Summations Only

People might go crazy with knives, bats, vehicles or any other object that is potentially lethal as well.It seems obvious to me that your main goal is to ban guns from being privately owned. If that is not the goal, then what other measures would you like to see in place?

Well, for starters, I wasn't talking to you. I addressed Percy. Secondly, the only counter-argument that I've seen made is that those other items hold some kind of utility that makes it too important to ban. Well, guns have a utility too important to ban as well. You seem to disagree. Around and around we go in circles until we get bored of trying to change the viewpoint of the other. It's the EvC way.

Well, Theodoric is all kinds of pissy because apparently specific measures have been addressed multiple times. I haven't seen any specifics either. The thrust has been, as you allude, that too many people die by guns therefore we should restrict them more. That's great and all, but that doesn't really advance the discussion without some kind of specific measures. I think we could all agree that certain people shouldn't have access to guns. Even the most diehard, card-carrying member of the NRA agrees that some measure of gun control is advisable. I certainly don't want innocent people to die and I certainly know there are some people who cannot be trusted with a weapon either out of neglect or a penchant for violence. The tricky part is trying to figure out who those people are in a simple and effective way.I will say this: I looked at the measures Obama put in place and I, to my genuine surprise, agreed with them. I thought they were sensible, realistic, appear like they would be effective, and would not harm law-abiding citizens the right to defend themselves.The NRA right now is grandstanding because ANY concession with Obama would make them appear weak to their constituents. This is idiotic and prideful. If Obama does something sensible then they should back him up. Anyway, that's how lobbying and politics work, unfortunately.

In more modern times, there have been some attempts to create a ring that the authorized user wears that corresponds with the firearm assigned to it. The gun cannot be fired unless it is in close proximity of the ring. But this is a flawed design. Presumably you could kill someone with their own weapon at point-blank range or simply take the ring. However, the basic concept behind it is pretty interesting so that, while the ring concept might be flawed, a better design might work based off that basic premise.Could evolve from science fiction to science fact

Only that more than one person can potentially be authorized to access it. Example: a husband may want to give his wife the ability to use it when he's at work if there's an intruder in their home. Edited by Hyroglyphx, : No reason given.

It's not an obscure hypothetical, it's a design flaw. Is it an obscure hypothetical that police with a weapon-retention feature on their holsters retain their weapon more often than those that don't?The starting premise is a great start. I am simply advocating for a better design. I think you are assuming that I want nothing at all when in fact I'm advocating for a better way of ensuring that only the correct individual can use the weapon.

That was only relevant to the 2012 study. A new poll indicated that in 2015, 21% of people know that you can use statistics to prove anything... at least 45% of the time... and after applying a standard deviation of 6.

Yeah, cuz, forget the actions of the offender. It's obviously the fault of the guns themselves. 'He said to them, But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. -- Luke 22:36"Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword." -- Matthew 10:34In modern times, might Jesus have said if you don't have a bitchin' M4, sell a possession in order to have one? I don't know. But why is he advocating buying a sword when it only has one purpose?

Not really. Guns are allowed, but very restricted in places like Canada and Brazil, with markedly higher rates of violence per capita in Brazil. Mexico has no private ownership and in Switzerland it's practically mandatory, yet the rates of death by gun are much higher per capita in Mexico. One could argue that they are being smuggled in to Mexico through the US, which is true. But Russia, which shares no border with the US has a similar gun violence problem.Actually having less guns obviously would decrease the number of gun deaths, but just "not allowing" them doesn't solve the puzzle.The fundamental issue is countries that are violent. And in the absence of guns, violent countries find other means, such as the U.K.'s knife violence problem.

That would make sense in colloquial English, but I highly doubt that is what it means in the original Aramaic, since "That is enough," also indicates what it literally means, which is, that is plenty.I hope you aren't advocating a totally pacifist Jesus. If so, what is your defense against him whipping people out of the Temple? Except that in all of eschatology it is very obvious that the end times and judgment is meant to illustrate total destruction of the apostates. Try and remember, if you're talking about Jesus not only as the Son of God but also God himself (the Trinity), then we're still talking about the same God that causes pestilence, famine, war, catastrophes, and who wiped out the entire planet (save 7 people). That is assuming that slapping someone on the cheek and turning to him the other also can be extrapolated all the way up to rape, torture, murder and genocide. There's quite a debate amongst Christians that question whether or not Jesus was advocating total pacifism or if his comments were a general rule of thumb about accepting criticism without resorting to an eye-for-eye mentality.My answer is: Not enough information given to make a conclusive argument in either direction.

I agree with your hypothesis. It's common sense. Mt objection was "not allowing" people to have access to guns doesn't mean they won't get them. The real problem is the prevalence or ubiquity of the guns themselves. As I've stated before, even if a law passed tomorrow banning all guns in the United States, the reality is that there are still some 600 million guns in circulation. "Not allowing" them to have it won't get those guns out of their hands. Actually it would just make them better at hiding them.

That all depends on numerous variables. Canada vs Brazil is a great illustration of something deeper going on -- namely, that the availability of guns alone doesn't account for the disparity. If it, Canada's gun homicide should actually be higher. That's because there are socioeconomic factors one must consider when looking at Brazil's crime rate versus Canada's. Yes, thank you for clarifying. Thank you for proving the point for me. The prevalence of guns alone cannot account for why gun homicide (or any homicide, for that matter) is higher or lower. My whole point is that the simplistic notion of strict gun laws or loose gun laws don't demonstrate anything meaningful without controlling for a number of different factors, such as you have elucidated. Why not? Mexico has extremely strict gun laws and Switzerland has extremely lax gun laws. That's kind of the point. Most are allowed to keep their service weapon for life, one for symbolic reasons and the other to be able to defend the country as a militia. But you're side-stepping the issue. Was not my objection that strict gun laws don't necessarily have an effect on gun violence? Here the data is very clear that there is not necessarily a causal relationship. Again, that was intentional to prove my point, which it appears has been made successfully. I agree that it is a very complicated issue, and that's my point. This isn't something so simple that we could lay all the problems at the feet of guns. Yep, it is. And if Americans couldn't get guns, knife attacks would skyrocket. Or bats. Or swords. Or by whatever means. Because this is a social issue that we need to deal with.

I see and respect your points. Well, I can understand that. All I can really say, especially in respect to there being a serious disconnect, is that many strict gun control advocates seem to equate guns as being the culprit and unintentionally make guns the enemy without judging the actions of those who wield them with malice -- as if they forget that history hath shown that incredible violence occurred long before the advent of the gun.The heart of the issue is why we have people wanting to kill other people to begin with. I have no illusions that it will ever go away completely, but we have to question why New Zealand's crime rate is so low and why El Salvador is off the charts. Why this is precisely is no doubt extremely complicated, but suffice it to say that if we had to summarize the reasons, guns don't make people homicidal. If they did, I'd be a serial killer.

You make a bogeyman out of guns. In the Rwandan massacre, thousands of people in the course of a few hours were hacked to death by machetes in the absence of availability to guns. Neither the gun nor the machete were the culprits. Whether you are in a dank Brazilian Favela or a suburb of Vancouver, British Columbia, the hardware means very little. What matters most is why Rwanda and Brazil have these issues and why Canada, for the most part, doesn't.And what are the citizens of Brazil supposed to do living there? Acquiesce? Roll over and die? Because these criminals down there are armed whether they are supposed to be or not. And they have no problem cutting you down. So what is your solution for those people? Become the statistic?The strict gun control advocates talk about the people who get cut down by gun violence. And aren't you privileged to live in a place where the chance you are cut down by an assassin is low. But what is your solution for those who live in places less fortunate than you or I? Agreed. So lets focus on those measures. That is comparing apples to apples, you just don't like it because it undermines your victim narrative of demonizing the gun before looking at the cultural situation. I compared first-world nations with other first-world nations. Please tell me how I'm not comparing apples to apples.How's this for comparing apples to apples: New Hampshire is a pretty pro-gun state, and they don't have the same kind of levels as their neighboring Massachussets which is very anti-gun, yet has much higher incidents of criminality overall. Comparing that apple with the other apple, explain why Mass has more problems than NH.

I don't think it will produce better results necessarily. If your only goal is to cut down on "gun violence," then sure, it's a small victory but ultimately a moot point. Does cutting down on gun violence have any measurable influence on cutting down overall violence? Because it seems to me that we are offering a Band-Aid to an amputee. We aren't really addressing the underlying issue, which is why America is such a violent society.