The UK has gun control. Yet it also has more violent crime. So the homicide comparison showing the UK per populace homicide numbers being lower is a false flag.What else coudl it be? You are mor elikely to et robbed, mugged, or killed due to a violent crime int he UK than in the US. The numbers don't lie. So how does gun cotnrol make you safer?

Accidents that cars cause make them more trouble than good. The same fucking argument. Over and over. In an endless circle. You can pry my gun from my cold dead lifeless hand, if you get close enough without me killing you for trying to strip me of my constitutional right.

Chasing your tails guys. Agree to disagree. 2nd amendment is there, it is not going anywhere, and the USSC has ruled on it over andover.

It was not there for hunting, or protecting livestock. Its meaning has been spelled out clear by Thomas Jefferson. To protect the citizens from its government shoudl the need arise.

^ words of wisdom. Truth!

It's a balancing act. Cars are much more useful than guns Draugnar. One country having more crime but gun control does not prove that gun control is ineffective. It is the case that many deaths caused by guns are avoidable. All the deaths caused by accidents would not be caused if guns were banned.

First, that argument that allk accidental gun deaths would end if guns were banned is false. Those same deaths would just be cause dby other stupidity. You can't outlaw stupidity and rednecks will always manage to kill themselves. There will also still be plenty of accidental deaths caused by unregistered illegal handguns. They happen now with gangbanger's welfare bastards playing with their drug dealing daddies' illegal guns.

And one could also argue that if you ban cars, automobiule accidents will stoip happening. And banning cars is *more* feasible because they can't exactly be hidden in ones pocket.

@draugnar - at the end of the day it will be for you guys to decide on how to implement any insurance if that idea is taken up. If 88% of Americans own guns it doesn't make a lot of difference if the extra premium is put on all gun owners to cover non-insured or if extra cost goes on all citizens. FYI insurance is also profit driven in the UK. I think the profit motive will force policy issuers to know their clients and therefore the level of risk they are underwriting.

I also think gun sellers in shops and fairs and over the Internet etc need to have sight of a potential owners gum insurance before the gun new gun is delivered.

I'm not against the debtors prison idea but wouldn't want it as a subsistute for gun insurance.

How do you feel the gun industry in the states will react to compulsory gun insurance?

Maniac - I knew that would happen. 88% do *not* own guns. Less than 30% do. there are 88 guns in private hands for every 100 citizens. My brother owns enough for him and his 39 closest friends.

Also draugnar you really need to understand the gun homocide stats. In the US around 3 people per 100,000 are killed as a result of gun crime. In the UK it is around 0.1 people per 100,000. It maybe that the UK is more violent overall, if it is we can learn from you on issues like domestic violence and zero tolerance, but on gun crime deaths the stats are clear.

Draugnar - OIC, my misunderstanding of a stat on the news last night saying - the 88% stat. If gun ownership is around 30% then I think it is more important for that minority to bear cost of any uninsured owners, but if you feel liability insurance is the better solution, then it isn't a deal breaker for me.

@ draugnar. Yes, we can't outlaw stupidity, but that doesn't mean what I am saying would not work. There will be less harm caused unless you think there would be a sudden spike of deadly stupidity due to no guns. Also, you ignored my balancing act argument. No cars would mean no road accidents, but would have a whole host of terrible consequences which we don't get with no guns. What do you say?

Demos - I'm anti-gun too, but I'm starting to realise that banning them isn't going to get you anywhere. Why? Well ask yourself this, 'what would you give up for the sake of others? Alcohol? Cigarettes? Driving? Flying? Electricity? All of the above can harm others even when used properly. I'm guessing you wouldn't give the right to carry on using all the above, but want to ask others to give up something you don't use. Put yourself in the gun owners shoes to try and understand their arguements.

Just a note to an earlier debate… this is from Yahoo:

"Police said Lanza used a Bushmaster semiautomatic assault-style rifle to kill the children before using a handgun to take his own life. Officials said the guns were likely legally purchased by Nancy."

BO-SOX --- SHUT THE FUCK UP.

Okay daddy. By the way, your fly is undone.

WIth a single exception (the attack on congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords in Tucson in 2011) every public mass shooting since at least 1950 in the U.S. in which more than three people have been killed has taken place where citizens are not allowed to carry guns.

How are those gun-free zones working for you?

Bo sox. From AP and cbs both the day it happened the story was different

@dipplayer - really good point. We should allow guns on planes don't you think.

@Draug,
"rednecks will always manage to kill themselves" Who's insensitive now?
"Less than 30% do." Do you have stats for that? I've seen numbers closer to forty percent.

@Stressed,
I think you've misunderstood my arguments a little bit (this is going back a few pages, I know). I respect you, and your culture, and your right to hunt and defend yourself from coyotes. I have no problem with you owning a few shotguns and/or hunting rifles to do that. I do think that it's wrong to teach a six year old child to kill things, but that's my personal opinion.
"To protect the citizens from its [sic] government shoudl [sic] the need arise." Do you really think that citizens with some guns can do anything against a military with a nuclear arsenal and all manner of other devastating war machines?
"the last 2 of these events were done with stolen guns" This is the fourth time I've sent you this link now: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/12/14/nine-facts-about-guns-and-mass-shootings-in-the-united-states/ Please read it. Number one shows that this is clearly not a trend.

@Dipplayer,
"How are those gun-free zones working for you?"
I'd like to see proof of that, but even if it is true, I think you might be confusing causation with correlation a little bit. If stricter gun laws are put in to counteract high levels of gun violence, but the laws aren't strict enough, then gun violence will remain.

@krellin,
you're an asshole.

@all,
Can any of you give me a reason for needing to own an assault rifle?

Now it is being reported all three guns were found with him. Somebody tell the police they should get their lies straight. I bet the original report was right nut the local city council told the copds the Bushmaster had to be the weapon of choice so the official police press release got altered. As far as the confusion of caliber, .223 is the civilian 5.56mm. The military 5.56mm has a little more power behind it, but if you do the math, 25.4mm/inch makes a 5.56mm = .219 inches or .004 inches difference.

Yes, Draug, I'm sure it's all a giant conspiracy.

@ghug - No, just a guestimate, but 40% may be more accurate. The point is it isn't 88% as some here would have us believe because they mistakenly think 1 owner 1 gun. May I ask where you got your 40% because that seems high. Even if every home in rural America and inner city America had a gun, I don't think it could bring the avreage up that high.

No, it's a political agenda, not a conspiracy. CT is a strong gun control state. They will use whatever means at teir disposal, even misleading a mroe than willing media to curry favor. The truth will be in the police report which should become available after the investigation is complete. Then we will elarn the caliper of every bullet fired and knwo which weapons killed which victims.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/12/14/nine-facts-about-guns-and-mass-shootings-in-the-united-states/ (5th time)

I'm excited to elarn and knwo about all of the bullet calipers. My money's on no conspiracy.

We will learn the truth and not the political rhetoric when the official ploice investigation is concluded and the report made public. Until then, it's liberal bias versus conservative bias and both sides will twist what little is known and outright make shit up to make their point.

Why is the insurance idea not a good one? Because it would require a change, not in insurance law, but in tort law, and not a fair one or one that gun owners should rightly accept.

We're required to carry insurance for our cars because there's a decent liklihood that we will commit torts against others -- actions for which we are legally liable. (We're not actually required to carry insurance, of course -- in many states, you can instead opt to just set aside a large amount of money to pay for possible damages, which only a very rich person would consider).

The reason making gun owners insure their guns doesn't make sense, then, is because gun owners aren't legally liable in the first place for the damage done with their guns -- and it makes little sense for them to be.

Of course, you might argue that that law should be changed so that if somebody has their gun _inadequately secured_ and it is stolen and used, then they have some fixed, capped liability. If that happened, then the insurance thing would take care of itself; people would buy liability insurance just as they do when they own something else (e.g. a house) that makes them liable. Mandated insurance law would only be required if it turned out (later) that people were frequently insolvent and unable to pay their gun liability fines. (Not that likely, in my opinion).

In other words, it is the liability law that would have to change, not the insurance law.

That said, I think the liability law change is a bad idea. To make it effective, the fine would have to be very large (hundreds of thousands of dollars at least), and that would create a terrible mental sense that the gun owner was somehow as responsible as the killer -- which is false, and would be met with legitimate outrage by gun owners.

Certainly a better compromise (say in the case of "assault rifles") than outright banning, but not a good one and not one that I would expect the anti-gun lobby to have the political capital to achieve. Admittedly an interesting idea though.

"The reason making gun owners insure their guns doesn't make sense, then, is because gun owners aren't legally liable in the first place for the damage done with their guns -- and it makes little sense for them to be."

Wait, what?

I mean, abge, that if you own a gun, and John Q. Smith breaks into your house and steals it and then kills some random person with it, you -- abge, the gun owner -- are not legally responsible.

(Of course, there might be less clear situations when you could be, such as if, in the particular circumstances, you were negligent and you had a duty of care).