>>So what is the mistake here? Minor or not might depend on country. See http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/tandi/ti198.pdf where accidents make up about half of all gun related deaths in australia. Again I don't see where I fail to see the point. If we can prevent half of those deaths because of gun control, that would be a major accomplishment. If only a tiny fraction, this is also something we gained.

>By your reasoning, anything that can accidently cause death should be controlled. I don't buy it as a reason to restrict my rights as a gun owner.

Anything that causes accidental deaths should be investigated how to reduce it. Since guns don't have any purpose other than killing, just get rid of them in normal life.

You won't buy anything to restrict your rights to carry a gun, because you live in an entire different world where reasoning and discussion is useless from the start. You live in a society which is far more egocentric (as oposed to social) than mine (refer to american dream).

>>I guess I'm on the standpoint where I totally do not believe that the right to carry a gun is preventing gun-deaths at all. Despite the gun lobby tries to tell you this is simply not a fact that can be supported by any statistics I have seen.

>Umm, hello? Where have you seen that anyone on this thread - or the "gun lobby" - says that?

So if we accept that as a fact? Why do we carry guns?

>It is an undefensible position. First, along with the right to own a firearm comes the responsibility for it's safe usage and prevention of access by minors.

Utopia.... It is like preventing teenagers to have sex before marriage or preventing them to try drugs. It ain't working, as the statistics prove.

>THAT is codified by law. Second, as the NSC website points out, there are many different ways that people find to get themselves killed each year - falls and poisonings among the highest. It simply cannot be prevented.

Weak defence. Refering to other causes of death to imply that gun-related deaths are a fact of live we simply have to accept, though we have ways of preventing those. Rather ignorant isn't it?

>One can certainly argue that removing guns from a household will remove a potential instrument of accidental death. But it also removes an instrument of potential self-defense as well.

Even if the change to kill an intruder is equal than someone killed in my home by accident or suicide. I won't buy the gun. Period. The change of someone killed by this gun is actually an order of magnitude higher than of killing an life-threathening intruder. IOW, totally unaccpetable.

>The NRA has some interesting statistics on the number of robberies, rapes, and other mayhem prevented by armed civilians. Prove your open-mindedness and go research them.

Excuse me?? LOL, The NRA is not an unbiased site. You'll have to research from the CDC, FBI or other unbiased statistical resources. You're telling me to convince myself by looking at their statistics. Do you honestly think they would post negative statistics ????

I think we're done. You keep using tactics that don't belong in a scientific world. You're not going to change your opinion, even if the undeniable facts were open lying on the floor to you, something like people denying the holocaust happened, or that the USA fact the moonlandings.
Walter,