what are those organizations? Remember that you're speaking to inferiors here


And you dont worry at all about the misuse of assault weapons? If civilians could own assault weapons, wouldnt that make gang wars or robberies a lot more violent and harder for police to manage?


I acknowledge that.. but the media is controlled by less ppl, whereas guns would be available to all who desire them

It's hard to tell who should and shouldn't own guns..because you never know who is or isn't responsible until an accident happens.

Consider the following situation when thinking whether or not concealed carry laws and universal gun ownership are a good idea:
Setting: A gravel parking lot, night-time
Redneck A: Were you talking to my girl back there?
Yuppie A: You mean the bartender?
Redneck A: So you WERE talking to her! Hey Travis!
Redneck B: yeah?
Redneck A: Not you, little Travis
Redneck C: [child's voice] yeah?
Redneck A: Get me an ol' D&R Beer!
Li'l Travis gets a beer and throws it to Redneck A
Redneck A chugs the beer
Redneck A: IT'S ONNN!!!
Redneck A pulls out a gun. Yuppie and his entourage follow the example. There is a widespread shootout and four people are dead.

In a situation where these people were not permitted by law to carry a concealed firearm, the yuppie would have his nose flattened, that's about it. Due to the "crime-fighting" measure of concealed carry laws, we now have a multiple homicide.

Do you really have any evidence to back that up? As Steven D. Levitt notes in Freakonomics, "John R. Lott, Jr. […] argues that violent crime has decreased in areas were law-abiding citizens are allowed to carry concealed weapons" (133). Furthermore, in Switzerland, every adult male has a firearm—and Switzerland is one of the safest nations in the world (131).

Warning, Michael. You're gonna get severely spanked right now.

Now, you use an example from Freakonomics, which I am familair with, and especially familiar with the passage that you cite. If you would have actually read the text, instead of the choice context-removing bit on the internet somewhere, you would read on to see on page 134 that Lott actually invented some of the survey data used to come to this concluson. From the text: "Regardless of whether or not the data were faked, Lott's admittedly intriguing hypothesis doesn't seem to be true. When other scholars have tried to replicate his results, they found that right-to-carry laws simply don't bring down crime." (Levitt 134)

addendum
The previous post was admittedly a theoretical exercise, not a statement of any solid findings, it was meant only to illustrate that "morons + guns" is not a good idea no matter who you are. This ties in to your example about the Helvetic States where the government issues every citzen an assault rifle. (ibid.) Crime is not a function of the number of guns a society owns per capita. Switzerland has a much different culture than the U.S., and, frankly, I wouldn't trust 80% of our nation with a deadly weapon, whether they are criminals or not. Of course this is subjective and if you would like every meathead you see on the street packing heat that's up to you.

NO, by all means we should NOT be able to just "have" guns, I mean look at where we are now.. about 12,000 people in the U.S.A. die from a bullet probably almost each year; I considered Toronto the safest place in the world, but just in the last year the shootings have become absolutely ridiculous. Why would someone have a gun? To "protect" himself/herself? There's the police for that. What the hell is wrong with people? GUNS KILL PEOPLE.

Taylor``

I stand corrected on the quote, although it doesn't completely nullify my point—his research hasn't been completely discredited, although it may be inaccurate. Of course, given that you used a completely constructed and unsupported anecdote to support your point, I don't know if it's prudent to point fingers at others' data, but… Well, I'll move on to your next point and leave it at that.


Your point seems to support my statement, not yours, in that it is the fault of the culture, not the guns, that causes the problem, and the presence of weapons does not necessarily mean that gun crime will increase—which is exactly my point. Guns don't cause crime—criminals do.

One, citing a tertiary source doesn't exactly turn this thread into scientific discourse. This is a message board predominantly patronized by middle schoolers. You haven't conducted any research, you've cited a mainstream publication without paying attention to the following paragraph.

My point was not "Guns = Crime." It was "Guns + Morons = Crime." Remeber "Americans = Morons", therefore "Americans + Guns = Very high gun homcide rate." In other words, American culture is not the one that should have the concealed carry laws. My anecdote hopefully was very plausible, and when you place guns into the situation, the outcome will be significantly different.

What's your point—one can't have an opinion without conducting one's own research? I think not. At least my point is supported by some sort of evidence besides a few stereotypical remarks and an outlandish piece of fiction that lacks any supportive evidence whatsoever.