Jeff,
As you expected, I would like to respond. I have two introductory comments. One is that you failed to acknowledge my statement (even though you reproduced it) that, sure it would be hard at first, but in the long run, getting rid of guns, etc. etc... So, no I don't advocate banning firearms tomorrow. I am a pragmatist and fully realize that all heck would break loose. However, I still purport that if we could overcome the initial pain and work out the kinks, life would be better without handguns. That's my opinion, which you asked us all for at the beginning.
Second, you're right. I forgot the recreational use of guns. Strangely, I still don't see guns as some noble object. The recreational use of guns is no more necessary than killing people with guns. Here's a little quote that kinda repeats what I said more eloquently: the old classic "cars kill more people than guns, but we don't ban cars." The response to this irrelevant argument is that cars have other usage, whereas guns basically just kill, or threaten to kill. Their one potentially valid use, self-defense, is undercut by the statistics by Kellerman and Zimring previously cited, as well as fatal weaknesses in the arguments of Lott and Kleck. (don't worry, more to come on those names you probably recognize!)And another quote from Titus, a cute little TV show that sent me into hysterics the other night when Titus and his father were in a gun shop and Titus (as a little boy) says, "Daddy, I want a gun!" and his father says, "Christopher, we don't need guns. The men in our family have penises." Hmmm...might Dr. Sarah Thompson have an opinion on what category gun-owners fall into? Probably not, but I can tell you, as a graduate in Psychology, that a lot of the rhetoric they spout could qualify them for inferiority complex, paranoia, sometimes to the point of being socially debilitative (in which case it is an actual disease according to the APA) and sometimes, borderline personality disorder.
The fact is, I am not debating the legality of gun ownership, nor how painful it would be to suddenly ban guns in America. However, I maintain my opinion that guns are like the little hanging things at the back of our throats...you know the uvula? The true purpose is archaic and no longer applicable. But, well, they're still here and it'll take lots of years of evolution to get rid of them.
However, I cannot stop here, because although I rightly claimed that people can and will find any statistics to support their cause, you spewed many forth for me. So, here are a few words for you on yours.
First, I found it ironic that you questioned a study I might run to see if there is a correlation between gun ownership and arrogance, in addition to saying that gun control advocates often fund research to get what they want. Then you send me off to pro-gun sites and expect me to believe those are unbiased? Oh yeah, and Dr. Sarah Thompson surely did not have an agenda when she was using science to prove that gun control advocates have psychological issues. I am insulted that you would think I would not notice the hypocrisy!
And FYI, I know enough to conduct double-blind studies with representative samples, which apparently some of your boys do not (read on!)
"Laws restricting access to guns have resulted in a decline in gun homicides and suicides. Laws making it easier to carry concealed weapons have not decreased homicide rates and may have contributed to increases in homicides. Although some have argued that laws making it easier to carry concealed weapons decrease violent crime rates, this conclusion is based on flawed research.
http://support.jhsph.edu/departments...factsheets.cfm
Apparently the pro-gun advocates funded studies that used non-representative samples to show that gun violence went down when there were no laws to restrict gun ownership. Oh and also, they forgot to control for the fact that gun-violence was already on the decline in their test areas (Florida was a specific example), so how could they tell what was causal and what was incidental. the answer: they can't!
This research was done by Johns Hopkins University, one of the premier secondary institutions in our country. Their bibliography for this piece in particular is made up of articles from such respected journals as the New England Journal of Medicine and the American Journal of Public Health, so you can't even say it's because this school was given huge grants by gun-control advocates!
Here's another little something by nationally renowned and respected publications:
But research has shown that a gun kept in the home is 43 times more likely to kill a member of the household, or friend, than an intruder.(Arthur Kellermann and Donald Reay. "Protection or Peril? An Analysis of Firearm Related Deaths in the Home." The New England Journal of Medicine, vol. 314, no. 24, June 1986, pp. 1557-60.) The use of a firearm to resist a violent assault actually increases the victim's risk of injury and death(FE Zimring, Firearms, violence, and public policy, Scientific American, vol. 265, 1991, p. 48).
and...
Research by Dr. Arthur Kellerman has shown that keeping a gun in the home carries a murder risk 2.7 times greater than not keeping one. That is, excluding many other factors such as previous history of violence, class, race, etc., a household with a gun is 2.7 times more likely to experience a murder than a household without one, even while there was no significant increase in the risk of non-gun homicides!
This study (Arthur Kellermann et. al., "Gun Ownership as a Risk Factor for Homicide in the Home," The New England Journal of Medicine, October 7, 1993, pp. 1084-1091) has been much maligned by the gun lobby, but despite repeated efforts to tar it as non-scientific, its publication in one of the most respected peer-reviewed journals in the world is just one indiciation of its soundness.
Finally, I found this little snippet at the site which follows:
FBI Crime Reports sources indicate that there are about 340,000 reported firearms thefts every year. Those guns, the overwhelming amount of which were originally manufactured and purchased legally, and now in the hands of criminals. Thus, the old credo "when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns" is silly. What happens is many guns bought legally are sold or stolen, and can then be used for crime.
http://www.asahi-net.or.jp/~zj5j-gttl/guns.htm
I also read a lot about America having more violent gun related incidents than 25 industrialized nations combined and every high schooler knowing someone who brought a gun to school and what-not. I will not waste either of our time with these because, although they prove my point that America, with the some of the loosest laws, is the worst country to live in for gun violence, it has not much to do with my statement that the world would be better without guns, period.
One thing I always find interesting and would like your views on: many gun-advocates claim that the government is corrupt and wants to restrict guns so they can control the people and take away our rights. However, since the courts have not ruled in favor of the Second Amendment protecting the individual's right to keep and bear arms, I would say that these people are mighty lucky that their government officials are protecting them by keeping this stuff legal! They should all thank their local Senators and Reps. Do you not agree?
In conclusion...(well, it IS almost as long as an essay for school)
Do I believe everything I read? No. I don't believe everything you posted, nor do I believe everything I posted, because some were conveniently taken from gun-control websites. My point, once again, that people can find any stats to support their position. However, I believe a lot of the things I posted, because of the quality of research put out by people who are permitted to submit to the New England Journal of Medicine and such.
Maybe some day you and I will have a contest to see who can find more websites to support their position. I bet we'd qualify for some Guiness Record, because the resources are nearly limitless!
Oh, and as far as having children and operating moto rvehicles, those are non-sequitirs and do not belong in this thread, so I won’t make my post ANY LONGER!!! (Whew!)
Bye for now!
[This message has been edited by SuperXO (edited April 28, 2001).]
[This message has been edited by SuperXO (edited April 28, 2001).]