In response to http://www.gamezine.co.uk/news/game-types/shooter/why-do-americans-own-guns-again-teen-kills-mother-over-halo-3-$1255104.htm > Really, why do you need guns except to shoot a pigeon, or a deer? To defend my life and the lives of my loved ones. > You're not a policeman. No, I am not. But how is that germane? I have no responsibility to go out and _prevent_ crime. I have no responsibility to go out and _apprehend criminals_. But I most definitely _DO_ have a responsibility to protect and defend myself and my loved ones against those who would do them harm, against those who would try to commit an act of violence against them. And a little fact of which you may not be aware: the police have _no_ responsibility _whatsoever_ to ensure my personal safety or the personal safety of anyone else. The police exist to enforce the law, investigate crimes, and apprehend suspects; they are _not_ public bodyguards. And don't forget, the police can take forty minutes to respond to a desperate cry for help via 911, if they respond at all. Every adult has the responsibility to see to their own safety. Expecting someone else to make your life safe for you is a hallmark of immaturity, and someone who believes the existence of the police excuses them from taking any responsibility for their own safety is a child, regardless of how many years they have seen. > You can't ensure that you're [sic] children won't get hold of your > gun. No, I can't. That's why my children (if I had any) would be carefully taught in how to behave safely around a firearm from an early age. When they are young, the lesson would be to _not touch_, when they got older it would be how to safely handle and unload a firearm. You can't make guns childproof - but you can make children gunproof. Why is such ignorance of how to safely handle a dangerous tool so widely accepted - worse, so widely _sought_? If you are _serious_ about reducing accidental deaths of children from firearms, why are you not loudly advocating mandatory firearms safety classes in school? And bear in mind, this was not an accident. The boy murdered his mother and attempted to murder his father. Don't look to the gun for fault in this, look to the child and how he was raised. > You can't hold yourself to be a responsible adult when you return home > angry, drunk and volatile. I _am_ a responsible adult - I don't _get_ drunk and angry. And on those rare occasions when I do drink more than just a glass of wine or beer with a meal, I disarm myself beforehand. Alcohol and guns do not mix. > ban guns. As much as some people would like it, you cannot wish guns out of existence. They cannot be un-invented. They exist, and they are easy to make, so we must deal rationally with them. If you make it a crime to own a gun, then all you do is restrict gun ownership to those who commit crimes. You _may_ reduce gun violence, but total violent crimes will increase to greater levels than they were at before the ban, as law-abiding non-criminals are now unable to effectively defend themselves against criminals, even unarmed ones. This is the case in Great Britain - you yourself should be intimately familiar with that fact. In fact, firearm use in violent crimes in the UK has _doubled_ in the decade since the ban was instituted. Australian academics say they will soon release a report saying that their gun ban isn't helping reduce crime rates. Don't believe me - believe the Australian government: http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/cfi/cfi115.gif Guns are effectively banned in Chicago and NY, and D.C. is clutching their slowly morphing gun ban as desperately as they can even in the face of the recent supreme court ruling - what were the violent crime rates in those cities, again? Compared to locations where non-criminals are allowed to possess and carry firearms? Two government-funded studies in the U.S. found that no gun control law had any measurable effect on reducing violent crime - so, what is the true point to calling for a gun ban? How well did prohibition do at keeping alcohol out of peoples' hands? And wasn't there a huge wave of organized violent crime trafficking in illegal booze while it was in effect? How well has the War on Drugs done at keeping drugs out of peoples' hands? And isn't there a huge wave of organized violent crime trafficking in illegal drugs? Why do you think banning guns would turn out any differently? A call to ban guns arising in response to a heinous (and unusual) violent crime splashed luridly across the increasingly tabloid front pages of the nation's newspapers conveniently ignores the hundreds of thousands (possibly millions) of cases each year where a firearm was used to _prevent_ or _end_ a violent crime - often without the firearm even being discharged. Unfortunately, "if it bleeds it leads," and such day-to-day non-criminal use of firearms by everyday people is sadly not sexy enough for mainstream coverage even in the cases where there is not an editorial agenda to demonize firearms. There are several sites that aggregate the articles that do appear, though - one such is this: http://www.claytoncramer.com/gundefenseblog/blogger.html Are you truly so callous that you say "I don't care how many assaults and robberies and rapes and murders occur just so long as people can't legally have guns"? > Performing the same swift action with a knife is less believable Perhaps. But the weapon at hand likely had little to do with his decision to commit the murders, and this was a surprise attack. If the weapon at hand _had_ been a knife, he likely would have just committed the murders differently - perhaps by stepping behind his parents when their eyes were closed and stabbing them in the throat. The presence of a firearm cannot make someone into a murderer who does not already have that capability or desire or lack of moral values within them. Stop blaming an inanimate object as the source of the problem. Resources: http://gunfacts.info/ http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/cfi/cfi115.html http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf