Which is why I can not join them. Assault rifles cannot be defended as legitimate civilian weapons. Sorry to tell all of you paranoid USA government people this.
Printable View
Which is why I can not join them. Assault rifles cannot be defended as legitimate civilian weapons. Sorry to tell all of you paranoid USA government people this.
When did you come to this conclusion.
Nice to see the gun debate comes up again. Ding ding round 231231235341513242421 no? ;x
'too'Quote:
Originally Posted by AntiKingWarmanCake88
Please define 'assault rifle'.
The purpose of the second amendment is not for hunting, nor even self defense, but to provide citizens the means to overthrow a tyrannical government (as evidence, I would submit the many statements of the founders about this. Arguments that a civilian uprising would be impossible are both irrelevant - such arguments do not change the constitution as written - and suspect, considering how well the insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan are doing).Quote:
Originally Posted by AntiKingWarmanCake88
Using a definition of assault weapons as select fire rifles (for example, the US Army M4, which fires the 5.56 cartridge in both semi-auto and fully automatic fires), they are arguably the most protected weapon under the second amendment, because they are the primary modern infantry weapon.
And what do you mean, can't be defended as legitimate civilian weapons? They're just tools, and how they are used is up to who is using them.
CR
Are you calling the NRA racial or radical?
Also - Hands off my firearms!
Now that the 2nd Amendment has been formally incorporated onto the individual states, the gun debate is moot for the US. The only thing to discuss is the level of security we will take to prevent criminals and mentally ill from getting them. Chicago and any other local/state government will not be able to deny guns anymore. NRA is mostly moot at this point except to act as a small vanguard in case a future supreme court attempts to challenge the incorporation (almost completely unlikely).
I like how the Constitution is some kind of sacred text, the Final Stopping-Place of the Buck, the Document of Last Appeal. Where are the studies on whether the right to bear arms is empirically good or bad?
Far right people who bring up the Constitution do treat it almost on the level of a holy text, which is silly. However, part of the point of this country is to be adhering to the rule of law where no man is above justice (like a king). Therefore, the highest law does demand the highest authority and respect when it comes to the issues it discusses.Quote:
Originally Posted by quadalpha
Nothing is empirically good or bad, nothing as emotionally complicated as the wish to defend oneself and the wish to wield power can be so simply categorised. The concept of good and evil is an aesthetic but flawed philosophy and they are both in reality encompassed and replaced by humanity.
I wish it were so.Quote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
But Chicago, New York City, and others will fight to the end to deny people their rights.
The NRA is far from moot. States like California restrict semi-auto firearms to ridiculous levels (no detachable magazines, no pistol grips, etc.), others deny people the right to carry a gun to defend themselves. Others want to impose draconian registration requirements.
New Jersey threw a man in prison for seven years for having an unloaded pistol in the trunk of his car.
Obama does what he can to oppose gun rights.
We're a long way from being able to own and carry semi-auto handguns and rifles in the entire nation.
EDIT: Not to mention truly moronic laws about how some semi-auto rifles legal to own and make in the US cannot be imported, or how a certain number of parts on each rifle have to be made in the US or it's illegal to own.
Double EDIT: Also, the ATF will throw you in jail for merely possessing the parts to assemble an 'illegal' rifle - one with a barrel that's to short, for example. And all the stupid laws against rifles with short barrels.
CR
Chicago and New York City can battle and fight all they want, but the greater war has been decided. The law is the law and judges will see to it that it is carried out. They are not threats to your ownership.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
Clamoring over detachable magazines and pistol grips being banned is just as over the top as me hollering over the censorship of Carlin's Seven Dirty Words and declaring it to be an infringement of the First Amendment to the utmost extreme. The laws are moronic, of course, but it's not the tyranny coming to get ya over the hill as completely banning guns (or free speech) is. Those completely denying a gun to defend yourselves will also be washed away by the Supreme Court's ruling, it only takes time and enough lawyers. They are not a threat in the long run either. You will have to explain what "draconian" entails before I comment on that sentence.
The New Jersey case isn't black and white gun right infringement. There is a real discussion on the responsibility of gun owners. If an unloaded gun is left on the dashboard and someone breaks the car window grabs the gun and leaves that is now a black market gun with no way of tracing the user. That is irresponsible for a gun owner to simply leave his gun in such a place. Now granted this was in the trunk but if the law simply deemed the entire car as an irresponsible place to leave a handgun then the issue isn't tyranny, it is vague laws concerning responsibility.
That is what the NRA vanguard is for. Hire a lawyer and tear the bill apart in court. Nothing else needs to be done. No gun waving or speeches about cold, dead hands needed.
We're a long way from complete freedom from censorship, but that doesn't mean we lose our heads and think to ourselves it is all going to slip away from us at any moment.
Yes, your two edits are right in that they are moronic policies. However, the fact is you have your guns and they can't take them away from you under the authority of the Supreme Court of the United States which makes such laws and policies, an annoyance or hindrance, not tyranny.
In America, the mental image of the gun is a man barricaded behind the sofa, protecting his family.
In the rest of the World, the mental image of the gun is a tool with the sole purpose of killing and violence.
Europeans believe in the rule of Law.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beskar
Americans believes it is the right of everyone to acts as prosecutor, judge and executor.
An even shorter version:
Europe: person > property
America: person < property
@WarmanCake: kudos from driving forth all the "paranoid USA government people" ~;) (like any of them will ever rebel....they're about as threatening as a moist sponge)
I guess you didn't read the thread. Because I just described how the ruling in favor of gun rights is consistent with our adherence to the rule of law. The 2nd Amendment is the law and it applies whether we like it or not.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
You want to talk about rule of law, lets talk about the riots in Greece over the austerity law their elected government passed. I guess as long as we are picking and choosing which laws are "good" to revolt over we can still say we submit to their rule.
....And I don't see how that changes an americans desire to "settle things out of court" by executing a suspected criminal on the spot for the theft of a candy bar.Quote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
Well at least we don't have the Norwegian desire to touch little boys as shown by your post in the other thread (I can generalize too!). The left is supposed to be smarter and not resort to stereotyping in their arguments. We can't make a better society until we have mastered the complexity of it and we can't do that if we are making stupid arguments and statements like yours that are false and lead the conversation nowhere constructive.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
Either citizens are allowed to purchase weaponry that would truly allow the possibility of overthrow of the government - which would include heavy armour, jets etc - or realise that some things have changed in the last 200 or so years. Just look how the world was created in the last 6,000... Why do some love their ancient documents and fail to treat them as living documents?
As others have said, first the purpose needs to be defined. Once this has been done either classes or individual guns need to be allowed or disallowed according to this. For example, perhaps certain guns are suited for home defence but not for hunting - a sighted rifle might be ideal for big game, but not the living room when a MP-5 is more versatile.
~:smoking:
I know a guy in Huston who has an F-16. I know of several groups who own tanks,(fireable tanks). Automatic weapons are more problematic but if you are willing to jump through the hoops, put in place by a government perhaps a bit paranoid about citizens taking up arms, then you can own them in most states.
Money, of course is a big issue if you want to acquire them.
Yah, hate to be a wet noodle, but ACIN has it mostly right, the gun debate in America is pretty much over for a generation. We may fuss and fumble over the exact outline of the arrangement, but gun rights are now firmly in place, and nothing short of a constitutional amendment is going to change the status quo.
Crazed Rabbit is also right, it was the clear intent of the founding fathers to have citizens serve as both the primary defense and guardians of our liberties. Worth noting that a lot of them paired this belief with the notion that a standing army was incompatible with liberty (notable exception would be Alexander Hamilton, but then, he was a little crazy). So we have a standing army and an armed citizenship, which doesn't make a ton of sense, but who said we had to be consistent?
Freedoms from other countries that I would like to see imported: No-speed-limit autobahns from Germany. Now there is a form of liberty that I would like to see here! Also, drug decriminalization from The Netherlands. Any other freedoms we should consider importing?
You want the Portugal one. Drugs are illegal in the Netherlands but the only exception is Amsterdam.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
Stereotypes refer to people. I'm referring to your current set of laws.Quote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
It's your laws that say you have a desire to execute burglars, if that is not the way the people feels, then the law should obviously be changed.
Again, you aren't getting the equation correct from our perspective.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
Unlike Europe, much of which has steeped itself in the Marxist notion of labor's centrality to the politico-economic character of society, the USA, and its laws, are steeped in the Lockean tradition of life, liberty, and property as the central values.
Thus, the equation is NOT people < property, but instead people ~ property as property is a result of the effort/skills/capital/labor of the person owning it. As an extension of self, the defense of one's property is no more nor less reasonable than the defense of one's physical self or one's family.
Sadly, numerous localities in the USA limit this defense unduly, placing the burden of decision on the homeowner defending her property (is the thief still a threat? are they running away and 'inviolate?' etc.). Laws regarding defense of person and property vary a good bit.
Rabbit has nicely summarized the basics on the 2A. I am in complete agreement with him. If I wish to purchase a Stealth Fighter and have the coin to do so, then why should I not?
Hamilton may have been crazy, but he was not a dumbunny. I think he did have a few stray thoughts about following Napoleon's approach to power, though. The absence of a standing army of any size made that impossible.
Again our little communist friend from across the Atlantic demonstrates just how knowledgeable he is about American culture, society, and law. (or at least how many cheesy European stereotypes he believes)Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
On the subject of assault rifles, legal definition is completely messed up. No one seems to know exactly what an assault rifle is. I will be honest, I think that there is nothing wrong with allowing people to own fully automatic weapons. They really are not much more dangerous than semi-automatic. They are preferred by ignorant bozos who cannot aim, and therefore rely on spray and pray. A skilled shot with a bolt-action rifle or a revolver could take the average idiot with a full auto out if he ever decided to go on a shooting spree. If you are going to be a real threat to an armed and competent person, you are going to have to know how to aim and hit accurately. Semi-auto, 3 shot-burst, and even bolt-action are preferable to full auto for this. Full-auto has its uses, but is not the end all thing that people think. It just means that someone is gonna aim less, have to reload more often (more chances to get them), and think that they are tougher. How many times do you here about school shooters who go in with auto weapons and cannot kill more than 3-4 people expending several mags. I remember reading before about some Marine who went on a shooting spree with a bolt-action rifle and killed (if I recall correctly) about 30 people in a few mins. What matters is not the weapon to a great extent, but the person operating it. A skilled shooter if he wanted to go on a shooting spree could probably kill just as many or more people with a semi-auto. Automatic weapons seriously are not all that they are made out to be. They uses are primarily military oriented (such as massed suppressing fire), and there is a reason that most guns used by the military are select fire.
Chances are that if a person who knew what they were doing went on a shooting spree with such a weapon, they would mostly use sa or 3sb.
The media just likes to scare people.
Question: Do you have the right to mine fields in US? Mines are weapons? Or Hand Grenades?
That would be fun in the US Towns....
I think you are confusing peoples desire to protect their homes from invasion by arming themselves with a desire to murder, what you see as defenseless, criminals.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
I would assert that people have the right to protect the lives of themselves and others under their care. There are strict laws regarding the use of deadly force. Protection of property is entirely secondary. You must have a reasonable certainty that your life is in danger. People shooting a fleeing subject are usually brought up on charges.
It does not matter what implement or tool you use, for the most part.
Protecting your self is pretty much instinctual. (fight or flight)
Is it against the law in Norway to defend your self from assault?
Ah yes, of course, sorry 'bout that Seamus. We've been down that road quite a few times, a mix-up like that really shouldn't happen...Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
Anyway, as you know, the rest of my point still stands of course. As it is simply how things are viewed when property isn't connected to your person like that....
Fisherking: If I meant murder, I would've said murder, wouldn't I?
If I'm not mistaken, explosives are considered ordnance, guns are considered arms. Two different kettles of fish. And booby-trapping of any sort is highly frowned upon.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
Seriously, you Euros all think it's the wild west on this side of the pond. We do have laws about killing people over here, you need a really, really good reason. And "He needed killing" isn't one of them.
And maintenance. It's all well and good to own an Apache helicopter, but those monthly tune-ups aren't easy. Along with storage space and municipal paperwork for a fuel depot, a hangar, tow cart, the gentle understanding of the FAA, etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherking
So, the only thing that could even transiently threaten the state is a corporate army where the equipment is "loaned" by a "sponsor" to the individuals.
~:smoking:
The 2nd Amendment was confirmed by only one vote in the SCOTUS, on the most basic and fundamental interpretation.Quote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
A change in just one judge could lead to rulings that bans on semi-auto rifles are okay, that draconian registration regulations are alright (for safety!).
It's true that the tide has turned. But the battle for gun rights is far from over.
So leaving your gun in your car should lead to seven years in jail? I'm sorry, but criminally punishing people for not doing what the state decides is "enough" to prevent theft is a form of infringement.Quote:
The New Jersey case isn't black and white gun right infringement. There is a real discussion on the responsibility of gun owners. If an unloaded gun is left on the dashboard and someone breaks the car window grabs the gun and leaves that is now a black market gun with no way of tracing the user. That is irresponsible for a gun owner to simply leave his gun in such a place. Now granted this was in the trunk but if the law simply deemed the entire car as an irresponsible place to leave a handgun then the issue isn't tyranny, it is vague laws concerning responsibility.
Such laws are designed to make it potentially criminal to even own a gun by a law abiding citizen, and thereby deter ownership.
That 'ancient document' has led to one of the longest lasting democracies in the world. The way to change it is by going through the prescribed amendment route, not declaring it to be a 'living' document and ignoring the rule of law to suite your own needs.Quote:
Why do some love their ancient documents and fail to treat them as living documents?
CR
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beskar
I've never understood the smug, self-righteous attitude this issue brings out in Europeans; not to mention the wildly inaccurate depictions of America that highlight a serious lack of knowledge on the subject.Quote:
Originally Posted by Horetore
One could just as easily say that Europeans don't love freedom as much as Americans do, or that they have outsourced their personal safety to strangers whose response times are completely dependent on current traffic congestion.
Those are just talking points though.
The hard truth is that increasingly liberal gun laws yield marginally higher gun crime rates, and every society has a bit different cost/benefit analysis on the subject. Europeans in countries that have very restrictive gun laws can walk down the street knowing that they have little to fear from gun crime. Americans can walk down the street knowing that they have little to fear from gun crime as well, albeit with a .000X higher chance than their European counterparts, and a bit more freedom.
Also, gun ownership in America is not supported solely by anti-government, militia types. In fact, the main reason for gun ownership is personal safety.
Consider a young woman being stalked by an ex-boyfriend. She can get a restraining order, but the police can only take action against the man after he has broken it, and response time can often be well over 10 minutes - plenty of time for all sorts of awful acts. In America, the young woman has the option to invest in a level of personal protection that the police simply cannot supply.
Your chance referral is not quite correct: in the USA you are not yet 10^5 times more likely to be killed by a bullet than you are in, say, the Netherlands. Thankfully, in Virginia you still have to have a really, really good reason. ~;)Quote:
Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger
Seriously though: you are significantly more likely in the USA to be shot by someone, than you are in, say, the Netherlands. Significantly more likely, not just a bit more likely.
However the quick google statistics are made a bit more complicated by other issues: homicide rates, and of course criminal gangs and the like.
Here is an interesting list of countries by firearm-related death rate per 100,000 people. Is a .00007 chance per year of being killed by a gun versus a .0000036 (using the Netherlands) chance worth the price (ignoring the fact that such deaths are disproportionately skewed towards the inner city and gang violence)? Perspective is key... ~;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Tellos Athenaios
One vote is all you need. And each case sets precedent. No lower federal judge is going to go against the SCOTUS and accept a ban on only certain types of guns. And it is very unlikely that they are going to have another gun case where one judge is going to switch sides. Usually once the SCOTUS makes a decision, they move on to other cases talking about different subjects.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
Depending on where you leave the gun in your car, yes you should be jailed for a while. CR, get your head out of the ideological cloud, when you have a gun you have a responsibility as with all freedoms. You should be jailed for leaving you gun out on a table at Applebee's and then heading off to the bathroom. When you put the gun in an unreasonable situation for being stolen, the consequences are someone taking the gun and shooting some person they hate, dropping gun somewhere and potentially leaving no evidence. You are partly responsible for that death. I don't see how you can argue that it is ok for a gun owner to leave the gun anywhere.Quote:
So leaving your gun in your car should lead to seven years in jail? I'm sorry, but criminally punishing people for not doing what the state decides is "enough" to prevent theft is a form of infringement.
Such laws are designed to make it potentially criminal to even own a gun by a law abiding citizen, and thereby deter ownership.
Your second sentence is really over the top. Holding no accountability is not the same as freedom.
Umm, be careful CR. The only reason why the 2nd Amendment was incorporated was because about 110 years ago, the SCOTUS did use the Constitution as a living document by rejecting the philosophy that the Bill of Rights only applied to the Federal Government and set the precedent for enforcing the Bill of Right's onto the individual states. The Constitution needs to be treated as a living document because society changes at a faster pace then the Constitution can be changed to adapt to it. Your gun right's victory is because of that living treatment, whether or not you recognize it or appreciate it.Quote:
That 'ancient document' has led to one of the longest lasting democracies in the world. The way to change it is by going through the prescribed amendment route, not declaring it to be a 'living' document and ignoring the rule of law to suite your own needs.
CR
By your own link, England/Wales is reported with a .46/.38 compared with 10+ for the US. That is significant...Quote:
Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger
It's so funny you should say that. Because, as coincidence would have it, I have just started up a self-defense company.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
I have bought several hundred nuclear warheads in Central Asia. I've connected a remote control on them. With a single button on your cellphone you can control all of them instantly. You get to decide their targets. There are enough warheads to destroy the whole of the US with a single push of a button.
I've made the service available for $1.99 a yea, via an apps for you iPhone. I've called it iArmageddon. I'm counting on three hundred million subscribers in America before the end of next year.
What do you think? Is that a good idea? Should it be legal?
I should have put it this way: is it more dangerous to live in a country where people can legally own firearms or not?Quote:
Originally Posted by Glenn
What are the statistics on firearms uses in self-defence compared to firearms used aggressively? Until that is established, this talk about needing them for self-defence is just hand-waving.
I believe the point about "living document" applies on the level of shaping the debate on such issues. A large part of the current public debate seems largely focused on reconstructing the intent of the writers; the supporters of gun rights tend to say "we need gun rights because the founding father meant this and this." I think it's not a great generalisation to say we all agree that "guns are needed for citizens to be able to overthrow the government" is less realistic today than when the document was written.
Rather a gun than a tazer or pepper spray? These are deterrents which are generally sub-lethal and are of no or limited danger to anyone else.Quote:
Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger
She goes to a party and has had a few drinks and unwisely decides to walk home alone. Slightly more sober she's seriously spooked.
Some other idiot who was drinking sneaks up behind her and shouts "boo!"... and gets drilled twice in the chest.
Her ex-boyfriend does come along. She threatens him with a gun but he doesn't listen. She telegraphs when she's pulling the trigger and her aim and reaction times are seriously impeded. He dodges the bullet, but the guy 25 metres down the road doesn't.
There is something incongruous about something for "personal safety" that can still kill over 100 metres away.
~:smoking:
Including being of limited or no danger to criminals. Tasers are one shot weapons which are only effective in the right conditions even when they do hit - OR they require the user to be in grappling range. Pepper spray is useless for thwarting a determined attack - it just irritates the skin, it doesn't physically impede someone.Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
Also, in some cities tasers have been outlawed, and single woman carrying them for protection have been arrested. One city in Washington (where it's legal to openly carry a pistol if you're older than 21 with no permit, and getting a concealed carry permit is easy) has done this, and more elsewhere.
So she's drunk enough to have her judgement seriously affected, but sober enough to draw and double tap somebody in an instant?Quote:
She goes to a party and has had a few drinks and unwisely decides to walk home alone. Slightly more sober she's seriously spooked.
Some other idiot who was drinking sneaks up behind her and shouts "boo!"... and gets drilled twice in the chest.
You know, we already have laws allowing concealed carry of firearms. And the hypothetical scenarios you lay out remain just that - hypothetical and nonexistent.Quote:
Her ex-boyfriend does come along. She threatens him with a gun but he doesn't listen. She telegraphs when she's pulling the trigger and her aim and reaction times are seriously impeded. He dodges the bullet, but the guy 25 metres down the road doesn't.
There is something incongruous about something for "personal safety" that can still kill over 100 metres away.
As it turns out because of the physics of weapons, something needs to be effect 25m away if it's to be effective at all.
The majority of firearms deaths come from drug related gang violence. Staying out of the drug trade and not being in a gang reduces your risk considerably.Quote:
I should have put it this way: is it more dangerous to live in a country where people can legally own firearms or not?
I think we shouldn't based laws on extreme hypothetical scenarios with no chance of happening.Quote:
What do you think? Is that a good idea? Should it be legal?
I did not argue that it's okay for a gun owner to leave their gun around. Rather, that while being stupid they should not be liable for a criminal complaint for something like that - which directly results in no harm to anyone. The harm comes from the actions of others. I do not think people should be prosecuted on the chance somebody else may take their gun and do bad things with it.Quote:
Depending on where you leave the gun in your car, yes you should be jailed for a while. CR, get your head out of the ideological cloud, when you have a gun you have a responsibility as with all freedoms. You should be jailed for leaving you gun out on a table at Applebee's and then heading off to the bathroom. When you put the gun in an unreasonable situation for being stolen, the consequences are someone taking the gun and shooting some person they hate, dropping gun somewhere and potentially leaving no evidence. You are partly responsible for that death. I don't see how you can argue that it is ok for a gun owner to leave the gun anywhere.
Your second sentence is really over the top. Holding no accountability is not the same as freedom.
I thought SCOTUS incorporated rights because of the 14th amendment. :inquisitive:Quote:
Umm, be careful CR. The only reason why the 2nd Amendment was incorporated was because about 110 years ago, the SCOTUS did use the Constitution as a living document by rejecting the philosophy that the Bill of Rights only applied to the Federal Government and set the precedent for enforcing the Bill of Right's onto the individual states. The Constitution needs to be treated as a living document because society changes at a faster pace then the Constitution can be changed to adapt to it. Your gun right's victory is because of that living treatment, whether or not you recognize it or appreciate it.
CR
For example, An AK-47 maybe...... :idea2:Quote:
Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
Good luck overthrowing a government,escaplly in Europe.:laugh4:
Alternative scenario: Young woman pulls pistol on stalker, who pulls out the AK he was carrying for self defense.Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
We do that on a regular basis. It's called general election.Quote:
Originally Posted by AntiKingWarmanCake88
When was the last time a legally owned AK-47 assault rifle was used in a crime?Quote:
Originally Posted by AntiKingWarmanCake88
EDIT: Heck, when was the last time any AK-47 assault rifle was used in a crime? And why don't you say just why such weapons can't be used by civilians?
CR
Although the AK-47 is the best known, there are several others that have supplanted it over the years, and I imagine that there are few AK-47s that are used.
~:smoking:
My point is, real assault weapons (fully automatic fire capable) of any make are hardly ever used in crime. Even rifles of all types make up less than 5% of weapons used to kill in the US.
So how about less imagining and more hard facts for evidence semi-auto or assault rifles are actually involved in crime?
CR
Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
Quote:
Assuming access to guns, the top ten types of guns involved in crime in the U.S. show a definite trend in favoring handguns over long guns. The top ten guns used in crime, as reported by the ATF in 1993, included the Smith & Wesson .38 Special and .357 revolvers; Raven Arms .25 caliber, Davis P-380 .380 caliber, Ruger .22 caliber, Lorcin L-380 .380 caliber, and Smith & Wesson semi-automatic handguns; Mossberg and Remington 12 gauge shotguns; and the Tec DC-9
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_vio..._United_StatesQuote:
The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act, enacted in 1994, included the Federal Assault Weapons Ban, and was a response to public concern over mass shootings.[102] This provision prohibited the manufacture and importation of some semiautomatic firearms that exhibitied military style features such as a folding stock, pistol grip and flash suppressor, as well as magazines holding more than ten rounds.[102] A grandfather clause was included that allowed firearms manufactured before 1994 to remain legal. A short-term evaluation by University of Pennsylvania criminologists, Christopher S. Koper and Jeffrey A. Roth, did not find any clear impact of this legislation on gun violence.
So if a criminal wanted to hand guns off into the black market, all he would have to do is buy a bunch of guns legally, take them and then leave them somewhere for a bit and have someone "steal" them. Then he gets off free because it isn't his actions that will cause those guns to be used violently it's the people he worked with who "stole" them. This sort of reasoning, leaves loopholes for criminals for the benefit of what, the freedom to leave your gun where you wish?Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
It is their interpretation of the 14th Amendment that gave them the legal basis to incorporate the Bill of Right onto the States. But this interpretation did not suddenly appear along with the ratification of the 14th Amendment. 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868, for many years after its ratification, the SCOTUS still held that the Bill of Rights is only for the Federal government, see United_States_v._Cruikshank from 1875.Quote:
I thought SCOTUS incorporated rights because of the 14th amendment. :inquisitive:
CR
In fact take a look at that case very carefully CR. Let's go over the holding of that case from 1875:
The First Amendment right to assembly was not intended to limit the powers of the State governments in respect to their own citizens and the Second Amendment has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government.
So the precedent since the beginning of the country was that the Bill of Rights did not apply to the States and even after the 14th Amendment this view was given as the legal doctrine to be enforced.
In fact the first case of incorporation of the Bill of Rights did not happen until 1925, with Gitlow_v._New_York when that SCOTUS made their own interpretation of the 14th Amendment to allow incorporation. They went against precedent that stemmed all the way back to the founders and treated the Constitution as a living document, able to given new interpretations. And if it wasn't for treating it as a living document, well CR, Chicago would still be asking for your guns.
North Hollywood shootout-Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Hollywood_shootout
In my hometown of Pittsburgh PA-
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/09094/960660-100.stm
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23813856...me_and_courts/
Stop being paranoid about the government, you guys will never have a case to overthrow them you nuts.:idea2:
Enjoy the new year.
:balloon2:
Is it?Quote:
Originally Posted by ACIN
Eliminating suicides brings America's stat to approximately 7. Now, in the range of 0-7, the difference is highly significant. However, in the range of 0-100,000, I would argue that it is not.
My point being that while you do have a statistically higher chance of being shot and killed in America than in Europe, the actual chance that you will die by gunfire in either place is highly remote.
Certainly. I wouldn't trust my life to pepper spray. :dizzy2:Quote:
Originally Posted by Rory
Why would the girl in the example walk home alone? I understand that you are reaching to try and invalidate the example, but such hypotheticals should at least make sense.Quote:
She goes to a party and has had a few drinks and unwisely decides to walk home alone. Slightly more sober she's seriously spooked.
An example is not a definition.Quote:
Originally Posted by AntiKingWarmanCake88
What characteristics of the AK-47 make it more dangerous and/or deadly than other firearms?
What about hunting rifles like this? Would you ban them?
https://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y1...248KzAQxX1.jpg
Are you suggesting that in the course of a year there are no women who unwisely walk home alone?
And why be afraid when you've got a semi-automatic pistol in one's handbag - I thought that these guns make people safe?
~:smoking:
Semi-auto rifles illegally modified into assault rifles. Can you explain how making assault rifles illegal would have stopped that?Quote:
Originally Posted by AntiKingWarmanCake88
Wrong. It was a semi-auto rifle, not an assault rifle.Quote:
That is a stupid article written by a stupid reporter. It is thin on facts and long on fear mongering. All incidents cited are of semi-auto weapons, not assault rifles.
None of your links are examples of the criminal misuse of a legally owned assault rifle.
What's paranoia got to do with it? And you haven't even begun to explain why assault rifle use cannot be defended. Also, what is and is not a 'legitimate civilian weapon'?Quote:
Stop being paranoid about the government, you guys will never have a case to overthrow them you nuts.:idea2:
CR
For a Frenchie? Consult French law on the subject. I'm not informed well enough on that system of laws/rights/etc. to speak ot the issue.Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
Here in the USA? You have a personal right to keep and bear arms. The Constitution has NOT been interpreted as you having a right to a private army to enforce your will, or a private nuclear arms service for that matter. Multiple subscribers for such a service would probably not fly. So my thoughts are such that, if you can personally buy and use such weapons, then so be it. The government should not be able to infringe upon such. They may have some grounds for denying an indirect provider service from giving you access to such weapons -- while not preventing outright ownership. Gun rental isn't big over here, at least in terms of exiting the range with the weapon still in hand.
Actually, PJ, if you run the chi square on it, you would quickly determine that a .4 versus a seven is highly significant statistically. What that cannot prove, of itself, is whether firearms are the cause of INTENTIONAL deaths. However, even there, recent statistics suggest that you are more than thrice as likely to be intentionally killed in the USA as you are to be killed intentionally in the UK. The question is whether the difference is firearms, culture, or both.Quote:
Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger
My gut reaction is to view firearms as one of the reasons for the difference. Such weapons are readily available, lethal even with limited or no training in their use, and often very portable. The ready availability of such tools suggests that, when drunk or upset, the typical American is far more likely to have a gun available with which to vent their frustrations than is the typical Brit. The likelihood of an attack of some form is probably pretty similar in both cultures, but the Yank is likely more lethally armed and more likely to kill the person who has angered them. Moreover, the ready availability of weapons yields a higher number of accidental gun deaths (though there is nothing in the data to suggest that we're more likely to have such accidents than some other culture, only that we have more weapons per person and hence more accidents).
Personal firearms are a right and a guarantor of rights and freedoms. In strict terms of physical safety, the confiscation of all such weapons and their restriction to government military use only is likely to result if fewer deaths.
To me, the right is worth the price.
Again, while the difference may be statistically significant, that does not mean that the average American has a significant chance of being killed by gunfire in the traditional sense of the word. Gun control advocates mix the two to try to create public anxiety over guns, which is likely the reason that our European friends have such a skewed understanding of American life.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
Speaking of stats, here are a few that I found interesting.
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
And finally...
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
So it appears that the unfortunate case of our young woman double-tapping her friend by mistake would be an exceedingly rare event. :book:
So, the streets of the US are so unsafe that you need to carry a small firearm (or a tank for shopping).
Don’t bother about a supposed will from the Federal Government to take you Freedom away. It is already done.
If you can’t wander in the streets without a full gear and back-up, well, I understand why Bush believed and still believes that the Iraqis are better now that before.
So in fact, all the mobs and gangsters can have all the weapons they are ready to pay for?
Guys, awake, they will win… And they will be ready, not you… They will not hesitate to shoot to innocent by passers… You will…
And when the police will arrive, they won’t no the bad from the goods, and with all theses bullets flying over…
One think scared me: I was at the Airport when a stupid man drove his car in, hoping blowing-up some people. The reaction was to send untrained Police officers armed with submachine gun. I hope without bullets in the magazine because I can’t imagine what effect would be if a terrorist started to shoot to people. My guess is the Police Force would have kill more innocent than the terrorist.
And even if the terrorist just pretend to have a gun…
Ok, you have your weapon. In the shop centre, hoops, bullets start to fly. Because you are courageous, you go and you see several people shooting at each others and, well, because you have now your weapon in hand, both side not knowing (at least one) in which camp you are shoot at you. To whom you answer?
Statistical significance and practical significance are often conflated, and this I think is one situation where it is particularly likely. It sounds like the chances of being killed by firearm violence are unquestionably higher in the US than in Europe. The question is, are they enough higher for it to matter?Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
Ajax
edit:
Nice dystopian fantasy. Have you ever been to the US?Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
Why do communists drink herbal tea?Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
Because proper tea is theft!
:drummer:
Oh boy. This is a perfect example of the lack of understanding I was talking about.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
To carry a weapon in public, every state (IIRC) requires a permit. Part of obtaining that permit is attending and passing a class on proper firearms handling and appropriate usage.Quote:
So in fact, all the mobs and gangsters can have all the weapons they are ready to pay for?
Guys, awake, they will win… And they will be ready, not you… They will not hesitate to shoot to innocent by passers… You will…
And when the police will arrive, they won’t no the bad from the goods, and with all theses bullets flying over…
One think scared me: I was at the Airport when a stupid man drove his car in, hoping blowing-up some people. The reaction was to send untrained Police officers armed with submachine gun. I hope without bullets in the magazine because I can’t imagine what effect would be if a terrorist started to shoot to people. My guess is the Police Force would have kill more innocent than the terrorist.
And even if the terrorist just pretend to have a gun…
Ok, you have your weapon. In the shop centre, hoops, bullets start to fly. Because you are courageous, you go and you see several people shooting at each others and, well, because you have now your weapon in hand, both side not knowing (at least one) in which camp you are shoot at you. To whom you answer?
In said classes, people are taught that firearm use is only acceptable as a last resort when the operator's life or the life of another is clearly in danger. They are taught that one should only draw and discharge one's weapon when every other avenue has been rendered unacceptable - including calling the police, giving up personal property, and fleeing. Such instructions preclude jumping into a firefight, guns ablaze.
I too must ask whether you have ever been to the United States. Surely just a few days in country would eliminate such Wild West fantasies.
I used to be a big control control advocate, but changed my mind when I realized that the situation is a Pandora's Box. Like it or not, guns are already everywhere in the US. It's impossible to get rid of them, so pointless to even have the argument. What can be done is to place proper checks on purchasing weapons so that people cannot purchase them when they are mentally ill or in a temporary rage. The rules implementing those checks are very weak in some states, but they can be improved. Banning them outright is just pointless.
As for the assault weapon thing... no one commits crimes with those things. The issue is handguns, pure and simple.
It sounds like you are in favour of control, but view that banning is not realistic. I think that there are further refinements that should be made in terms of regulating storage and implimenting "smart" features that are coming into all other walks of life but remain firmly out of guns.
~:smoking:
“Nice dystopian fantasy. Have you ever been to the US?”
Yes I did.
And I don’t think you need a weapon in the US streets…you, guys, are the ones who think so.
“Oh boy. This is a perfect example of the lack of understanding I was talking about.” Just reading what is posted… Girl alone in the street needs a gun, shoot to people walking on my garden, right to have a nuclear bomb, right to have minefields, right to defend against my neighbours’ nuclear bomb…
“In said classes, people are taught that firearm use is only acceptable as a last resort when the operator's life or the life of another is clearly in danger”: Yeah, and in classes people are taught to be polite, no swearing, to be respectful of the elders and to never hit a woman. And we all obey the rules…
Stop kidding, please:
I was in the Army. And I know what is this strange feeling to have weapons in your hand. The power of Death and Life, the fear mixed with “Respect” when you arrived in a village during a night exercise, faces blackened, dirty, smelly but with your Assault Rifle…
Do you ever, ever, experiment this Power when an Armoured Division deployed in an open plain, with the ground shacking under your APC’s caterpillars.
We speak here not of freedom, and the respect of the Constitution…
We speak of the NRA greed and money in one side.
And we speak of weapons on the other. I like weapon. I like to carry weapon. I like to use weapons. I use a lot of them, from missile (Milan) to 20 mm canon, gun, machine guns, riffle assault rifles, grenade (all of them), mines, learned how to blow-up bridges, buildings, railways. I used flamethrower (rule is to use it only on obstacle, not on human, yeah right), learned how to strangle people, knife them in the back etc. I was a trained soldier…
So, you can tell me you want to have weapons. I understand the feeling.
But, to pretend it is to defend your rights that no body want to take from you, please…
Have more faith in your Army and Soldiers…
In France the last Coup failed because the soldiers and most of the Hierarchy refused to follow…
In allowing weapons for all, you in fact increase the danger on you freedom. You give power to individual the right to shoot who they want (even after the classes) when they want.
Those who read me know I am a leftist, a combat one. I have no past of criminality; even I am a “veteran”.
So if I was a US citizen, a part the left side, I am a perfect citizen.
So I would have the right to have weapons.
So I would be able to create a group (armed) that is more a threat for you than a Federal imaginary will to take your freedom away…
In a pure Robert Heinlein "Starship Troopers" books (not movie, please) fashion...
And this is true for all political and religious groups, extremist or not…
Free access to weapons is the door from simple accidents to organised plots (private militias to mobsters).
No, we give the power to the individual the ability to shoot who they want. There is no right to taking another life. The actions you take with your firearm will be judged based on the circumstances and the laws of the locality.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
Which is like telling a little innocent girl: “Here, you see this? That is an apple. It tastes great. Don't eat it.”
What?Quote:
Originally Posted by Tellos Athenaios
People don’t usually put themselves in danger just so they can shoot someone.
What makes you think that all Americans are a bunch of Hollywood trigger-happy cowboys?
American movies?Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherking
Please read:Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherking
We're well past the self defence argument now. You are, apparently, given the ability to shoot who you want but you are expected not to exercise that ability. Which is not at all unlike telling people how to get the apple and then telling them to no do that anyway.Quote:
No, we give the power to the individual the ability to shoot who they want. There is no right to taking another life. The actions you take with your firearm will be judged based on the circumstances and the laws of the locality.
The Constitution of the United States gives citizens the right to keep and bear arms. There is no right to shoot whom you will.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tellos Athenaios
This is more of a deliberate misunderstanding or misreading rather than what is a right.
Americans tend to mistrust government and have more faith in their fellow citizens.
Evidently those in Europe tend to put faith in their governments but distrust their neighbors.
In my experience your fellow citizens are far more likely to help you without seeking power over you than is any government.
Please read again. If that were my understanding, I'd've omitted “not” somewhere in my apple story wouldn't I?Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherking
My issue is that from a self-defense perspective guns are not that useful: as Brennus hinted at those who you would trust with a gun are those who would think twice about using it, but the situations wherein a gun is truly useful mean those people won't get that opportunity because the other type doesn't. In other situations, guns are overkill --literally. Much more useful to go on a self-defense course if you feel you need it.
EDIT: I should add that I apply the logic of “time and a place for everything” on guns. This leads me to think that you can play with guns to your hearts content, but not en plein public: that hobby does not belong there. So I strongly disagree with the notion that the “right to bear arms” implies the right to do that wherever you please.
Really? Or perhaps it goes without saying that self-defense should be completely and utterly necessary, that there is a basic guarantee of your safety?Quote:
Americans tend to mistrust government and have more faith in their fellow citizens.
Evidently those in Europe tend to put faith in their governments but distrust their neighbors.
In my experience you help other people out about as much as other people help you out. But then again, that's small things. The help from government is a completely different relationship. Mainly because the government does not expect something equal in return; government is like a charity here. Incidentally, that is the basis for this part of government.Quote:
In my experience your fellow citizens are far more likely to help you without seeking power over you than is any government.
Don't mistake that for the other part of government which says “thou shalt not murder” to you: that part is the bit where your current and past society tells you what is and more often what is not accepted behaviour. But I take it you don't actually have a problem with that.
So killing people without cause is being compared to eating a tasty apple?Quote:
Originally Posted by Tellos Athenaios
I think I need to reiterate something for our non-American friends: your doomsday scenarios and worrying about people going about shooting others because they can (just like others go about running people over with cars just because they can :rolleyes:) are totally without basis. We know this to be true because most states allow people to carry a concealed weapon with a permit. Some, Alaska and New Hampshire, allow anyone 21 or older to carry a concealed gun without any permit so long as they aren't a convicted criminal.
And still these states do not resemble your imagined dystopias.
In terms of self defense, the facts state that using a gun for defense means you're less likely to be injured.
And no one should be starving or sick in this world either. Let's not base policy on unattainable utopias, shall we?Quote:
Or perhaps it goes without saying that self-defense should be completely and utterly necessary, that there is a basic guarantee of your safety?
CR
To reiterate then, we do not need to make any assumptions about dystopias just yet. We merely have to observe a few key things:Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
(1) The probability of armed violence rises with the general availability of arms (and population size/density). Thus the absolute rates of violence tend to rise accordingly, as well.
(2) The non-violent (well at least not violent towards your fellow humans) use of arms are limited to a few specific settings; e.g.: sport.
(3) Those settings do not include the wider public space, not even the confines of a home.
(4) Violence using arms does occur in the public space.
Ergo, there is no pressing benefit particular to guns from allowing the use or possession of these in public space, but there is a definite cost to it.
Because the other person will be? The facts also state you're less likely to be injured in certain places where guns are de facto banned and self-defense using guns is therefore not an option. Vastly less likely, in fact; see the point I reiterated above.Quote:
In terms of self defense, the facts state that using a gun for defense means you're less likely to be injured.
Which isn't the case at all. The law/policy is based around the fact that people who want to enjoy guns for whatever it is about guns that fascinates them can do so on, say, a shooting range or a hunt, and that banning guns outside of that use improves the conditions for all. Funnily enough, it works.Quote:
And no one should be starving or sick in this world either. Let's not base policy on unattainable utopias, shall we?
Seamus, at least, admits that to him to interpret the right to keep and bear arms unconditionally is worth 21000 deaths a year. (That's what the stat of 7 per 100K works out on the USA population rounded down to 300M.)
Obviously the classes and/or common sense are paying off. In 2007, in a nation of 302 million people, there were 613 fatal firearms accidents. Again, it seems that these hypotheticals of people shooting their friends in a drunken stupor and jumping into random firefights and shooting innocents or being shot themselves are very rare.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
Just because you experienced some sort of weird power trip while handling weaponry does not mean that it is a common occurrence.Quote:
Stop kidding, please:
I was in the Army. And I know what is this strange feeling to have weapons in your hand. The power of Death and Life, the fear mixed with “Respect” when you arrived in a village during a night exercise, faces blackened, dirty, smelly but with your Assault Rifle…
Do you ever, ever, experiment this Power when an Armoured Division deployed in an open plain, with the ground shacking under your APC’s caterpillars.
Lol, what?Quote:
Originally Posted by Tellos
The stats say differently. Gun restrictions/bans here in the States and in Europe have had no noticeable positive effect on violence and public safety. It could even be argued that in some places they had a negative one.Quote:
Which isn't the case at all. The law/policy is based around the fact that people who want to enjoy guns for whatever it is about guns that fascinates them can do so on, say, a shooting range or a hunt, and that banning guns outside of that use improves the conditions for all. Funnily enough, it works.
Don't worry. They all looked at me funny too, when I asked about nuclear arms to defend against government tyranny. They see things in a different light, the gun debate runs along different lines. :beam:Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
And we all know how accurate these are. :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Beskar
“Just because you experienced some sort of weird power trip while handling weaponry does not mean that it is a common occurrence.”
May be true, may be true…:laugh4:
But I won’t trust somebody carrying a weapon and who wouldn’t have the feeling of what power he/she is supposed to unleash or control…
And I spoke with colleagues and former colleagues/comrades in arms… The first time you’ve got your weapons, when you are finally allowed to carry a weapon, you feel something, like when the flag goes up the sky…
If you don’t, you miss something…
Well, he asked where you see Hollywood American Cow-boy Gunho... so they are pretty accurate at doing that.Quote:
Originally Posted by drone
Yeah I know. I'm sure all the firearms in the movies the "The Town" and "Heat" were legally obtained.Quote:
Originally Posted by drone
No, he asked:Quote:
Originally Posted by Beskar
People on this board constantly rail about how Hollywood portrays historical events. Why would you think they portray modern life without spicing it up some?Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherking
Why would one need movies, when you've got people like the 911-call about a guy who told the operator he was going to kill the guys who were looting some stuff from his neighbor? And the tons of people who supported him?Quote:
Originally Posted by drone
Just a few points:
1. On one very important level, all of this argumentation is moot. The citizens and residents of the USA possess millions of weapons, most of them firearms. To this point, our Constitution has been construed (rightly in my opinion) to protect the personal ownership of arms by US citizens. ANY attempt to alter this would involve, on some level, an effort by government (local or federal) to cofiscate weapons from citizens. As TinCow has correctly pointed out, that simply will not happen. Even were the government to attempt it seriously, a civil revolt of unheard-of magnitude would be the result -- and many of those who bear arms for the government would not support the effort in the first place (and might well line up on the other side of the dispute). So this argument is really on a somewhat hypothetical level anyway.
2. TA makes some good points. However, as has been noted by historical researchers, for example W.E. Hollon's Frontier Violence: Another Look or Hill & Anderson's The Not So Wild, Wild West: Property Rights on the Frontier, suggest that the rate of deadly violence -- by firearm or otherwise -- was significantly lower in the Old West than in a modern city. This despite the fact that firearms were virtually ubiquitous. Does this not undercut your first point?
3. Even if we accept the notion that the prevelance of firearms itself begets violence and more deadly violence, and therefore accept TA's argument that public safety is not better served by individuals protecting themselves, the reason for firearms was not, according to the founders, primarily for the purpose personal protection or of hunting, but to provide citizens with the werewithal to resist tyranny should it arise. It is this latter reason that leaves me inclined toward the opinion that almost any restriction of arms is unconstitutional.
If I remember correctly, in the book Freakonomics, the authors actually claimed that the data doesn't hold up that statement at all but it continues to be repeated because it is such a great talking point politically.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
Really? I have handled guns since I was five years old, and guarantee you that if it was necessary to protect my life or the life of my family, I would not hesitate for a moment. If you do not know when it is appropriate to use a firearm in self-defense, and you have questions about whether you could or not, it will still serve as a deterrent. How many times have people been able to hold criminals at bay while the police were called? Some times with an unloaded gun! :PQuote:
Originally Posted by Tellos Athenaios
Oh really? No place in the home? So I guess the fact that I target shoot right out side my house and hunt in the property outside of my house isn't enough to make the house a place for non-violent (toward humans) gun use? Do I really have to drive for an hour to go to the nearest gun range when I could just shoot on my own property?Quote:
Originally Posted by Tellos Athenaios
@Tellos Athenaios
You insist that guns cause violence and that if you give someone the means to kill someone they will. How do you explain that my father and mother, myself, and all five of my siblings have been shooting since we were children, and not only never had a firearm accident, but have never decided to go kill someone? I have over 30 guns in my house and thousands of rounds of ammunition, surely that is means enough for you, and yet all I have ever done is target shoot with them and hunt occasionally.
Your argument is really not a good one, because a car, your hands, a butter knife, a sharp stick, etc could all be effective means of killing an unarmed person. I guess that means that even Canadians and Euros have the means to kill people, and yet (shockingly) they do not!
Criminals own guns to kill people (and usually obtain them legally), the legal gun owner owns them to collect, to hunt with, to target/sports shoot with, etc.