Gandalf,
QUOTE:
"i disagree that as gun ownership in law abiding citizens goes up this helps reduce crime. if you can find any kind of statistic to back that up, please post it"
Correlation does not imply causation; I don't know how much a bare statistic could help out my case. However, a bare statistic, backed by some logic could. I'll see what I can do, and respond to this thread.
QUOTE:
"i believe the less guns there are out there, the harder it is for a criminal to get his hands on one."
I diagree. Your statement should be qualified to read as follows: "I believe the less guns there are out there AVAILABLE FROM ILLEGAL CHANNELS, the harder it is for a criminal to get his hands on one." We have already talked about how a criminal would acquire a gun, and you did not seem to object to my assertion that most criminals would acquire their guns from illegal channels. So, what is the logic in restricting the availability of guns through LEGAL channels? I contend that any such restriction is illogical. Enforcement efforts should be focused on getting illegal weapons out of the hands of criminals. Allow me to point you back to this statistic, which you so thoughtfully pointed me to:
http://home.att.net/~Resurgence/L-guncontrol.htm.
QUOTE from the web site:
"One of the most remarkable examples was a 1992-93 Kansas City experiment
by the National Institute of Justice. There, police officers in a large
section of the inner city agreed to work overtime to remove illegal guns
from the streets. During these overtime shifts, they were given no other
responsibilities but to search for and confiscate illegal weapons. This
heightened enforcement (of existing gun laws) lasted 29 weeks. The study
compared the crime rate during this period to the prior 29 weeks; it also
compared the "target area" with a "comparison area"
which experienced no changes in its normal police duties. The population
of the target area was almost entirely nonwhite and had a crime rate 20
times the national average.
"The results were dramatic. Seizures of illegal guns in the target area
climbed 65 percent above normal, while they actually declined somewhat
in the comparison area. Meanwhile, gun crimes declined 49 percent in
the target area. Drive-by shootings fell from 7 to 1 in the time periods
compared. The rates for other types of crime did not change, but -- most significantly -- there appeared to be no spillover of crime from the target
area into surrounding areas."
ENFORCEMENT, ENFORCEMENT, ENFORCEMENT. Look how much crime was reduced when ILLEGAL guns were seized. Look what happened when hte existing laws were ENFORCED. What I am arguing is that the current administration instead of enforcing current laws is passing more restrictive gun control measures that only effect those people who acquire their guns from legal channels; that is, the law-abiding citizenry. The right laws are already on the books, they are just not getting enforced.
QUOTE:
"i do not see why anyone needs one as there is no practical use other than to kill many people and at long range is"
If you know much philosophy, especially ancient greek philosophy, you will know what the axioms of definition are. Based on this statement, it seems that your definition of "gun" is "device designed to effeciently kill people". *Definitions canot be defined by examples.*
A more correct definition of a gun is "a device that launches a small pellet of metal from the end of barrel by means of the rapid expansion of gases."
From this point, I will reduce your argument to absurdidity. What is the difference between a shotgun and an assault rifle? They both obviously fit this definition of "gun" that I have given. However, the assault rifle has a higher rate of fire, a low spread, a long range, etc, etc. The shotgun (pump action? automatic?) has a huge spread and the capability to do massive damage at close range, coupled with a piss poor rate of fire and an extremely low effective range.
Now, both these guns have differing capabilities, but they are both guns. Why should it be said that it is "good" to have one, but "bad" to have the other? One is not better than the other, they are just different. Since they are all basically the same, it is meaningless to have some and not all the rest. Therefore, either you have guns or you do not have guns. Which of these two options would you pick?
QUOTE:
"(ie no one walks into a mall without someone noticing they're carrying a shotgun)"
A shotgun is a long arm. Therefore, do you mean that you think long arms are "good" because they can't be easily concealed and small arms are "bad" because they can? So it follows, you would support the banning of all handguns, but the availability of all types of "sniper rifles, ak's, carbines, etc" because they are long arms, even though you contend "there is no practical use other than to kill many people and at long range"? You have contradicted yourself. I suggest you concede this point.
I eagerly await your response.
-inq