College women told to urinate or vomit to deter a rapist

Quote from TRNT : I would go further. Not only that, but a number of pro-gun people are also sincere rational and patriotic people. Similarly a number of anti-gun people are sincere rational and patriotic.

Some anti-gun people are sincere and rational and even patriotic. Many just want to ban guns at any cost though and ignore things like facts and history.

The proposed gun laws due to Sandy Hook wouldn't have stopped Sandy Hook. Do they care? No. They only care if such things ban guns in some form or another.

Quote from ZeeDuck : To this end I think it's important to understand that we aren't coming from irrational POVs.

Give it time, new guy.

Quote from TRNT : The distinction for cars (to be registered or not) is whether or not they exert a cost on society. Guns do.

No, violence does. The inanimate object used to commit the violence is not the problem. It's the person behind it. That is one of the places where gun control fails. Controlling the object gains you nothing when the action is what you're trying to stop (purportedly, anyway).

Regarding the car analogy, cars are not protected in the BOR, and cars kill FAR more people than guns (thereby "exerting a cost on society"). You could argue that the benefit of cars to society outweighs the cost, but one could easily argue the same thing about guns--and with better evidence to back it up. You, personally, may not see or choose to exercise the benefit of guns, but the benefits clearly exist. Guns keep our society safe and deter our government from becoming tyrannical. Guns are safer than cars by far and away, both in absolute numbers and percentages. Violent crime has been consistently declining, and accidental firearm related deaths are at an all time low in recorded U.S. history. Guns save lives every day, and some studies have shown they are used anywhere from 2.5-8 times as frequently defensively than in crime.

BTW, aren't cars registered by state? So there is another issue with respect to the 10th Amendment. Some states require gun registration. Federal registration is another issue.

Quote from AlfredoGarcia : No, violence does. The inanimate object used to commit the violence is not the problem. It's the person behind it. That is one of the places where gun control fails. Controlling the object gains you nothing when the action is what you're trying to stop (purportedly, anyway). Regarding the car analogy, cars are not protected in the BOR, and cars kill FAR more people than guns (thereby "exerting a cost on society"). You could argue that the benefit of cars to society outweighs the cost, but one could easily argue the same thing about guns--and with better evidence to back it up. You, personally, may not see or choose to exercise the benefit of guns, but the benefits clearly exist. Guns keep our society safe and deter our government from becoming tyrannical. Guns are safer than cars by far and away, both in absolute numbers and percentages. Violent crime has been consistently declining, and accidental firearm related deaths are at an all time low in recorded U.S. history. BTW, aren't cars registered by state? So there is another issue with respect to the 10th Amendment. Some states require gun registration. Federal registration is another issue.

1. Both the object and the person using it are the problem. Consider this: in war, we not only attack personnel but also their stockpiles of weapon and ammunition. Why do you think that is?

2. Controlling the object at the very least gains you this: you can trace a gun used in a crime to a person.

3. You are correct that cars are not in the BOR. And you are correct that cars kill far more people than guns. Or did you mean people (with cars) kill people? Gotcha!

4. If you can objectively demonstrate that guns benefit society more than the cost, I would like to see it.

5. If you can objectively show that guns are safer than car "by far", I would like to see it.

6. "Aren't cars registered by state?" Hmm...good point. Honestly I am sick and tired of state rights. But look, registration or lack there of cars in one state can greatly affect other states. Same with guns. Have them (i,e, cars and guns) registered by states or federally, I really do not care.

Quote from AlfredoGarcia : Regarding the car analogy, cars are not protected in the BOR, and cars kill FAR more people than guns (thereby "exerting a cost on society"). You could argue that the benefit of cars to society outweighs the cost, but one could easily argue the same thing about guns--and with better evidence to back it up..

The economic benefits of autos allow people to get to school, work, places of commerce and places of recreation. They also deliver most of the goods and services in the nation. That's an economic benefit of hundreds of billions of dollars.

The economic benefit of civilian guns outside are non-existent by comparison.

Quote from Rebound : The economic benefits if autos allow people to get to school, work, places of commerce and places of recreation. They also deliver most of the goods and services in the nation. That's an economic benefit of hundreds of billions of dollars. The economic benefit of civilian guns outside are non-existent by comparison.

The economics of cars are easy to see. The economics of guns are harder to calculate. If in fact civilian gun ownership has helped to ensure freedom then the price is incalculable. If we could show it doesn't then I would say you might be right. To say that it is all but zero without justification is just rhetoric.

Quote from ZeeDuck : The economics of cars are easy to see. The economics of guns are harder to calculate. If in fact civilian gun ownership has helped to ensure freedom then the price is incalculable. If we could show it doesn't then I would say you might be right. To say that it is all but zero without justification is just rhetoric.

In today's society, given the state of US military technology, civilian weapons simply don't provide any national security whatsoever. You can concoct science fiction tales about alien invasions and zombies, if you want. But all of that is fiction.

If you were planning military action against the US, your concern would be the nukes, fighters, bombers, satellites, etc., and not Backyard Bubba.

Quote from Rebound : In today's society, given the state of US military technology, civilian weapons simply don't provide any national security whatsoever. You can concoct science fiction tales about alien invasions and zombies, if you want. But all of that is fiction. If you were planning military action against the US, your concern would be the nukes, fighters, bombers, satellites, etc., and not Backyard Bubba.

Freedom is not just freedom from foreign invasion, but from domestic prohibitions (for lack of a better word) as well. A populace that is e.g., afraid to leave their house for fear of being mugged is arguably not free.

Quote from mmathis : Freedom is not just freedom from foreign invasion, but from domestic prohibitions (for lack of a better word) as well. A populace that is e.g., afraid to leave their house for fear of being mugged is arguably not free.

I would argue that I feel safer on the streets of London than Chicago, and firearms are the reason why. My point being that hundreds of millions of unregistered, un-trackable firearms in circulation most definitely do not make everyone feel safer. And if this makes us feel that we need to carry a firearm with us in order to feel safe, then we are not very safe.

My 13 year-old daughter will walk a mile to high school each day, beginning next year. Will the NRA suggest that all 13 year-olds should carry guns to school in order to be safe? For I argue it is the reckless, unregistered sale of guns that creates the safety problem.

So while I respect the right of mature, law-abiding people to purchase guns for their homes, I think that the reckless and unceasing promotion of their sale throughout the nation makes us less safe.

Quote from Rebound : If you were planning military action against the US, your concern would be the nukes, fighters, bombers, satellites, etc., and not Backyard Bubba.

No, it wouldn't. Because I'd just have my military walk across the open border and take over the country from within. Nice of you to disarm all the citizenry for me. thanks.

Maybe I'd even do it over a period of 20 or 30 years and just do it by voting after all my military people and their kids become citizens.

Quote from Rebound : I would argue that I feel safer on the streets of London than Chicago, and firearms are the reason why. My point being that hundreds of millions of unregistered, un-trackable firearms in circulation most definitely do not make everyone feel safer. And if this makes us feel that we need to carry a firearm with us in order to feel safe, then we are not very safe.

I didn't feel safe in the restaurant in Chicago and it wasn't because of guns. I believe a gun would have made me feel safer.

Quote from Deusxmachina : No, it wouldn't. Because I'd just have my military walk across the open border and take over the country from within. Nice of you to disarm all the citizenry for me. thanks. Maybe I'd even do it over a period of 20 or 30 years and just do it by voting after all my military people and their kids become citizens.

That's delusional.

Quote from Rebound : I would argue that I feel safer on the streets of London than Chicago, and firearms are the reason why.

Chicago has some of the toughest gun laws in this nation. Odd that you would choose it as your example of unsafe streets.

Quote from TheWoman : Chicago has some of the toughest gun laws in this nation. Odd that you would choose it as your example of unsafe streets.

Sure, but Chicago is a very short drive away from three other states - Indiana, Wisconsin and Michigan. If you ban gun sales on the odd side of the street but not the even side of the street, would you expect gun crime to decrease on the odd side of the street?

Banning gun sales on either side of the street is unconstitutional.