out miscreants from the legitimate gun purchase cycle without putting undue burden on the good guys. Remember as stated above that even gun people worry about some nutcase or a drug person walking into Walmart and purchasing a firearm.

Unfortunately most of this legitimate discussion becomes side tracked about irrelevant details that typically involve (unrealistic) fantasies about completely eliminating gun purchase, accurately tracking the hobbyist gun trade, the validity of shooting as a sport or other such nonsense. This tends to obscure the underlying issue and restrict progress.

So as I claimed, I'm all for cars going away once there's a reasonable solution to handle everyone's commuting needs. I buy the argument that guns really are the best way to protect oneself and one's family and property. If the day comes when some non-lethal tool becomes widely available that is just as good if not better at defending from criminals, should they fully replace guns? Or do criminals forfeit their right to life when they attack someone and the victim has every right to use lethal force?

I don't know, Al. Give time, assuming it adopts European style gun laws, I think it is realistic to assume the US will achieve levels of gun ownership similar to the likes of Britain or France. How much time is an interesting question, and I dare say much of the transition period would be unpleasant, but is definitely doable.

I doubt very much it's worth it though.

"Or do criminals forfeit their right to life when they attack someone and the victim has every right to use lethal force? "

YES. You break in to my house with violent intent, you forfeit your life. I have no idea the intent of the invader, or how willing they are to commit deadly force against me in order to escape - therefore it is completely reasonable for me to use deadly force in response to protect my life and the life of my wife and daughters.

"Your average gun person doesn't want your local crazy person, drug dealer or militia guy to have firearms either. The anti-gun kids usually are woefully unapprized of that and related facts."

1. Yes, we ARE apprised of that, and related facts...I'd argue

2. That it's more the fact that the pro-gun side feels that the pros outweigh the cons, and that "a good guy with a gun" can protect people more effectively than gun control can...really, gun control is a microcosm of what's essentially the question of liberalism vs. libertarianism and individuality vs. collectivism--

If you're a liberal/believe in collectivism, you're more likely to say the government/regulations have a better chance of protecting you than "a good guy with a gun."

If you're a libertarian, you're all about that Jeffersonian ideal of individuals making their own way with as little impediment from the government as possible, and so the government's not a protector but at best just something you have to live with and at worst (ie, for folks like krellin) an outright enemy to be hated and loathed and it serves as incentive for them to buy guns to protect themselves AGAINST the government...

...which we damn liberals would seek protection FROM.

If the choice is more guns for all or guns in the hands of mostly criminals and cops, I'll take the latter, hands down, because I live in an area where 1. more guns equal more problems and 2. As notoriously bad as the LAPD is, I still would trust a cop to be able to deal with a criminal better than I or those like me could, and I'd rather trained cops have those guns rather than them AND krellin-type folks (really, you're the best argument AGAINST your position, krellin...you wonder why I'm pro-gun control? Take a look in the mirror...who the hell wants someone as unhinged as you as a neighbor with a gun??? NOT FUCKING ME.)

"...which we damn liberals would seek protection FROM."

*from whom we damn liberals would seek protection (to fix my grammar there.)

@y2jbk

Unfortunately my friend you are fully illustrating my point.

Too many anti-gun people suffer from a fantasy that guns are going away in America. They are not. They are too useful in sports, animal control, and self-defense to be eliminated. Please note that I said useful, not essential.

A more productive dialog would involve the exploration of ideas that could cheaply and painlessly screen out more crazies and yahoos from exploiting the legitimate procurement process.

It's unfortunate then that we still have a long ways to go in identifying, understanding, and treating individuals with mental illnesses. I have no idea how we're supposed to exclusively and reliably keep guns out of the hands of sick people and criminals while making them as available as possible for everyone else.

Obi, I'm glad you think I'm unhinged - it means my facade is working exactly as intended.

I'm also glad you will remain unarmed, so that after the criminals are done violating your body (which I'm certain you will enjoy, jesus-killer) they can come clean up the mess that you were unable to defend yourself against.

You are such a typical libtard fool -- you actually believe the police are there to protect you.

Tell me, by what magic will the cops suddenly appear with guns drawn as your home is broken in to? Tell me how many home invasions are caught *in process*, fool?

It pleases me to know fools like you get violated and murdered by home invaders -- maybe eventually we will weed your weak genetics out of the human race.

As for unhinged....unhinged is a moron like you that screams about the terrifying danger of guns and cowers in fear, even though *at best* 0.01% are used in the violence you fear.

By that level of wet-your-pants fear, I'm surprised you even left your mommy's womb, jesus-killer.

"Or do criminals forfeit their right to life when they attack someone and the victim has every right to use lethal force? "

Yes, yes, yes!!!! They absolutely *do* forfeit their right to life when they choose to commit a violent act. Anybody who thinks otherwise is just a fucking moron and next on the criminals' "time to die" list. You have a *right* to defend yourself and others from potentially harmful situations and that *right* extends to taking the life of the attacker if necessary. He *chose* to attack. Your are *farced* to defend against he attack and his life is forfeit.

So now we know that an appropriate punishment for burglary is death. Right.

Big surprise...the Libtard doesn't know the difference between "burglary" and "home invasion"

No, we know that all it takes is for someone to feel threatened in order to validate murder. At least a reasonable threat. A home invasion being included as a reasonable threat.

Throwing popcorn at one's face presumably not being a reasonable threat.

y2k -- NO...mendax equate "burglary" to home invasion. this has nothing to do with someone commiting a deceit.

I gather from your retarded response, then, that you also do not know what a home invasion is. And this is why ill-informed Libtards who want to base policy on ignorance-based emotions instead of fact have no place in policy making.

The problem with you morons is you assume everyone has ill-intent...that everyone is naturally inclined to do wrong. It tells us *A LOT* about who you are as people. You are projecting your perverse thoughts and emotions on other people, assuming that everyone is equally as vile and violent as you are in your own mind.

Please explain the concept of a home invasion then. Bonus points if you hold your poo back while doing so.

From wikipedia, the all-knowing all-powerful god of the internet:

Home invasion differs from burglary in that its perpetrators have a violent intent apart from the unlawful entry itself, specific or general, much the same way as aggravated robbery—personally taking from someone by force—is differentiated from mere larceny (theft alone). As the term becomes more frequently used, particularly by the media, "home invasion" is evolving to identify a particular class of crime that involves multiple perpetrators (two or more); forced entry into a home;[14] occupants who are home at the time of the invasion; use of weapons and physical intimidation; property theft; and victims who are unknown to the perpetrators.

Makes sense to me.

@y2K,

Let me add my $.02 here. I am pro-gun. Guns exist as a threat to everyone's life, that is true. But because they exist as a threat, and the fundamental right of self-defense pre-dates the Magna Carta, The People MUST be afforded the right to defend themselves and their family with like force. Please don't give me the nuclear weapons/tanks/fighter jets argument. Small arms have always been the best and easiest means by which people can exercise their right to self-defense.

Are there societal costs for such protection? Yes. But there are societal costs for everything -- nothing is purely beneficial.

I am saddened by gun deaths that involve innocent people who were caught in the crossfire. But, how is THAT life more valuable than a life that is SAVED by the a private citizen using a gun? I feel like the anti-gun people have a value system they use in these instances. But how can anyone make that distinction? Anti-gun people want to say they're trying to save the innocent victims of guns but in doing so they would be willing to let those that were saved by a gun potentially die.

It's a conundrum to say the least.

Thanks MichiganMan. I'm significantly more pro-gun now than I was 5 hours ago. The issue is far more complex than both sides make it out to be, as is the case with most controversial issues.

y2k - why do you ask me to explain the difference between home invasion and burglary and then do it yourself. You understand now that there is a **significant** difference between "burglary" and "home invasion". You understand now that these are actual legal terms...which specific definitions relating to specific sets of circumstances?

Now that you are a big boy and have learned to look up information on your own and educate yourself, don't you feel much better?

To me the idea that banning guns outright is going to "solve the problem" is naive in the worst way. This is because so much of the gun violence in the nation is associated with criminal drug gangs, most of whom don't get their guns legally anyway.