Obviously, otherwise you’d understand that a criminal is going to get a gun if s/he wants to, whether or not they are legal. See the War on Drugs[sup]TM[/sup] if you don’t believe me.
And here is the crux of the problem. You’d rather focus on how they kill and not why. You could take away every gun, knife, and sword in the world and the murderers of the world will just turn to boards with nails in them.
I don’t suppose you’d mind supplying a cite for this? Or is this another of your opinions?
So you response to the question of whether or not you contradicted yourself is point out that yes, you did use the word “Knife” in an earlier post? Do you debate much?
The difference that you ignore is that if you give a big man and a little woman each a sword, you have not tipped the scales all that much. The advantage is still all with the big man. But if each of them have a gun, then the scales are nearly balanced. I’ve studied self-defense and sword fighting off and on for years so I have some awareness of what I speak of.
It’s not a myth.
I’m sure I could throw out a cite that shows how many times guns are used in self defense, your cite is from an anti-gun ownership group. So I’ll quote one from here, a pro-gun ownership group…
" the consensus is that there are several million crimes prevented each year in the U.S. by law-abiding citizens with a firearm. "
and that’s not counting the cops, most of who carry firearms.
I can’t believe I just used my 1,000th post to answer this nonsense.
I can partially substantiage that its not a myth. I’ve personally used my gun twice to stop 2 crimes(one would have been a probable murder), but neither one got into any statistics(that could be cited) since I didnt kill have to shoot anyone either time, and the other one didnt even get reported to the police at all.
I cant be the only person in America to have used my gun to stop a crime.
No crimes have ever been committed with my guns, so my counts are 2-0.
The problem with statistics, is that when guns are used to stop crimes, nearly all instances are not reported anywhere. No one(agency) keeps national statistics on what crimes were prevented/NOT committed.
I disagree. I have provided evidence. You just don’t like what I provided. I don’t avoid addressing attacks if they make sense. The problem is, most of what has been posted here by the opposition doesn’t make any sense, therefore, I don’t respond to them.
Most of what has been posted in rebuttal are far-fetched examples, off-the-wall examples of the value of guns in society, like need to protect yourself in riots (let’s see when was the last riot I was in or near? Hmmm, that would be back in 1967) or the value of guns in bettering hand-eye coordination. If YOU want to get any more replies, then mind your manners and try to be civil, otherwise, I’ll be skipping over your posts.
As I’ve said, there are always exceptions. But from what I’ve read, there are more problems caused by guns than are solved by guns. Therefore the benefits don’t outweigh the negatives. As to keeping stats on crimes prevented by guns, how exactly would that be done? Most people are not going to call up the police and say “I beat off an attacker today using my gun”, especially if the gun is not registered or they don’t have a permit for it.
Here’s some stats from Link. They are from back in 1992 but I didn’t find anything newer. But I’m confident that the numbers are not lower than what is reported here.
There’s other interesting statistics at this link. PLEASE read all the information CAREFULLY before extracting one sentence or statistic and trying to make a [foolish] case for it.
I don’t think that word means what you think it means.
I have reread every one of your posts to this thread. Not one of them has a shred of evidence in it. Not one. You have posted opinions galore, but you have offered not a single piece of evidence to back up your whims. If I have missed this evidence, please point it out to me.
You’re making an unreasonable assumption that your big man and little woman are equally skilled. I’ve also studied martial arts over the years and you should know that the key to winning is using the other person’s strength against them. Just because someone is big, doesn’t necessarily give them an advantage, unless you are going to get into a wrestling match with them. Your reference is a prime example of many of the meaningless and foolish examples that have been used by many here.
I don’t agree that a “consensus” opinion is a valid cite. And cops are supposed to be carrying weapons, so I don’t know waht you are trying to say here.
Then why do you spend so much time replying if you believe what I say is nonsense? If you believe this to be nonsense, then why not go somewhere else? No, I think I’m proving that the “emperor has no clothes” and you are not able to accept that you have not been able to muster any cognitive support for your position other than innuendo, paranoia, spurious examples and “consensus” opinion.
Glad to see the SDMB is tackling the big issues! I imagine we’ll come to a rational consensus soon and then be able to advise lawmakers on the straight dope regarding the legal status of firearms!
Finally, after 6 days of nonsense, iamme99 finally posts some evidence! Of course, he doesn’t do anything with it, but at least there is some thrown out.
Not speaking for anyone else, of course, but “fighting ignorance” comes to mind.
Not really.
You have not shown any substantive evidence that guns cause violence. You have only conjectured it. you have not shown any evidence that more gun laws would keep the guns out of the hands of those using them for violence.
Your appeal to anual gun deaths is no more persuasive than other’s appeal to anual automobile deaths. Less so, perhaps since so many more die in cars and there are fewer cars in the country.
The bottom line is that many more guns exist in this country than caus any harm whatsoever. There is a well respected Constitutional ammendment enshrining gun ownership as a basic right. And your insistence that law abiding citizens are the problem vis a vie gun deaths is worse than mere rhetoric.
The Emporor is quite warmly clothed thank you. 
it’s actually quite reasonable. Since this is a hypothetical situtation you have to start somewhere. What’s the point of giving an example of Wally Cox attacking Xena the warrior princess to prove that handguns make better self-defense weapons than swords? History proves me right, not you.
fighting ignorance?
you’ve proved something allright, but that’s not it.
Well, as stated earlier, you’ve not really convinced anyone that you’re your side is right. My position doesn’t need “support” as it is the law of the land. The constitution is my support. You, taking the contrary position, have to show that we are all wrong and that we should change the law. You have failed to do so, thus far.
But by all means keep trying, it’s a slow night.
Why is it fine for a cop to carry a gun, but I shouldn’t?
Because their job is to protect society and yours isn’t?
History proves you right with what? All I’m hearing from you are hypothetical, off-the-wall examples, like the one use above. Wally Cox and Xena? Surely you can do better to justify your position than using actors from TV shows <roflol>.
Sezs you. Sadly, some people are just not capable of rational thought, so it will never be possible to move them off of their rote belief positions. I’d classify you as one of these people. However, there are thousands of other people on SDMB. This thread has had 1,071 views so far. If I’ve managed to make even one other person think seriously about this subject, then I’ll accept that as success. And please don’t reply that I haven’t done this. There is no way that you could know if that were true or not.
What difference does that make? A cop uses his gun to eliminate an immediate threat of serious bodily harm to himself or others. This is the exact same reason the state of TN allows me a concealed carry permit.
Police are people too. Some are liars, some are crooks. How does their job description make them more trustworthy with a firearm?
But I didn’t say they were any more trustworthy, than say you. I also didn’t say that life was fair. However, to repeat, society has chartered them with potecting civilians, not you (unless and until vigilante justice is revived). That is the difference, whether you agree or not. I don’t see what there is to discuss further on this tangent.
Well, I wasn’t there. 
Either were 250 million odd other people in the USA. So what’s your point?
That’s only part of the problem. A lot of these militants in Iraq are spreading stories and encouraging their neighbors to shoot at our soldiers. This is a big problem, and it is becoming a problem in the states as well. So how can we pry the right to free speech from American subjects?
Easy. Take away their guns.
I’m sure you’re aware that most violent criminals are all for gun control, after all, if they’re the only ones with guns, they are going to be a lot safer in their jobs.
While you’re after my gun, you might as well take away my motorcycle too. After all, I might hurt myself. And don’t forget my car, cause I might hurt someone else. Be sure to strip my kitchen of all sharp utensils, ya know… just in case.
After reading all the anti-gun nonsense and propaganda, I still don’t understand how you people talk yourselves into beleiving that crap.
Sigh, and I thought we were finally getting someone who could contribute more than hyperbole. You were doing pretty good for the first 3 paragraphs but then you went off the cliff with #'s 4 & 5. Oh well.
If you go back to the OP, you’ll notice this excerpt:
Note that this applies to ALL gun owners/possessors, including criminals. Sure, criminals will still try to get guns, but maybe if we hang a few of them in public, then they’ll get the message that they shouldn’t do that.
In general, I wouldn’t advocate taking away anyone’s motorcycle, car or kitchen knives, though in your case, we might want to make an exception. 