Stop the presses!  MrEye and I actually agree on something.  

Stop them again, because I will agree with you too. I have owned a gun since I was 10 years old, and have hunted ever since then. I was taught to respect guns, and have been around them for quite some time. I have 2 shotguns, a rifle and a handgun, all which are locked up. I hunt and target shoot, and enjoy it. To get my hunting license as a kid, I had to pass a gun safety class, and have no problem with that. Most gun owners also wouldn't have a problem with waiting periods, licensing and even restrictions on certain types of guns, but they are afraid that if they let the government start taking away certain guns, that they won't stop until they are all done. here is a rather interesting story where a gun saved 5 people. http://www.thetimesonline.com/articles/200...ee000014014.txt

I think the gun debate suffers when personal protection gets mixed in. I believe for home security, a handgun is not very effective and the risks, especially if children are in the house, out weigh the potential benefit.

 

If someone breaks into your home and they are intent on harming you, you will not have much time to react. Your gun would need to be accessible, loaded, and ready to go. Those are the exact same set of circumstances that makes having a gun around children dangerous.

 

I am much more comfortable arguing that law abiding sportsmen and recreational shooters should continue to have access to these tools.

 

I also think when the politicians were dealing out issues, the Dems got the worst hand here.

Stop the presses!  MrEye and I actually agree on something.  

Yeah, sorry I didn't comment on it. I was heading out the door for home and HAD to post that!

Wow that's interesting do you have a link for that, I'd like to read about it.

It's all over the place. It's not secret. There's also similar results in Great Britain.

I'd like to add another thing to this "If we get rid of all the guns, crime and murders will go down and we'll be just like Japan debate."

 

Handguns are outlawed in the city of Chicago. Sunday night my brother-in-law got held up at gunpoint in Chicago. Hmmmm.

I'd like to add another thing to this "If we get rid of all the guns, crime and murders will go down and we'll be just like Japan debate."

 

Handguns are outlawed in the city of Chicago. Sunday night my brother-in-law got held up at gunpoint in Chicago. Hmmmm.

But guns are outlawed, so shouldn't the criminal not have a gun?

 

But guns are outlawed, so shouldn't the criminal not have a gun?

 

Yeah, that's what I thought as well. :rolly

Shooting people is already illegal and yet it still happens.

Armed robbery is already illegal and yet it still happens.

 

The only people who would abide by a law banning guns will be the very people you are not worried about killing people.

 

I don't own a gun, so I really have no stake in keeping the right to bear arms, but outlawing them is kind of silly. The bad things one can do with a gun are already illegal.

 

The Japan comparison doesn't hold water. Soccer is popular in Europe and not so popular here. Europe has many soccer riots. The U.S. doesn't. Should European nations outlaw soccer? After watching some soccer, perhaps they should!

I don't own a gun, so I really have no stake in keeping the right to bear arms, but outlawing them is kind of silly. The bad things one can do with a gun are already illegal.

I disagree with ya there, Bob. I don't own a gun either. I never have. I'm a lifetime member of the NRA, though. I think the 2nd amendment is just as important as the first.

Okay none has answered my question yet. Why do we need guns?

 

I don't see how they are useful

Okay none has answered my question yet. Why do we need guns?

 

I don't see how they are useful

Defense

 

Among 15.7% of gun defenders interviewed nationwide during The National Self Defense Survey conducted by Florida State University criminologists in 1994, the defender believed that someone "almost certainly" would have died had the gun not been used for protection -- a life saved by a privately held gun about once every 1.3 minutes. (In another 14.2% cases, the defender believed someone "probably" would have died if the gun hadn't been used in defense.)

 

In 83.5% of these successful gun defenses, the attacker either threatened or used force first -- disproving the myth that having a gun available for defense wouldn't make any difference.

 

In 91.7% of these incidents the defensive use of a gun did not wound or kill the criminal attacker (and the gun defense wouldn't be called "newsworthy" by newspaper or TV news editors). In 64.2% of these gun-defense cases, the police learned of the defense, which means that the media could also find out and report on them if they chose to.

 

In 73.4% of these gun-defense incidents, the attacker was a stranger to the intended victim. (Defenses against a family member or intimate were rare --well under 10%.) This disproves the myth that a gun kept for defense will most likely be used against a family member or someone you love.

 

In over half of these gun defense incidents, the defender was facing two or more attackers -- and three or more attackers in over a quarter of these cases. (No means of defense other than a firearm -- martial arts, pepper spray, or stun guns -- gives a potential victim a decent chance of getting away uninjured when facing multiple attackers.)

 

In 79.7% of these gun defenses, the defender used a concealable handgun. A quarter of the gun defenses occured in places away from the defender's home.