Summations Only

The problem is that irreponsible people have a constitutional right to own guns.

That should be easier to do, since they don't have a constitutional right to drive.

I've been on highways in Montana where you could roll out your sleeping bag on the white line. It was also in Montana where I saw a sheriff with the biggest gun I have ever seen on his hip. It just about needed training wheels to keep it from scraping on the sidewalk. Penis envy, do doubt.

We covered that earlier in the thread: Cars have a useful function, so we have to balance the benefits with the dangers. Guns have no useful function (in the hands of the vast majority of users) so the dangers are paramount.

Imagine how much fun you could have with a shredder.(I had another joke but Dr. A beat me to the punch.)

Apparently it wasn't a live shell, just a big chunk of metal flying at several hundred miles per hour.

A gun is not a defensive weapon. It can't ward off bullets. All you can do with a gun is shoot first or hope the other guy misses.

There are three groups of people in the USA: people who don't have guns, sensible people who have guns and idiots who have guns. Gun control won't effect the people who don't have guns or the idiots who have guns. It's only for the sensible people who have guns; it helps them be sensible.So your question really is: What's the proportion of sensible people who have guns compared to idiots who have guns? More idiots → less effective gun control.

Sure they do. Sense isn't something you're born with. You have to learn to be a good citizen. As I mentioned in another post, a gun is not a defensive weapon. Nobody is made "more helpless" by not having one. I didn't say the sensible people "need" to be controlled. They're the only ones who can be taught self-control. Part of self-control and part of being sensible is the understanding that you don't need a gun to be safe.

Fair enough.

Everybody has to be taught how to live. Your Holy Constitution doesn't exempt you from being human. Society. It's a sensible opinion. A gun is no good unless you shoot first. I have a short attention span. Feel free to cover it again. Six of one, a half-dozen of the other.To paraphrase John Stuart Mill, you don't have to be stupid to be conservative but most stupid people are conservative. Edited by ringo, : Punc.tuation

I've never seen any evidence of that. Feel free to offer some. As I said, you have to shoot first. That isn't self-defense; it's only one step above a sneak attack. And the other guy is less likely to shoot first if you don't have a gun - i.e. if he doesn't have to defend himself from you.As for my short attention span, this is a debate forum; "Read the news," is not an acceptable argument. If somebody asks, answer. If you've already answered, repeat yourself or give a link. Don't just say, "You ought to know." I can't speak for the US but in Canada police guns are highly controlled. A police officer who even fires his weapon on duty is highly scrutinized. If civilian gun control was even a fraction of police gun control I would be happy. Because American civilians have 500 million? And you don't want DHS to know who has them, so they could all be in the hands of terrorists.

Yup, they're going to sneak round behind dad's back. Teenage girls are already adept at that (or so I hear ).

Who said I had a firm opinion? I'm not against guns. Some of my best friends have guns. I'm only against idiots having guns. I think the right to bear arms by idiots should be infringed. The evidence you presented is questionable at best. You seem to be the one who is grasping at any straw that seems to support your position. Well, the NYPD does have more combat troops than we do but we have more long-range transport capability. Let's see New York's finest invade Cyprus. That's a classic example of a non sequitur. Reminds me of something that happened around 1775 - an armed citizenry overthrew a government that didn't respect them (or so the myth goes, anyway).

I accept your apology. Try to improve your logic in future.Hint: Comments don't have to be opinions and opinions don't have to be firm. Well, the citizens of Canada have never been armed and the government always has been. The same applies to most of the western world (after feudal times, anyway). So if you have a point, feel free to tell us what it is. The myth I was refering to was the idea that, "an armed citizenry overthrew a government that didn't respect them." What actually happened was that a handful of rich people suckered a lot of poor people into fighting a war that they couldn't win until the French saved their asses.So, your citizens are armed and your government doesn't respect you. Are you planning a second revolution?