Guns, who should be able to own them? Options

[*NatiMarie*]

We all know that guns can cause harm, they're everywhere darnit!

Primarily, who can own them? Who shouldn't own them?

[sheridan_whitesi...]

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.

[*mipadi*]

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)

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.

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.

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.