PS - In line 15 I meant "area" not "are"

You bloody twit! That movie, was Bowling for Columbine, the hack was Michael Moore and it was a total fabrication that Moore designed to make it 'LOOK' like you could just open an account and get a gun.

Moore actually went there a month before, asked the bank manager to give him the gun on the day he walked into the back: 30 days later...after he had a full background check--and yes, guns are kept in the safe...300 miles away, not in the bank! Then, he gleefully says on film, yep, just opened an account got a gun--what total BS!

The guy is a HUCKSTER going all the way back to his lackluster crappy editor days at the National Review. For those of you who were in the press then, and remembered him being fired because he wouldn't go against the Sandanista line by refusing to print an article on attrocities committed by Daniel Ortega's govenment, eventhough Amnesty Int'l begged to differ, Moore's messing with the facts is just a situation normal!

I wish all these true-believers who've puppy-dogged up to people like Michael Moore would do some actual fact finding, easy to do on-line these days, before they pick their next guru. Especially when the only one benefitting is Michael Moore who left every 'real' documentarian in the financial dust ONLY because of his deplorable tactics he calls journalism. Oh, and did everyone catch that his company owned Haliburton stock???

Please see Debbie Melnyk and Rick Caine's "Manufacturing Dissent" by Canadians, who Moore always tries to say he loves: wait 'til you see how he treats the real Canadian documentarians when all they want to do is get his response to his own documented words.

And check out http://moorewatch.com/ that I learned about in the above honest look at Moore. The guy's a scum and I think worse than the people he says he's trying to protect people from for what he's done to honorable professions of journalism and documentary film-making. The interview on Phil Donahue in which Flint residents, actually hit by carmakes leaving, asking him to donate money to Flint, MI--yeah his scumbag tactics go all the way back to "Roger and Me"--is priceless. Total PIG!

Do your research, people and stop trying to convince based on shoddy laziness...and contrary to what people like to believe, Canada, Britain and Australias' gun-related crimes have increased sharply since the new gun laws...Gun laws only control law-abiding citizens...what's a criminal 'legally' doing with a gun???

Yes, a gun won't protect you from being shot in the most direct sense, but the would-be attacker fears for his life too and is much less hesitant to attack when he knows that you can shoot him.

If you think otherwise, put a big sign on your front lawn which says `THIS HOUSE IS GUN-FREE''. If you find doing that somewhat uncomfortable you agree that previous argument has some merit.

Yes, one can argue that gun-control would eliminate guns from bad people too; but (as was already mentioned) it's impossible to regulate posession of some goods completely -- vide prohibition, current problems with drugs, etc.

Wow, you talk about "getting the facts straight" and then you write just the opposite. I lived in Switzerland for nearly four years and I NEVER saw a tank or anti-personnel carrier in front of ANY apartment building. That's just total bs, period.

As far as their gun regulations are concerned, the are MOST DEFINITELY not the same as ours. Again, you write total bs. The reason most households have a firearm in them is because the males of Switzerland must go through military service, and their military issues a firearm to each soldier. But if even one bullet is missing the next time you do your yearly duty, you go to jail, period. We don't even have a law like that.

Next time, why don't YOU GET THE FACTS STRAIGHT before posting inanities.

Oh yes you are correct.
Dumb rednecks are indeed a tad rude.

There *may well* be such a thing as a 'gun/weapon effect' on people's psychology.

e.g.

Does the Gun Pull the Trigger? Automatic Priming Effects of Weapon Pictures and Weapon
Craig A. Anderson, Arlin J. Benjamin & Bruce D. Bartholow
University of MissouriÑColumbia
Abstract
More than 30 years ago, Berkowitz and LePage (1967) published the first study demonstrating that the mere presence of a weapon increases aggressive behavior. These results have been replicated in several contexts by several research teams. The standard explanation of this weapons effect on aggressive behavior involves priming; identification of a weapon is believed to automatically increase the accessibility of aggression-related thoughts. Two experiments using a word pronunciation task tested this hypothesis. Both experiments consisted of multiple trials in which a prime stimulus (weapon or nonweapon) was followed by a target word (aggressive or nonaggressive) that was to be read as quickly as possible. The prime stimuli were words in Experiment 1 and pictures in Experiment 2. Both experiments showed that the mere identification of a weapon primes aggression-related thoughts. A process model linking weapons as primes to aggressive behavior is discussed briefly.

Well here is a reply to your reply: no having a gun does not increase your likelihood of becoming a criminal. Perhaps the opposite, as you might think twice before starting a fight. But here is where your arguement falls apart: sure many law-breakers have have guns, the idea is to restrict the selling of guns so the mentally ill and convicted criminals can't get their hands on a gun legally.

Obviously having a gun can be a life-saver, which your story is a testament to. However, you are carrying it too far when you suggest that all law-breakers have guns. I know that's not what you mean, but if you are going to say he is a moron, and that his arguement was entirely wrong, you should read his comment more carefully. He said he didn't want a total gun ban, and you seem to be claiming the opposite. I won't call you a "Dumb Redneck" as he did, nor will I say you "aren't a very smart person." I will say, though, that your arguement is just as flawed as you claim his to be.

drug laws havnt removed drugs because they are ADDICTIVE .
quite unlike guns.
also teens think that guns are cool so they will want them & will muck about with them. if you couldnt buy guns then there might not be so much of a problem.

"Does the presence of a child increase your likelihood of pederasty?
Does the presence of gasoline and matches increase your likelihood of arson?
Does the presence of a computer increase your likelihood of hacking?
.....etc.....etc."

Ok, here's the key mistake. Having a child has many options. You could do bad things, or many many good things. Having a computer, again, offers multiple choices as to what to use it for. Matches and gasoline are the same. Yes that's right, you don't have to be a pyromaniac in order to use them. Heard of candles and cars?

Now a gun on the other hand, is made for the purpose of firing bullets. Not a lot of choices there. Even if you do use them solely for defense, they still can only kill. And yes EVERYBODY, especially people with certain mental disorders, can get relatively violent when they are angry. Without a gun it would be harder to hurt somebody than it would if you had one.

I will end by saying that all of the rude and utterly useless words that you threw in to your comment did nothing but show just how desperate you were to make a point. I'm sorry to have to be the one to break this to you, but somebody who makes random rude comments and turns what people say into something else, is much less likely to actually succeed in making a good point.

Strong language is a sure sign of a losing argument.

Reasoning by analogy is very weak and leads nowhere. Drugs are addictive, and policies against them are extremely misguided and counterproductive in the US.

If (legally owned) guns are plenty, criminals or potential criminals will always have access to them. They may even use your own gun against you and your family. If not, you're lucky.

In a safe country you do not need to defend yourself with a gun. There even is a strong case for not having ordinary police carry a gun, or other weapons that are often used unnecessarily. Of course, armed back-up will always be needed.