I agree with PrincessL. Guns are a Barbaric items used to push other people around. I reada study once that said that most of the adults with guns were outcasts in school. if we could all learn to accept each other none of this would be around. I know I just sounded like a hippie but its true and thats what i believe. My mom instead of buying a gun to use as a security system we have a aluminum bat which i must say that I am no light swinger when it comes to batting. It can still hurt someone but not as severely as a gun.

i think that people just dont pay any mind to kids well to be specific teens. They think we just talk to be talking but that not true.It's hard to live in this generation cause there is a lot of crimes going on with teens not just black teens but all around.Because people think their cool or hard if they do that,but really their not.I know I had a lot of boyfriends who acted like that!!!!!!!!!And as a hispanic and african american teen I pesonally think it's harder to be someone more than a trouble maker as people think of me and all my friends just by the first look!!!!!!!!!!

wow! I can t believe that happened. I mean i heard of it happening in high school but not in middle school.Im sorry it happened.javascript: x()

Hope it all helps.

Thanks for the offer, TrickyWidget. What kind of compilations do you do? I'm getting more interested in statistics and methodology (Yikes! I know that's really weird: somebody who likes statistics. I say that to some people and they look at me like I just ate roadkill. But I need to know that stuff for grad school .)

My personal opinion on this is that guns are not the leading cause of why there is so much violence in the world, but they do play a role in it. To say either "guns don't play any role" or "guns are the only reason" in why the world is so violent is just completely naive. Blaming a problem on just one thing is stupid, and is wrong. I believe it various problems, I.E. Overcrowding, the media feed fear, the alienation that is going these days, and I also believe we are going through a time which philosopher call a paradigm shift, which generally has a lot of violence due to many opposing views and the largely growing view of Relativism.
I just hope they don't take my HK USP 40, bet you didn't think a liberal would have gun huh?

quote:

---

The mosr reliable and comprehensive study shows that there are 2.5 million Defensive Gun Uses annually, about 400,000 are thought to be serious and likely to prevent injury or fatality. Versus 100,000 or so criminal acts involving guns. That means guns are four times more likely to be used defensively than in a criminal act.

A lot of the problem is the media teaches many people to think of guns as toys or as a way to settle disputes. That, they are not.

---

YES YES!! Common sense for a change. Thank you also for your data to use against the pro-gun control advocates!!

Keep us safe, go after the criminals and leave the law abiding citizens alone!!!

FINALLY! Thankyouthankyouthankyou. I've heard those statistics cited over and over again, yet never (despite asking many times) seen or heard of a source. *adds links to "Politics" folder*

And since you are the person who has finally cited that, consider yourself singlehandedly responsible for helping bridge a gulf of understanding between this liberal and anti-gun control advocates. And if you ever need a reference from my atypically large statistical compilations, feel free to ask.

I already posted this and some other info somewhere under the topic called "Seven Myths of Gun Control". Here are a little more specific sources.

The 2.5 million DGU statistic comes from ongoing studies by a criminologist by the name of Gary Kleck, of Florida State University. The study is drawn out of earlier studies, described in Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America (1991).. The study itself was published in 1995 in the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, vol. 86, issue 1, of Northwestern University. You will have to go to a law library to find the original source, although an online reprint is here. (Sorry, NWU's site redirects you to an archive service called Heinonline, but apparently you have to be authorized to access it.) Kleck's study was later published in full detail in his book, Targeting Guns: Firearms and Their Control. This book sold fairly well, so you may be able to find a library carrying it, but even at $12 used it's cheap as books of its kind go.

Kleck interviewed about 4,500 respondents, of which 1.3% stated that they had used a gun in some sort of defensive manner, against some threat, real or perceived. Projected across the adult population that works out to about 2.5 million people.

The 400,000 estimate comes from Kleck's research, which in turn is augmented by that of another researcher by the name of Lawrence Southwick, Jr. Of course, like the Kleck study, a citation from original, official sources is going to cost you money, so here is an a citation. from the St. Louis University Public Law Review, vol 18, no. 1.

In a nutshell, these are uses that involved more than merely brandishing a gun. The 2.5 million DGU accounts from cases such as a homeowner, hearing a his window, checks it out while carrying his pistol or whatever. Kleck and Southwick include situations in which violence was actually used or indicated by perpetrators. Southwick uses similar police deterrence data as his method of assessing his findings.

Incidentally, here is a link to a good side-by-side comparison of various studies. While not an unbiased source, archive searches at law reviews and scholastic journals typically aren't free, so you're stuck with that unless you know of a law library.

Incidentally, part of the reason why Kleck's study is considered so valid is because one of the gun control lobby's primary researchers, Philip J. Cook, attempted to debunk the study, and ended up with closer to 4 million Defensive Gun Uses. Cook replicated the methodology used by Kleck, albeit with a sample size a little over half of Kleck's and a response of 1.6% DGUs. Cook presented his findings to a gun control organization called the Police Foundation, in November of 1996, in a paper called "You Got Me: How Many Defensive Gun Uses Per Year?". Needless to say, he never formally published this in a research paper, and after word got out, and downplayed it in a National Institute of Justice report.

The 100,000 or so criminal uses of a firearm comes from, IIRC, the FBI Uniform Crime Reports. I don't recall if that includes actual shootings or things like muggings, although I believe the former.

I hope this proves useful to you.

NSA, you got sources and methodology for that?

I don’t think getting rid of guns will solve any problem...as I have said many times...start at the beginning of a problem then work your way up.
So where does the problem with guns start...that would be a matter of opinion.

Did you know that some countries have tried to banish guns from public homes! Did you know that those countries had as much as a 50% increase in gun related crimes.
Fact is...the people doing the most harm with guns, are not getting them legally. So how do you solve that problem?

quote:

---

I don't really see a need to have a gun in your home. It is very dangerous.

---

The mosr reliable and comprehensive study shows that there are 2.5 million Defensive Gun Uses annually, about 400,000 are thought to be serious and likely to prevent injury or fatality. Versus 100,000 or so criminal acts involving guns. That means guns are four times more likely to be used defensively than in a criminal act.

A lot of the problem is the media teaches many people to think of guns as toys or as a way to settle disputes. That, they are not.

quote:

---

"A well regulated militia"

---

Is based on Switzerland law, yup it's true. The fore-fathers loved the ideals behind the Swiss Government. Note a Government who still upholds it's laws to this day. A well regulated malitia does not mean the Army, National Guard or whatever. It infact means: "ARMED BY LAW" as they put it or as we say "WELL REGULATED"

and to prove your theory that it was meant for the Army and such means we would have to remove "MALITIA" from the constitution.

regulate:
1 a : to govern or direct according to rule b (1) : to bring under the control of law or constituted authority (2) : to make regulations for or concerning <regulate the industries of a country>
2 : to bring order, method, or uniformity to <regulate one's habits>
3 : to fix or adjust the time, amount, degree, or rate of <regulate the pressure of a tire>

malitia:
1 a : a part of the organized armed forces of a country liable to call only in emergency b : a body of citizens organized for military service
2 : the whole body of able-bodied male citizens declared by law as being subject to call to military service

note the second sense of malitia. And yes our refusal to except a malitia for what it is meant to mean is why we end up with Drafts. Malitia never has and never will mean a military force, it is the people, the citizens of the country willing to defend against invasion.

why do you think we don't have to keep fighting other countries? Because of love and peace? No, because of the fear of lawfully armed citizens. You all refuse to realize that outlawing guns would only make America defenseless against any form of criminal, terrorist, or anything with a gun. We will ALWAYS need guns, end of story.

If the owner doesn't know anything. Suppose you want a weapon for protection. Naturally you'll keep it loaded, right? Don't chamber the round, and keep a lock on it that can be removed quickly. If the weapon is a revolver, keep it on an empty chamber, next to an empty chamber.

One way to view the 2nd Amendment is to place heavy emphasis on the phrase "A well regulated militia" The army, national guard etc. used to have you bring your own weapon. Now it is all regulated, and nobody brings their own weapon. It is not needed, therefore, nobody needs weapons, right? Well, I view the 2nd Amendment like most liberals do. but hell, I'm keeping my damn guns.

I think having guns around the house causes more problems than it solves. We have the right to bear arms in the constitution, yes, but that was made during the time when there were minute men, who fought the British and had to have their guns ready to fight at any time. Now that we aren't fighting for independence from the British, I don't really see a need to have a gun in your home. It is very dangerous.

quote:

---

don't you mean people who aren't white Christians?

---

oooooo that's a b*tch slap for desertbeagle

quote:

---

*DesertEagle*
Taking on 100 liberals at once for America since 1985

---

oooo slap two!

and then just the fact your name is after a damn gun *b*tch slap*. that's three you're outta here!

meh but unfortunatly he doesn't know how to play the game . he keeps on coming.

*thinks of nazi, womanizing, gun loving, everyone not christian hating, homophobic perv who thinks*

o what i said at top ^, billy, was not makin fun of your post. you kno i agree with you that he is insane.

~*FOXY*~

quote:

---

America is a country that alows people to buy guns to protect themselves from people who bought guns from the same person.

---

Wrong. Criminals buy the vast majority on the streets - some may be from once-legal origins, but many were never legal. So much for that theory...

Also, countries with strict gun control laws almost universally have far higher violent and overall crime rates (Britain, Australia, etc.). Some (namely the two aforementioned countries) also have seen gun violence skyrocket since enacting their laws. As long as money is to be made from guns, legal or illegal, people will produce, traffic, and deal them.

If you really want to reduce violence, you'll get more mileage by thoroughly regulating the media (movies, the press, etc.), enacting mandatory drug rehabilitation for first- or second-time users, and getting tough on drug dealers. Unfortunately, not all root causes of violence are controllable, like poverty, but some are.

America is a country that alows people to buy guns to protect themselves from people who bought guns from the same person. If owning a gun for protection (owning a gun for hunting, if you have a permet would be differnt)was made illegal than only a remote group of people who could smuggle guns into the U.S. could shootother people.

Well, judging by Australia's "buy-back" program, I would say the need for guns in this country is even greater.

Crime rates in some areas on that continent have shot up 400 percent!

This is because the government is taking away ALL of the guns.

It's illegal - yes, illegal - in California to even own an antique gun that is 30 years old.

It's crazy and it's just stupid to sit here and read all this crap about how guns are the problem, when if you even make an attempt to at least try to think for yourselves, guns have decreased the overall crime rate in a lot of areas of this country.

We didn't have nowhere near the problems with "gun violence" until at least the 70s.

For every gun law on a private, law-abiding citizen, there's a death at the barrel of a criminal's gun.

So remember that. You try to "stop gun violence" by banning all the guns, the only people with them will be cops and criminals!

How ridiculously ignorant of you people.

Desert Eagle seemed to skip this: "Name some."

Fact is, only the Isralis experimented with the Desert Eagle and found it only to be reliable in the .50 AE. And you can get the same stopping power with a 45. ACP. Not to mention the insane muzzle flash. Oh I forgot to mention that it was top heavy and very bulky.

As my friend put it, I "hereby dub thee, 'Chairborne Ranger'". With some work, you can become an "Armchair Commando"!