<p>“I take it that you’re for a ban on cars.”</p>
<p>Thats real funny. I dont enjoy being mocked man. The purpose of a car is to kill people now?? I didn’t realize that. Because it is obviously apparent that cars are a vital part of our society whereas the main purpose of a gun is to kill people.</p>
<p>“Thats real funny. I dont enjoy being mocked man.”</p>
<p>This is the parents’ forum.</p>
<p>“The purpose of a car is to kill people now?? I didn’t realize that. Because it is obviously apparent that cars are a vital part of our society whereas the main purpose of a gun is to kill people.”</p>
<p>If you take the number of guns in circulation and divide by the number of people intentionally killed by guns, I think that you’d find that the ratio is below one. Substantially below one. If the purpose of guns was to kill people, then I’d say that they were not achieving their purpose. Not by a long shot. Strawman arguments may work in high-school. It’s a little tougher to get away with them over here.</p>
<p>Haha oh wonderful another parent who considers themselves superior to a high school student who is very much astute on the subject. I am allowed to say “man” whether I am on the HS forum or this forum, there is not nor will there ever be a law against that. The fact that your basing your argument on something that you “think” is a very big flaw. Let me break this down for you: A gun shoots a lethal bullet into a persons body which could hinder their ability to walk, move, and live in the aftermath of the situation.
“If the purpose of guns was to kill people…” hahahaha…please you need to explain this one. What is the purpose of guns, to blow flowers into the air for everyone to enjoy. And do not give me this to protect my family and home because the only way your going to protect these things is by threatening to shoot and/or shooting an intruder which is most definitly correlated with death and/or severe injury</p>
<p>“Haha oh wonderful another parent who considers themselves superior to a high school student who is very much astute on the subject. I am allowed to say “man” whether I am on the HS forum or this forum, there is not nor will there ever be a law against that.”</p>
<p>Perhaps you know a little about the subject but ad hominem arguments are still fallacies.</p>
<p>“The fact that your basing your argument on something that you “think” is a very big flaw. Let me break this down for you: A gun shoots a lethal bullet into a persons body which could hinder their ability to walk, move, and live in the aftermath of the situation.”</p>
<p>Should we ban biathlon training? Archery? Hunting?</p>
<p>People buy guns to protect themselves; not to kill people. They buy guns for other recreational purposes too.</p>
<p>“What is the purpose of guns, to blow flowers into the air for everyone to enjoy. And do not give me this to protect my family and home because the only way your going to protect these things is by threatening to shoot and/or shooting an intruder which is most definitly correlated with death and/or severe injury”</p>
<p>I have no personal problem with someone defending their home with a gun, knife, sword, dog, rock or rocket launcher. But many do buy guns for other purposes so your argumentation is a fallacy.</p>
<p>And please…as if I didn’t mention this already but in order to defend ones home with a gun, if there was an intruder, one would need to threaten to shoot or shoot this intruder, which goes against your point that the purpose of guns is not to kill people. Instituting guns into a society which has no guns would cause, logically, an increase in violence, so why can’t it be that taking guns out of a society which has guns cause a decrease in violence. Your supporting the right for future criminals to obtain guns in an easy manner and utlize these guns for their own benefit.</p>
<p>As for recreational purposes, the guns that hunters use are not the same automatic rifles that are so popular for “protective” use today. With these rifles shots are fired off faster and more effectively and allow for more damage and more violence. These guns do not belong in everyday life, and for anyone to support it is just plain ignorant</p>
<p>yes but by making having a gun illegal it gives police officers the opportunity to arrest anyone who has a gun. </p>
<p>it seems so obvious to me. guns are a problem in this country. france, englad, germany, all have gun restrictions and far less crime. </p>
<p>we should legalize narcotics and outlaw guns</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And some people are amazingly pompous and stupid at the same time. A truly noteworthy combination. Tell me, where did you get your wealth of knowledge? Come back when you’ve lived in the real world for a few years. When you express views on subjects that you obviously know nothing about, in real world terms, you are the one that looks ignorant. Idealism is a wonderful thing until it gets crushed by hard, cold reality.</p>
<p>“And please…as if I didn’t mention this already but in order to defend ones home with a gun, if there was an intruder, one would need to threaten to shoot or shoot this intruder, which goes against your point that the purpose of guns is not to kill people.”</p>
<p>This is another strawman. And, of course not my point. You stated that the purpose of guns is to kill people. That is clearly false. They are used for other purposes too.</p>
<p>“Instituting guns into a society which has no guns would cause, logically, an increase in violence”</p>
<p>Sophomoric. Perhaps different forms of violence. But there’s already a lot of violence perpetrated without the use of guns. If it is so logical, then make a logical case based on accepted premises and rules of inference.</p>
<p>“so why can’t it be that taking guns out of a society which has guns cause a decrease in violence.”</p>
<p>Perhaps you could explain why New Hampshire, a state with liberal gun laws has so much less violent crime, than Massachusetts, a state with ultrastrict gun laws.</p>
<p>“Your supporting the right for future criminals to obtain guns in an easy manner and utlize these guns for their own benefit.”</p>
<p>Strawman.</p>
<p>BCeagle:</p>
<p>In re the comparison between MA and NH, I think a more valid comparison would be between cities of similar size and demographic composition. Then one could evaluate the impact of anti-gun laws on the incidence of crime. I would say that Dorchester accounts for a large proportion of violent deaths in MA. But Dorchester is not the entire Commonwealth.
What MA probably shows, as does DC, is the ineffectiveness of strict gun control laws when other areas do not have similar laws.</p>
<p>“yes but by making having a gun illegal it gives police officers the opportunity to arrest anyone who has a gun.”</p>
<p>Including other police officers? There’s always a class of people that can get licensed to carry. Or hire those that are licensed to carry. Police officers can also arrest those making cell phone calls while driving. How often does it happen?</p>
<p>We have the odd story in the local paper about the off-duty police officer that shoots and kills a dog with a weapon that was threatening him, others or his children. I know that some here would much rather get mauled by a vicious dog than permit people, including officers of the law, use their weapons to protect their lives and the lives of their loved ones.</p>
<p>“it seems so obvious to me. guns are a problem in this country. france, englad, germany, all have gun restrictions and far less crime.”</p>
<p>And we’re just to take your word for this or do you have some facts to back this up?</p>
<p>“we should legalize narcotics and outlaw guns”</p>
<p>Narcotics are legal. Just get a prescription from your doctor.</p>
<p>Ivy - you should read the other thread about “Obama stradling the issue”.</p>
<p>Lots of good data posted there (thanks pmrlcomm) demonstrating that stricter gun laws actually contribute to an icrease in crime rates.</p>
<p>[Britain</a>, Australia top U.S.<br> in violent crime](<a href=“http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=21902]Britain”>http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=21902)</p>
<p>“In re the comparison between MA and NH, I think a more valid comparison would be between cities of similar size and demographic composition. Then one could evaluate the impact of anti-gun laws on the incidence of crime. I would say that Dorchester accounts for a large proportion of violent deaths in MA. But Dorchester is not the entire Commonwealth.”</p>
<p>I think that one should expand violence to violent crime and not just deaths.</p>
<p>“What MA probably shows, as does DC, is the ineffectiveness of strict gun control laws when other areas do not have similar laws.”</p>
<p>When you have a child in a bad school district and the district pleads with you to stay and work to improve the district, do you stay for improvements that may be three, four and five years down the road? Or do you look at alternatives. The child’s school years go by very quickly and wasting a few years can be very detrimental to long-term achievement.</p>
<p>The people in safe states would like to keep their states that way. And I have no doubt that those safe states attract others that would like to live in peace, whether or not they care about the gun issue.</p>
<p>You put forth a convenient conjecture but there are many that would rather not participate in an experiment to find out. Perhaps MA and DC and Durham should work to enforce their current laws. MA could always put in checkpoints at the borders to check for weapons coming into the state.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>I agree. The main point I was trying to make is that the existence of absence of gun laws is not enough to account for the incidence of crime. So comparing MA against NH using only that one variable is not particularly illuminating.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Nope. I was not suggesting an experiment. Just commenting on the ineffectiveness of gun laws. Could MA really put checkpoints at its borders? Would we even want to?</p>
<p>“I agree. The main point I was trying to make is that the existence of absence of gun laws is not enough to account for the incidence of crime. So comparing MA against NH using only that one variable is not particularly illuminating.”</p>
<p>It helps when you live in both places and have a feel for the cities on both sides of the border. Yes, even similar cities. Suffice it to say that when you spray for ants in one house, they often go to the next. I suppose that some would oppose all spraying while others would just spray everywhere.</p>
<p>“Nope. I was not suggesting an experiment. Just commenting on the ineffectiveness of gun laws. Could MA really put checkpoints at its borders? Would we even want to?”</p>
<p>There are sobriety checkpoints in the Merrimack Valley this weekend. I doubt that MA would want to spend the money at its border for anything permanent.</p>
<p>I’ve never understood the controversy over guns and the laws (or proposed laws) associated with them. If someone wants to own a handgun, sporting rifle, etc., they should be able to if they can endure a waiting period and pass a background check. Why do people get so (excuse me!) “up in arms” about that? It just seems sensible to me. Also, why is the NRA opposed to an assault-rifle ban or a ban on cop-killer bullets? This makes no sense whatsoever, to me.</p>
<p>The nature of political change is frequently evolutionary; not revolutionary. So you fight for a hill, or a few yards of dirt.</p>
<p>“It helps when you live in both places and have a feel for the cities on both sides of the border. Yes, even similar cities. Suffice it to say that when you spray for ants in one house, they often go to the next. I suppose that some would oppose all spraying while others would just spray everywhere.”</p>
<p>I’m sorry - what cities in New Hampshire are comparable to the urban centers in Massachusetts? What part of New Hampshire has a similar demographic composition to Dorchester?</p>
<p>“I’m sorry - what cities in New Hampshire are comparable to the urban centers in Massachusetts?”</p>
<p>There are only two cities in New Hampshire that you could call urban: Manchester and Nashua. There are other cities but they’re generally much smaller in population.</p>
<p>“What part of New Hampshire has a similar demographic composition to Dorchester?”</p>
<p>New Hampshire has a black population percentage of about 1. So you’re not going to find racial demographics like Dorchester in New Hampshire. I wasn’t able to find the median household income for Dorchester. However, there is one other major city in Massachusetts with many similarities to Manchester, NH, particularly in median household income.</p>
<p>I agree Hindoo. With sufficient waiting periods and background checks we should be able rest comfortably that those buying guns won’t be a danger. Anyone who wants a gun in a hurry to do something illegal won’t have a problem getting one. I’m sure I could obtain a handgun in less than 24 hours if I really wanted one.</p>
<p>pmrlcomm–For a moment, my heart soared because I thought you were actually agreeing with me! 
… Seriously, I understand what you’re saying. Granted, criminals will undoubtedly find ways to circumnavigate background checks and waiting periods–such as stealing weapons from law-abiding citizens. But it seems to me that we’ve got to do something and we have to start somewhere. I just can’t believe that anyone and everyone should be able to buy a gun (assault rifle, hand grenade, torpedo, ICBM, nuclear device, etc.), right now, on the spot, no questions asked. … Honestly, I don’t know the answer to America’s gun problem.</p>