Printable View
Quote:
Originally Posted by Meneldil
I'm confident in saying that ~100% of the Americans posting here feel as safe on our streets as you do on yours. You can support the right to self defense without being afraid for your life, just as you can support drug legalization even if you don't take drugs.
Well crap man, should free speech be similarly registered and restricted? Let's just make every house a surveillance outpost of the government.Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
And the marines would survive for a few months tops. The key to a violent anti-government movement would be to avoid direct combat and to hit them in the resources and supply (and if necessary, supporters). You don't try and take out a tank, you hit the fuel depot. Similarly, in the ridiculous "everyone vs. marines" scenario, how would the marines resupply?
I find the government against the people a bit an of argument we have better ways to deal with political devision nowadays. If you want 'the people' to be able to raise an army to challenge the government, that's a bit much for me some weapons should be restricted. Once the thugs have installed hauwitzers I might reconsider.
In all fairness rory, they said that about the redcoats as well - and look who won that one.Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
EDIT: Everyone in this thread, arguing on either side, should watch...
...this
...and all three parts of this.
I've seen that video a thousand times. The fact is 1 anecdote=/= policy. This is of course true if someone puts a grieving mother of columbine up.Quote:
Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars
Instead of posting violent language and emotive arguments we should argue the merits of firearms ownership and how far we are willing to take it.
We know guns kill people just like we know alcohol kills people
It isn't her story so much as her explanation of what the Second Amendment is really about. The arguments I like to leave to the second video series.Quote:
Originally Posted by Strike For The South
No her argument is about conceal and carry in a private establishment. Not firearm ownership. She owned the gun but could not bring it in to a private establishment. Which if the Lubys decides to make policy they have the right to refuse her service.Quote:
Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars
As far as a democratically elected government has the time to react to excesses imho. If streetgangs have machineguns and the government doesn't have the means to act against it it should step back.Quote:
Originally Posted by Strike For The South
Only it wasn't the Luby's, it was the State of Texas, correct? Regardless, your point does not disprove mine.Quote:
Originally Posted by Strike For The South
Correct, however even under current laws. Lubys still would be within its rights.Quote:
Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars
If you know your history then you should know it was the French that were the key to that victory at Yorktown .Quote:
i have a pretty decent knowledge of US history. from my knowledge, after Cornwallis surrendered at Yorktown, the Brits withdrew. so technically we did beat them, AFAIK.
That is the business of Luby's. I don't see how it relates to my point more than slightly, I'm sorry. :book:Quote:
Originally Posted by Strike For The South
I fail to see how a 1 in 10,000,000 occurrence should be a factor in legislature.Quote:
Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars
pfffttt. We don't need a stinkin navy or French officers and guns!!!!Quote:
If you know your history then you should know it was the French that were the key to that victory at Yorktown .
Does that mean the United States won less than France?Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
Are we talking like 60/40 here? 20/80?
Can we even quantify victory?
Would you say the British won the Napoleonic Wars less than Russia because the Russians beat Napoleon at his strongest, whereas the British only beat him after he got his ass kicked a few times?
Oh, I see what you mean now, and I agree with you. Self-defence in general, however, was summed up by the second video I linked and by the Cato Institute article. I intended the first link for her explanation of what the Second Amendment was intended for, not her personal story. You must admit, however, that her personal self-defence story is echoed in one form or another by many different people.Quote:
Originally Posted by Strike For The South
Finally someone who understands what's REALLY important! :2thumbsup:Quote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
In fact, I'm almost sure that people who stand around in NYC traffic jams for hours every morning would be faster at work with a bike, would save the environment and cause less ait pollution etc. etc.
But agaion and again it's not a matter of practicality but principle and convenience.
Some people think cars = freedom, some think guns = freedom. I say planes = freedom, as long as you're the pilot anyway. But you still have to land and fuel up, space is unreachable etc.
The only good way to find out whether the second amendment should be changed/banned would be to make a poll or a referendum. But since some here think referendums are bad I guess you'll have to go with whatever the god-president Obama and his cronies want. ~D
Also Whacker, bringing an assault rifle to a tank battle won't help you much either.
Too bad some people don't respect that and run around shooting one another.Quote:
Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff
Yes, I can defend myself. And the probability that people will shoot me in my own country is lower if not anyone can own a gun. I feel myself safe in this country, and I don't need a gun to "protect" myself. I never was in a situation like that, neither anyone I personally know. So your logic is flawed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro
No I am not, where did you get that? I am perfectly free, and I don't need a gun to feel "freer", in fact it would just be a burden. And by supporting a policy that allows anyone to own a gun you compromise the basic human right to live of many other humans. Which is higher in the priority of human rights than this "right to bear arms" 18th century nonsense.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro
The same could be said for alcohol, drugs, cars and knives.Quote:
Originally Posted by PowerWizard
Faulty parallelism. They aren't especially designed to kill people.Quote:
Originally Posted by Strike For The South
Neither is a gun.Quote:
Originally Posted by PowerWizard
No, your logic is flawed. Data beats personal experience. Always. Anyone that brings up that they themselves have never or have always blah blah blah should find another way to argue their point.Quote:
Originally Posted by PowerWizard
Well, now, to be fair, some are.Quote:
Originally Posted by Strike For The South
But then, there are quite a few vehicles design to kill people as well.
Do we assume that cars are a subset of vehicles, as military weapons are a subset of guns?
I don't see how you couldn't, add knives to.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheogorath
A gun is a tool. A dangerous tool but a tool none the less.
I see. So guns are designed for what? Slicing carrots? Traveling to distant destinations? Getting drunk?Quote:
Originally Posted by Strike For The South
No, your logic is flawed. Anyone that brings up "data beats personal experience" blah blah blah should find another way to argue their point or actually show data (with sources) that support their argument. And what about data that traces gun violence in the United States? Do you ignore it?Quote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
"Worth" of data:Quote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
Multi study meta analysis
Multi study
Large study
Small study
"Personal experience" - liked by senior doctors as justification, utterly worthless from a statistical standpoint.
There's more than just the guns, as Americans kill each other a lot more than do the Swiss. If only all vermin could keep their own numbers down...
~:smoking:
Guns don't kill people, mom's do. Well I expect him to be dead, viewer discretion.
I accidentally voted no as a US citizen, meant to vote no as a non-citizen.
Can we just skip this bumper-sticker slogan of NRA supporters please? A phrase Dimebag Darrel had always sided with. He believed that guns were no threat, only the people who use them incorrectly are....Ironically, Wednesday, December 8th 2004....Dimebag was shot to death during one of his concerts.... by an U.S. marine, whose job would be to use guns correctly. He also killed four other people in the crowd and injured two.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
Eddie Izzard said once: “Guns don't kill people, people kill people, and monkeys do too if they have a gun.”
Guns don't kill people, people kill people...
Guns are just an incredibly effective way to kill someone as a private citizen... (obviously the army has some slightly better methods...)
LOL.
What, exactly, makes you think the US rebels would engage in conventional combat? Most of you're posts about rebellion seem to hinge on that assumption.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rory
No, I feel I have the right to. It's a vast difference.Quote:
Originally Posted by Meneldil
Funny post from a guy complaining about generalizations of his posts. Making the government fear the citizen is not equal to abolishing the government.Quote:
Interesting thing about that, the Brits tried to abolish the monarchy once, and guess what? They asked multiple monarchs back into the country when they realized they had no idea what they were doing. Wanna abolish the government? Be ready for two things- First anarchy, then military rule as a power hawk tries to quell said anarchy from destroying the country. Government exists for a very good reason.
And getting rid of the second amendment and leaving it to the states is wrong. It's a right, not a privilege to be decided by some state government.
CR
Hunting. Sport shooting. Collecting.Quote:
Originally Posted by PowerWizard
Well everything is a tool if you argue like that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Strike For The South
A gun is made for killing. Or firing bullets.
Eeeeeehg.
You think a ruler isn't afraid of their people when they chopped off the head of the predecessor? :inquisitive:Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
EDIT: And I resent your accusation. You see, you generalized my opinion when you stated that I complained of generalization of my posts. I never even complained once. I mocked generalizations. Get your story straight.
And NO, having a gun isn't a right. Don't be silly. There is NO such thing as an innate right. Only what society demands and obtains for itself.
Note to self:Quote:
Originally Posted by Fixiwee
Guns shoot bullets. :ave:
Are we going to have to go into the vehicle example again?
Commercial jets are what makes modern society possible. Without them the economy would collapse on itself, because we'd be back to taking a week to cross the oceans by boat.
But the military uses jets too. In fact, there are probably more military jets than large commercial jets. I'd even be willing to bet that airplanes in general have killed more people than guns.
So, should we ban airplanes?
Sorry, just meant it as a joke.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shinseikhaan
I would argue that there are such things as innate rights. The right to bear arms is part of our right to defend ourselves from evil in individuals or government.Quote:
And NO, having a gun isn't a right. Don't be silly. There is NO such thing as an innate right. Only what society demands and obtains for itself.
Of course, society only gets what it demands and obtains.
CR
So winning the rebellion has very little to do with gun ownership at the start of the rebellion? :smug:Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Anyway, should I try to conquer the US from within I wouldn't touch the second ammendment. In fact I would embrace it to create a proxy militia, not because of it's combat value, but because they are a good recruitment area for garnision troops after my loyal military forces have crushed all the main resistance. And that I like stylish moves. Controlling the military is prio one though.
There's a book that's fairly well known among second amendment rights supporters. It's called Unintended Consequences. In many ways it's the fantasy of a gun-loving libertarian. Fantasy in that the events depicted, a rebellion against the US government, are very unlikely to happen.
But it posits an interesting case for how a rebellion might occur. It's a sort of grass roots movement and involves fighting (killing) government officials directly, not the military. The rebels wouldn't even fight the military, but would seek out and kill the various government officials they felt had wronged them. Then other agents of the hated government agencies would be less enthusiastic about continuing their jobs and quit, until said agencies imposing on the rights of the people couldn't operate any more.
Note that I don't write this out of admiration for the book (long winded and very vulgar at times) or in agreement with the message, but just as an example to counter the "But the Marines would defeat the citizens in open battle!"
CR
My statement was: "you cannot defend yourself as well without a gun" which is true. Whether you feel you are in danger is not the issue--neither do I. We are discussing a principle. If there was one murder a year in the US the principle would remain.Quote:
Originally Posted by PowerWizard
You have the right to self defense, and that requires tools to be effective. If you give up tools, you cannot defend yourself as well, thus you are compromising one of your freedoms.Quote:
Originally Posted by PowerWizard
The issue with individual rights vs collective rights has been discussed before, so I'll just make a comparison.
1) People have the right to life
2) Alcohol being legal leads to drunk driving accidents
3) Therefore, alcohol should be banned
Do you agree with the conclusion?
My statement was: "you cannot defend yourself as well without a gun" which is true.
That's very true, my problem is its alot harder to defend yourself when the other person has a gun...
You have the right to self defense, and that requires tools to be effective. If you give up tools, you cannot defend yourself as well, thus you are compromising one of your freedoms.
I would argue that i am far freer without an armed populace...
Although i can see your basic point that if your denied anythingyou are less free, but that just gets silly if you think about it... one country could be freer than another because it allows each and every resident to have thier own arsenal of missles (now thats what you need to take down a goverment!)
Chances are that:Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleGrizzly
A) The other person will have a gun anyway.
B) There is a chance of you having concealed carry and he won't attack you in the first place.
Why? Instead of a government having a monopoly on firearms, more people can have them. Gun owners in America (legal gun owners) do not make you less free at all.Quote:
I would argue that i am far freer without an armed populace...
Sure, the question is a practical one. Ideally, the laws would be written to provide the maximum level of self defense capability with the minimum danger to society at large. My feeling is that the people on both sides of the debate agree on this, they just don't agree on the specifics.Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleGrizzly
With no guns, you will have trouble defending yourself against a stronger opponent. This puts most women in a tough spot. It will also be almost impossible to defend yourself against multiple opponents. If everyone has guns, it levels the field.
I feel like many people approach this from the perspective of, "I don't own a gun, so..." in which case it is natural to prefer that a potential attacker does not either. But that is not a valid reason when the law effects the population as a whole.
Chances are that:
A) The other person will have a gun anyway.
Really...? We have alot of crime here in Britian which doesn't involve guns, the chances are if your attacked in Britian your attacker won't have a gun...
B) There is a chance of you having concealed carry and he won't attack you in the first place.
Well you would think it worked that way, but this just seems to encourage an arms race so the criminals get proper stocked up incase they have to face guns...
Plus even though America has alot of firearm ownership people still have crimes commited against them... so the deterrent doesn't seem to be working...
Why? Instead of a government having a monopoly on firearms, more people can have them.
Well we don't have an armed police force.. or mostly not armed with guns we of course have specialist sections and the like and obviously theres the army as well but largely were an unarmed society... no need for private citizens to start arming
And why... well theres freedom to have and do things but theres also also the freedom to be free of certain things...
Good for you - if you had concealed carry you might not be stabbed either!Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleGrizzly
Really? You mean those states with concealed carry that do pretty well for themselves without having criminal arms races? The states were criminals are more afraid of attacking? Watch the video I posted earlier or see the Cato link?Quote:
Well you would think it worked that way, but this just seems to encourage an arms race so the criminals get proper stocked up incase they have to face guns...
:dizzy2:Quote:
Well we don't have an armed police force.. or mostly not armed with guns we of course have specialist sections and the like and obviously theres the army as well but largely were an unarmed society... no need for private citizens to start arming
You are free of your neighbour owning a firearm? I'm sorry, but the "my right to swing stops where my neighbour's nose begins" doesn't apply here in the slightest. You are free to be free of it - don't own one.Quote:
And why... well theres freedom to have and do things but theres also also the freedom to be free of certain things...
With no guns, you will have trouble defending yourself against a stronger opponent. This puts most women in a tough spot. If everyone has guns, it levels the field.
Im not a big fan of the leveller theory... all i see is a different set of ineqaulitys...
From who has the most strength and speed and training in an unarmed brawl....
To who has the best gun and speed and training in a gun fight...
Not that we one we have with guns is preferable to the one without... i just don't see one as superior to the other...
It will also be almost impossible to defend yourself against multiple opponents.
This is one of my main problems with guns actually...
They can give you power over a far larger group of people, if someone walks up to me and my 3 friends with a knife and demands all our money we probably wouldn't give him the money... if he walks up to us with a gun... i don't see any result other than us giving him the money...
I feel like many people approach this from the perspective of, "I don't own a gun, so..." in which case it is natural to prefer that a potential attacker does not either. But that is not a valid reason when the law effects the population as a whole.
TBH whether I owned a gun or not i would prefer my attacker unarmed ~;)
I don't see why the reasoning is invalid, I don't own a baseball bat and i wouldn't want to be attacked by one but i would never advocate banning baseball bats. Guns are very different from regular everyday items like cars and baseballs bats...
Good for you - if you had concealed carry you might not be stabbed either!
Well i would much rather be attacked with a knife than a gun... so this is a good thing :)
Really? You mean those states with concealed carry that do pretty well for themselves without having criminal arms races? The states were criminals are more afraid of attacking? Watch the video I posted earlier or see the Cato link?
What I mean is that if you think the guy your going after is going to be armed then you make sure you can at least match the guy if not outdo him...
That or you kill whoever the person is before they know your there to stay on the safe side...
You are free of your neighbour owning a firearm? I'm sorry, but the "my right to swing stops where my neighbour's nose begins" doesn't apply here in the slightest. You are free to be free of it - don't own one.
I disagree entirely, my nieghbour isn't allowed to play his music loud late at night because of my freedom and he isn't allowed to own a gun because of my freedom...
It is to be free of other people owning guns that i want... whether or not i have one is not a problem... or if it was it could be easily sorted out...
Guns are easy to use. You point, you shoot. We're not talking about being a sniper or a western style duel...Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleGrizzly
I would say give em the money either way...why risk death for $40?Quote:
It will also be almost impossible to defend yourself against multiple opponents.
This is one of my main problems with guns actually...
They can give you power over a far larger group of people, if someone walks up to me and my 3 friends with a knife and demands all our money we probably wouldn't give him the money... if he walks up to us with a gun... i don't see any result other than us giving him the money...
Guns are easy to use. You point, you shoot. We're not talking about being a sniper or a western style duel...
I know what your getting at...
But imagine me (young healthy male) been practising shooting my pistol for years... and due to my years of computer gaming i also have cat like reactions... then we have an old woman whose son gave her the pistol but she's never practised with it, she has arthritis in her hands which makes squeezing the trigger a struggle her eyesight isn't what it used to be and her reactions are anything but cat like...
Im going to win that gun battle all day long... something would have to go freakishly wrong for me to lose that gun battle...
Obviously thats a slight exagerration but it applies to all situations as well, arming everyone with guns simply means the one with the quickest reactions and the best shot is king, if everyone is armed only with thier fists then the martial artist or the strong man is king...
I would concede that firearms probably levels the playing field slightly, my problem is that whilst the playing field may be levelled slightly it just got a whole lot more dangerous...
I would say give em the money either way...why risk death for $40?
Giving them the money would be the sensible thing to do but i would rather have the chance to fight with a bit less risk (attacker armed with knife) if i choose to do so
I'm not an expert it's true, and I don't know that anyone could say to what extent the playing field is leveled. I do know though, that becoming stronger takes much work, as does becoming skilled in a martial art, while on the other hand when I fired a gun for the first time I was quite accurate despite having no training. It was a small caliber gun and I imagine easier than a larger one.Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleGrizzly
Your points are viable for the mugging scenario you brought up, but that's not my concern; as I said, I would just give up the money. Someone breaking into your house is a different scenario. Say it's a jealous ex-boyfriend breaking into his old girlfriends house with the intention of killing her. In hand to hand she will surely lose, but do you see how if they both have guns she has a much better chance? She can use surprise and concealment to much greater effect, when both have little use in hand to hand combat, unless she can somehow knock him out in one blow, which is unlikely.
I do know though, that becoming stronger takes much work, as does becoming skilled in a martial art, while on the other hand when I fired a gun for the first time I was quite accurate despite having no training. It was a small caliber gun and I imagine easier than a larger one.
I do imagine just doing target practice the average first time shooter would probably be fairly accurate... i would say though its a little different if your getting shot at and have to make the shot to save your life... this would usually fall in the favour of the attacker (who you would imagine would be used to or more used to such pressure) or a person with significant training...
Its probably easier to get good with a gun than become strong or a martial arts expert but it still takes some time to learn what you may need to know to keep you alive in a shootout... and even then your potential attacker can still simply out train you or out gun you...
which is another point i wanted to make it could be argued that it unevens the playing field to the rich... or maybe not rich but the poor certainly can't afford the latest guns... they may have to make do with some old crappy pistol... whereas someone with a bit of money could get something a bit faster a bit more accurate .... a bit more lethal...
This i would say would work against ordaniry civilians more than criminals as you could say a gun would be a tool of a criminals trade so he would ensure he has the best tools to do his job whereas your ordaniry citizen has other worries outside of purchasing a good gun to combat criminals with...
Say it's a jealous ex-boyfriend breaking into his old girlfriends house with the intention of killing her. In hand to hand she will surely lose, but do you see how if they both have guns she has a much better chance? She can use surprise and concealment to much greater effect, when both have little use in hand to hand combat, unless she can somehow knock him out in one blow, which is unlikely.
From the sounds of your scenario it would be better for them to both have guns... im sure we could both come up with 100 scenario's where the other would have to admit it would be better to have them both armed or both unarmed.
I suppose in the situations where someone is determined to kill the other person i would rather the potential victim had a gun to defend themselves.... (in a deseted area where there aren't innocent bystanders to kill) but then in your average day to day crime i would rather people didn't have guns...
Imagine if when some kids went to mug an old lady she reaches for her piece... these kids just wanted to snatch her bag but now she's reaching for her gun so they panic go for thiers and thanks to having youth on thier side end up shooting the old lady before she can shoot them... though i also think a young mugger being shot would be tragic as well....
Now without guns the old lady might have had a nasty time of it as well, she could have got beaten up a bit or the youths could have simply snatched the bag and run... but regardless of the fact this little old lady is relatively defenseless its actually less dangerous for her to have a gun...
Edit: the little old lady is supposed to be an example of how guns would escalate ordaniry crimes rather than a scenario where we say guns or no guns is better...
Ok, I don't want to promote the image that I am full on hard core gun everyone with no laws whatsoever. I just don't like the idea of banning guns.
I thought about it for a while and have come up with what I hope is a more moderate approach.
A 1 day background check and waiting period.
A safety test and accuracy test to pass before receiving a weapon, which must be passed again every 3 months since receiving the gun (in other words, 4 times a year). THIS MUST BE DONE FOR EACH GUN YOU BUY!
However....
You are allowed to buy whatever gun you may want, assault rifles, whatever you want (if you are that afraid of the government).
So, any type of guns for those not suspected or convicted, terrorists, gang members, mentally unstable etc... with overall minimal restriction, but with key tough measures on being safe with your gun and being accurate with it at all times (to prevent/curb accidental deaths when exchanging fire with a hostile madman or just preventing bad things from happening period).
Opinions?
Excuse me if I am ignorant and these are already in place. But I have not seen or heard of a law that requires an accuracy test to be allowed a gun.
LOL. What would this do? Other than tax expenditures and bearucratic BS?Quote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
I am just trying to bridge the gap here. And it is important for people who own guns to be responsible with them. To me responsible means being able to use it accurately and with the skill to accomplish its job with no collateral damage.Quote:
Originally Posted by Strike For The South
EDIT: If it really was me making policy, there would many other pointless things cut so that accuracy tests every 3 months would not be another nail in the coffin for the Treasury.
A quick visit to a physcologist before you acquire your gun license could be a good thing also...
Maybe after that every 5-10 years a renewed physcological test and then the accuracy test ect. every 3 months seems to short a timespan... though i could see the logic in testing thier accuracy more frequently as age goes on and also maybe physcological status...
I was also trying to think of some way that parents could prove thier guns are kept in locked cupboards and the like where thier kids cannot access them... other than some kind of home visit i can't see how to do it...
It could be another thing checked out every 5-10 years come renewal time...
TBH i don't see how much effect this would have on the problems though... do you think it would help ?
I don't know why you mention for them to see psychologist unless they have been through some trauma....Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleGrizzly
3 months should not be that much of a bother, I mean they can choose whatever gun they want and if they truly use it for sport then the accuracy test should be a breeze for them, if they are using it for self defense I can only hope that they would want to be as accurate as possible so when the intruder comes in he/she does not start blasting holes in his own wall.
I can understand a gun under law needing to be sold as part of a "package" of some sort. Trigger guards, lockbox...etc could be included and really should be bought along with the gun in first place.
The key difference between the two scenarios to me is this:Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleGrizzly
In the ex-girlfriend scenario, it is entirely possible that she has done nothing wrong. She can't be held responsible for her ex's actions. If guns are legal then she has the capability of defending herself if she wants to, to practice if she wants to, and the chance to at least try to deal with the pressure of the situation. She might not buy a gun, she might not practice with it, she might not remain calm enough under pressure to shoot straight, but she has the freedom that is a prerequisite for all of those things.
In the granny being mugged scenario, she broke the law by drawing her gun first. The law is fairly strict about when you are allowed to brandish your weapon. She had the freedom to not buy a gun, not carry a gun, and the poor decision was hers.
I don't think the issue is how many scenarios are beneficial to the person vs how many are harmful. I have seen statistics, though I don't know if they are reliable, that people who own guns are more likely to die in the event of a break in. Viewed from the top down (what appears to be your approach), this would indicate that owning guns causes deaths and therefore shouldn't be allowed (disputes about statistics aside, I don't want to go into the practicality of banning guns because that's been done to death and is fairly one-sided). But viewed on the individual level, the death someone who chooses to own a gun and chooses to use it when they're house is broken into is very different from the death of someone who was attacked and was not given the freedom to defend themselves with the necessary tools.
LittleGrizzly, you're presuming things and creating strawmen. While they are plausible cases, they just don't hold up to facts in general - or if they do, they are minority cases that won't have any effect on the statistical outcomes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cato Institute
I don't know why you mention for them to see psychologist unless they have been through some trauma....
heh, I mean to assess thier mental state rather than try to work through thier issues with them...
I imagine most criminals would pass one i was just mainly thinking a physcologist may spot someone who is mentally unstable and so should own guns whereas they could met all the other legal requirments... like an extra lock... just incase...
3 months should not be that much of a bother
It does seem like a bit of a waste to do it that excessively, not so much for the gun owner but for the money you have to spend paying people to go around and do all this testing... surely for every gun owner in america doing that every 3 months would be a huge bill...
I suppose 5-10 could be excessive... how about yearly or every other year...
A year is a enough time to get sloppy at something. What about every six months? The goal is to keep the gun owning population accountable by making sure they are skilled with their weapons.Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleGrizzly
EDIT: Also I think the complete background check during the one day waiting period is where checking to see if customer is mentally unstable is put into the equation.
LittleGrizzly, you're presuming things and creating strawmen. While they are plausible cases, they just don't hold up to facts in general - or if they do, they are minority cases that won't have any effect on the statistical outcomes.
I have to disagree. Your quoted bit talks about guns used in crime.. Remarkably, guns are used for self-defense more than 2 million times a year, three to five times the estimated number of violent crimes committed with guns. In Britian we have far less crimes commited with guns, this is partially because they don't need to worry about the average home owner packing so they don't bother packing themselves....
I don't have a paticular problem with conceal and carry... just guns in general ~;)
In the granny being mugged scenario, she broke the law by drawing her gun first. The law is fairly strict about when you are allowed to brandish your weapon. She had the freedom to not buy a gun, not carry a gun, and the poor decision was hers.
What? assuming in my secnario she knew she was about to be mugged she isn't allowed to brandish the weapon? learn something new every day!
The example still holds true as an example of escalation guns can cause... don't get me wrong knifes and other weapons can also cause escalation of the situation but guns being more effective killing tools escalate it more than knifes and the like...
I don't think the issue is how many scenarios are beneficial to the person vs how many are harmful.
I think this is where our different opnions come from... the reason im against private gun ownership is because i think in a majority of situations involving criminals your better off without guns about whereas for you it is more of a what if i need it type thinking... i think?
EDIT: Also I think the complete background check during the one day waiting period is where checking to see if customer is mentally unstable is put into the equation.
Isn't this simply a check to see if they have been declared mentally unstable... my point was they should be confirmed mentally stable rather than not have been declared stable... though that may be a little OTT it could stop someone unstable getting hold of weapons...
A year is a enough time to get sloppy at something. What about every six months? The goal is to keep the gun owning population accountable by making sure they are skilled with their weapons.
I would've thought it would be the type of skill that doesn't detoriate too quickly.. thats an assumption though... so if it is nessecary then every 6 months doesn't seem too bad... that would be hell of a workload though... how many gun owners in USA ?
anyway enough talk of guns... time to put the things to good use!
ETW here i come...
I think the British should have learned their lesson about banning guns from Shawn of the Dead. They could only scrounge up the one gun from the Winchester and look what happened, all but two died including my favorite character. Just saying....
Sorry, but I can't be bothered to read more useless 'scenarios' devised by gun banners, especially those who have never touched a gun, to justify banning guns. The granny with the purse thing? The whole thing is implausible.
Like freedom to be free of other religions? Or people of different races? Or of ideas you don't like?Quote:
And why... well theres freedom to have and do things but theres also also the freedom to be free of certain things...
That's one of the most ridiculous gun-related proposals I've read. Even outright bans are straightforward.Quote:
A safety test and accuracy test to pass before receiving a weapon, which must be passed again every 3 months since receiving the gun (in other words, 4 times a year). THIS MUST BE DONE FOR EACH GUN YOU BUY!
This undermines the whole concept of having a right and freedom. It'd be a huge bureaucratic snarl. Have you ever used a gun?
No, it's because you have a fraction of the population. And even in the years after the handgun ban, injuries from firearms rose dramatically.Quote:
In Britian we have far less crimes commited with guns, this is partially because they don't need to worry about the average home owner packing so they don't bother packing themselves....
CR
As a side note: in my town of 130,000 residents, City Council proposes to balance the budget by laying off Police Officers next month. Leaving on average, 8 cops on-duty at any given time, covering 37 square miles.
On Monday, the local newspaper reported that gun shops sales were up 62% over last year, and they had run out of .38, .45, 9mm & 30-06 ammunition.
Coincidence?
Probably not, seems to fit one aspect of the US mentality to guns pretty well. The good question is if there's serious crimes in the area that would validate the increase or is it only the mental aspect of it that matter?Quote:
Originally Posted by KukriKhan
Anyway, time to make a serious post this thread:
It's a fact that gun related crimes are higher in the US compared to Europe per capita. The question is why and the answer is the culture. But that is a cheap answer, as it lacks the important depth. Anybody willing to tackle the issue?
Personally I would say that it's the gun culture, that guns are seen as a normal tool for self-defense. As a consequence, so does the criminals, creating an escalation of gun use. For some Americans it might very well be acceptable, but the perspective in Europe is very different.
Here, they idea of needing to use a gun for self-defense are a sign of either two things. A: either you're overly paraniod over something that are so unlikely to happen that a normal person won't bother (been suggested for the US in the "culture of fear" argument) or B: It sucks to be you. Simply put the conditions are so bad that it validates gun use. Most Europeans would put that close to the end of civilisation as we know it and want it on a scale.
Then there's another aspect of it. For some Americans it's the ultimate sign of self-reliance, that in turn are an epitome of the american dream. For a European it's a cool thingy on the shooting range.
And for some, that self-reliance seems to equal protection from the evil goverment and my guns are they only thing the keeps the goverment away (some consider this only valid the day the revolution comes. And it will come). Interestingly enough they mostly seem to rather isolate themself from society than trying to cure its ills. They are the gun owers that causes most "no compromise" issues in the US as any goverment regristration will be used against them later.
Back a bit on topic, would banning guns in the US make a difference? Alone, it would not and with very good actions to reduce the gun violence (that I don't know how exactly) it wouldn't really be needed. That's why IMHO the US doesn't deserve guns. It would probably be more effetive if combined with the unknown tactics though.
And back to some lesser stuff:
CR I would say that unless the admittably short summary on wiki is misssing a pretty big part, the book doesn't really cover my argument in the last post (that longer lasting rebellions makes the amount of weapons at the start an irrelevant issue for actual victory).
Yes, and?Quote:
Originally Posted by hooahguy
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Violence leads to violence. If everyone carries a gun with himself/herself, the probability that gunfights are going to occur is higher, therefore boundless gun ownership doesn't lead to bigger safety, but to more violence and danger. The statistics also support the latter statement. The rate of homicides committed with firearms is the highest in the USA. That country is world-leader with 65%, followed by developing and too safe countries like South Africa (69%), Colombia (45%), Zimbabwe (39%). These are the dry statistical facts, good Sir, you can't argue with numbers.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro
And I will dismiss this faulty comparison again by pointing out that alcohol isn't specifically designed to kill people, meanwhile guns are.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro
Guns don't kill people, people kill people, and so do monkeys if they have a gun.
Bullets bouncing around inside bodies, kills people.Quote:
Guns don't kill people, people kill people, and so do monkeys if they have a gun.
Just sayin'. :)
Surely one can argue about the significance of numbers and the meaning of them? What is the murder rate in switzerland? In any case, this was not what we were discussing.Quote:
Originally Posted by PowerWizard
Why do you think that makes it a faulty comparison? Your argument was that people have a right to life. Many, many people die from drunk driving accidents. If you argue that guns being legal infringes on the population's right to life, then you would have to argue that alcohol being legal infringes on the population's right to life. You can say the problem is people driving when they shouldn't, I can say that the problem is people shooting other people when they shouldn't.Quote:
And I will dismiss this faulty comparison again by pointing out that alcohol isn't specifically designed to kill people, meanwhile guns are.
Guns don't kill people, people kill people, and so do monkeys if they have a gun.
As for design, if you insist on it, I would not that cars are design to travel at lethal speeds and alcohol is designed to make people into dangerous drivers. But again, the point isn't to compare alcohol and guns, but to use the same logic you did on a different scenario. What is your argument for keeping alcohol legal, regardless of whether you consider the comparison valid?
Source your statistics please. Also, 69% is more that 65% last I checked. :idea2:Quote:
Originally Posted by PowerWizard
Well, I think Assault weapons should be banned. I mean, these AK-47's and the variations of them out on the market. Don't hand me this BS "Well, People used them for Taget pratice and...."......
Come on people. You are A CIVLLIAN. Why the hell do you need a Ak-47? Please give me a logical reason beside the "Self-Defense" and "Taget Pratice" arguments. Those people typically can't give you one. I'm all for guns, Hell, I have a 16 gauge, and I used 16 gauges, .22 long rifles (bye bye groundhog heads :laugh4:!) and a .22 pistiol once before, so I'm all familiar with guns and I like using them for hunting and that. BUT, you don't need AK-47's.
Now, I think we need guns in general (exculding stupid assault weapons). Trust me, if I see a bunch of gang members walking at me, and I know I'm going to get gang beated, I prefer using a gun and not be the our British friends and just stand there and be stabbed or death or try to fist-fight with several gang members.
Two thingsQuote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
I am opposed to any waiting periods at all, Even if I wasn't it makes no sense to give somebody a waiting period for their next purchase if they already have a gun.
Also I've got over twenty different guns, that means I'd be taking over 60 test a year:thumbsdown: Which isn't going to happen.
Another thing, the four basic saftey rules are the same wether it's
a long gun or a hand gun. So why would you need to test for each gun?
The gun debate in this country is a joke, we've got people who know nothing guns; trying to set rules about them for people who do, its makes no sense.
Here's an example
here's another one http://(there are no heat seaking bullets)
Why do people need anything extravagant? Like mansions or cars that go over 120mph, Speakers that are loud enough to shake your neighbors house. No body ever "needs" that stuff but in a free country you should be able to obtain all of those things.Quote:
Come on people. You are A CIVLLIAN. Why the hell do you need a Ak-47? Please give me a logical reason beside the "Self-Defense" and "Taget Pratice" arguments. Those people typically can't give you one.
Long time no see, sweetheart.
20 guns? All for hunting or do you have some collectables?
Define an assault weapon. You are probably confused and mean assault rifle but you never know...Quote:
Originally Posted by |Sith|R|AntiWarmanCake88
And I don't know about you, but I'd prefer the government not restrict ownership of anything based solely on need or we'd be on constant rationing.
I dont think guns should be banned. My opinion is that gun ownership is not inheritently evil. Though i think that all guns should be registrated. I dont see a connection between gun crimes and legal ownership of guns. People were quite capable of killing each other before guns and i dont think restricting legal guns to authorities would stop people killing each other.
Here in Finland we have 3rd or 4th largest amount of guns per capita in the world, pending on what source is used. Only in 14% of homicides, guns are involved. Maybe we should outlaw knives because more people are killed with those over here?
I still have yet to see how banning guns would get rid of the problem of illegal gun ownership. People can and do smuggle them in illegally; in fact, if you are going to commit a crime it would be astoundingly stupid to use a legally-purchased gun.
So: how would making legal gun ownership protect law-abiding citizens against people who don't obey the law to begin with, and who will have a gun anyway?
How is that even remotely relevant to what I said? ˇˇQuote:
Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro
Way too liberal gun control in the United States lead to the highest rate of homicides committed by firearms in the world. You either admit that or you ignore reality.
So are you suggesting that cars are designed to kill people? Amazing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro
[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence#Homicides_by_country"]QUOTE=PowerWizard;2202561]How is that even remotely relevant to what I said? ˇˇ
Way too liberal gun control in the United States lead to the highest rate of homicides committed by firearms in the world. You either admit that or you ignore reality.
So are you suggesting that cars are designed to kill people? Amazing.[/QUOTE]
And the truth shall set you free.
Actually, restriction of freedoms is a traditionally conservative viewpoint, which means that Liberals are Conservative on gun rights. How support for gun control ended up in their camp, I don't know; it must have something to do with protecting cute fuzzy animals.Quote:
Originally Posted by Strike For The South
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strike For The South
Quote:
“Cultural differences and more-permissive legal standards notwithstanding, the English rate of violent crime has been soaring since 1991. Over the same period, America's has been falling dramatically. In 1999 The Boston Globe reported that the American murder rate, which had fluctuated by about 20 percent between 1974 and 1991, was "in startling free-fall." We have had nine consecutive years of sharply declining violent crime. As a result the English and American murder rates are converging. In 1981 the American rate was 8.7 times the English rate, in 1995 it was 5.7 times the English rate, and the latest study puts it at 3.5 times.”[19]
:yes:Quote:
"20 percent of U.S. homicides occur in four cities with just 6% of the population – New York, Chicago, Detroit, and Washington, D.C., and each has a virtual prohibition on private handguns"[23] Detroit has 47.3 murders per every 100,000 residents.[24] In contrast to these areas, some areas have widespread gun ownership with low rates of homicide. In 2005, Wyoming had the highest number of homes with loaded and unlocked guns, at 33% of all homes in the state, of any state in the United States[25] and had a homicide rate of 1.7/100,000.[26]
I wonder if there are any studies on the countries with the lowest homocide with guns rate. Why don't people shoot each other? Is the generell murder count lower or do they simply stab each other?
Could it be that the high percentage of gun violence in US has nothing to do with gun laws, but rather it is a cultural thing. Please ´merican friends, enlighten me, but is it or is it not acceptable in American culture to defend yourself and your home or property with firearms? Thus the threshold to use guns in violent situations is rather low?
I would be flabbergasted if someone broke into one of my neighbors house and he didn't try to shoot them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kagemusha
It's accepted practice.