Only if you think that shooting someone is a freedom.

I preface this by stating that I usually come out against proposed gun bans in the US...

But it always strikes me that the "freedom > safety" line of reasoning is never, by itself, terribly persuasive. The same could be said to legalize personal procession of M1 tanks, Scud launchers and nuclear warheads.
Freedom and safety are always in a balance, neither is necessarily and always superior to the other.

If that someone is trying to bring unlawful harm to you or those around you.

__________________

More Guns Less Crime by John Lott is a good book talking about the statistics. Here is a webpage with a quick interview by him.

Interview with John Lott, author of More Guns, Less Crime

It my opinion that a good rule of thumb is that every citizen's rights are sovereign and should only be repressed or infringed upon when the practicing of said rights poses a direct and immediate threat to another citizen.

Clearly, that is the case.

You said this.-
“It has been proven over and over again. Disarming the law abiding only assists the criminals.”

How does the situation in England support this?

So what. What conclusions can you draw from that?

What point are you therefore trying to make?


Instead of what you are trying to imply?

I guess I would like to see more than your unsupported opinion.
Start with a definition of “violent” and then support it with actual facts.
The alleged UN report you posted is like your claim, unsupported by links. All your link had was a simplified narrative of it.
No. It should be a means to an end of reducing unnecessary weapons that can cause death and injury in a variety of ways. Gun nuts will always try to cloud the issue by trying to draw simple-minded conclusions from vaguely related issues. It is the Gun Nut credo that “guns don’t cause crime”. Why do they then turn around and claim that reducing guns must reduce crime or imply such reduction is pointless?

No.
because…………….

Guns does not = freedom.


Incorrect. It is a load of Gun Nut rubbish.

The rights you have are those given to you in a 200 year old document. They are artificial and restricted to only those rights these people though you should have. You are happy to believe they are the rights you need which is your prerogative. They do not serve as the definitive list that all humans require or are entitled to. You do not have total freedom and the rights you are allowed to have are not absolute.

Pram, I am trying to understand how you contiue to make arguments to take freedoms in the name of security, but insist on having that inequality in your signature.

__________________
"Sometimes it is said that man cannot be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then, be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels in the form of kings to govern him? Let history answer this question."
-Thomas Jefferson in his first inauguration address

I did?

Where?

Quote me.

__________________

The stats make it clear that more guns = less crime.

Well for one an armed citizenry is a vital safeguard of democracy. Oh and lets not forget that the right to bears arms is a specifically stated right.

Not necessarily but trying to ban guns would be stripping American citizens of their rights.

Have you read the book? Have you examined the statistics? If so go ahead and try to debunk the information presented. Futhermore your willingness to insult people involved in honest discussion shows your bigoted ignorance.

Governments and laws do not grant rights. They reduce rights in order to attempt to ensure that one citizen's rights do not overlap another.

Have I read too much into your arguments on this thread? Perhaps I have. In which case I recognize that I was wrong.

So, to clear things up, do you support gun bans or not? Or (and I think this is the more likely explanation) do you object to Matt's argument?

__________________
"Sometimes it is said that man cannot be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then, be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels in the form of kings to govern him? Let history answer this question."
-Thomas Jefferson in his first inauguration address

What stats?


Because…………..

It is a right in your country. That is not necessarily a reason why it would be a “bad idea”.

A right. It can be argued how important a right that is in contrast to the associated benefits. Personally I don’t suggest guns should be entirely banned however, just restricted.

Who did I insult?
And no I haven’t read it but I have read parts and the veracity of the findings have been questioned by reputable sources.

In the New England Journal of Medicine, David Hemenway argued that Lott failed to account for several key variables, including drug consumption, and that therefore the model was flawed. Others agreed, and some researchers, including Ian Ayres and John J. Donohue, claimed that the model contained significant coding errors and systemic bias. Gary Kleck considered it unlikely that such a large decrease in violent crime could be explained by a relatively modest increase in concealed carry, and others claimed that removing portions of the data set caused the results to change dramatically.
In 2004, the National Academy of Sciences conducted a review of current research and data on firearms and violent crime, including Lott's work, and found that "there is no credible evidence that 'right-to-carry' laws, which allow qualified adults to carry concealed handguns, either decrease or increase violent crime." James Q. Wilson dissented from that opinion, and while accepting the committee's findings on violent crime in general, he argued that Lott's evidence confirmed that right-to-carry laws had an effect on murder rate.
Referring to the research done on the topic, The Chronicle of Higher Education reported that since Lott's study, researchers have been evenly split between confirmation of Lott's findings and doubt that concealed carry laws have any impact on violent crime, saying that "Mr. Lott's research has convinced his peers of at least one point: No scholars now claim that legalizing concealed weapons causes a major increase in crime."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Lott
He is a known gun advocate and a pin up boy for Gun Nuts so his findings are swayed by a degree of personal bias. I choose to take independent data more seriously.



Well some governing body granted your constitution and the rights associated with that.

Depends on the ban.

Do I support making sales/purchases more difficult? Yeah. Do I support registration and licensing (with proof of adequate training)? Yeah. Do I support limitation of access to fully automatic weapons? Yeah. Do I support completely ignoring the 2nd Amendment? No. I actually own one gun, and I will likely own several more as I start making an income again after school. I think that there's a degree of reasonableness that so many people want to ignore.

I also object to Matt's argument.

__________________

I dont even know what it is.

Im really not sure how you could miss the point more completely.

The gun ban in the UK was intended to REDUCE the firearms crime rate. In practice, the firearms crime rate has INCREASED.

This indicates the ban has not accomplished its intended goal.

That the numbers are smaller is irrelevant. The UK as a nation has always had a low murder rate.

__________________
In case you were wondering, yes, there really ARE more idiots these days....technology has made natural selection obsolete.

Silence is golden...Duct tape is silver.