Summations Only

If I were to rephrase your position but in general terms in my own words I'd note that it's inconsistent to render judgment on all of some groups but not all of others, and then point out that it's senseless to judge entire groups anyway. At least that's what I thought you were saying.But if anyone was arguing that gun owners as a group are bad I guess I missed it. We don't want to regulate guns because gun owners are bad, because gun owners are not bad. We want to regulate guns for the same reason we regulate most things, for the greater good. Guns are dangerous to everyone in the vicinity, and regulating them reduces that danger.--Percy

Hope you don't mind if I draw a parallel. To be responsible drivers people would have to understand the capability of their cars. Judging by the typical driver on my way to work, I think most of them do not. So we have regulations for drivers and cars. Drivers must be tested and licensed (which doesn't seem to do much good), and cars must follow safety and pollution standards (which seems to do a great deal of good).If guns had seen the same improvements as automobiles over the past century it would be impossible for children or criminals or the insane to wreak immeasurable havoc with them. It is illegal now to sell new cars in this country with the safety features of a Model-T. Why is it still legal to sell a new Colt 45 with no more safety features than it had in 1873?--Percy

Could you talk about Islam somewhere else?--Percy

You have your own reality. Could you at least get on topic please?--Percy

Hi Ringo,I'm replying to this message again because it seems that the wrong point is being taken from your argument. You had said that we should take guns away from idiots, and Faith objected like this: You replied, "I don't think so," but you weren't implying that gun owners are neither responsible nor law-abiding. You were continuing with your point that most gun owners are idiots, clarifying that they're idiots because they believe guns make them safer.While I wouldn't use the term "idiots", your typical person will typically miscalculate that guns make them safer. In their mind they only imagine pulling out their gun when criminally threatened, and they never imagine little Timmy finding the gun in the nightstand, or drunk Uncle Fred waving it around as a joke at Thanksgiving, possibilities that are vastly more likely.For those who don't mind simple probabilities, try this exercise. Assuming you own a gun, what do you think are the average daily odds of something going terribly wrong and someone being killed? Would they be .001%? .0001%? .00001%? Whatever you think it is, remember that number.Now ask yourself what are the average daily odds of a criminal breaking into your house with murderous intent and you successfully defending yourself. Would they be .001%? .0001%? .00001%? Whatever you think it is, compare that number to the first number. Which is higher. If the second one is higher, guess what? You'd be wrong.The reason you'd be wrong and it's more likely that gun will be used against family and friends rather than criminals is simple. The gun is there in your house every single day, but the criminal invasion is an incredibly rare event throughout most of the US. Most of us have been in a house with a gun (whether you knew it or not), but few of us have ever been in a house when criminals broke in.--Percy

The grandmother who shot and almost killed her 7-year old grandson was also a gun owner (see Message 2867). Locked in a trunk in the attic for quick access, no doubt.--Percy

Yes, of course. The Donna Reed Show, Leave It to Beaver, My Three Sons, Ozzie and Harriet, they were all documentaries. What raises concerns about guns is all the news reports about gun deaths. For non-suicides, Canada has a gun death rate of 0.57 per 100,000, the US 3.23. For suicides Canada's rate is 1.6 and the US's 6.3. According to NationMaster (a statistics website), the violent crime murder rate for Canada is 16.23 per million people and the US 42.01.Our guns do not make us safer. They make it more likely that we will die from some gun-related cause.--Percy

You're living in a fairy tale land. The more guns you put in a population the more often guns will be used. What are you talking about? According to Wikipedia the UK has had strong gun control for decades and decades, so there was no recent "disarming of good guys" that could have had any effect on violent crime, plus violent crime in general is down over the past decade. And here's a graph of violent crime in Australia (from the Australia Institute of Criminology website), where strong gun control went into effect beginning in 1996 with implementation taking several years: --Percy

I think any reasonable person would equate more deadly with more violent, and guns certainly render any situation more deadly. In fact, the gun lobby argument is that this precise quality, their violent deadly nature, discourages violence. All the evidence says the more guns the more violence, especially deadly violence.--Percy

I can believe that there existed schools where a gun might be a not uncommon sight (according to this National Review article scholastic gun teams were not unusual), but in the northeast where I attended school in the 1960's a gun in the halls would have had people running for the exits, especially with the assassinations of John Kennedy, Martin Luther King and Bobby Kennedy fresh in our minds.--Percy

Newtown was a case of a mentally ill person possessing guns. A gun in a household with a mentally ill family member is equally a danger. Mentally ill doesn't mean mentally stupid, and a mentally ill person would have little trouble surreptitiously gaining access to the guns in the household.We take away people's rights with great reluctance in this country, and this reluctance is apparent in ruling someone mentally ill. Senseless murders are committed regularly by those with mental problems, either with an actual medical history of medical problems or with just friends and family noticing recent unusual or unpredictable behavior. One of the hopes of gun control is that we can find a way to effectively keep the mentally ill from possessing guns.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Fix misspeak.

As is your habit, while defending one incorrect statement you have made another, but never mind that. What I'm more curious about is this: if you don't accept the statistics, then by what means did you come to "know" that Canadians placed themselves in greater danger by giving up their guns?By the way, your original statement that Canadians are in more danger because they "gave up their guns" is simply false. there was never any sea-change in Canadian gun control laws that could be interpreted as Canadians giving up their guns. Gun control legislation in Canada has a long history extending back to the late 1800's (see the Wikipedia article on Gun Politics in Canada), and the regulations have become gradually more and more strict over time.Actual statistics show that the Canadian homicide rate is 1.6 per 100,000 while the US is 4.7 (see the Wikipedia article on List of Countries by Intentional Homicide Rate), and much of the difference is due to gun prevalence.--Percy

I understood that this was your main point. I took no difference with the spirit of it, so I didn't comment about it.I only questioned your skepticism that guns made the "Old West" more violent. Of course they made it more violent. How could they not? I agree with your comments about ubiquity of "the gun culture in the Old West," and I concede that the removal of guns from the "Old West" is a hypothetical, but that doesn't mean the "Old West" wasn't more violent than it would have been without guns.As I said, all the evidence says the more guns the more violence, especially deadly violence.--Percy

So now you seem to be saying that you while you think families with a mentally ill family member shouldn't be banned from having guns, that there should be a law requiring them to make sure the mentally ill family member cannot access the gun. This completely ignores the argument I just made, that mentally ill does not mean mentally stupid. The mentally ill family member can figure out which key on the key ring is to the gun cabinet. Or maybe the key to the gun cabinet is locked in the desk. Well, where's the key to the desk? Hidden somewhere? You think a mentally ill person can't figure out a way to discover where the key to the desk is? Or whatever scheme is devised, any person of normal intelligence will be able to figure it out. You're ignoring reality.And if a family must devise complex schemes in an attempt to prevent the mentally ill family member from accessing the gun, of what use for defense is that gun when needed in a hurry? Remember, defense is the primary justification for a gun in the home.--Percy

Well, yes, obviously, but when NoNukes asked, "Would all mentally ill people be banned from having weapons?" you replied, "All mentally ill, don't know."So have you now changed your "don't know" to "yes"?--Percy