Firearms: Gun Control

[jinxed_07]

Hunting?
Oh wait,we already established that..
uh,
Well what about airsoft rifles? They aren't a one shot kill in most cases,unless the pellet being used was beyond the legal size and/or velocity
Maybe not guns,but they _might_ be able to replace actual firearms
Who wants to shank me if im unloading a clip of pellets into you?

[SlappyMcGee]

So if something's sole purpose is to kill, then it should be illegal. Otherwise, (mostly) regardless of its lethality, people can be trusted with it. Because, although phenomenally deadly, we can trust them not to use it for that.

All we need to do, then, is come up with a second use for guns other than murdering humans.

*gets out encyclopedia*

I am interested to hear what an AK47 can be used for other than killing folks. Recreation? Because that isn't enough.

[jinxed_07]

Well you can get one on Halloween and dress up like a terrorist if you want..

On a more serious note,the gun was made to kill,and for nothing else, (maybe shanking if u have a bayonet). Hunting is killing animals ftw/ftl so that's the same thing. I'm pretty sure there is no other purpose/use for it

[t̷s͢uk̕a͡t͜ư]

Wait up, R-Tard, because you missed the idea. Knives? Tylenol? Cars? These all have functional roles in society. They actively benefit people.

Plenty of knives that have no purpose in the kitchen are quite legal. Switchblades, combat knives, kukris and machetes... hell, even katanas are practically unregulated. Why can't I keep a gun in the same environment as I keep a super-advanced, maim-capable deathstick that was built using techniques developed after years of human experimentation?

[jinxed_07]

As (blue_tetris,was it) said before,because of it's 'lethality'
A stab doesn't _always_ mean a kill,and is only attempted murder if it's a hit on the torso/neck/head?
And you have to be close up to shank someone rather than being 50m or yards and still being able to kill someone

[SlappyMcGee]

Wait up, R-Tard, because you missed the idea. Knives? Tylenol? Cars? These all have functional roles in society. They actively benefit people.

Plenty of knives that have no purpose in the kitchen are quite legal. Switchblades, combat knives, kukris and machetes... hell, even katanas are practically unregulated. Why can't I keep a gun in the same environment as I keep a super-advanced, maim-capable deathstick that was built using techniques developed after years of human experimentation?

No, I think those should also be regulated. Weapons for the sake of weaponsake are unnecessary.

[jinxed_07]

To summarize where we stand right now, Most of us think that any and all guns should be restricted to the military and them only.
Also,any weapon that could be readied and _potentially_ kill in, say, 30 sec. should also have it's set of restrictions

Unfortunately, guns will almost never become 'illegal', as this would mean removing the 2nd amendment, which to many people would seem like utter anarchy. Even if such a thing were to happen, then it would take a few decades at best to ever get most of the guns out of the hands of the average civilian.

[SlappyMcGee]

To summarize where we stand right now, Most of us think that any and all guns should be restricted to the military and them only.
Also,any weapon that could be readied and _potentially_ kill in, say, 30 sec. should also have it's set of restrictions

Unfortunately, guns will almost never become 'illegal', as this would mean removing the 2nd amendment, which to many people would seem like utter anarchy. Even if such a thing were to happen, then it would take a few decades at best to ever get most of the guns out of the hands of the average civilian.

Stop. Being. Every. Other. Dude. Thx.

[blue_tetris]

Wait up, R-Tard, because you missed the idea. Knives? Tylenol? Cars? These all have functional roles in society. They actively benefit people.

Plenty of knives that have no purpose in the kitchen are quite legal. Switchblades, combat knives, kukris and machetes... hell, even katanas are practically unregulated. Why can't I keep a gun in the same environment as I keep a super-advanced, maim-capable deathstick that was built using techniques developed after years of human experimentation?

No, I think those should also be regulated. Weapons for the sake of weaponsake are unnecessary.

How about personal protection? Self-defense? Pepper spray is a weapon created for the sake of being a weapon.

I think you are saying, ultimately, that an individual's defense should be left up to the government. That an individual should not possess the right (nor any supplementary equipment) to maintain his own defense.

[Brocerius]

Just because you are blue_tetris doesn't give you the right to mix and match your arguments as you please.

[blue_tetris]

Just because you are blue_tetris doesn't give you the right to mix and match your arguments as you please.

What?

I... I'm only allowed one argument?

SlappyMcGee, Suki, Atilla, Skyline: Feel free to use as many arguments as you like! Feel as limitless as blue_tetris! :D

From this day forth, I am no longer above the law! All members may use varied points, as much rhetoric, and as many words as they see fit to express themselves! VIVA LA REVOLUCION.



(thx 4 callin me out nonsensically, bro. :/)

[SlappyMcGee]

How about personal protection? Self-defense? Pepper spray is a weapon created for the sake of being a weapon.

I think you are saying, ultimately, that an individual's defense should be left up to the government. That an individual should not possess the right (nor any supplementary equipment) to maintain his own defense.

Personal protection should not ever be lethal, assface. That's what makes those weapons acceptable. They protect you without murdering people.

[Brocerius]

Haha, well that's a start.

Seriously, though, I am going to try and justify my statement (and maybe rephrase it a little). Data will be collected and collated and collaborated and all other sorts of things.

But I have to go to work now.


<ARGUMENT UNDER CONSTRUCTION. PLEASE CHECK BACK LATER>

[scythe]

How about personal protection? Self-defense? Pepper spray is a weapon created for the sake of being a weapon.

I think you are saying, ultimately, that an individual's defense should be left up to the government. That an individual should not possess the right (nor any supplementary equipment) to maintain his own defense.

Personal protection should not ever be lethal, assface. That's what makes those weapons acceptable. They protect you without murdering people.

Pepper spray and tasers aren't adequate for quite a few situations.

Plus, it's silly to try and make knives inaccessible. At least guns are somewhat complex to manufacture.

[blue_tetris]

Guns aren't always lethal. In fact, they're more often non-lethal. Tasers and pepperspray aren't always non-lethal.

Guns can protect you without murdering people. Knives can murder people incidentally in the process of protecting yourself.

[SkyPanda]

We'll need a committee to decide the killing power of a knife. I think that's got a fair amount of killing power.

I can kill you with my bare hands. If I don't want people to carry guns, I therefore need to amputate my hands. If I want to keep my hands, then people should be allowed to carry guns, right? There's something wrong with your argument, blue_tetris, but I can't quite put my stump on it.
Slappy has it. The killing ability of an object needs to be balanced against the usefulness and necessity of an object. As you said, cars kill many people. That is why we need a regularly updated license to drive them, we need to prove our ability to drive them, and we are required to obide by the strict rules governing their use.

All we need to do, then, is come up with a second use for guns other than murdering humans.

Ah yes, but they are shitty reasons.
"I want to go into a forest, possibly the same forest in which the movie "Bambi" was filmed, and pop a cap into some small woodland critter."
or:
"I wanna shoot cans and small clay discs and stuff! And I need bullets to do that. Rubber pellets and stuff just aren't the same! And I need to take the guns home with me, for some reason! Yeah!"
or:
"Awww shucks what am I gowna hayng aboove my farrrplace naow, ma?
or:
"I need a gun so that I can overthrow my corrupt government! Parliament hasn't yet given the order for citizens to riot, storm the house of government and kill all the ministers, but one day they might!"

Pepper spray and tasers aren't adequate for quite a few situations.

Jesus Christ what are you up against, ten-foot killer robots?
Non-lethal weapons provide an adequate level of protection for your average stroll through a back street, boy.

Knives can murder people incidentally in the process of protecting yourself.

Who said it's okay to carry knives? I don't think so. It's illegal in my city to carry knives in public.

[t̷s͢uk̕a͡t͜ư]

Of all sports, field hockey has to be one of the most obscure, strange, and generally uninteresting to most people.
My little sister's field hockey stick can fuck you up. It's designed to smack and be smacked by a hard polypropylene ball flying at tens of meters per second. It's like a baseball bat, but longer and with a sharper side.
Field hockey sticks are particularly brutal if used as weapons, and their only other purpose is this mostly unheard of thing that nobody cares about. But she's allowed to bring it to school every day. :o

Besides which, I think you two have a very naive assumption about the circumstances of a situation that calls for self-defensive measures. Violent crimes are more often committed against smaller, weaker, solitary, female minorities, by large, strong males, often enough in groups, and in an ambush. More than likely, there will be effectively no chance of the victim fighting back, even if she has a baseball bat at the ready. Bottles of pepper spray and tasers aren't even retrieved quickly enough, much less used correctly or effectively, and their use is practically limited to a single person when they are used effectively.
Yes, you, an adult male, can probably defend yourself from a knife-wielding mugger if you have a bat, or even if you pick up a nearby chair or something, but people like you are not the typical victims, and that mugger is not the typical attacker. Perpetrators of violent crimes often don't want a fair one-on-one fight, and so they target only those who can't defend themselves the way you can, and that extends to people who can't even defend themselves effectively with a taser. Do you honestly think that some gangbanger will be legitimately caught off guard by a woman with pepper spray?

(Also, I find it funny that distances involved are things like 10, 20, and 50 meters. Have you ever tried to fire a handgun at that distance? You ain't hittin' jack shit farther than 5 meters with adrenaline in you, and that sure as hell isn't going to be accurate. With a handgun, barn doors become legitimately challenging targets at 20 meters.)

When concealed carry laws are relaxed in a state, there has only ever been a significant decrease in the amount of violent crimes overall. The majority of confrontations that involve a firearm being drawn by the victim are immediately defused by its mere presence; a shot is never even fired. A surprising amount are even defused by the victim stating that he has a gun. Statistically speaking, you are three to five times more likely to survive a violent encounter unharmed if you are packing, regardless of whether or not you fire.

This whole debate aside, if your state allows you to carry a concealed firearm, I think it is in your best interests to get one regardless of your stance on gun control. If you don't believe in killing an aggressor or are concerned about accidents, then keep it unloaded... hell, you don't even have to buy ammo, but keep the gun on you. As has been said, most violent encounters that involve a firearm are defused without anyone needing to fire a shot, so if you are interested in not being a victim, carry a fucking gun. Shit, even an airsoft gun with the little orange thing cut off will serve this purpose.



When I look at the gun control issue, I see a continuation of a reactionary line of thinking driven primarily by fear.
Every gun control debate boils down to this:
Gun Control Advocate: "Guns kill people! We should get rid of them!"
Gun Rights Advocate: "Consider the consequences of getting rid of guns -- that's a terrible idea."
Gun Control Advocate: "Guns are bad! Get rid of them!"
Gun Rights Advocate: "But consider the consequences of doing so!"
Gun Control Advocate: "No! Get rid of guns!"

That line of thinking is something related to the Peltzman Effect, which was used in a critical evaluation of seatbelt laws and describes the effect of formulating a counter-intuitive solution by accident because consequences were not considered.

Consider the following:

People were dying in car accidents. Seat belt laws were enacted to increase the survival rate of car accidents. The immediate result was that, yes, more people survived car accidents, but the feeling of safety it gave them made people drive more recklessly in general. Since the introduction of seat belt laws, the number of car accidents has increased so that it more than compensates for the number of lives saved. The end result is that more people get into car accidents (and things like auto insurance become meaningfully more expensive), more people are injured overall, and more people are killed overall, thanks to this safety measure.
The problem is obviously that the solution treated the symptom instead of the cause. Instead of focusing on helping people survive existing car accidents, the focus should have been on reducing the number of car accidents. But people got caught up in the emotional aspects of losing human life and so irrationally do whatever they can to stop that specific thing from happening, without considering the bigger picture.

For another automobile-related example, consider speed bumps. The problem was the same as in the last example: people were driving recklessly, and speed bumps force people to slow down. I would go on to say that pedestrian deaths were decreased with the introduction of speed bumps, but that's actually never been found to be conclusively true, particularly with most drivers' inclination to pick up their speed between speed bumps thanks to the time they lost. But the bigger problem was exactly the desired effect: everyone was forced to drive slower... including ambulances, police cars, fire trucks, and other emergency response vehicles. The existence of the speed bumps themselves along with the traffic congestion they caused increased emergency response times, and more lives were lost.
The problem in reasoning is the same: treating the symptom instead of the cause. Speeding was never a significant problem in residential areas (and so it shouldn't be surprising that speed bumps are generally ineffective at reducing collisions with pedestrians); reckless driving was. Because the line of thinking was cut short after "fast cars kill, so let's make cars go slow," the lack of understanding of the bigger picture resulted in the safety measure causing more deaths.

To move a step closer to gun safety, let's consider the example of child-proof caps on medicine bottles that Clinton offered as part of his explanation for his support for a bill involving mandatory trigger locks (Clinton also supported the child-proof cap bill). The issue was that children were eating medicine like candy, overdosing, and dying horrifying deaths. Child safety caps prevented children from getting to the candy. The problem with this attempt at a solution was something quite similar to seat belt laws: because parents felt safer leaving their medicine in more accessible places, the number of kids who got their hands on medicine bottles increased. The end result was an increase in children's deaths by overdose.
Trigger locks, unsurprisingly, had a similar end result: parents felt safer leaving their handguns around, and more people (not just children) felt safer playing with them. The result of introducing trigger locks was more accidental handgun injuries and deaths.
Actually, trigger locks themselves are an especially stupid idea because they don't even work properly, despite the tremendous support they have in some areas simply because they sound like they'll do something effective. Trigger locks circumvent the firearm's own safety features, and so trigger-locked guns are more likely to fire when roughly handled or dropped. This is why modern handgun manufacturers like Glock, Heckler & Koch, and SIG Sauer urge their buyers to avoid using trigger locks if they are not mandatory, because they make the device less safe. And that's failing to mention the crippling implications that those extra 30 seconds to get the frickin' lock off have on your ability to defend your home from intruders.
But trigger locks are still mandatory in many places simply because parents don't like the mental image of their child holding a gun. Every year, more children drown in pools than are injured or killed by firearms. In fact, more children drown in, specifically, a bucket than are injured or killed with firearms. It appears hilariously inconsistent to me that trigger locks, which make guns more dangerous, and mandatory while pool covers are not. If we were really thinking of the children, we'd have different priorities.

I see gun control in much the same way. People are seeing a problem (people are dying) and think that getting rid of the means by which people kill each other will make the death stop. The problem that should be addressed is people's inclinations to kill each other, not their means of doing so, but violent death is such an emotionally traumatic issue that people are falling into the same trap and not considering the bigger picture. Trying to put a ban on firearms to stop firearm-related crime is as stupid as banning computers so that thieves can't use them to steal credit card numbers, or banning the production of automobiles to stop auto theft. But in the case of firearms especially, people are banning the problem's own cure, all from a failure to understand the bigger picture.
And that bigger picture is essentially this: when handguns are more prevalent, especially if they are concealed, violent crime drops dramatically. This is easily evidenced by statistics on crime by the state, and a search of Google Scholar will give you disproportionately more papers that conclude that banning firearms is a phenomenally stupid idea.
But I like the classic example of the states with wildly different handgun laws:
In Vermont, the only requirement to carry and conceal a handgun is eighteen years of age, and that's it. In 2007, out of 51 states, Vermont ranked at #50 for violent crimes overall per capita, #45 for property theft and murder, #48 for rape, #50 for robbery, and #49 for aggravated assault. Despite their seemingly cuh-raaaaazy laws on firearms, they're one of the safest places in the country.
Washington DC's handgun legislation is the perfect example of what many gun control activists shoot for: until recently, it was illegal to even own a handgun, for any reason. Their laws regarding weapons of any sort are very strict and zero-tolerance. In 2007, out if 51 states, Washington DC ranked as follows, property crime: 1st, robbery: 1st, auto theft: 1st, murder: 1st, aggravated assault: 1st, and violent crime overall: 1st. Washington DC is by far the most dangerous place to live in the US. The amount of civil violence in countries that warranted intervention by NATO were not as severe as daily life in Washington DC, and the only reason the UN has not decided to intervene in DC is because it is part of the US.
I strongly urge gun control activists to live for some time in their utopia, Washington DC.

And this is a pattern. Gun control activists are doing things consistently counter-intuitive. Firearms-related crimes are committed far more often in states that are less armed. You are disproportionately more likely to be shot in a Gun Free Zone. Any rational group of people would see these accumulating failures and take a lesson from them, but the amount of emotion in this particular issue blinds people to it.

What it boils down to for me is a failure to step back and take a patient, objective look at the situation. The problem isn't the presence of firearms, but the violent intentions of violent people who use the firearms. In this case especially, giving law-abiding citizens more access to handguns solves the fucking problem for you, so greater gun prevalence in such circumstances saves lives.
My stance is something like the following series of points:

• The requirements for owning a firearm are far too lenient. It should not be easier to obtain a handgun than it is to obtain a driver's license. The requirements for gun ownership need to be more strict, and more importantly, actually enforced. These requirements would be things like clean criminal records and mental evaluations, zero association with gangs or other criminal elements, and good marks in multiple gun safety courses and examinations.
• On the other hand, for those people who meet the strict requirements, we need to be much more permissive with the things they can do. Open carry should not be restricted. Transportation should not be restricted. Concealed carry licenses should be shall-issue for anyone who qualifies. Gun Free Zones need to disappear entirely.
• For an aspect of our lives that is so critically important, too few people know dick about guns. We should incorporate mandatory gun safety courses into the high school curriculum.
• Assault weapons are neither necessary nor effective for personal defense; their only effective use is instigating extreme violence from a distance. Their ownership and use should be flat-out restricted to military and high-ranking police.
• Concealed firearms in the right hands dramatically reduces violent crime. Responsible ownership of firearms should be publicly encouraged.

[Brocerius]

Well, I'm at least glad that you are moving away from your Great Leveller argument, and on to something more sane. A lot of that post made sense to me.

I disagree with a number of your points about how mind-numbingly safe guns are though - these facts are from a country where guns are extremely prevalent. People can quite easily cross from one state that has relaxed laws into one that has hard laws (such as DC) and cause the dramatic crime rate - and it may be a good idea for criminals to go to Vermont and get their weapons, then go on a spree throughout the rest of America.

All you were saying there was basically 'its fucking stupid to have such variable laws in a place with no real borders where the laws change'.

And the 'my-sister-has-a-hockey-stick-it-can-kill-people-lol-pwnt' argument is a crock of shit and you know it.

[otters]

Something else we agree on, Tsukatu.

[blue_tetris]

Something else we agree on, Tsukatu.

What about Dave? :(

Dave agrees, just more succinctly!

[SlappyMcGee]

If you were about to break into a home, kill its residents, and steal their couch, and you were given a choice between a handgun and a field-hockey stick, it's fairly obvious which one you'd choose. Not just because of the sheer killing power, although the difference between the two is sizable, but you'd also choose the handgun because you'd never have to fire it to scare somebody. Guns have such a scary connotation among common folk that you flash your piece, people are going to do whatever you say.

But we'll get back to that; I'm not sure I understand the difference between a stun-gun and mace and a handgun as preventive measures. (The ones that are the root of our argument, obviously.) The handgun once again has the element of fear, I suppose; but once again, by your own admission, unless we're closer than five meters, a relatively unexperienced female who probably isn't physically strong enough to have any control over the gun? She would be practically helpless.

Now, you've "cited" some big statistics, but I'm not sure that the amount of violence in a state is at all proportional to its gun control laws. I can tell you that if Vermont banned guns, violent crime would not go up. Because violent crimes are not prevented by guns; that's a ludicrous statement. It almost seems to me as if you make a correlation with the mindset of criminals, rather than with the fact that they will have guns and the public will not. As if you believe they will rebel against the very idea of having guns by shooting more people.

But then again, if the criminals have guns and the public does not, gun control is not working. And the reason it is not working is because it has never been fully enforced.

And not everyone will carry a gun. We'll never live in a world where everybody carries a handgun. So, look at the world this way:

Criminals continue to have guns. Easier to get than ever!
Public mostly has handgun. Let's say a generous ten percent do not.

That means ten percent of the population is susceptible to attack at any time. Ten percent of the population lives in hurried fear because this device, this very object of fear, has curtailed their lives significantly.

Imagine a situation where more people have guns and fewer are afraid of them. People trying to commit violent crimes and the victims then get into a "Who's a better marksman?" game. There might be a decrease in violent crimes, but the criminals are unjustly dying because a man took justice into his own hands and shot him.

I don't understand why you don't see your examples as completely in line with your mindset rather than ours. Your solution to violent crimes that use guns is giving people more guns; maybe the increased number of guns will scare a criminal straight? But more than likely, more guns are going to mean that more people are using guns, and more people have access to guns. That means more people are going to get shot. More people will be harmed, whether it's accidentally or purposely, because a tool that serves almost no purpose other than to harm was put into the hands of the people.

[blue_tetris]

If you were about to break into a home, kill its residents, and steal their couch, and you were given a choice between a handgun and a field-hockey stick, it's fairly obvious which one you'd choose. Not just because of the sheer killing power, although the difference between the two is sizable, but you'd also choose the handgun because you'd never have to fire it to scare somebody. Guns have such a scary connotation among common folk that you flash your piece, people are going to do whatever you say.

I dunno how that's a case against guns. Seems to me that if you don't have to murder someone to intimidate them, you're better off. If I could pull out a hockey stick on an intruder and scare him off, I'd be pretty well off. Sadly, I can't. Instead, I gotta pull out my gun to spook him out. And I don't even have to fire bullets to cow the attacker.

But then again, if the criminals have guns and the public does not, gun control is not working. And the reason it is not working is because it has never been fully enforced.

How much of my fully absent money am I gonna have to pay Uncle Sam to enforce better?

Imagine a situation where more people have guns and fewer are afraid of them. People trying to commit violent crimes and the victims then get into a "Who's a better marksman?" game. There might be a decrease in violent crimes, but the criminals are unjustly dying because a man took justice into his own hands and shot him.

Why isn't being self-defensible--physically, mentally, and socially--part of your general life? Why does the government need to come in to ensure that you never have to be the better puncher, runner, climber, or traffic dodger? The government shouldn't step in to ensure you don't have to socially carry yourself, does it? You're out there on your own, brah.

I don't understand why you don't see your examples as completely in line with your mindset rather than ours. Your solution to violent crimes that use guns is giving people more guns; maybe the increased number of guns will scare a criminal straight?

I certainly don't see it that way. In fact, I agree with you. Nothing will make the would-be murderer or thief go clean. He intends to murder. Access to a gun isn't even the bad guy's prerogative. There are weapons out there. Taking away or providing guns doesn't solve the problem. Stopping the root causes of violence and policing violent people better is the key.

But more than likely, more guns are going to mean that more people are using guns, and more people have access to guns.

I don't think demand for guns is going up, now or later. Having a greater supply won't last long, accordingly. Guns would be legal or accessible to the demanding population, but suppliers wouldn't crank more out to fit a non-rising demand. Guns are still demanded by criminals and law-abiding citizens alike and they are easily met by supply, regardless of the legal status of guns.

[SlappyMcGee]

This is not a supply and demand situation. Demand is the same, but the legality of that demand has changed. So, for all intents and purposes, demand has increased.

[SkyPanda]

Taking a short break from the gun debate, I'd like to apologise for this interuption while I address some crap from Tsukatu.

Since the introduction of seat belt laws, the number of car accidents has increased so that it more than compensates for the number of lives saved.

Correlation does not imply causality. Since the introduction of seat belt laws in your country in the 1980s, cars have become faster and more powerful, cars have become more popular in youth culture, and so on. Possibly your statistic isn't even factoring in basic population growth, you didn't specify. Also, that's retarded. You cannot argue against safety measures in general on the basis that they encourage recklessness. By that line of thought, should we try and increase the dangerousness of certain things in order to promote safe thinking? You've got it all mixed up.
1. Teach people how to be safe.
2. Implement safety features for the people who don't learn, or who are in a situation beyond their control.

You also seem to be ignoring the fact that not all road injuries are caused by reckless driving. Anecdotal evidence time: my mum was in a car accident when she was in her twenties. It was the other driver's fault and she suffered minor neck injuries, which were caused by the whiplash from the seatbelt preventing her from flying through the windshield.

I'd suggest that if safety measures are increasing along with recklessness, then it's far more likely that education and institutional responsibilities have slipped. For example, when the government put up a fence, sometimes they take down the sign saying "stay away from the cliff". The obvious solution is to maintain or increase education. Not to take away safety measures. Duh.

Incidentally, isn't your argument the same as the one used by the Vatican to get Catholics to stop using condoms?

[t̷s͢uk̕a͡t͜ư]

Well, I'm at least glad that you are moving away from your Great Leveller argument, and on to something more sane. A lot of that post made sense to me.

And after reading through that thread, I don't see that you ever had anything particular to say about what was wrong with it. Just like you're doing now, you're only saying that it is wrong. I strongly disagree with you, and can write up my reasons for supporting it again if you need me to.
But if you have nothing to say besides "it's wrong," or other shit like "And the 'my-sister-has-a-hockey-stick-it-can-kill-people-lol-pwnt' argument is a crock of shit and you know it," then piss off. The adults are talking.

I disagree with a number of your points about how mind-numbingly safe guns are though

I don't think I've ever said that guns are safe. On the contrary, I think they're excellent self-defensive weapons because they brutalize whatever they're pointed at. The injury : death ratio of firearms is hugely weighted toward the latter by comparison to other weapons.

People can quite easily cross from one state that has relaxed laws into one that has hard laws (such as DC) and cause the dramatic crime rate - and it may be a good idea for criminals to go to Vermont and get their weapons, then go on a spree throughout the rest of America.

The "Spill-In Effect" is an issue considered by any economics paper worth its salt on gun control. In the case of lower gun prevalence reducing crime, it is never statistically significant.

If the thread you linked to is any indication, I honestly have very little expectation that you'll be making a meaningful contribution to the discussion. We don't need white noise from people who haven't learned that merely stating that something is false is not an argument against it.

Since the introduction of seat belt laws, the number of car accidents has increased so that it more than compensates for the number of lives saved.

Correlation does not imply causality. Since the introduction of seat belt laws in your country in the 1980s, cars have become faster and more powerful, cars have become more popular in youth culture, and so on. Possibly your statistic isn't even factoring in basic population growth, you didn't specify. Also, that's retarded. You cannot argue against safety measures in general on the basis that they encourage recklessness. By that line of thought, should we try and increase the dangerousness of certain things in order to promote safe thinking? You've got it all mixed up.

lol dude, the Peltzman Effect is, like, a staple of the field of Economics. It's the most clear-cut, obvious example of a situation in which a counter-intuitive solution is tried because consequences weren't considered. It was coined specifically to refer to seat belt laws, and it is taught on day 2 of Econ 101 because it's so clear-cut and obvious.
You'd do just as well to argue with a psychology teacher when she says that your environment influences your behavior. It's an extremely well-supported thing.

1. Teach people how to be safe.
2. Implement safety features for the people who don't learn, or who are in a situation beyond their control.

3. If the safety features you implemented for those who didn't learn are achieving the opposite of the desired effect, you should begin kicking yourself.

I'd suggest that if safety measures are increasing along with recklessness, then it's far more likely that education and institutional responsibilities have slipped. For example, when the government put up a fence, sometimes they take down the sign saying "stay away from the cliff". The obvious solution is to maintain or increase education. Not to take away safety measures. Duh.

But that's just it... I don't think we should get rid of seat belt laws now that we've been fucked over by them. Our driving culture has changed for the worse, and pretending that whole bit never happened isn't going to change it back for the better. I wear my seatbelt because I'm aware that people are driving recklessly, and I want to live. If I could revert time to the point where the seat belt law was signed and I had a chance to prevent that, I'd do it, but now that the damage is done I think people are safer with their seatbelts. We've buttered our toast, and now we have to sleep in it.

Incidentally, isn't your argument the same as the one used by the Vatican to get Catholics to stop using condoms?

I'm really not sure where the hell you're going with this, so I'll just make the following clarifications:

• I am not aware of any Biblical verses regarding firearms safety or self-defense.
• I do not, in fact, take anything from any religious text into account in the formation of my societal views.
• I do not intend to shoot at sperm or fetuses.
• I do not plan on using a firearm as a masturbatory aid.
• I am not aware of any bullet-transmitted diseases other than death, but don't really care if the guy I'm shooting gets a disease anyway.
• I do not think that gun control is in any way a moral issue.

That's as many clarifications I can make about my stance that I could see as possibly being relevant to the Catholic Church's view on contraceptives. But again, I have no idea what the shit you're talking about.