I think the point of the scenario was that the 40 people were all trained in gun safety...but that scenario is just as unrealistic as removing all guns from public life. 

I'm not gonna argue with anyone on the topic.  I'm just going to state that the government will have to pry guns away from the cold dead hands of millions of americans who will refuse to give up that right, myself included. Sorry but I just don't trust my fellow man further than I can throw him and my government being made up of my fellow man I trust even less.

 Truthfully the whole thing is a bit of a catch 22.  Ultimately its not the gun laws that need to change, its the people who need to change, again myself included. Some will get my meaning and some won't.

How many less people would had died had everyone at Virgina Tech been carrying a gun?

Around 40% of all school shootings are stopped by private citizens with guns.

Columbine involved the use of a gun that was illegal in the first place.

There is a reason why some people wanted to push for it to be legal for teachers to have guns in classrooms.

Also, i'd note that most police officers are pro concealed carry laws.  The people who fight criminals every day would perfer that people who can get guns legally do so.

 @Kenzomatic. How many people more would have died through the use of those guns over the years? Probably more than they would have saved on that day. Anyway, cherry picking, the use of one extremely rare situation is hardly conclusive to overall effectivness of weapon control.

The Kleck study doesn't have any major methological problems. It has some minor ones that might cause some inflationary problems... though not on a major level... as i imagine paranoid people pulling their gun out repeatidly for no reason would end up getting arrested.

Either way it's currently the most methologically sound study on the matter.

What's odd is that Democrats are Pro gun control, and Republicans are anti-gun control.

Since gun control is attacking the issue of gun violence from a Supply side.

Either way we should be looking at good old Kensyian economics on gun control and work on it from the demand side... since there is absoultely no evidence that shows gun control is having any effect on crime.

People pushing gun control are wasting time solving the problems that cause crime. Considering all studies done on the last two major gun control laws have shown zero effect on anything... what's the point in pushing more laws other then a "gut feeling"?

Personally, I detest guns. I do think we should have the right to own one though. I also wouldn't mind seeing tighter regulations on gun ownership, so long as it doesn't make it near-impossible for a decent person to get one.

The problem with banning firearms is that the only people, besides the police and military, who would have guns would be members of organized crime/street gangs and lowlifes in general. Those are the ones that we need to worry about.

In my perfect and happy dream world, guns wouldn't even exist.

I'm not trying to argue with you. I see your point, I just simply disagree with it. However, if I were, I don't think your replies could detract much from my point, and I certainly dont' think you could consider what I wrote "poor debating" on the contrary, I think by your response, you know its the most poingient post on this topic so far.

When you said I got off topic with the car example, didn't you contradict yourself by bringing up Guantanamo Bay, and then again, prove you have little insight on this conversation when you say that you don't understand our country.

Personally, I don't think you understand my country "anytime," if you don't see any truth in my post, whatsoever. 

 It is poor debating to compare subjects entirely unrelated and to appeal to emotion. The first is purely bad reasoning, its the equivalent of me saying that because the government has taken away the right to own slaves they are going to take away our right to use telephones. The second looks impressive but really has no factual influence on the debate, it really doesn't matter how you feel emotionally about this, what matters is statistical and legal facts.

I stand by the fact that both are poor debating. 

Guantanamo bay is an entirely apt example as the topic at that point was the erosion of rights and that is the single most poignant example of the erosion of rights in America.

 Also I don't understand your country as in I don't understand why a country would get sp very angry about firearms reform, I don't see why you consider it an important right to carry deadly weapons and I don't see how banning firearms leads you to say;

"Do we lay down for our government?

I dunno, ask the protesters outside the White House. Ask the soldgers in Iraq. Ask the gang members in Harlem, ask the clan in Mississippi(My home state, btw), ask the self govermentalist in texas, ask the sec-progs in california who have marijuana in vending machines, ask the fishermen of washington, ask the common man of Iowa. Go tell them the supreme court ruling, tell them its time to lay down and obey."

Oh and I saw some truth in this point of your post

'The street gangs who shoot innocent bystanders in drivebys? Do you think they're shooting registered weapons? Do you think the gun ban will actually stop that violence? Maybe you think them having guns will give the police an excuse to lock them up? Don't you know they already lock them up if they have a gun on them? You think America won't have an underground gun trade?'

Which is the only point where you actually argued about the effects of banning guns, the rest of it was to be honest bullshit. I seriously don't think it was close to the most poignant post on this topic, there have been far better arguments both for and against it before hand. My reply is in the style of all my replies to debates like this.

When you refer to your opinion as a fact, you lose all credibility when debating with me, or any intelligent debater. Instead of listening to my words, your examining them to present your retort, and you fail to grasp the concept of what is being said. "Poor" is a descriptive term indicating opinion. While it can be a fact that the majority of opinions consider a debating technique "poor" it is not a fact that said technique is "poor" that is still only an opinion.

To debate you I need only say this. I conceed that the numbers are probably in your favor(though you nor I can prove such a thing as all numbers presented in this topic are bullshit). However, I contend that life and death aren't the sole factors in determining law in the United States. Right and wrong, and morality are your opinion. I simply stated an opposing one and you saw fit to attack me with what felt like towards the end, condecending, anti-american sentiment.

To pretend that your factual numbers are the only factor of importance in this debate is deceptive and also cherrypicking. That's what's wrong with your argument. It's one dimensional, and wouldn't even hold water in your debate class. I would prefer that your "scathing" comments be directed elsewhere. You can't handle people's disagreements with your opinion, that's fine. Don't pretend that "oh that's an unfair technique in debating" as if it matters in this forum, it sounds like your changing the subject because you can't contradict the things I say with your sheet of numbers.

If your comments weren't so fucking incessant and consistantly inserted in this thread, you would have been marginalized long ago, because they are boring, uninformed, meaningless, and downright mean.

There are lies, damn lies, and statistics. A well said quote. Frankly, here is the heart of the matter, and at first it may seem terrible too you:

Human life doesn't matter, in this argument, in the circumventing of constitutional law. No matter how many people guns kill, it is still our right to own them, the reasons don't matter. Our only recourse is punishment for offenders of others rights, by use of said guns. Is this morally reprehensible to you? Obviously it is. Doesn't matter. This law isn't based off your morals, its based off the inherant American right to own a gun, no matter what the cost to society, or how "wrong and pointless" your childish arguments portrey the right itself. Government legislation repealing this right is progressive with the realistic human life cost in mind, however that isn't the major consideration, nor a very important one. We can't repeal our basic human rights and liberty determined by our constituation to protect human life, even if you "don't understand what the big deal is with gun ownership."

Speaking of bad debating tactics, never saying "I don't understand" anything, it's fucking 101, now isn't it?

Do you win the PC morality argument that "guns kill people and I don't understand why we need them" of course you do. If that's what we're debating, the fact that guns make it easier for people to kill other people, I would be a fool to argue with you.

However, your argument fails to reach past that simple, boring, and unimportant segment of the overall debate, and fails to acknowledge both sides, or even attempt to understand why the issue is so important. It's given with a holier than thou, elitist prick, american foriegn policy is evil, mentality right out of a shitty foriegn documentary, and while it may play well to the sec-progs there in californialand, trust me good sir, to the audience which you are presenting, the average American man or woman, which you obviously have so much, spite, anger, and hatred towards, due to the atrocities our government has comitted(in your mind) you'd get boo'd off the stage. Go preach to the choir.

I, for one, find America to be a noble country, with aspirations to help those in need, whenever fiscally possible and morally responsible, and a country that attempts to allow the freedom of its people from government opression, again, as much as possible, and like all noble leaders, America makes mistakes, but recognizing and repairing them is one of the fine strengths of being a melting pot, and having differing opinions, and being a pinnacle of democracy. That's not a very popular opinion outside of the US, now is it? Still, it holds true time and again, the top superpower is also the most criticized, and while much of the criticism is warrented, much of it is hateful and untrue. We only need to look at the Wii and this sites forums to see how the top dog is treated by its competitors and their compatriots.

Wow. I actually didn't expect to be attacked like that by you Zen. Surprising.

"When you refer to your opinion as a fact, you lose all credibility when debating with me, or any intelligent debater. Instead of listening to my words, your examining them to present your retort, and you fail to grasp the concept of what is being said. "Poor" is a descriptive term indicating opinion. While it can be a fact that the majority of opinions consider a debating technique "poor" it is not a fact that said technique is "poor" that is still only an opinion."

Alright, I'll admit I should have said 'I still believe that it is poor debating' and that I mis-stated it. Sorry about
But I understand entirely what you're saying and think it is foolish to claim that the USA banning guns will lead to them banning alcohol, cigs and cars, I think you were only aiming for shock effect in claiming so. With the tiny made up anecdotes that you used that I also criticised, once again you were using them only for effect not to examine the justice or morality of the debate.

"To debate you I need only say this. I conceed that the numbers are probably in your favor(though you nor I can prove such a thing as all numbers presented in this topic are bullshit). However, I contend that life and death aren't the sole factors in determining law in the United States. Right and wrong, and morality are your opinion. I simply stated an opposing one and you saw fit to attack me with what felt like towards the end, condecending, anti-american sentiment."

Life and death are incredibaly important factors. In this case I can not see how any other factor would matter to be honest. You're arguing that although changing the law would save lives we shouldn't change the law because a 200 year old document says we shouldn't?
What would the world be like if Christians followed all the absurd laws set down by the bible? There would still be stonings and other hideous things.
Also to state that I don't understand Americans isn't anti-American, its merely stating that I don't understand Americans. Although to be fair I am anti-American but thats a whole different matter.

"To pretend that your factual numbers are the only factor of importance in this debate is deceptive and also cherrypicking. That's what's wrong with your argument. It's one dimensional, and wouldn't even hold water in your debate class. I would prefer that your "scathing" comments be directed elsewhere. You can't handle people's disagreements with your opinion, that's fine. Don't pretend that "oh that's an unfair technique in debating" as if it matters in this forum, it sounds like your changing the subject because you can't contradict the things I say with your sheet of numbers."

I see no matter more important in this than life and death. Its not like banning guns actually inconveniences us (before you bring up anything to do with alcohol or cars, cigarettes are a different matter altogether). Calling your arguments 'poor debating' is hardly scathing. I'm not claiming its unfair, you're free to argue however you want. I'm claiming its unconvincing. You're ignoring the fact that I didn't only say they were poor debating them but I actually did rebut both of them, go back and read. First one I rebutted by making it clear that alcohol and cars are not the same as guns and to extrapolate to them is unfounded, second one I rebutted with some heart wrenching made up stories of my own - just to show that anyone can play the bullshit game.

"If your comments weren't so fucking incessant and consistantly inserted in this thread, you would have been marginalized long ago, because they are boring, uninformed, meaningless, and downright mean."

Really? Thats far more mean than anything I have said as far as I can see. I mean accusing me of being boring? ='(

"There are lies, damn lies, and statistics. A well said quote. Frankly, here is the heart of the matter, and at first it may seem terrible too you:"

That quote was referring to people twisting statistics to say what they want them to say. You agree with me that for this the statistics favour my argument. I don't need to twist them.

"Human life doesn't matter, in this argument, in the circumventing of constitutional law. No matter how many people guns kill, it is still our right to own them, the reasons don't matter. Our only recourse is punishment for offenders of others rights, by use of said guns. Is this morally reprehensible to you? Obviously it is. Doesn't matter. This law isn't based off your morals, its based off the inherant American right to own a gun, no matter what the cost to society, or how "wrong and pointless" your childish arguments portrey the right itself. Government legislation repealing this right is progressive with the realistic human life cost in mind, however that isn't the major consideration, nor a very important one. We can't repeal our basic human rights and liberty determined by our constituation to protect human life, even if you "don't understand what the big deal is with gun ownership.""

See this is where my understanding falls apart and I honestly want it explained. What is the big deal with changing your constitution? It was written 200 years ago under extremely different circumstances, there was a threat of English invasion, the states were all extremely independent and the country was new. There was a reason for the second amendment back then, there isn't any more. Why defend it?

It might be because I come from a country with no legal consitution but I really can't see why a country of people would want to anchor themselves to a document written 200 years ago and refuse to change a law that even you agree is costing lives simply because the law is in that document.

"Speaking of bad debating tactics, never saying "I don't understand" anything, it's fucking 101, now isn't it?"

Well if I don't actually understand something I'll say it. Its not like I'm trying to win a prize here after all.

"Do you win the PC morality argument that "guns kill people and I don't understand why we need them" of course you do. If that's what we're debating, the fact that guns make it easier for people to kill other people, I would be a fool to argue with you.

However, your argument fails to reach past that simple, boring, and unimportant segment of the overall debate, and fails to acknowledge both sides, or even attempt to understand why the issue is so important. It's given with a holier than thou, elitist prick, american foriegn policy is evil, mentality right out of a shitty foriegn documentary, and while it may play well to the sec-progs there in californialand, trust me good sir, to the audience which you are presenting, the average American man or woman, which you obviously have so much, spite, anger, and hatred towards, due to the atrocities our government has comitted(in your mind) you'd get boo'd off the stage. Go preach to the choir."

Wait, where did you get the idea I hate Americans? I have some great American friends, met them all at GYLC and I know that Americans (at least in the part I was in, the North East) are great people. I just happen to not like America for its laws, foreign policy or legal system.
How is the fact that with your current gun laws more people are dying than should be unimportant? Its the single most crucial part of this debate as far as I can see. These are innocent peoples lives, American peoples lives, as an extremely patriotic American shouldn't you be the one arguing to save them? (Hah, I'm going to get shredded for that one =P)

Oh and calling me an 'elitist prick'? Once again, you accuse me of being mean and then stoop way below my level.