: : Admitedly, VPC, Amnesty, and handgun Control are also biased, but their data can't be ignored.: Don: In fact, it can be ignored. They have no facts of value.
Well, the purpose of debate is to offer contradicting points of view and evaluate their relative merit. If you just reject all points other than your own as lacking in value, the whole conversation falls apart. I'm not, even for a second, suggesting that you change your mind, since you obviously have a deep emotional commitment to firearms. The point I was making is that other people with alternative views have raised issues that must be addressed if you want your argument to be persuasive. To simply say that your opponents lack any valuable facts and then ignore their critiques isn't a very convincing argument, IMHO.
You raised what I thought were some interesting topics, although I tend to have a different interpretation of the second ammendment than you do. I still feel that the best way to reduce lethal violence is to limit access to lethal weapons.
You'll notice that I didn't suggest banning firearms entirely, since that wasn't the point of the post, nor is it my goal, but I do support limits on access. If it is easy to get a lethal weapon quickly, with no restrictions on who can purchase one, we will have more and better-armed criminals than if it is difficult to get a gun. That's simple common sense, is it not? The easier it is for people to buy weapons, the more criminals will buy them, since criminals are a subset of the population.
Background checks, waiting periods, and letters of reference from gun safety instructors all strike me as potentially useful, even life-saving. We make people demonstrate proficiency in driving before we let them loose on the streets, doesn't it seem wise to have similar precautions for gun ownership? This is particularly true, since the potential repercussions of letting an emotionally unstable person, a person with a history of violence, or a person with no sense of necessary safety precautions have a lethal weapon are so dire.
: Don: Lott and Mustard are the only ones to do a nation wide study on the effects of liberalized concealed carry laws. It is by far the best study of its type.
Well, ok, but that's not really saying much is it? If they are the only ones to have studied this phenomenon, then naturally their study is the best. It is also the worst, and it is both the longest and the shortest, and Lott and Mustard are the tallest people ever to study exactly what they studied. Seriously, being the best, when you have no competition, isn't really all that difficult. Sorry, perhaps I'm being pedantic.
You also seem to be under the impression that any alternative to free and easy handgun access is an assault on you freedom and/or safety. Is that really your opinion? If so, why is that? Can you imagine any middle ground? Might some restrictions on ownership be acceptable? How about child-proof trigger locks? How about restrictions on sales to people with a history of violence? How about waiting periods for purchase?
I'm not suggesting that the ATF should come take away your weapons; not at all. I'm suggesting that it should be made as difficult for psychos to get guns as possible. If guns themselves are not readily available, sure some people will find other weapons, but given a choice between an assailant with a gun and one with a pointed stick, I'll go for the pointy stick every time! Wouldn't you?
