NationStates Jolt Archive

Please, I have researched this subject a lot for my own personal gain and have submitted a proposal to the UN in NationStates projecting my views. Please take a look at it. I am not sure how to make a link straight to here so go to the UN in nation states and click on "List Proposals" then scroll to the bottom and type into the search window "Guns are a Necessary Evil". This should bring up my proposal. Please read it over carefully. As I say, I have put a lot of thought and research into it. Thanks.

P.S. The poll is to get the votes from those who cannot vote on it until it has reached quorum. you can obviously vote if you can, it is just a way to get the publics views on the subject and not just the Reginal Deligates.

MY PROPOSAL:

1) I propose we have mandatory backround checks on gun sales.

2) I propose a ten day holding period.

3) I propose fully automatic weapons be outlawed.

4) I propose shotguns be limited to two per person and require a hunting license.

5) I propose concealed carry be impleminted with licences being issued after the attendance of a five week course in gun safety.

6) I propose fully automatic weapons be distributed to special police forces like SWAT teams.

Please read this proposal carefully before dismissing it. A Large amount of time was spent by me researching this issue in reality and I am not just making things up. Thank you for your time.


You say you are against gun control, but why in the world are you making all these restrictions to gun ownership? You said in your proposal that criminals will get guns anyawy, and this is true. Why make it harder for law-abiding citizens to own guns?

Don't get me wrong, I am totally anti-gun control. I think every person should be able to own as many guns as they want, and of any type that they want for self-protection. But this proposal actually limits gun freedom so I have no idea what you are trying to do here.

Oh, and finally don't call guns "evil" if you want gun supporters to support your resolution. That's like saying knives are a "necessary evil" and fire is a "necessary evil". It's just a thing, a tool, because a gun by itself is not good or bad. Bad people use them for bad things, and good people use them for good things (hunting, self-defense, etc.).

The Rogue Nation of Greenspoint avows publicly that the BEST form of Gun Control is a Two-Handed Grip.

We cannot support any proposal that regulates, restricts, documents or infringes on a citizen's gun ownership.

James Moehlman
Asst. Manager ico U.N. Affairs
Greenspoint

First off, To thesius, I have restricted it so that some bad people wont get guns, if guns were not freely sold, the black market is not easily accessible to all would-be criminals. Also, I have restricted it in the hopes that some people who are against total gun freedom will vote for it. It is a first step to assureing total gun freedom. The evil part was also to get the attention of those who do not like guns. It was to get them to read why they are necessary even though THEY think they are "evil". About limiting gun control, I do not know what the laws are in Nation States but in most of the US and other countries in reality, this is truely giving a lot more gun freedom. Many places do not practice concealed carry. Also, the waiting period is longer than I proposed. Also, police forces only get semi-automatic hand guns and rifles everywhere. About fully automatic weapons, that is just continueing what is, I was just hoping to again get the attention of those who do not like guns.

To Greenspoint, in your country you may have total gun freedom but in most Nation States countries this would free the people to have more gun rights. Think of the whole UN and not just yourself. Plus, at least at this point, a law stating total gun freedom with no restrictions would never make it through.

First off, To thesius, I have restricted it so that some bad people wont get guns, if guns were not freely sold, the black market is not easily accessible to all would-be criminals. Also, I have restricted it in the hopes that some people who are against total gun freedom will vote for it. It is a first step to assureing total gun freedom. The evil part was also to get the attention of those who do not like guns. It was to get them to read why they are necessary even though THEY think they are "evil". About limiting gun control, I do not know what the laws are in Nation States but in most of the US and other countries in reality, this is truely giving a lot more gun freedom. Many places do not practice concealed carry. Also, the waiting period is longer than I proposed. Also, police forces only get semi-automatic hand guns and rifles everywhere. About fully automatic weapons, that is just continueing what is, I was just hoping to again get the attention of those who do not like guns.

To Greenspoint, in your country you may have total gun freedom but in most Nation States countries this would free the people to have more gun rights. Think of the whole UN and not just yourself. Plus, at least at this point, a law stating total gun freedom with no restrictions would never make it through.

First off, To thesius, I have restricted it so that some bad people wont get guns, if guns were not freely sold, the black market is not easily accessible to all would-be criminals.

You'd be surprised at how quickly some black markets sprout a life of their own-- some, in fact, get so cheeky that they come out of their rat-holes and sewers and camp out in the streets in broad daylight. The point: more gun controls create a higher price for guns, which might deter the smallest penny crooks, schoolkids, etc., but might force those with a little more resolve into bands and alliances with pooled (and thus larger) resources and scope-- so if you're not careful you'll have to deal with more organised crime rather than the other sort, which makes your job as legislator a lot harder.

About limiting gun control, I do not know what the laws are in Nation States but in most of the US and other countries in reality, this is truely giving a lot more gun freedom. Many places do not practice concealed carry. Also, the waiting period is longer than I proposed. Also, police forces only get semi-automatic hand guns and rifles everywhere. About fully automatic weapons, that is just continueing what is, I was just hoping to again get the attention of those who do not like guns.
I don't like guns. But I have to agree with Theseus: your proposal isn't the best way to go about things. Raising the bar on who gets to get guns might reduce your overall rate of gun misuse but might increase the total damage done by those super-evil people who manage to slip through your regulations. Another thing to consider: on the whole, a society where no one has a gun is safer than a society where everyone has a gun-- but the first possibility is minimal at best, and you get to the second after an arms scramble (my neighbour has a gun, so I'd better get one just in case, jitter jitter jitter)-- which is something you can't guard against by laws and regulations. You do it by creating an overall social climate where people don't feel paranoid. So maybe the best way to an effective arms equilibrium (however free or controlled that may be) is precisely by taking steps that have nothing to do with guns at all.

Ya got the basics, but your thinking is flawed.....
Nuge is all for the right to arms.
Your rules are silly and we'll have no part in it!
1. You don't need a waiting period if you've done a background check!
2. Automatic weapons can be bought by any law-abiding citizen with the proper license!
3. Shotguns are very effective home defense - NO HUNTING LICENSE REQUIRED!
4. ALL THE GUN CONTROL LAWS NEEDED ARE ALREADY IN PLACE!!! ENFORCE THE LAW!!!!!!!!!!!!!

MSL feels that guns and all weapons should be available to any who choose to own one. This is not restricted to small arms but also to tanks, explosives and WMD. We feel that the best place for these instruments of death are in the hands of the people, and will support any proposal that relaxes weapon control.

Catholic Europe does not support this proposal. If passed, this proposal would allow the average citizen to own a gun - which is wrong. Only the police and military should carry arms, not the average citizen.

Alsanchia cannot rightly support any proposal to restrict the inherent right of self-defense, both against criminals and against the threat of government oppression.

While crimes should be punished, the mere ownership of guns and other weapons should not be restricted, let alone criminalized.

While crimes should be punished, the mere ownership of guns and other weapons should not be restricted, let alone criminalized.

Which means that you allow the average citizen to walk around with the possibilty of killing a person. I would hate to live in your nation.

Which means that you allow the average citizen to walk around with the possibilty of killing a person. I would hate to live in your nation.

The average person is quite capable of killing another person should he or she so desire, guns or no. Do you allow cars in your nation? What about knives, or hammers, or baseball bats or the myriad other instruments that can be used quite handily as weapons?

The possibility of violence and death at the hands of another human is always there, it is a question of allowing the members of society to defend themselves, especially those who are old or weak, and lack the physical strength or ability - guns are an equalizer, and thus advance not only personal safety, but also personal liberty.

The average person is quite capable of killing another person should he or she so desire, guns or no. Do you allow cars in your nation? What about knives, or hammers, or baseball bats or the myriad other instruments that can be used quite handily as weapons?

The possibility of violence and death at the hands of another human is always there, it is a question of allowing the members of society to defend themselves, especially those who are old or weak, and lack the physical strength or ability - guns are an equalizer, and thus advance not only personal safety, but also personal liberty.

So, you believe that guns should be allowed so that an old granny, if she feels theatened (whether it is true or not), can go and shoot some young teenage boy.

Or, it's for the protection of the citizen against the government?! How absurd. They have no right to carry a gun around and should not be allowed to do so. As a moral government we would not allow our citizens such a weapon of murder in their own hands and neither should you.

Having a gun does not make you safer. There are far more lethal accidents in US households with guns than in those without. The UK has much tighter gun control than the US, and as far as I know, we have lower rates of violent crime over here than most US cities (correct me if I'm wrong on that).

As for government oppression, that's ridiculous. Modern oppression in advanced Western nations doesn't take the form of a physical threat from a person you can shoot, it's more in surveillance and the removal of rights - and look how useful your guns have been in preventing the gross violation of basic personal freedom that is the PATRIOT Act.

Plus when people have guns, you end up with psychos killing people just for breaking and entering to steal. No material property is worth another human's life, even if that person is a criminal.

My position is that I staunchly defend the individual's rights to do as he wishes up to the point where he begins to infringe on others' rights. As far as I'm concerned, the risk from guns that somebody will end a life - one of the most basic violations of a person's rights - is great enough to justify the restriction of gun ownership rights.

EDIT: P.S. I know that guns aren't the only murder weapon. But they are one of the few things that ordinary people use today that are expressly designed to kill living things, especially humans. Thus you can't ban, say, knives, because they have a legitimate use for pretty much everybody, whereas guns have no legitimate use for most users other than harming other people.

We, members of the Community of Feliz, are afraid of such a proposal!
Because it's an authorization to have guns, and wandering with them, and of course use them!
We should vote FOR only if the proposal forbid guns posession!

Pr Carlos, delagate for peace questions

The UK has much tighter gun control than the US, and as far as I know, we have lower rates of violent crime over here than most US cities (correct me if I'm wrong on that).

No, you are correct on that. The UK has much lower violent crime than compared to the US....but we must all have guns! :roll:

Glad to see an issue on which we agree, CE :D

I would support it but it is covered in a proposal but i will think about it, 8) :)

I think America is just a different culture. Being an American, you feel a right and almost a duty to distrust government and be very, very individualistic. It's all about individual rights and individual freedoms, rather than a socialistic, collectivist culture like most of the rest of the world. I think that leads to a lot of violence.

Guns aren't the problem, many countries have lots of guns, including very "safe" countries like Canada and Switzerland. It's not the guns, it's the people.

Besides, like the old adage says, "if guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns". And come on, in America (and I'm assuming the rest of the world) criminals aren't exactly going to legitimate gun shops to buy registered, traceable guns. They are getting them on the street, and there's nothing the Brady Bunch and the gun control freaks can do about it. Might as well let the legitimate buyers of guns get them without all the red tape.

"if guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns".

OOC -

Wouldn't this make it rather easy to then spot them and deal with them?
Anyone with a gun is a criminal, arrest them, confisticate their weapons and ammo, fine or jail them: there that wasn't so complicated was it?

"if guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns".

OOC -

Wouldn't this make it rather easy to then spot them and deal with them?
Anyone with a gun is a criminal, arrest them, confisticate their weapons and ammo, fine or jail them: there that wasn't so complicated was it?

OOC

While it may be easy to spot them, dealing with them is another story.

I live in a country that had banned guns. Did that deter people from owning them? NO! Did it lower the crime level in the nation? NO! All it did was to give the criminals free reign to commit criminal acts as nobody but inefficient, undisciplined and corrupt law enforcers were the only people capable of fighting these criminals (if they actually willed it).

The europeans are so quick to dismiss the argument of gun ownership as a legitimate form of self-defense. But that is only because of the relative efficiency of its law enforcers. How do you expect to defend yourselves if a crime is being committed against you and nobody is there to protect you.

Another one has said that "No material property is worth another human's life, even if that person is a criminal." My rebuttal to that is that while you focus on the material property per se, you do not or care not to see that a part of a that victim's life has been violated by this criminal. Remember that it took hard work and time on the part of the victim to be able to acquire said piece of property just so it can be stolen by anyone forcibly or otherwise. To steal another's property is to steal part of that person's life.

I have used up part of my life to gain such material properties. I am not about to let someone just take that part of my life away.

- OOC

I was being glib to make a point :wink:

I feel we have too many laws and regulations in this country already...

"if guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns".

OOC -

Wouldn't this make it rather easy to then spot them and deal with them?
Anyone with a gun is a criminal, arrest them, confisticate their weapons and ammo, fine or jail them: there that wasn't so complicated was it?

OOC

While it may be easy to spot them, dealing with them is another story.

I live in a country that had banned guns. Did that deter people from owning them? NO! Did it lower the crime level in the nation? NO! All it did was to give the criminals free reign to commit criminal acts as nobody but inefficient, undisciplined and corrupt law enforcers were the only people capable of fighting these criminals (if they actually willed it).

The europeans are so quick to dismiss the argument of gun ownership as a legitimate form of self-defense. But that is only because of the relative efficiency of its law enforcers. How do you expect to defend yourselves if a crime is being committed against you and nobody is there to protect you.

Another one has said that "No material property is worth another human's life, even if that person is a criminal." My rebuttal to that is that while you focus on the material property per se, you do not or care not to see that a part of a that victim's life has been violated by this criminal. Remember that it took hard work and time on the part of the victim to be able to acquire said piece of property just so it can be stolen by anyone forcibly or otherwise. To steal another's property is to steal part of that person's life.

I have used up part of my life to gain such material properties. I am not about to let someone just take that part of my life away.

The UK has very tight restrictions on gun ownership and there is much less violent crime than in the US. Ok, it hasn't completely eliminated gun crime, but it's clearly effective.

As to the suggestion that "To steal another's property is to steal part of that person's life", I would say that first, it is often possible to be reimbursed for the value of the stolen items by insurance companies, and if the criminal is caught you can get the item back anyway. That's not a guarantee, but killing somebody to prevent theft is not justifiable.

Also, I read a letter in the newspaper arguing against the approach of shooting people who break and enter your home - this guy said that he'd woken up in the middle of the night to see a large dark figure in the doorway. His kids were in the next room, and he said that if he'd had a gun and had taken the approach of many people, he would have ended up killing a police officer who had been chasing a criminal and had gone into the wrong house.

Catholic Europe does not support this proposal. If passed, this proposal would allow the average citizen to own a gun - which is wrong. Only the police and military should carry arms, not the average citizen.

I agree with some things said in this topic but this is one of the stupidest things I have read. There is no way to get guns out of the criminals hand. You think it would be better if no law abiding sitizen could protect himself from the criminals who will always have fire arms? Come on!!!

Another one has said that "No material property is worth another human's life, even if that person is a criminal." My rebuttal to that is that while you focus on the material property per se, you do not or care not to see that a part of a that victim's life has been violated by this criminal. Remember that it took hard work and time on the part of the victim to be able to acquire said piece of property just so it can be stolen by anyone forcibly or otherwise. To steal another's property is to steal part of that person's life.

I have used up part of my life to gain such material properties. I am not about to let someone just take that part of my life away.

This is part right. However, you left out the part about that statement assumes that the criminal stealing the property isnt going to kill the owner while he/she is at it. Criminals hate witnesses. They will kill to stop them from existing.

Thieves and robbers will generally avoid committing more serious violent crimes like murder, because the punishments are so much more severe.

"if guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns".

OOC -

Wouldn't this make it rather easy to then spot them and deal with them?
Anyone with a gun is a criminal, arrest them, confisticate their weapons and ammo, fine or jail them: there that wasn't so complicated was it?

OOC

While it may be easy to spot them, dealing with them is another story.

I live in a country that had banned guns. Did that deter people from owning them? NO! Did it lower the crime level in the nation? NO! All it did was to give the criminals free reign to commit criminal acts as nobody but inefficient, undisciplined and corrupt law enforcers were the only people capable of fighting these criminals (if they actually willed it).

The europeans are so quick to dismiss the argument of gun ownership as a legitimate form of self-defense. But that is only because of the relative efficiency of its law enforcers. How do you expect to defend yourselves if a crime is being committed against you and nobody is there to protect you.

Another one has said that "No material property is worth another human's life, even if that person is a criminal." My rebuttal to that is that while you focus on the material property per se, you do not or care not to see that a part of a that victim's life has been violated by this criminal. Remember that it took hard work and time on the part of the victim to be able to acquire said piece of property just so it can be stolen by anyone forcibly or otherwise. To steal another's property is to steal part of that person's life.

I have used up part of my life to gain such material properties. I am not about to let someone just take that part of my life away.

The UK has very tight restrictions on gun ownership and there is much less violent crime than in the US. Ok, it hasn't completely eliminated gun crime, but it's clearly effective.

As to the suggestion that "To steal another's property is to steal part of that person's life", I would say that first, it is often possible to be reimbursed for the value of the stolen items by insurance companies, and if the criminal is caught you can get the item back anyway. That's not a guarantee, but killing somebody to prevent theft is not justifiable.

Also, I read a letter in the newspaper arguing against the approach of shooting people who break and enter your home - this guy said that he'd woken up in the middle of the night to see a large dark figure in the doorway. His kids were in the next room, and he said that if he'd had a gun and had taken the approach of many people, he would have ended up killing a police officer who had been chasing a criminal and had gone into the wrong house.

OOC: While in your country anything and everything can be insured, such is not the case in other parts of the world. You say IF the criminal is caught. Well then let me rebut with what IF he doesn't get caught (which is what happens where I'm from). What do you say to that now? Let me guess, you'd say that which was stolen is always replaceable but a life is not. Again, I will say you may be able to replace the stolen item but can you replace the life spent getting that item? And why should I be the one penalized (loss of the item stolen AND paying again with my life for the replacement of that which was stolen) for the criminal actions of others?

Using any means to defend oneself from criminal elements is justifiable. To limit oneself as to how he/she should defend himself/herself is STUPID!!!.

You talk of less gun related crime because of British laws on guns. I ask you though, how about violent crimes in general? Do you think that there is less of that considering that there are other things out there that could be used as weapons.

You talk about the possibility of a person that wakes up to a large figure standing over him who turns out to be a police officer that gets shot in the process. I say the police officer is at fault for using "stealth" in going through that house looking for a robber. Tell me, would you sneak around a strangers house even if you were a police officer in search of a criminal? I guess in your country such is the way of the police. But it is not so in mine.

Thieves and robbers will generally avoid committing more serious violent crimes like murder, because the punishments are so much more severe.

ONLY IF THEY GET CAUGHT!!!

I am a reasonably competent machinist, and I can make a functional gun in a few minutes. Make it worth my time, and I might be willing to make a better, fully automatic version for you. No serial number, and smooth bore so it is untraceable. I can also make bullets, gunpowder, and about anything else to make the gun work.

Gun control has not worked anywhere in the world. Switzerland has a good system; most citizens have wepons in their homes. There is little gun violence there. I would rather see no restrictions of any kind on guns, or gun ownership.

OOC: While in your country anything and everything can be insured, such is not the case in other parts of the world. You say IF the criminal is caught. Well then let me rebut with what IF he doesn't get caught (which is what happens where I'm from). What do you say to that now? Let me guess, you'd say that which was stolen is always replaceable but a life is not. Again, I will say you may be able to replace the stolen item but can you replace the life spent getting that item? And why should I be the one penalized (loss of the item stolen AND paying again with my life for the replacement of that which was stolen) for the criminal actions of others?

Your loss of property and time spent obtaining it is so small in comparison to the loss of an entire life, that it is better for the one not at fault to have such a small loss than for any human life to end. And your argument only works in nations without insurance companies. So even if you accept the argument's validity, it's simply a reason to allow gun ownership in nations without widely-available insurance policies - so don't enforce it on the majority of nations, where insurance is available.

Using any means to defend oneself from criminal elements is justifiable. To limit oneself as to how he/she should defend himself/herself is STUPID!!!.

Only if you actually class a thief as subhuman.

You talk of less gun related crime because of British laws on guns. I ask you though, how about violent crimes in general? Do you think that there is less of that considering that there are other things out there that could be used as weapons.

Violent crimes in general = violent crimes with guns + those with knives+ those with bare hands etc. etc.

If violent crimes with guns decreases because of a ban on guns, then potential murderers etc are forced to resort to other weapons. Most other weapons give a potential murderer a lower chance of success, especially at range - so violent crimes with other weapons will not rise enough to compensate for the decrease in gun crime (because many will give up without a gun - too difficult - and those who try with other weapons are less likely to succeed), thus there is a net decrease in violent crime in general.

And actually, I was referring to violent crime in general in the first place - it is lower in the UK, demonstrating my point above.

You talk about the possibility of a person that wakes up to a large figure standing over him who turns out to be a police officer that gets shot in the process. I say the police officer is at fault for using "stealth" in going through that house looking for a robber. Tell me, would you sneak around a strangers house even if you were a police officer in search of a criminal? I guess in your country such is the way of the police. But it is not so in mine.

He wasn't necessarily being intentionally stealthy. Consider: you're a deep sleeper, police officer breaks down your door downstairs and runs upstairs as fast as he can: you're woken by the sound of the door, and by the time you are properly awake and coherent and looking up at the door, the policeman appears in the doorway. Anyway, does the cop deserve to die just because he didn't do his job quite right?

Anyone who breaks into my house will be shot. I don't care if you are a member of the police or not. I would not recommend trying me on this one.

As for the "accidents" in the home, in the United States last year, if my memory serves me correctly, there were 6 deaths from children accidentally shooting each other. I am willing to bet that there were more deaths caused by swimming pools. I think we should ban them instead. As for the rest of the "accidents," I doubt most of them were real accidents.

Your loss of property and time spent obtaining it is so small in comparison to the loss of an entire life, that it is better for the one not at fault to have such a small loss than for any human life to end. And your argument only works in nations without insurance companies. So even if you accept the argument's validity, it's simply a reason to allow gun ownership in nations without widely-available insurance policies - so don't enforce it on the majority of nations, where insurance is available.

Maybe to you and that thief my loss is so small. Unfortunately, I don't percieve any part of my life to be so small and inconsequential. And if that thief so thinks that any part of my life is too small to care about then it is my option to consider his whole life to be just as unimportant.

Using any means to defend oneself from criminal elements is justifiable. To limit oneself as to how he/she should defend himself/herself is STUPID!!!.

Only if you actually class a thief as subhuman.

Now why would how I defend myself depend on how I would class a thief? On the contrary, I defend myself on the basis of how important I deem my life not on how I see the aggressor.


Violent crimes in general = violent crimes with guns + those with knives+ those with bare hands etc. etc.

If violent crimes with guns decreases because of a ban on guns, then potential murderers etc are forced to resort to other weapons. Most other weapons give a potential murderer a lower chance of success, especially at range - so violent crimes with other weapons will not rise enough to compensate for the decrease in gun crime (because many will give up without a gun - too difficult - and those who try with other weapons are less likely to succeed), thus there is a net decrease in violent crime in general.

And actually, I was referring to violent crime in general in the first place - it is lower in the UK, demonstrating my point above.

Which just goes to show your ignorance on the handling of guns and guns in general. Do you think that shooting a gun just entails that you point at a target "pull" the trigger and you will be assured that the target will be hit? It's not that easy. It is unfortunate that the knowlege of majority of the people regarding guns is taken from movies.

In fact, chances are a person with a knife may even be able to successfully attack and kill a gun wielding person. Rest assured that if YOU were to cause violence toward a person, you will be more successful with a knife or baseball bat up close than a gun at a distance.


He wasn't necessarily being intentionally stealthy. Consider: you're a deep sleeper, police officer breaks down your door downstairs and runs upstairs as fast as he can: you're woken by the sound of the door, and by the time you are properly awake and coherent and looking up at the door, the policeman appears in the doorway. Anyway, does the cop deserve to die just because he didn't do his job quite right?

Did the cop deserve to die? NO!! But if you were to walk under a ladder with a bucket of paint at the top and you accidentally hit the ladder hard enough to topple the bucket of paint on you, would you have deserved it? You are raising a hypothetical case based on your ignorance of how the cop and gunowner normally reacts to situations like these.

And in parting, it is not I that impose gun ownership on you. Rather, it is you that imposes on me NOT to own a gun. So, if you don't like to have a gun,that's fine. But for us that do, all we ask is that you leave us alone.

The People's Rebulic of Uteisa is opposed to this, it is the right of every law abiding, sane citizen to bear arms. Through our Compulsory Military Service Act the government of Uteisa promotes safe gun handling,respect and usage to all.

Anyone who breaks into my house will be shot. I don't care if you are a member of the police or not. I would not recommend trying me on this one.

As for the "accidents" in the home, in the United States last year, if my memory serves me correctly, there were 6 deaths from children accidentally shooting each other. I am willing to bet that there were more deaths caused by swimming pools. I think we should ban them instead. As for the rest of the "accidents," I doubt most of them were real accidents.

maybe you should have a look at this:
http://www.helpnetwork.org/frames/stateinfo_right.html

[
maybe you should have a look at this:
http://www.helpnetwork.org/frames/stateinfo_right.html[/quote]

Quoting an organization that is pro gun control. Nice. Anyway, I went on the NRA's website, to get the other side of the issue. It stated that the average is 1.2 deaths per day for children from 0-14 years old, both accidental and intentional. Now, look at this website:

http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml02/02169.html

It states that more children between 0 and 4 die from drowning in indoor water sources. I think it is clear. It is more important to ban indoor plumbing than guns. Plus, add the number of children in that age group that die from drowning in swimming pools, and the statistics become alarming.

I ask anyone who cares about the world's children to join me in a ban of indoor plumbing.