Gun Control: Pro/Con

[ShadowMarth]

Well. Quote action movies all you like, the proof is there. Here's a little tidbit. Most gun related deaths are a result of domestic violence, accidents, and suicides; thus, guns are more dangerous to the owners than to intended targets. It's fact.

Another fact
In incidents where a hostile encounter with an armed criminal occurs, the criminal is often more experienced and skilled with his/her weapon; also, criminals may act in groups. Thus, guns are of little use as self defense for the typical owner.

The presence of a gun serves more often to escalate the likelihood and/or severity of violence.

Also, look at this study and tell me that everyone having a gun would be a good idea.
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/pd...earmdeaths.pdf

[Pilot_51]

The population is also increasing and so is the number of criminals, so of course deaths are going to rise with it.

[Sir Realism]

You can't use suicide as a case for your argument. If they truly intended to kill themselves, they could just as easily stabbed themselves through the temple, hung themselves, or other methods id rather not think about.

Your statistic about criminals acting in groups is rare. Criminals are people that usually act individually. You cant justify a complete argument with a statistic that counts for only an infinitesimal percentage. Also, since when do groups of people gang up on one target. Its usually a place like a bank, and if everyone at the bank has a gun, id say the odds are with the civilians.

Might I also ask your source for:

The presence of a gun serves more often to escalate the likelihood and/or severity of violence.

Because from what I know, it can go completely the other way.

Also, in regard to your tidbit, exculding suicide (which doesnt serve as an argument or at least a very weak one), may I question your source?

In addition, coming from the harvard source you posted:

Firearms are used far more often to frighten and intimidate rather than for self defense

Meaning that your statistic doesnt count the number of criminals guns scare away.

Let me introduce another argument as well:

God made man & woman, Sam Colt made man & woman equal.

By the way, do you plan on addressing the fact that there have never been shootings where lots of guns are present?

[Pilot_51]

Originally Posted by FoxIllusion

By the way, do you plan on addressing the fact that there have never been shootings where lots of guns are present?

Wars... But as for civilians, I think that would only happen when there's a gang war, but then again it's just another war at a smaller scale. I'm sure cases are very rare for a shooting among a bunch of gun-armed civilians outside a war situation.

[ShadowMarth]

By the way, do you plan on addressing the fact that there have never been shootings where lots of guns are present?

HAHAHAH! HAHAHAH! I win. That's all. Anyone that says that simply doesn't have a valid opinion. Or common sense. Or a television. And possibly not a brain.

As for sources, wikipedia.

As for your first statement, that's just silly. Every armed act isn't a bank robbery. Compared to most violent acts with guns, bank robberies and museum heists are way down on the list. Everyday muggings wouldn't be stopped because you had a gun in your pocket. A guy sneaks up behind you at night, puts a gun to your head, and tells you to give him your wallet, there's nothing you can do. Even if someone else was there to help, it would just escalate to a hostage situation, and that wouldn't end well.

[Sir Realism]

Um, no. I meant besides the obvious. I was hoping you had enough logic to deduce that.

As for your first statement, that's just silly. Every armed act isn't a bank robbery. Compared to most violent acts with guns, bank robberies and museum heists are way down on the list. Everyday muggings wouldn't be stopped because you had a gun in your pocket. A guy sneaks up behind you at night, puts a gun to your head, and tells you to give him your wallet, there's nothing you can do. Even if someone else was there to help, it would just escalate to a hostage situation, and that wouldn't end well.

Now youre just looking for holes in the argument. Why dont you focus on the general majority.

Just the thought that someone would have a gun would prevent someone from doing that. And even still, you hold the element of surprise.

Also, how about telling me the exact wikipedia link. Id like to check the author's bibliography because as you know, its not a static source.

[ShadowMarth]

Certainly, but I'm done arguing. And the hostage situation can be applied to just about any situation you could come up with where it would supposedly be a good thing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_control

You can't stop violent crime by making everyone capable of it... The criminals will keep doing what they do in whatever way they can. It'll just enormously increase the sales of kevlar.

[Pilot_51]

Kevlar is good stuff.

[Sir Realism]

Certainly, but I'm done arguing.

What a debate...

And the hostage situation can be applied to just about any situation you could come up with where it would supposedly be a good thing.

Um, no. Guy tries to rape girl, girl pulls out gun and shoots his brains out. Now that can be applied to just about every situation , accredited to the victim having an edge with the surprise factor.

You can't stop violent crime by making everyone capable of it... The criminals will keep doing what they do in whatever way they can. It'll just enormously increase the sales of kevlar.

And tell me, will making civilians INcapable of return fire going to stop violent crime?

Also, I cant track down where the stats came from in the works consulted. Either way, like I said, statistics dont count the criminals they deter.