I think Rayna is referring to the topic of guns being thrown into this thread, and while I've commented on gun ownership, I do agree, that's not what this thread is about.

I've already stated that I do read research for both sides. I believe what convinces me. Of course I'm going to provide sources that support my argument, when I believe those sources to be valid. You can do the same. That's what a debate is about!

If you weren't born and raised in the USA, you aren't likely to understand the concept of freedom from our point of view. I agree with heyjoe, you tend to be condescending and I really don't appreciate your uninformed judgement of the US. As I said before, I don't hear you criticizing other countries.

Most science shows porn decreases sex crimes, whether you want to believe that or not. And I'm not focused only on rape; I believe I have also stated that there are many people who feel porn has helped, or at least not harmed, their relationships.

I already provided studies and articles supporting that porn decreases sex crimes. Wander back through the thread. Then again, why bother? You've made up your mind, and no amount of research will convince you.

Yes, in war, there is rape. But that doesn't mean men are inclined to rape in general society. War is a different phenomenon entirely.

If death could be reduced by 10% by outlawing cars, should we do it? The problem isn't porn, it's the people who rape. Again, you are sympathizing with the rapist.

I believe in freedom, whether you like it or not. That means people are responsible for their actions. Everyone has something negative in their past, and even if a person wasn't abused or molested, s/he may make bad choices because of certain bad things that happened to him/her. Maybe he was rejected by the first few girls he asked out, so now he's cynical about women. Maybe he even becomes a rapist or murderer. Do we blame those first girls who rejected him? NO! We blame the rapist/murderer!

Maybe sugar makes some people commit terrible crimes. We know sugar has a lot of bad affects, and can raise anxiety, depression and nervousness. Maybe it makes people more likely to commit rape. Why not outlaw it?

Psychiatric drugs like Paxil have been shown to cause some people to commit suicide or become violent. These drugs are still out there. Why haven't they been recalled?

Maybe seeing a hammer makes some people want to hit. Maybe a guy who desires to hit grabs the hammer and attacks his elderly neighbor? Is it the hammer's fault?

If people disagree with outlawing something, whether you think it being outlawed is a good idea, they will likely violate the law. It does not matter why the law is in place. It does not matter whether it's right or wrong for them to break the law. The point is, the act will still go on.

Back on gun control, heyjoe has already commented, but in short, he's right...stricter gun control does not make for safer areas. Take the Columbine massacre, for instance. The shooters had a TEC-9 handgun among their weapons, which was already outlawed. They violated many firearms laws in obtaining those weapons.

Most gun control laws have been written since 1968, yet the murder rate went up during the 70's, 80's and 90's. Among the fifteen states with the highest homicide rates, ten have very restrictive or restrictive gun laws.

Fact: The landmark federal Gun Control Act of 1968, banning most interstate gun sales, had no
discernible impact on the criminal acquisition of guns from other states.

This information, and much more, comes from http://www.gunfacts.info.

You keep talking about how people skip over the information you deem valid, but you haven't addressed points I've made in past posts in this thread. I find this hypocritical.

</font><blockquote><div id="quote"><font class="small">Quote:</font>
What I lament... Is people using the scientific findings and the arguments solely in order to defend their own position rather than attempting to consider a RANGE of what is out there in order to develop INFORMED opinions. When it is about defending what one thought already... Well... I find that kinda sad is all.

</div></font></blockquote><font class="post">

Again, hypocritical.

Wikipedia is hardly a resource for facts. Anyone can add and edit information. A while back, politicians and their supporters were found to be editing information in their favor, even when the facts said otherwise.