I said Gun control not ban. I have owned Taurus's 357 mags etc. I have never once ever pointed a gun at any biological species under any circumstances. COnsidering my nature I have been attacked in several bars (& several jealous types) across the US of A but all I do is run or hide behind the bouncer. SO I see no problem with someone like me owning a gun. My self defence item of choice is a very high powered pocket flashlight called Novatec 120. It stuns someone momentarily giving u enuff time to call a bouncer. Considering the news nowadays a 10day waiting period is obviously an inadequate bar. A brain scan may help.

Hey, I'm still waiting for that post on the UK-Aus crime numbers, before and after gun control took effect.

Post them yourself, they are just raw stats that can't be interpreted in isolation of other potential causes of murder so they are basically meaningless. BTW, I love the way you insist on peer reviewed articles when it suits you but ignore the results of a review of 121 peer reviewed articles that I provide. Then you drop the requirement for any sort of academic rigor by insisting that raw stats that suit you mean something. It's a hoot.

At least I'm big enough to admit that I don't know the answer to this question yet and that we therefore have to base our ultimate judgements on what we beleive to be right, in contrast to you who is prepared to lie and misrepresent to try and misrepresent yourself as having some sort of definative backing. Not unlike the behavior of John Lott, one of the authors from your articles. He's a known lier on behalf of the pro gun lobby and if you read the review that I posted you will see that they disect one of his articles (reference 64) for its poor data quality and flawed method. He obviously found a sympathetic peer to review his article.

I'll buy that, Necro, but if you think guns drive violence, what makes you think that if pistols are all that's available, shooting sprees and murders still won't happen?  The worst massacres in American history happened with breech-loading, single-shot carbines.

 

 

I read your report and it didn't say what you suggest. It said the data didn't support a conclusion of whether or not gun control is effective. It doesn't have a conclusion. You clearly didn't read it or you are lieing about it so you can hold onto your cult beliefs. Lott's work has been reviewed with a very critical eye. Because his results were so controversial. They have stood the test of time and I have given you the links to prove it. The interesting point about the piece you posted is it was sponsored by the United Nations and it's pro-gun control agenda (okay by me everyone has an agenda). The most a pro-gun rights advocate (like me) could expect from that research is pass on the subject. Which is what your source gave US.

 

Where that leaves our conversation is you continue to have no factual basis for your belief system. It is a sad cult that seeks to enable criminals to commit crimes. In order to support your cult beliefs you have to take my comments out of context and ignore the results of your policies. You must ignore that US states/cities with pro-gun rights policies universally have lower crime levels (including gun crimes), You must ignore that despite record gun ownership in the US gun accident rates are going down, You must ignore the fact that when the UK banned guns their crimes skyrocketed, You must ignore your Australians died in greater numbers than ever before in the decade after your gun control policies were forced upon your countrymen.

 

When you preach your silly cult here I will follow you and give you an opportunity to see the factual error of your beliefs. I will post the facts. You don't have to accept the truth (you can continue to be a gun control cultist) but I'm committed to giving you every opportunity to shake off your ignorance.

 

Check Six

 

Rocky

Why don't you read it Aga? It does not support your case that gun control prevents crimes, accidents, or homicides. It actually notes the increases in crimes in places like Australia, where murder rates and gun crimes almost doubled, and it does mention places like US, where gun ownership is going up while crime is going down, and even the results of UK's experiment, where murder remains 168% of what it was before the gun ban.

Open your eyes, indeed.

 

Check Six

 

Rocky

It say's quite clearly that the evidence on gun control is mixed and is therefore still out to the jury, an honest answer from the only  comprehensive review on the topic to be posted on this forum by anyone. Does that support my case? I not conclusively, but it also refutes your argument that there is a proven deterrant effect from widespread gun ownership in the US. Irrespective of how much you protest, what that takes us back to is deciding from first principles (i.e. common sense) what will make the community safer. (and before all those who believe that gun ownership is a right and not a public safety concern, I know what you think but that is not what I am talking with Rocky about right now).  

 

With that in mind, lets assume that you are right and that the widespread right to own a firearm for self defence does reduce crime. What I would ask you is how being able to own a hi powered military style weapons like AK-47 or an AR-15 (i.e. good for massacres) is going to reduce crime more than just being able to own say, a .38 special or a double barrelled shotgun? If I would have though that if any of those things was stuck a crooks nose they would be deterred and that the military style weapons wouldn't be required, but if you have a different take on it I'd be interested to hear it. 

 

It would be good if you answered the question rather than obfucating.

It say's quite clearly that the evidence on gun control is mixed and is therefore still out to the jury, an honest answer from the only  comprehensive review on the topic to be posted on this forum by anyone. Does that support my case? I not conclusively, but it also refutes your argument that there is a proven deterrant effect from widespread gun ownership in the US. Irrespective of how much you protest, what that takes us back to is deciding from first principles (i.e. common sense) what will make the community safer. (and before all those who believe that gun ownership is a right and not a public safety concern, I know what you think but that is not what I am talking with Rocky about right now).  

 

With that in mind, lets assume that you are right and that the widespread right to own a firearm for self defence does reduce crime. What I would ask you is how being able to own a hi powered military style weapons like AK-47 or an AR-15 (i.e. good for massacres) is going to reduce crime more than just being able to own say, a .38 special or a double barrelled shotgun? If I would have though that if any of those things was stuck a crooks nose they would be deterred and that the military style weapons wouldn't be required, but if you have a different take on it I'd be interested to hear it. 

 

It would be good if you answered the question rather than obsfucating.