PDA

View Full Version : Special Forces statement on gun control.



Dirk
1 Feb 2013, 04:02am
Yes I know these gun control things are getting old but I recently read this and it is a very well written statement.
A Letter From The Special Forces Community Concerning The Second Amendment - Articles - Articles - News - Awesome Shit My Drill Sergeant Said (http://asmdss.com/page/news.html/_/articles/letter-from-special-forces-to-america-2nd-amendment.html)

Eskomo
1 Feb 2013, 11:58am
This made me laugh, "The Constitution of the United States is without a doubt the single greatest document in the history of mankind"

Amurrrrrrikaaa, fuck yeah.

Kippe
1 Feb 2013, 01:11pm
Sorry,
asmdss.com is not currently accessible because it is categorized as adult.language.


fuck my school

anyone have a different link?

Tamahome
1 Feb 2013, 05:49pm
This was a great read. Nice find.

Devastator4455
1 Feb 2013, 06:54pm
Haha this whole thing is just stupid... There shouldnt be a gun ban, maybe a restriction to how many guns in a house hold and how many people in a state (With a good reputation, no history of crimes)

Tamahome
2 Feb 2013, 03:51am
maybe a restriction to how many guns in a house hold and how many people in a state (With a good reputation, no history of crimes)

That would be just as ineffective.

Revolution18
2 Feb 2013, 10:51am
Yes I know these gun control things are getting old but I recently read this and it is a very well written statement.
A Letter From The Special Forces Community Concerning The Second Amendment - Articles - Articles - News - Awesome Shit My Drill Sergeant Said (http://asmdss.com/page/news.html/_/articles/letter-from-special-forces-to-america-2nd-amendment.html)
Thank you for posting this and These are the kind of people who should be talking about this I agree with a good amount of what they said.

joebundy
2 Feb 2013, 11:37am
if you make stricter gun laws is stupid look at the facts. Sweden has a law that says MALES MUST CARRY A WEAPON WITH THEM AT ALL TIME!! and they have the worlds 3 LEAST AMMOUNT OF GUN MURDERS. Then is that dosent convince you look at chicago. that have the strictest gun law in the states and they also have the MOST GUN MURDERS IN THE COUNTRY.Its not the people or the law its our country and our morles. USA= terrible morales.If anything they should do a background check on you and anyone else you LIVE WITH. See if anyones mentally ill or has past crimes.and maybe if you want make a gun cap in certain states.

Fartingo
2 Feb 2013, 01:29pm
This made me laugh, "The Constitution of the United States is without a doubt the single greatest document in the history of mankind"

Amurrrrrrikaaa, fuck yeah.

Quoth the guy with "Canada > World" above his banner.

Eskomo
2 Feb 2013, 02:02pm
Quoth the guy with "Canada > World" above his banner.
Right saying Canada is the greatest country (not to mention it's not meant to be serious) in a custom title feature on a gaming forum is the same as what this guy did here...

The guy who wrote the letter is clearly trying to be serious with this. And for him to say that "without a doubt" and "history of mankind", sounds foolish and the letter loses all credibility for me. Actually I stopped reading it all together after that. If he had said the history of the States or something that would have been fine. But to force his opinion on the entire "history of mankind" is just complete bullshit. Also, saying "without a doubt", which is pretty belittling to those readers who don't agree with him, makes me dislike the writer and stop reading.

Sniper
2 Feb 2013, 02:25pm
Right saying Canada is the greatest country (not to mention it's not meant to be serious) in a custom title feature on a gaming forum is the same as what this guy did here...

The guy who wrote the letter is clearly trying to be serious with this. And for him to say that "without a doubt" and "history of mankind", sounds foolish and the letter loses all credibility for me. Actually I stopped reading it all together after that. If he had said the history of the States or something that would have been fine. But to force his opinion on the entire "history of mankind" is just complete bullshit. Also, saying "without a doubt", which is pretty belittling to those readers who don't agree with him, makes me dislike the writer and stop reading.

As they are responsible for defending the Constitution, I would expect them to say that it is the most important document in mankind. You should give them credit since they risk their lives to do so.

Fartingo
2 Feb 2013, 02:37pm
Right saying Canada is the greatest country (not to mention it's not meant to be serious) in a custom title feature on a gaming forum is the same as what this guy did here...

The guy who wrote the letter is clearly trying to be serious with this. And for him to say that "without a doubt" and "history of mankind", sounds foolish and the letter loses all credibility for me. Actually I stopped reading it all together after that. If he had said the history of the States or something that would have been fine. But to force his opinion on the entire "history of mankind" is just complete bullshit. Also, saying "without a doubt", which is pretty belittling to those readers who don't agree with him, makes me dislike the writer and stop reading.

But I honestly cannot think of a better historical document. There are ones that come close; The 95 Thesis, The Magna Carta, Hammurabi's Code, but none of them reach the level of significance of the U.S. Constitution. It guarantees rights that only years before were completely conditional based on a territory's loyalty, and does it more eloquently and absolutely than any other I know. For Americans, our Constitution is more than just a fancy piece of paper, It's the promise that our lives are our own, and that any government exists only because we allow it. It's more important than any person, any party, or even any god. I'm no expert on Canadian politics, but surely you must have something you hold as dearly. The people behind this letter are our finest soldiers who are expected, above all else, to uphold and defend the Constition with their lives, and you dismissed their arguement purely for their patriotism. Having a strong opinion on something isn't 'forcing' it on anyone, and it can't be forced on you, regardless of whether you're American or not.

You would've seen a similar explaination for these men's stance if you just read a little further into the same damn paragraph;


Our Constitution established a system of governance that preserves, protects, and holds sacrosanct the individual rights and primacy of the governed as well as providing for the explicit protection of the governed from governmental tyranny and/or oppression. We have witnessed the insidious and iniquitous effects of tyranny and oppression on people all over the world. We and our forebears have embodied and personified our organizational motto, De Oppresso Liber [To Free the Oppressed], for more than a half century as we have fought, shed blood, and died in the pursuit of freedom for the oppressed.

vorter
2 Feb 2013, 05:37pm
The "world's greatest document" is highly subjective. Opinions differ.
I think we CAN agree that the US Constitution is ONE of the most important documents in history.

Lux
2 Feb 2013, 06:12pm
People have a go at Muslims, Christians etc for following a book 1/2 thousand+ years old. Is following a constitution from a few hundred years ago that much worse? Things change, if you get stuck in the past, you can't blame others for thinking you're old fashioned and out of touch.

Also, having guns to protect yourself from your own government. Lol... it's ridiculous. You're not living in Syria. Having guns isn't going to prevent your country becoming Syria either.

If your country's government is going to fuck it's citizens over in this day and age (let's face it... is the USA really going to do that?).... then having a few guns isn't going to help you. It was relevant when you wanted to protect yourself from British people, not so much now.

Frostbyte
2 Feb 2013, 07:59pm
What's astonishing about the American Constitution is how well put together it is for the time period in which they had to actually sit down and write it. Not to mention how hard it is to amend it.

XeNo
2 Feb 2013, 09:29pm
The guy who wrote the letter is clearly trying to be serious with this. And for him to say that "without a doubt" and "history of mankind", sounds foolish and the letter loses all credibility for me. Actually I stopped reading it all together after that. If he had said the history of the States or something that would have been fine. But to force his opinion on the entire "history of mankind" is just complete bullshit. Also, saying "without a doubt", which is pretty belittling to those readers who don't agree with him, makes me dislike the writer and stop reading.
Ignore entire letter and purpose, focus on one line instead.

Tamahome
2 Feb 2013, 09:43pm
People have a go at Muslims, Christians etc for following a book 1/2 thousand+ years old. Is following a constitution from a few hundred years ago that much worse?

It's not the age of those books that make them ridiculous to follow.

Itch
2 Feb 2013, 09:48pm
People have a go at Muslims, Christians etc for following a book 1/2 thousand+ years old. Is following a constitution from a few hundred years ago that much worse? Things change, if you get stuck in the past, you can't blame others for thinking you're old fashioned and out of touch.

Also, having guns to protect yourself from your own government. Lol... it's ridiculous. You're not living in Syria. Having guns isn't going to prevent your country becoming Syria either.

If your country's government is going to fuck it's citizens over in this day and age (let's face it... is the USA really going to do that?).... then having a few guns isn't going to help you. It was relevant when you wanted to protect yourself from British people, not so much now.

The difference is that the U.S. Constitution is a "living document" in that it has the means built into it to legally and by the will of the people be modified to the ever changing world we live in.
Such as the 18th amendment that was overturned later by the 21st amendment.

It was made to be flexible and has proven to be functional despite the fact that the original draft was written so long ago.

I for one am glad I have the right to stand up to my government when they go past what I feel is reasonable and have the means as a protected right within that constitution to do so.

Can you as a citizen write law. Under the constitution any American citizen and write and propose a law and in some cases an average American with no political ties has done just that, written a bill and had it eventually become law.

Say what you will, but few other countries do the citizens have as much say in how they are governed.

XeNo
3 Feb 2013, 12:18am
People have a go at Muslims, Christians etc for following a book 1/2 thousand+ years old. Is following a constitution from a few hundred years ago that much worse? Things change, if you get stuck in the past, you can't blame others for thinking you're old fashioned and out of touch.

Also, having guns to protect yourself from your own government. Lol... it's ridiculous. You're not living in Syria. Having guns isn't going to prevent your country becoming Syria either.

If your country's government is going to fuck it's citizens over in this day and age (let's face it... is the USA really going to do that?).... then having a few guns isn't going to help you. It was relevant when you wanted to protect yourself from British people, not so much now.
The entire purpose of owning guns isn't solely for purpose of protecting ourselves from the government, it serves other purposes. In the event of an invasion, the American people will be armed to defend the country, military or not.

Also, US Citizens owning somewhere around 300 million guns in total isn't just "a few guns".

Edit: 300 million is apparently closer.

Harpr33t
3 Feb 2013, 01:01am
if you make stricter gun laws is stupid look at the facts. Sweden has a law that says MALES MUST CARRY A WEAPON WITH THEM AT ALL TIME!! and they have the worlds 3 LEAST AMMOUNT OF GUN MURDERS. Then is that dosent convince you look at chicago. that have the strictest gun law in the states and they also have the MOST GUN MURDERS IN THE COUNTRY.Its not the people or the law its our country and our morles. USA= terrible morales.If anything they should do a background check on you and anyone else you LIVE WITH. See if anyones mentally ill or has past crimes.and maybe if you want make a gun cap in certain states.

Let me educate you.

-You are wrong about the law in Sweden. The reason is they have one of the least gun murders is due to a variety of reason such as low population, low immigration, high quality of life, being highly educated and trained.

- Chicago does indeed have one of the nation's strictest gun laws but if you look at where Chicago is located you'll see these gun laws are only go for WITH IN Chicago's city limits. I can leave the city and go to a variety of gun shows and buy as many guns as I want and sneak them in, If you want gun laws to work, they have to be implemented at the federal level.

- The only one who stands infront of extending backround checks is the NRA which has been proven to be simply a lobbying group for firearm manufacturers.

Dirk
3 Feb 2013, 02:21am
People have a go at Muslims, Christians etc for following a book 1/2 thousand+ years old. Is following a constitution from a few hundred years ago that much worse? Things change, if you get stuck in the past, you can't blame others for thinking you're old fashioned and out of touch.

Also, having guns to protect yourself from your own government. Lol... it's ridiculous. You're not living in Syria. Having guns isn't going to prevent your country becoming Syria either.

If your country's government is going to fuck it's citizens over in this day and age (let's face it... is the USA really going to do that?).... then having a few guns isn't going to help you. It was relevant when you wanted to protect yourself from British people, not so much now.

The purpose is to establish into law the basic human rights that people hold. I fail to see how basic human rights would be any different 300 years later. Thats kinda the point.

Tamahome
3 Feb 2013, 03:01am
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=6gik_VHwIuo

Lux
3 Feb 2013, 09:35am
The entire purpose of owning guns isn't solely for purpose of protecting ourselves from the government, it serves other purposes. In the event of an invasion, the American people will be armed to defend the country, military or not.

Also, US Citizens owning somewhere around 300 million guns in total isn't just "a few guns".

Edit: 300 million is apparently closer.

Yes, I'm sure there are lots of reasons. You could use a gun to smack hit your kids or something. I'm talking about reasonable reasons. The kind of reasons that make having 300 million killing machines in the hands of general people worthwhile. I'm sure if America is invaded, having guns would be pretty useful. But that's why you have an army, IDK if people have been playing too much COD campaigns but an invasion is pretty unlikely with the nuclear consequences it would have.


The difference is that the U.S. Constitution is a "living document" in that it has the means built into it to legally and by the will of the people be modified to the ever changing world we live in.
Such as the 18th amendment that was overturned later by the 21st amendment.

It was made to be flexible and has proven to be functional despite the fact that the original draft was written so long ago.

I for one am glad I have the right to stand up to my government when they go past what I feel is reasonable and have the means as a protected right within that constitution to do so.

Can you as a citizen write law. Under the constitution any American citizen and write and propose a law and in some cases an average American with no political ties has done just that, written a bill and had it eventually become law.

Say what you will, but few other countries do the citizens have as much say in how they are governed.

Well, that's what I was trying to establish. If it's a "living document" that can be modified, then the argument of "we need to protect the 2nd amendment because it's there and shouldn't be changed, the constitution is sacred etc" is invalid.

You have the right to stand up to your government... do you really think that it would go any further than those protests a year or two ago? If you go marching on the government/law armed, you're going to be killed. Which is another thing, not necessarily a problem that police are armed in an armed nation, but they can get trigger happy.

I don't know about how laws are made exactly, or if a citizen can write one. But I know that the people can influence laws. I think it's similar to the one you have in the USA, you can create petitions and if they reach over 100,000 they must be discussed in parliament. You can also write to or meet your local representative. Can't really ask for much more. Citizens make laws happen in that they elect people to represent what they want. I'm sure if a law written by a citizen was perfectly worded and was something parliament could agree on and thought was appropriate, then there's no reason why it wouldn't be made so.

A good example is that lots of people in the UK want a referundum on whether we should stay or leave the EU. This is only happening because of public pressure. You don't need guns to make that happen, any party in power that doesn't make this happen instantly becomes unpopular and loses votes to other parties. If parties care more about anything than it's own people, it's the parties popularity. - Though personally, I don't want a referundum, I don't trust uneducated ignorants and leaving the EU would be bad for us, despite any negatives.


The purpose is to establish into law the basic human rights that people hold. I fail to see how basic human rights would be any different 300 years later. Thats kinda the point.

Really?... to name but a few obvious things that have changed. Slavery, segregation, women's rights, worker's rights... what you can/can't be killed for. Everything has changed, the world is different.... ridiculous.

Dirk
3 Feb 2013, 10:34pm
Lux, all of those things are rights already established that had previously been taken away from certain people. This was corrected and those people given the same rights as everyone else. In what way does that mean people's rights were any different back then just that they were being opressed. EVERYONE has the same rights as a human being no matter what their government says. So how is liberating a group of people who were oppressed at the time of the writing of the constitution precidence for restricting people's rights now? I fail to see how if people have the inherent right to freedom of speech one day it could ever been gone the next. They have the right and that right is not dependent on the culture of the time. Such things are absolutes. Inherent rights are non-conditional and not granted by any earthy power. If they were given out by the government they would be privelages but the founding father's of this nation and I agree that certain freedoms are the people's right and not to be tampered with. You may not share these beliefs and thats fine but consider this, is your ability to state your oppinion something you inherently have or is it just granded to you by the government? The constitution does not grant anyone any rights it simply protects the ones that were already there and those never change.

Lux
4 Feb 2013, 08:50am
Lux, all of those things are rights already established that had previously been taken away from certain people. This was corrected and those people given the same rights as everyone else. In what way does that mean people's rights were any different back then just that they were being opressed. EVERYONE has the same rights as a human being no matter what their government says. So how is liberating a group of people who were oppressed at the time of the writing of the constitution precidence for restricting people's rights now? I fail to see how if people have the inherent right to freedom of speech one day it could ever been gone the next. They have the right and that right is not dependent on the culture of the time. Such things are absolutes. Inherent rights are non-conditional and not granted by any earthy power. If they were given out by the government they would be privelages but the founding father's of this nation and I agree that certain freedoms are the people's right and not to be tampered with. You may not share these beliefs and thats fine but consider this, is your ability to state your oppinion something you inherently have or is it just granded to you by the government? The constitution does not grant anyone any rights it simply protects the ones that were already there and those never change.

"The right to bear arms" is not "the right to have a gun". You're not restricting anybody's rights by having gun control. Who said you have a right to have a gun? It's not some above all governments, above everything, god bestowed right for you to have a gun. People are not allowed to do everything and anything they want. That is not oppression, that's just society making sure that things work. I'm glad my government "oppresses" me by not allowing everyone to walk around with guns.

Please, allow me the right to have a nuke. Do not oppress me, who cares about the rights of others to be safe.

Dam, back in the day I could duel someone if they insulted me. The oppression these days, I should have the right to kill people! I could walk around a sword back in the day... a "human right".. why not now? OPPRESSION. For the thousands of years before guns existed, everyone was oppressed... because there was no right to have a gun! Or maybe... they had the right, but just didn't know it yet?

I give up, it's hopeless.

Dirk
4 Feb 2013, 10:18am
"The right to bear arms" is not "the right to have a gun". You're not restricting anybody's rights by having gun control. Who said you have a right to have a gun? It's not some above all governments, above everything, god bestowed right for you to have a gun. People are not allowed to do everything and anything they want. That is not oppression, that's just society making sure that things work. I'm glad my government "oppresses" me by not allowing everyone to walk around with guns.

Please, allow me the right to have a nuke. Do not oppress me, who cares about the rights of others to be safe.

Dam, back in the day I could duel someone if they insulted me. The oppression these days, I should have the right to kill people! I could walk around a sword back in the day... a "human right".. why not now? OPPRESSION. For the thousands of years before guns existed, everyone was oppressed... because there was no right to have a gun! Or maybe... they had the right, but just didn't know it yet?

I give up, it's hopeless.

I wasn't referring to guns in specific just saying that some things never change with time. When you said its crazy to follow a 300 year old document (actually more like 240 my bad) because things change I was trying to convey that some things never change. And the right to bear arms comes from the right to self defense which is always constant. Also, a nuclear device is a completely different thing as its mere existence let alone use puts others in danger. Ownership of a firearm kept properly secured does not endanger other people. I do agree that people who mishandle guns and don't secure them are endangering the public but I think they should be dealt with by taking measures against them instead of a sweeping measure to disarm the entire public. It appears we both agree that people who threaten the safety of others should be stopped from doing so but we disagree in what puts others at risk. So yes we ban drunk drivers and we ban people from unsafe use of firearms but we don't ban cars and alcohol or gun we just ban their abuse.

Vy
11 Feb 2013, 09:50am
People that think guns shouldn't be banned obviously don't watch the news in America :x

Itch
11 Feb 2013, 10:31am
Lux you still have failed to address the fact that areas with strict gun laws have the highest violent crime and murder rates where as areas where guns are more prevalent have fewer violent crimes and murders. This holds true both inside the U.S. from state to state as well as internationally from country to country. If guns were the problem this would not be the case.

Again take the time to read the actual research done: A great starting point would be this research done at Harvard. (http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf)

Use that as a "starting point" look at the references and where they obtained the data. Start looking for current data sources and compare. Guess what? You'll end up finding what you don't want to find! More guns ≠ more violent crime or murder and the precious gun control that so many people tout as saving lives actually promotes an environment that welcomes violent crimes.

So before you continue to argue for gun bans look into the actual cost of those bans.

That being said I'm not opposed to gun laws that make sense. Things like background checks and making States within the U.S. share mental health and criminal information when performing background checks. I do believe that you should have to prove yourself capable of handling a firearm before you can purchase and carry one. But that's not what the currently proposed anti-gun legislation is all about.

Sniper
11 Feb 2013, 10:47am
People that think guns shouldn't be banned obviously don't watch the news in America :x

You mean the news that's usually liberal biased?

Vy
11 Feb 2013, 12:30pm
You mean the news that's usually liberal biased?

Oh pls.

Next you're going to tell me events are liberal biased <3

Why would you want people having firearms? What does that decrease? Nothing.

Itch
11 Feb 2013, 12:38pm
Oh pls.

Next you're going to tell me events are liberal biased <3

Why would you want people having firearms? What does that decrease? Nothing.

Apparently you haven't done any real research either. Please read my post above including the Harvard research done regarding Gun ownership and the violent crime and murder rates.

Educate yourself and then come back.

Vy
11 Feb 2013, 12:45pm
Apparently you haven't done any real research either. Please read my post above including the Harvard research done regarding Gun ownership and the violent crime and murder rates.

Educate yourself and then come back.

Oh pls.

Because something that has Harvard in it is completely accurate and coverts all of the views on everything <3

If you are so obsessed with owning a firearm, please tell me how it makes other people safer?

Itch
11 Feb 2013, 01:01pm
Oh pls.

Because something that has Harvard in it is completely accurate and coverts all of the views on everything <3

If you are so obsessed with owning a firearm, please tell me how it makes other safer?

I asked to you to research the issue so that you wouldn't look like an ass. Not for my own benefit. I have done the research. The paper from Harvard that I quoted has a ton of references as to what data was used. The paper I quoted was initially done as research to prove that more guns = more violence & murder, but in the end proved the opposite of what they had intended to find.

If you want anyone to take you seriously look at the actual statistics. Read something that has been peer-reviewed and uses legitimate sources of data for that research, then form your opinion. I researched the references that Harvard cited in their paper. What sources have you looked into in forming your opinion if any?

You ask how it makes other people safer? I handed you a well written paper that has all the information that you would need to better understand an issue that clearly you aren't educated on and are basing your opinion on nothing more than an emotional reaction, because the data doesn't back you up. The data proves that areas with strict gun control have a much larger murder & violent crime rate. Areas that have more guns have a lower murder and violent crime rate. It doesn't get much clearer than that.
It also didn't matter if the area being examined was within the same country with different gun laws or internationally the end result was the same More guns = Less violent crime & murder.

If you want to remain ignorant and chose to spout bullshit that's fine, but it becomes very obvious to anyone that has read that until you back up your claims with validated research (which I have done) you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

Vy
11 Feb 2013, 01:22pm
What sources have you looked into in forming your opinion if any?

Social and personal sources <3

So far all of the sources I've read about the assault weapon ban seem pretty reasonable? Considering you should in no case have assault weapons.


you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

Great argument ;)

Itch
11 Feb 2013, 01:41pm
Social and personal sources <3

So far all of the sources I've read about the assault weapon ban seem pretty reasonable? Considering you should in no case have assault weapons.



Great argument ;)

Social and personal resources are biased - Always. Back up your claims with actual data. "He said this" "She said that" is a terrible way to try to write policy & law.

When you say the sources "seem pretty reasonable" how are you determining this? Are they representing one side or the other of the debate or are they an unbiased researcher? Also are you looking at just "Gun violence" or all violent crimes & murders? By looking at the whole picture it shows how much violence & crimes can be deterred by an armed citizenry.

Also try defining "assault-weapon" it is a political term with no solid definition. Automatic weapons are already illegal. Yes that's correct automatic weapons are ALREADY ILLEGAL. And at NO point would I argue that they should be allowed to the general public. So you're saying we should ban certain types of rifle because of how they look? (That's a big part of what this legislation is set to do) Also of note the recent Sandy Hook shooting was done with hand guns the only rifle was found in the car and according to police reports not used in the shooting. So why try to ban the type of gun that was left in the car?

There are clearly way to many holes in the argument for the ban and research that supports not having the ban so tell me (providing evidence, not anecdotes) why should we ban guns again?

I stand by my statement that you don't know what you're talking about. I'm sorry, but social and personal sources are not a valid data source. I have very close friends that had their lives saved by someone with a gun. But I chose not to try to use that as an argument for guns, knowing that there are people that have had the opposite experience. So I chose to actually research the issue and educate myself using credible sources for that data. In some cases the data was researched by the very people that want strict gun control. It just doesn't add up in their favor.

Again as I've stated before I'm not against all gun control legislation. Just against legislation based on emotion and not actual research.

Sniper
11 Feb 2013, 05:06pm
Why would you want people having firearms? What does that decrease?

I'm going to answer this question with what Itch said.


you still have failed to address the fact that areas with strict gun laws have the highest violent crime and murder rates where as areas where guns are more prevalent have fewer violent crimes and murders. This holds true both inside the U.S. from state to state as well as internationally from country to country. If guns were the problem this would not be the case.

Fartingo
11 Feb 2013, 06:28pm
My replies in red;


Oh pls.

Because something that has Harvard in it is completely accurate and coverts all of the views on everything <3 Your 'social and personal sources' sure as shit don't


If you are so obsessed with owning a firearm He's not obsessed with owning a gun, the pussies pushing gun bans are obsessed with taking them. Just watch a minute of their sputtering and you'll realize they're acting solely on emotion., please tell me how it makes other people safer?BY PROVIDING A MEANS TO DEFEND THEMSELVES.



So far all of the sources I've read about the assault weapon No such fucking thing, it's based entirely on how 'mean and scary' it looks ban seem pretty reasonable? Considering you should in no case have assault weapons I don't mean to sound overly aggressive, but you do not get to decide what we need. I hope whatever laws in you have in your country are working well for you, I really do, but I'm not eager to allow the Bill of Rights to be ignored so a handful of moonbats can feel proud of themselves..


Why would you want people having firearms? What does that decrease? Nothing. Aside from violent crime and human rights violations, but I'm sure that's fine as long as the government says so.


People that think guns shouldn't be banned obviously don't watch the news in America :x That was about as pointless as a fucking golf ball. Congratulations.

Lux
11 Feb 2013, 06:43pm
Lux you still have failed to address the fact that areas with strict gun laws have the highest violent crime and murder rates where as areas where guns are more prevalent have fewer violent crimes and murders. This holds true both inside the U.S. from state to state as well as internationally from country to country. If guns were the problem this would not be the case.

Again take the time to read the actual research done: A great starting point would be this research done at Harvard. (http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf)

Use that as a "starting point" look at the references and where they obtained the data. Start looking for current data sources and compare. Guess what? You'll end up finding what you don't want to find! More guns ≠ more violent crime or murder and the precious gun control that so many people tout as saving lives actually promotes an environment that welcomes violent crimes.

So before you continue to argue for gun bans look into the actual cost of those bans.

That being said I'm not opposed to gun laws that make sense. Things like background checks and making States within the U.S. share mental health and criminal information when performing background checks. I do believe that you should have to prove yourself capable of handling a firearm before you can purchase and carry one. But that's not what the currently proposed anti-gun legislation is all about.

I have addressed this several times before.

You introduce guns to a country.... then ban guns in a certain area, presumably because gun crime/violence is very high in that area. You suddenly expect that area to become gun/gun crime free? Is there any border patrol that stops guns flowing into that area from surrounding, less restricted areas? If so, is it effective? (obviously not...)

Guns, drugs, whatever else are regularly smuggled across country borders, how hard do you think it is to move them around one country? It's only a deterrent to most people who would use their gun with good intent. It's an area with a history of bad gun crime, so you have lots of people who will be looking to get guns, and any criminal could easily obtain one. Based on how you currently have gun control, either for a certain state or certain areas, rather than for the country as a whole.... it's a lot less effective.

Laws, restrictions, they're only worthwhile if they're enforceable and enforced. For all I know, El Salvador could have strict gun laws. Yet, due to their inability to enforce their laws, criminals go about and make it one of the countries with the highest mortality rates. You also have to factor in the corruption you would expect from countries such as these.

My source of reliable proof that "gun control = less gun crime" is Europe, especially Western Europe. There is more gun control, and less gun crime. Western Europe is what the USA should be comparing itself against (and likes of Canada, Australia, Japan...developed countries basically). There is a history of sustained gun control, and it is heavily enforced. The result, clearly, is less gun crime.

As has been brought up, some people claim that the less gun crime there is, the more other violent crime there is. I'm sure there is some truth in this. But not all crime is the same. On average, IMO, criminals with guns are going to be more dangerous, commit more crime and kill/injure more people, than criminals with knives. Why? Because a gun can be used from distance, it's more deadly, it takes the pull of a finger rather than a very violent act. That's just my opinion.. but I'm sure most would agree that they would prefer a criminal to have to use a knife rather than a gun because gun control prevents them obtaining one (or is too costly/too hard for them to obtain).

Caution
11 Feb 2013, 09:00pm
I want and sneak them in, If you want gun laws to work, they have to be implemented at the federal level.

Mmm I'm going to take it a step further and say for them to ACTUALLY work, you'd need the state legislators to actually support the gun laws as well lol (not sure if you were implying this without actually saying it), federal laws aren't going to do shit against states like Texas, and I think we all know this. The ATF is not going to go through Texas (or any state, really) and start taking people's guns door to door - I just honestly don't see it happening. I've talked to a couple people who work for the ATF and they said in all honestly they don't have any interest in doing that. I mean I have no factual evidence for the last bit, just merely an opinion

@ Lux, having "an army" isn't the best argument tbh. Coming from somebody who's a Marine, not everybody in the military's primary function is to kill people. There's a lot of people in the army, national guard, air force, navy, etc, but the majority of those guys aren't trained to kill / fuck shit up, unless they're infantry. Without trying to sound like "my branch is the best", at best you'd probably have 500,000 thousand infantry-ready people (just a rough estimate without actually looking at army infantry numbers), including about all marines and infantry guys in the army - but you also got to think about all the other posts around the world that we'd be abandoning, all the gear we'd have to leave back / guard in low numbers just to support a war at home, etc. I mean I'm kind of going off on a tangent about something that would probably never happen, but just saying.


Either way, I support a ban on automatic weapons / armor piercing rounds and shit like that for general civilians, but Idgaf about handguns (need stricter laws regarding the loopholes in gun shows imo) or semi-automatic rifles, for the most part. I've never been a 'gun' guy, I'm not a hunter, etc. I'm qualified on probably a dozen different weapons from SAW to a grenade launcher to a rocket launcher, but I honestly wouldn't care if I never got to shoot another gun again ever. However, I still support other people being able to enjoy shooting on a range, hunting, etc. But there is no valid reason, in my opinion, why a civilian should privately own an automatic weapon.



stuff



I'm going to be nicer than Itch (no offense Itch :P) - either get an actual argument or just don't post anymore on this thread.

Lux
12 Feb 2013, 09:46am
Mmm I'm going to take it a step further and say for them to ACTUALLY work, you'd need the state legislators to actually support the gun laws as well lol (not sure if you were implying this without actually saying it), federal laws aren't going to do shit against states like Texas, and I think we all know this. The ATF is not going to go through Texas (or any state, really) and start taking people's guns door to door - I just honestly don't see it happening. I've talked to a couple people who work for the ATF and they said in all honestly they don't have any interest in doing that. I mean I have no factual evidence for the last bit, just merely an opinion

I think it would have to be a much longer process than that. Similar to how cigarettes are being phased out. If you simply stop selling them and took any in possession away, that wouldn't stop the problem... it would cause an uproar. But if you slowly put legislation in.... wind up the restrictions over a much longer period, then it wouldn't exactly be as drastic as going around, snatching guns.



@ Lux, having "an army" isn't the best argument tbh. Coming from somebody who's a Marine, not everybody in the military's primary function is to kill people. There's a lot of people in the army, national guard, air force, navy, etc, but the majority of those guys aren't trained to kill / fuck shit up, unless they're infantry. Without trying to sound like "my branch is the best", at best you'd probably have 500,000 thousand infantry-ready people (just a rough estimate without actually looking at army infantry numbers), including about all marines and infantry guys in the army - but you also got to think about all the other posts around the world that we'd be abandoning, all the gear we'd have to leave back / guard in low numbers just to support a war at home, etc. I mean I'm kind of going off on a tangent about something that would probably never happen, but just saying.

Surely if there was a war at home... any troops in other posts would be sent back ASAP. I know there's a point in making sure everything else you're working for doesn't mess it itself up when you abandon it, but any war in this age is going to need all you're troops at the least. As you said, I don't see it happening either. I can't see civilians with guns making much difference in a war where it would probably be dealt with by missile strikes. Personally I don't think it's worth the benefits should it happen, considering all the negatives in the mean time.

For now, a ban on automatic weapons is a step in the right direction. In years to come, maybe other weapons will also be banned.

Sniper
12 Feb 2013, 10:10am
Surely if there was a war at home... any troops in other posts would be sent back ASAP. I know there's a point in making sure everything else you're working for doesn't mess it itself up when you abandon it, but any war in this age is going to need all you're troops at the least. As you said, I don't see it happening either. I can't see civilians with guns making much difference in a war where it would probably be dealt with by missile strikes. Personally I don't think it's worth the benefits should it happen, considering all the negatives in the mean time. Will never happen. The soldiers will never fire upon civilians seeing as those soldiers have families WHO ARE CIVILIAN.

For now, a ban on automatic weapons is a step in the right direction. In years to come, maybe other weapons will also be banned. Automatic weapons are already banned and have been for some time now.

My responses in red.

Lux
12 Feb 2013, 11:11am
My responses in red.

Was talking about another country invading, not some even more ludicrous idea that the government/army would start killing it's own people.

The other point..... I'm not an expert. I've just heard about bans on automatic weapons.. or semi auto?...

Dirk
12 Feb 2013, 11:20am
In the end all the arguments for gun control seem to be based around emotional reactions to terrible events that lack any real backing. The argument that "you don’t need that" holds water about as well as a burlap sack, until there is actually evidence to support that banning these so called assault weapons would significantly reduce violent crime then there is simply no justification for it. You cannot just ban something just because its not a necessity. You have to provide strong evidence for why something should be banned not just say there is no reason not to. The way I see it, if you are going to take away a liberty you best have a damn good reason backed by loads of evidence for doing so. I don't have to prove I need something to be able to own it. Like violent games the media loves to fixate on one instance and ignore all the others. Millions and millions of people play violent games but a very few are harmfully affected by it. The same applies to guns. When some mentally ill fellow uses a gun to do evil, the millions and millions of gun owners who have never and never will commit a crime are ignored and you can forget about the instances where guns are used for good being paid any attention.

When you say these proposed restrictions are reasonable to seem to be saying that they don't significantly restrict anyone's ability to defend themselves and that may be true but is it really reasonable when countless evidence has show it to have no positive effect and will only serve to further congest the legal system and serve as a pain in the side to millions of normal people. Action for the sake of action isn't reasonable its just feelgood legislation.

Dirk
12 Feb 2013, 11:26am
Was talking about another country invading, not some even more ludicrous idea that the government/army would start killing it's own people.

The other point..... I'm not an expert. I've just heard about bans on automatic weapons.. or semi auto?...

The term automatic is sometimes used to describe semi-auto weapons. It dends to give the false impression that the guns in question are capable of fully automatic fire. These guns are not capable of automatic fire and converting them to select fire is a serious fellony and can put you away for a long time. Rest assured no one is talking about the unregulated sale of machineguns and assault rifles.

Sniper
12 Feb 2013, 11:45am
Was talking about another country invading, not some even more ludicrous idea that the government/army would start killing it's own people.

Oh. Well in that case then yes you are most likely correct. My mistake.

Lux
12 Feb 2013, 12:27pm
Honestly Dirk, I would say the same thing anyway, mass shootings or not. One off events aren't the bigger picture at all, they simply get preyed upon by the media and force the subject to be debated. But it's what happens day-in-day-out that matters.

Games aren't the same as guns. The idea that they are harmful is just a theory, one which is obviously not true in most people's cases. Guns.... there's no theory, they harm people if used on people. We don't own things just because of necessity, but when it comes to things that are harmful, that's generally the idea.... keep it to a minimum, only use it when necessary, if not.. keep it away from other people's harm. Ultimately, if you're playing a game, that's your choice. There's no risk that you will harm anyone else.

If you have a gun, there is that risk. So, if you're using it for hunting, fine. At a range, fine... we're not in a world of necessities, we do stuff for fun. Hunting to some people is actually a necessity........(and some for fun... but hey). As long as that's why you have a gun, and there's a good level of enforcement/precaution, fine. If it's not enforceable, then you have to think about whether it's worth it or not. Not just to stop these rare massacres, but to stop all the gun crime.

Dirk
12 Feb 2013, 01:27pm
Honestly Dirk, I would say the same thing anyway, mass shootings or not. One off events aren't the bigger picture at all, they simply get preyed upon by the media and force the subject to be debated. But it's what happens day-in-day-out that matters.

Games aren't the same as guns. The idea that they are harmful is just a theory, one which is obviously not true in most people's cases. Guns.... there's no theory, they harm people if used on people. We don't own things just because of necessity, but when it comes to things that are harmful, that's generally the idea.... keep it to a minimum, only use it when necessary, if not.. keep it away from other people's harm. Ultimately, if you're playing a game, that's your choice. There's no risk that you will harm anyone else.

If you have a gun, there is that risk. So, if you're using it for hunting, fine. At a range, fine... we're not in a world of necessities, we do stuff for fun. Hunting to some people is actually a necessity........(and some for fun... but hey). As long as that's why you have a gun, and there's a good level of enforcement/precaution, fine. If it's not enforceable, then you have to think about whether it's worth it or not. Not just to stop these rare massacres, but to stop all the gun crime.

I couldn't agree more that precaution should be used with gun ownership. It is important that they not be taken lightly but instead given the proper amount of respect that other powerful tools are given. Nothing bothers me more than people who are unsafe with their firearms. Like driving a car, use of a firearm is never to be taken lightly and you are held responsible for your actions with them. I own firearms because I enjoy it whether it be a fun day at the range with my friends, a day sitting in a tree hunting, or simply the enjoyment that comes from owning a piece of history. The vast vast majority of gun owners in this country (rifle owners especially) are much the same and are not in any way contributing to criminal activity. If properly locked away when not being accessed as they should be these guns do not pose a threat to anyone or pose a risk of falling into the wrong hands. I would love to see more people trained in the safe operation and storage of firearms. I don't see removing rifles from gun safes all over the country doing anything to stop crime. On a side note, my personal experience has taught me that the labeling of guns as evil has actually increased the risk of accidents involving firearms. When people have been raised in a culture that has removed all traces of guns and have never been exposed to guns they have also missed out on learning firearm safety. People I know who were taught gun safety from a young age have safe handling hardwired into them. Its the people who have had virtually no exposure to such things that, when given access to a gun, behave in an unsafe manner. Its sort of like alcohol over here in the states. The culture has kept minors completely removed from alcohol, treating it like some sort of demon substance so that when they are finally given access they behave terribly with it. So in summary: banning pointless, education good.

Bob Loblaw
13 Feb 2013, 12:46am
Keep in mind this is purely my opinion, but I personally don't see it as much of a debate to say gun regulations are a good thing in general. (I.e strict gun regulations). My general knowledge (I could be wrong), tells me that the vast majority of places with strict gun laws have lower gun related violences. Again, if I'm wrong, correct me.

That being said, randomly enforcing strict gun laws is not going to just *solve* the problem. Like Itch said, places that have tried to impose similar restrictions end up with higher gun crimes. I would be inclined to think it's because guns are so embedded in the American culture, that you can't just take them away and everything will become fine and dandy. For that reason, I don't really know what the best course of action would be (and as such am not very passionate over the discussion as I have little to add). I do also agree that people are the problem, not guns, but having guns so readily available certainly doesn't help.

How many people, on a day to day basis, take their parents gun and go shoot someone with it (or something of the likes). Obviously the gun didn't commit the crime, the person did, but would they have gone out of their way to get a gun if it wasn't so readily accessible? I'm not really driving a point home here, just thinking out loud on how many scenarios would have played out differently if it weren't for the convenience/ease of doing what they did. (Heat of the moment (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NfFjb3B9RRw) things would be significantly more likely to occur if you just walk inside and pick up a gun, rather than having to go out of your way to purchase one and coming back to whatever you were going to do).

Caution
13 Feb 2013, 12:58am
^^ only thing I'll bring up to that is that people who are crazy enough to go shoot a bunch of kids at a school (just using that as an example) have the motivation to get the job done regardless of if it's a gun or a knife. I mean, if someone stand people with a pen let's just ban all pens and label them as assault pens lol.

I'm not saying it makes it more or less right in either direction, I'm just saying these people are still going to do the shit with or without guns.

Vy
13 Feb 2013, 06:03am
Not necessarily. Perhaps they would be afraid to assault kids with a knife? I doubt they would make themselves be courageous enough without guns.

Sniper
13 Feb 2013, 10:01am
Not necessarily. Perhaps they would be afraid to assault kids with a knife? I doubt they would make themselves be courageous enough without guns.

If a person is crazy enough to harm a child, they will do so whether it be a gun, knife, pen, shard of glass, etc.

Caution
13 Feb 2013, 11:41am
Not necessarily. Perhaps they would be afraid to assault kids with a knife? I doubt they would make themselves be courageous enough without guns.

Are you being serious right now? Did you not see that guy in China who went to a school and stabbed a bunch of kids? People who have the motivation to kill will do it regardless of if they have a firearm or not.

Lux
13 Feb 2013, 05:18pm
Some people wouldn't attempt to steal a car under usual circumstances. But if it had the door unlocked, and keys in the ignition..... that might change things.

Some people probably would find a way to kill, whatever it is they use. But I don't think you could say that about everyone.

Caution
13 Feb 2013, 06:34pm
But I don't think you could say that about everyone.

I can calmly and confidently say that mentally unstable people who have a desire to end other people's lives do not care if they have a pistol or a hammer.

Revolution18
13 Feb 2013, 07:11pm
Are you being serious right now? Did you not see that guy in China who went to a school and stabbed a bunch of kids? People who have the motivation to kill will do it regardless of if they have a firearm or not.If I am not mistaken wasn't it around twenty something kids.

Eskomo
13 Feb 2013, 07:27pm
There was an incident a few months ago, where a kid killed his sister and mother with a handgun. And on the 911 call he said that he used the handgun because he wanted it to be quick and painless. He also said that one of the victims didn't die from the first gun shot, and he sounded pretty upset about the fact they had to suffer.

This kid clearly has some mental problems. But the way he said it in the call sounds like that if he didn't have a handgun readily available I don't think he would have killed them with a knife or hammer, or any means that wouldn't kill them instantly. He didn't want to see them suffer. This is just one incident, but there certainly are some cases where an individual would not want to kill with a hammer or knife, etc...

Teen Calmly Admits to Shooting His Mom & Sister in Chilling 911 Call: ?I Had Been?Planning on Killing for a While Now? | TheBlaze.com (http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2012/10/09/teen-calmly-admits-to-shooting-his-mom-sister-in-chilling-9-11-call-i-had-been-planning-on-killing-for-a-while-now/)

Dirk
13 Feb 2013, 10:20pm
There was an incident a few months ago, where a kid killed his sister and mother with a handgun. And on the 911 call he said that he used the handgun because he wanted it to be quick and painless. He also said that one of the victims didn't die from the first gun shot, and he sounded pretty upset about the fact they had to suffer.

This kid clearly has some mental problems. But the way he said it in the call sounds like that if he didn't have a handgun readily available I don't think he would have killed them with a knife or hammer, or any means that wouldn't kill them instantly. He didn't want to see them suffer. This is just one incident, but there certainly are some cases where an individual would not want to kill with a hammer or knife, etc...

Teen Calmly Admits to Shooting His Mom & Sister in Chilling 911 Call: ?I Had Been?Planning on Killing for a While Now? | TheBlaze.com (http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2012/10/09/teen-calmly-admits-to-shooting-his-mom-sister-in-chilling-9-11-call-i-had-been-planning-on-killing-for-a-while-now/)

Could of have given them an OD of acetaminophen. Knives and hammers are just an example. The point is killers will cause problems no matter what they have access to.

Caution
14 Feb 2013, 12:23am
There was an incident a few months ago, where a kid killed his sister and mother with a handgun. And on the 911 call he said that he used the handgun because he wanted it to be quick and painless. He also said that one of the victims didn't die from the first gun shot, and he sounded pretty upset about the fact they had to suffer.

This kid clearly has some mental problems. But the way he said it in the call sounds like that if he didn't have a handgun readily available I don't think he would have killed them with a knife or hammer, or any means that wouldn't kill them instantly. He didn't want to see them suffer. This is just one incident, but there certainly are some cases where an individual would not want to kill with a hammer or knife, etc...

Teen Calmly Admits to Shooting His Mom & Sister in Chilling 911 Call: ?I Had Been?Planning on Killing for a While Now? | TheBlaze.com (http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2012/10/09/teen-calmly-admits-to-shooting-his-mom-sister-in-chilling-9-11-call-i-had-been-planning-on-killing-for-a-while-now/)

vv


Could of have given them an OD of acetaminophen. Knives and hammers are just an example. The point is killers will cause problems no matter what they have access to.


^^

Tamahome
14 Feb 2013, 02:59am
Some people wouldn't attempt to steal a car under usual circumstances. But if it had the door unlocked, and keys in the ignition..... that might change things.

So you're saying having a weapon makes you want to kill someone who's without a weapon just because you can?

Lux
14 Feb 2013, 05:21pm
So you're saying having a weapon makes you want to kill someone who's without a weapon just because you can?

I admit, there's not the obvious gain to killing someone as there is with stealing. But why do people kill people? I'm sure if it was easier, it would happen more.

The point is, would you steal if you could do it easily? Perhaps not as easy a question an answer as you might think. That doesn't mean you personally would kill someone if you could do it easily.. but not everyone is you.

Dirk
14 Feb 2013, 05:49pm
I admit, there's not the obvious gain to killing someone as there is with stealing. But why do people kill people? I'm sure if it was easier, it would happen more.

The point is, would you steal if you could do it easily? Perhaps not as easy a question an answer as you might think. That doesn't mean you personally would kill someone if you could do it easily.. but not everyone is you.

The fact is that since the 94 assault weapon ban, there are many times more so called assault weapons than ever before. Millions of them have been sold. But the rate of violence has actually gone down slightly. So there does not appear to be any correlation between the weapons people want banned and violence. I understand why people don't like guns but the facts just don't support it.

Vy
15 Feb 2013, 05:03am
The fact is that since the 94 assault weapon ban, there are many times more so called assault weapons than ever before. Millions of them have been sold. But the rate of violence has actually gone down slightly. So there does not appear to be any correlation between the weapons people want banned and violence. I understand why people don't like guns but the facts just don't support it.

That's not a problem with the weapon ban. It's a problem with how the enforce it.


But the rate of violence has actually gone down slightly. So there does not appear to be any correlation between the weapons people want banned and violence.

How does that have any relation to guns? Perhaps it would have gone down a lot more if weapons were harder to get. Also, you forget that the rate of crimes decrease because of police work, which definitely increased due to a high jump in technology.

But please, you can delete my posts that you don't like. I was just pointing out what a hypocrite you are <3

Caution
15 Feb 2013, 07:45am
But please, you can delete my posts that you don't like. I was just pointing out what a hypocrite you are <3

Yeah, has nothing to do with you posting several unintelligent, unsupported, and overall dumb posts. Do you understand what the definition of a hypocrite is?

Either stop being a jackass and starting random arguments by making passive aggressive insults / posting retarded concepts with "nuh uh!" as a basis, or you just won't be allowed to post in the thread (assuming that feature even still works).

Fartingo
15 Feb 2013, 07:55am
But please, you can delete my posts that you don't like. I was just pointing out what a hypocrite you are <3

And those posts will be deleted, because you are the hypocrite. You claim that anyone that doesn't share your point of view is too biased to take seriously, reject actual data and instead use flimsy anecdotal 'facts' that you pulled straight out of your ass. <3

Dirk
15 Feb 2013, 08:24am
That's not a problem with the weapon ban. It's a problem with how the enforce it.



How does that have any relation to guns? Perhaps it would have gone down a lot more if weapons were harder to get. Also, you forget that the rate of crimes decrease because of police work, which definitely increased due to a high jump in technology.

But please, you can delete my posts that you don't like. I was just pointing out what a hypocrite you are <3

When I say "Since the 94 assault weapons ban" I mean since it passed. The 1994 ban only lasted 10 years and ended. I am talking about there being far more weapons since 2004 and none of the restrictions from the ban are still standing. So yes, the fact that there has actually been a drop in violence does support that such a ban is pointless and does nothing to stop crime. It also supports the idea that ownership of such weapons does not cause crime. And no im not saying the decrease was due to the increase in rifle ownership, it almost certainly wasn't, but it does mean that that mass availability of semi-automatic rifles (assault weapons) does not cause an increase in crime.

dolph1n
19 Feb 2013, 08:15am
Just as an FYI to everyone saying that strict gun control leads to more violence: Japan has completely banned all guns of every make and model, unless you can prove you have an absolute necessity for it.

In a country of approximately 130 million, there were 11 total gun murders in 2008. In 2006 there were 2. In comparison, in 2008, there were over 12,000 firearm related murders in the US.

While I think the current gun control legislation being proposed is ridiculous and will do nothing to stop future shooting sprees, there are certain measures we as a nation should take to make this a safer place. Unfortunately it won't do much, considering that the biggest problem our country faces are social issues (ie, behavioral issues, how children are brought up, etc), but expanding the background check database and mental health database (making one would be a good start) can certainly help.

What they want to do now, banning semi-automatic military style rifles will do absolutely nothing. Remember the ban on drugs? It is now arguably easier than ever to buy drugs. Long story short, the war against drugs and banning all drugs was a massive and embarrassing failure. And unfortunately, I can't expect any better from a ban on guns.

Banning semi-automatic weapons only takes them out of the hands of law-abiding citizens, and citizens who want to use them for recreational purposes. If someone wants to shoot up an office or a school they'll find whatever weapon they want on the black market. (They're called outlaws for gods sake). They don't follow rules, they'll find one, one way or another.

That being said, I disagree with the entire idea that "If everyone was armed, nobody would commit any crime." Well, Detroit has one of the highest violent crime rates in the country, and it is the 3rd most armed city in the US. If such a correlation existed then wouldn't it have one of the lowest crime rates? Granted, you could say that the different demographics from state to state affect crime rates, and gang related activity is certainly high in Detroit. But, if that is the case, then if everyone had guns, crime rates would increase in certain areas while allegedly decreasing in others. I don't think that's the way to go.

Just some food for thought.

Bork
5 Mar 2013, 01:36am
Late CAUSE I WAS BANNED...BUT...Lets just consider a few things (Too lazy to find actual numbers, so do it yourself)

-"Assault weapons" are used in a very insignificant percentage of gun crime in the US

-These mass shootings also account for a small percentage of the deaths resulting from gun crime
---Why not make GANGS illegal? MOST of the gun crimes in the US are a result of them, like it or not
---The FBI UCR INCLUDES: Deaths of home invaders killed by homeowners, deaths resulting from police shooting criminals and etc...So to say OMG THE UCR SHOWS ALL THIS GUN CRIME is dumb

-Fully automatic weapons are ALREADY illegal, and conversion of semi-auto weapons as such are as well
---ARs and AKs are NOT machine guns
---This "assault weapon" ban all you ignorant people support, only bans COSMETIC FEATURES of the weapon
------The Ruger 10/22 is a semi-auto rifle...There are versions of it which simply incorporate a forward grip, a black synthetic style and a collapsible stock...One version would be illegal simply because it looked "scary" = DUMB

-Most gun crimes are committed using hand guns
---You ban handguns and you take away a law-abiding citizen's ability to defend himself from whatever danger

-Criminals don't care about laws
---Criminals ALREADY have access to fully automatic weapons and other illegal types of firearms
---People have a right to have however many rounds of ammunition needed in their firearm to defend themselves
------Limit a person to 10 (or 7 in NYs case), but criminals will still carry more...Logic?

-Want gun crime to go down?
---All these mass shootings occur in "Gun Free Zones" - areas where concealed carry is not allowed
---Areas where there are MORE PEOPLE with concealed carry licenses have LESS gun crime
---Why not look at the mental health issuess?
---Universal background checks MAY help...MAYBE...But I guarantee you that these gang bangers don't get their weapons from the places that the universal background check bill will incorporate, and won't prevent those people capable of committing those mass murders from buying their weapons from the same place

-Lastly, to Britfags like Pierce Morgan
---Tell me how Britain has Bloods, Cryps, Latin Kings, Mara Salvatrucha, Hells Angels, etc, etc, etc
---Gun crime went down? Cool...Your overall crime rate tripled

Again, too lazy to look for numbers because I'm at work, but they;re there, look for them. As a person who currently works with gang related juveniles and on my way into law enforcement, disarming or limiting a law abiding citizen's ability to defend themselves with WHATEVER they deem necessary, is not the right way to handle the problem. Criminals will always find ways to obtain illegal things. Shit, half the kids I work with have firearms at home. Please explain how ANY of these bills would fix that...

Caution
5 Mar 2013, 06:26am
Bloods, Cryps, Latin Kings, Mara Salvatrucha, Hells Angels

Lol that's what I thought of too and laughed, but you can't really explain it to people who have never had to grow up around that shit (although we didn't really have LK's). That's why gun bans are a fucking joke lol.

Bork
5 Mar 2013, 01:42pm
Those are just some big ones...Latin Kings I think are more of a MA thing. But that's just it, people have heard of Bloods and Cryps and all the bigger names, however, the smaller gangs out there are the more dangerous ones as they have a reputation to build. Again, half the kids I work with are affiliated with some big AND small names...We've had fights break out simply because of shirt color. They leave the program and go home, grab their little .22 or whatever they managed to get and go right back out onto the street. What I don't get are people's understanding of the word "RIGHT". It is the constitutional right of the people. It's not a requirement. I don't carry, but I do have an LTC. Carrying feels strange and all those dummies out there claiming that anyone that likes guns or carries is a paranoid, Rambo wanna-be have no idea. However, if I CHOSE to carry, I have the right to do so. If someone doesn't like guns, or want to carry, that's perfectly fine as well. It's their right to do that. But to try and dictate "no one needs a magazine that can hold 10 rounds" or "no one needs an AR15", is stupid. If that's the case, it can be argued that no one needs a Lamborghini, a car that can hit 200mph and disintegrate a person if hit with one. People have the right to possess what THEY deem necessary for their safety and the safety of their family. The gun is a tool, a dangerous one yes, if used irresponsibly or for evil. But for all those tree huggers out there, yes, the way to combat violence IS with MORE violence. No legislation will make gangs go "Well shhheeeiiiittttt maang, I guess we better stop poppin' eachother". No legislation will prevent a home invader from killing a family. However, a person that knows that someone possesses an AR15 in the house, or a shotgun for that matter, will think twice. A poll was conducted throughout a few prisons around the country (again, too lazy to look for numbers, but they're there, go look yourself), those convicted of violent crimes or things such as armed robbery and burglary, said they would NOT have committed those crimes if the victim had been armed. Lastly, all the mass shootings that pro-gun control people thrive on happen in GUN FREE ZONES. You know, those places where it's ILLEGAL TO HAVE GUNS? Theaters, schools and malls. Gun free zones. You want to protect those people? Put armed security into place, whether it be professional armed security or more police. Just because someone has a gun doesn't mean he's out to kill 1,000 people. Police officers and soldiers who carry guns are people just like anyone else and probably even more susceptible to an emotional meltdown due to some of the disturbing things they may see, yet no one acknowledges that. I dno, it all just boils down to the naive tree huggers that believe the world is a friendly place that freak out and act unreasonably when something DOES happen. Fuck, only political issue on the planet I take the time to respond to. DONE.

xDoodles
5 Mar 2013, 02:41pm
Hay gais shotgun is easier to use than an AR-15! Lets send American troops armed with double barrel shotgun to war!

Caution
5 Mar 2013, 02:43pm
LK's are everywhere lol. And you're fucking high if you say small gangs are the worst, MS13 is fucking crazy. Also, "cryps", lol.

Bork
5 Mar 2013, 02:54pm
Atleast in my area...The bigger gangs have already set up their reputation and have nothing to prove...These smaller gangs are the ones that go out and start trouble just so people will know who they are

Caution
5 Mar 2013, 03:06pm
ah, see in cali we have everything pretty much lol, just depending on what part you're in.

Lux
6 Mar 2013, 06:29pm
Surely gangs are such a big problem, simply because not enough is being done about it.

I'm not going to start some silly debate about "Who haz da hardest gangz", but Britain has gangs problems. But, we don't have world reknowned gangs and world reknowned gun problems with gangs either. There's a reason for it, and it's not "We lost the lottery on which country gets to not have a lot of gun crime".

As you said, restricting guns doesn't necessarily help anything, because criminals, would be criminals, mass shooters etc will get their guns anyway. Well yeah, obviously...... but that's not a reason to resort to more violence. That's a reason to put more into gang prevention, stopping the illegal supply of guns and tighten your borders. That amongst other preventative/enforcement measures is why we do not have bloods and crips, gang shootings all over the place etc.


Gun crime went down? Cool...Your overall crime rate tripled

Wrong.

Obviously when a country does so well at controlling guns, crime with another weapon is likely to increase. However, people using knives instead of a gun is not exactly great, but it's preferable. Crime is a pretty vague word. Obviously, crime did not triple, that's retarded. But your statement is so vague you could say "oh... you stopped 100000 people dying in one attack, but then there were two more shoplifts..... crime doubled!"

Bork
7 Mar 2013, 02:49pm
The numbers are there, you're just as lazy as I am to go look them up. We have a thing here called the "Constitution". Being in a gang is not, nor ever will be, illegal. No crime is being committed by being a part of a gang. Now, making it illegal for straw purchasing I agree with completely. Tightening up the border? Hell, close it. There's only so much our law enforcement agencies can do BECAUSE of the Constitution. It's the greatest/worst document on the planet, depending on where you look at it from. Lastly? You prefer getting stabbed to death than shot? I personally find a gunshot wound alot more humane than being stabbed 15-20 times, not that I've experienced either, but seems like it to me. Your last statement is dumb, simply because disarming people DOES LEAD to an increase in other violent crime. As I said, too lazy to look for numbers cause this is SG forum and not congress, but a study was conducted in a few prison systems around the country and I'd like to say around 90% of those asked said they would not have committed their crimes if their victim had been armed. It's simple, ACTUAL common sense (because pro-gun control fools think lying down and being beaten, murdered or raped is an option) to have more LEGAL, law-abiding gun owners in the country. Do accidents happen? Of course, just like car accidents and drunk drivers. And you don't stop violence with violence? I urge you to reason with a child rapist (who are usually repeat offenders that are let out), or mass murderers, or even the gang members out on the street. "Reasoning" only works with people who are caught up in the moment, fights, people that aren't actually criminals. We don't live in a fantasy world, as some people like to believe. I personally try to give everyone the benefit of the doubt, but I'm not naive either. There are people out there that will kill you over something as little as a penny. Again, I don't know how things are exactly over in Great Britain, but they're not so hunkydory over here. It's just simply retarded, where ever it comes from, to think people shouldn't have the right to choose whatever means possible to protect themselves or their family, or if you're a constitution nut, protect themselves from the government (which has dookied all over the constitution in the past few years).

Dirk
7 Mar 2013, 09:06pm
Obviously when a country does so well at controlling guns, crime with another weapon is likely to increase. However, people using knives instead of a gun is not exactly great, but it's preferable. Crime is a pretty vague word. Obviously, crime did not triple, that's retarded. But your statement is so vague you could say "oh... you stopped 100000 people dying in one attack, but then there were two more shoplifts..... crime doubled!"

yes, its extremely "preferable" to have inocent victims try and defend themselves with a knife than a gun. Because my 70+ year old grandmother can easily protect herself using a kitchen knife. I couldn't possibly see any good reason to have a gun.

Lux
8 Mar 2013, 06:40pm
yes, its extremely "preferable" to have inocent victims try and defend themselves with a knife than a gun. Because my 70+ year old grandmother can easily protect herself using a kitchen knife. I couldn't possibly see any good reason to have a gun.

That's not the point at all. You can't guarantee that the only people who will be using guns is innocent victims. As I've said, a guns ban would not ever work in America if it only disarms innocent people. The point is to disarm EVERYONE who does not need a gun.

You don't have to protect yourself with a kitchen knife, but that doesn't mean you should with a gun.


The numbers are there, you're just as lazy as I am to go look them up.

People have bothered to post "the numbers" before, but one study does not prove any relevant point. There's studies that conflict each other, and there's certainly no numbers to suggest anything as crazy as "we reduced gun crime, but crime went up threefold".


We have a thing here called the "Constitution". Being in a gang is not, nor ever will be, illegal. No crime is being committed by being a part of a gang. Now, making it illegal for straw purchasing I agree with completely. Tightening up the border? Hell, close it. There's only so much our law enforcement agencies can do BECAUSE of the Constitution. It's the greatest/worst document on the planet, depending on where you look at it from.

Never heard of the Constitution before! Glad you told me ;). But yeah, obviously, I'm not talking about disbanding a gang simply because it's a gang. I'm talking about gang crime. If it's a problem, deal with it. If it's such a big deal evidently not enough is being done. Personally, I don't see "because of the Constitution" as a reason to not do something that benefits you. If it's creating red tape, get rid of it, amend it. Presumably this has already been discussed?



Lastly? You prefer getting stabbed to death than shot? I personally find a gunshot wound alot more humane than being stabbed 15-20 times, not that I've experienced either, but seems like it to me.

No, of course not. But if someone is going to commit a crime, it's a bit harder to knife someone than to shoot them. It takes more effort, it's a more violent act. Lots of people rob a store with a gun because they presume there will be no hassle. As soon as there's any resistance they run off scared shitless. If they only had a knife, would that person have ever attempted that crime? I'm not saying that's universally how it will be, but I'm sure it would prevent some people. But yeah, I'd rather criminals had a knife than a gun. Besides, you can't stop people having a knife. Surely it would be easier for law enforcement to control guns so they don't have to worry so much about it, then focus more on knife crime which would be far harder to tackle.



Your last statement is dumb, simply because disarming people DOES LEAD to an increase in other violent crime. As I said, too lazy to look for numbers cause this is SG forum and not congress, but a study was conducted in a few prison systems around the country and I'd like to say around 90% of those asked said they would not have committed their crimes if their victim had been armed. It's simple, ACTUAL common sense (because pro-gun control fools think lying down and being beaten, murdered or raped is an option) to have more LEGAL, law-abiding gun owners in the country.

That statement is dumb. Firstly, your point is based on disarming civilians and not criminals. Secondly, it has most likely been based on quite a small study group and not over a prolonged period of time. E.G. I doubt you would get anywhere near the same results in another country where things are more stable in terms of gun control and crime.

Secondly, if you ask a criminal "Would they have committed X if the victim was armed". You're asking them in hindsight, after they've been caught. Also, a lot of criminals would not bother to check if whoeever they are committing a crime against is armed or not. If you rob a house, how will you know if they are armed or not until you are inside to check?

It does seem quite logical, that if everyone has guns, there will be an armistice. But that will not stop crime. You also have people taking justice into their own hands. That's why even the police in the UK do not have guns unless really necessary. Guns do not help you capture a criminal, they help you kill one. Ultimately, should someone be shot at for attempting to steal something from you? I'll let you decide for yourself but I don't think so. Besides, over here you don't have to assume that someone will be carrying a gun in most types of crime, because they're not common at all.



Do accidents happen? Of course, just like car accidents and drunk drivers. And you don't stop violence with violence? I urge you to reason with a child rapist (who are usually repeat offenders that are let out), or mass murderers, or even the gang members out on the street. "Reasoning" only works with people who are caught up in the moment, fights, people that aren't actually criminals. We don't live in a fantasy world, as some people like to believe. I personally try to give everyone the benefit of the doubt, but I'm not naive either. There are people out there that will kill you over something as little as a penny.

So resolve those issues. Get child rapists off the streets. Stop gang violence. Prevent mass murders (I'm sure a lack of guns would help that). Stop the problem at the stem. If you do that, you won't need to give out killing machines to everyone. You can't stop it all, maybe, but these are goals to try and achieve. Maybe not this year, in the next decade... but you should aim for them. Besides, I see trying to protect yourself against people who can committ these crimes against you at any time, anywhere, as a far less reasonable and achievable goal than actually stopping those people attempting those crimes.

Guns are not just for protecting people. They create accidents, they kill people who shouldn't be killed. People die in car accidents, but we need cars. You can't ban cars because the world would collapse. If you eventually controlled guns to an extent that it's not much of a problem crime wise at all, would the world collapse? In the end, if you're going to have something dangerous and give it to everyone, it should be for a really good reason with no better alternative.



Again, I don't know how things are exactly over in Great Britain, but they're not so hunkydory over here. It's just simply retarded, where ever it comes from, to think people shouldn't have the right to choose whatever means possible to protect themselves or their family, or if you're a constitution nut, protect themselves from the government (which has dookied all over the constitution in the past few years).

They're not hunkydory, I know that. If people need guns to protect themselves at the moment, then OK. But I really think the government should take measures to stop that being the case.

Epsilon
8 Mar 2013, 09:11pm
That's not the point at all. You can't guarantee that the only people who will be using guns is innocent victims. As I've said, a guns ban would not ever work in America if it only disarms innocent people. The point is to disarm EVERYONE who does not need a gun.

You don't have to protect yourself with a kitchen knife, but that doesn't mean you should with a gun.

I agree, not everyone needs to own a gun, however on that note should I become the target of a home invasion I would like to know I can defend myself adequately. I am far less likely to survive a home invasion with just a knife or any other instrument that is not a firearm, especially if said invaders are armed. I would feel much safer knowing I have a firearm, even if only a pistol, should something like this occur.


Never heard of the Constitution before! Glad you told me ;). But yeah, obviously, I'm not talking about disbanding a gang simply because it's a gang. I'm talking about gang crime. If it's a problem, deal with it. If it's such a big deal evidently not enough is being done. Personally, I don't see "because of the Constitution" as a reason to not do something that benefits you. If it's creating red tape, get rid of it, amend it. Presumably this has already been discussed?

I agree, if something is causing a problem kill it at the source so to speak, however its rarely ever quite that simple. Many people will not see it as a benefit and rather an infringement upon our rights as a people. I do think it was discussed briefly and the Supreme Court, according to the article in the OP, ruled in favor of keeping firearms to preserve the ideal of citizens militia.


Besides, I see trying to protect yourself against people who can committ these crimes against you at any time, anywhere, as a far less reasonable and achievable goal than actually stopping those people attempting those crimes.

I don't quite see it that way. I agree with this in general however you should still have some type of home defense. For the majority of your last post you have put some well thought out and logical reasons against guns in general. I have to say you have done a superb job so far. A lot of your responses have left me considering my current stance on firearms.

My thoughts in cyan, because its an awesome color.

Dirk
9 Mar 2013, 02:07am
The idea behind this country is that people have rights that the government CAN'T be allowed to take away even if it seems like a good idea at the time. Under no circumstances can you ignore what the constitution says or get rid if it because it is what ensures the freedom of the people. The government should not have absolute power over the people, the government is for the people and only exists because the people let it. That is why this county is sometimes refered to as the great experiment in democracy, because it is a radical departure from previous governments (like britains). The government should not be allowed to have firearms if the people arent because the government is supposed to answer to the people. You also can't just throw aside the constitution just because it gets in the way. You can't just decide "oh well I guess they dont have rights anymore". IDGAF if they are in a violent gang, the constitution still applies. The rules of war still apply even if the enemy is a real pain. You wouldnt break the law and use mustard gass or something just because it makes things easier. Those laws, like the constitution, were put in place because it is never aceptable to do certain things no matter what the situation. The government has no right to break the law you know.

dolph1n
9 Mar 2013, 08:29am
The idea behind this country is that people have rights that the government CAN'T be allowed to take away even if it seems like a good idea at the time. Under no circumstances can you ignore what the constitution says or get rid if it because it is what ensures the freedom of the people.

I agree, there are certain unalienable rights that the constitution guarantees us, as it should. However, I really don't like it when people use the constitution as a safeguard against gun control. Certain rights written into the constitution are logical and continue to make sense today. Others, like the 2nd amendment, don't.

The constitution was written 226 years ago. As much as you wish to disagree, shit has changed in 226 years. The whole point of the 2nd amendment being written was to allow citizens to organize in a militia during a time where there was a legitimate threat of Britain invading us as relatiation and with our "national" army being complete shit at the time, it made sense. Today, there is 0% chance of anyone invading America. If they did, it would mean the destruction of their entire country. Nobody is going to invade us, eve, and even if they did, they wouldn't stand a chance. They are going up against the best military in the world, against the most passionately patriotic people in the world. If anyone invades us, it means their country won't exist anymore. People who use the 2nd amendment as a defense of keeping their guns are grasping at straws.

The 2nd amendment states: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Well, we have an extremely well regulated militia, it's called our armed forces. It has 5 branches, maybe you've heard of them? The Army, Navy, Marines, Air Force, and Coast Guard. And once again, times have changed, guns are no longer a necessity for a productive society. However, I don't think they should be taken away.

Now, there are people who say we all need weapons to fight back against our own government or to protect ourselves from the police. There is some merit, however small, to the first point, but to think the latter is just beyond ludicrous. Luckily I don't think anyone here entertains the second of the two ideas, so I won't entertain it, but suffice it to say, it's just plain stupid.

Instead of citing over and over a document that is over 200 years old, because, as much as you wish to disagree, the times have changed, instead cite common sense. For example, 99% of people who own guns use them recreationally or out of necessity. Why take away from the vast majority to stop an extreme minority who, if they want to, will find guns anyway. They're called outlaws for a reason. They don't obey the rules set by society. Not to mention the anecdotal evidence seen in the "War against Drugs." What happened when they outlawed drugs? A massive black market arose making it easier than ever to find drugs. I'm not saying a black market of the same size or stature will arise, but it's guaranteed to happen.

What we should be doing instead is expanding our mental health system, and make background checks mandatory no matter where you buy a gun. Will some people slip by? Of course, but this is much better than banning guns for the vast majority because of the inexcusable actions of an infinitesimally small minority.

Also, Dirkjr, you should care if they're violent gangs, because they're detrimental to society. Just an FYI. Also, the constitution doesn't apply to violent gangs, because they're violent... They're breaking the law, therefore have no constitutionally backed rights other than right to speedy trial, etc. We can't disband them, but if they're breaking the law, we can prosecute them. The constitution doesn't protect assemblies that actively break the law...

Bork
9 Mar 2013, 04:06pm
"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" - It's as simple as that.

Anyway, yes, I absolutely agree that not everyone should be allowed to get their hands on guns. My point is this, the only people affected by gun control are the law abiding. Criminals have illegal firearms that they purchase illegally or obtain possession of illegally. How do you filter out those people that shouldn't have guns from the entire population? You can't. Crimes can be committed just as easily with a knife, as they are easier to conceal and quieter. Simply look at the Chinaman that stabbed 20 or so children on the same day as the Newton shooting. From a law enforcement standpoint, no. We DO NOT shoot to kill. Officers train to shoot to STOP.

Dolphin, the Constitution DOES apply to gangs....It applies to EVERYONE in the country. Scenario: A gang member breaks into a rival gang members house, shoots him in the forehead and goes home. Police know who done it, kick down his door and arrest the guy, seize the weapon and hey look, some coke on the table...Guess what? None of that evidence will be allowed into court because of the 4th Amendment, illegal search and seizure. The thing is, you CAN'T EVER get rid of the Constitution. It GUARANTEES the people their rights and regulates the government. Say that Brock Obongo decides to do away with the 2nd Amendment...What's to stop the government from saying, "hey, that 4th Amendment is pretty gay, let's get rid of that". Next thing you know, police officers are allowed to randomly kick down doors and conduct random home searches. My favorite argument, as much or as little sense as you may think it makes, is "...our second amendment rights protect our first." It's the truth, granted we don't live in a tyrannical state. But if you actually pay attention to politics, which I don't unless stupid stuff starts to happen, our Constitutional rights have been picked at little by little, whether you believe that or not.

The problem here is that, yes, the government is allowed to regulate the 2nd Amendment to a reasonable extent, the key word being reasonable. Limiting what a person can own for their own protection or the protection of their loved ones is NOT reasonable, in the case of "assault weapons" (which, I swear if you're one of those ignorant people that don't know anything about firearms, discussion over). Limiting magazine capacity is NOT reasonable. Why should I be limited to a 7 round firearm (in the case of NY) when someone breaking into my home may have a 15-round Glock or worse? Many of the things you've said I've agreed with, just some things are either too stupid to even consider and others impossible. I know here in MA, Deval Fagtrick plans on passing Gun Control Legislation that criminalizes owning certain things. If passed, owning a 15 round magazine would effectively be worse than say, uhm, assault and battery or larceny.

Lux
9 Mar 2013, 07:47pm
I don't see how a law should be there just because you don't trust the government. Why is the government there? It is there for you. Who voted those officials to represent you? You did. If you don't trust them to do what is best for your country and what is best for you, then don't vote them in. You do not live in a tyrannical state, which is exactly why you do not need laws that overrule the government (let's not let our imaginations run here...) But, if you did live in a tyrannical state, they wouldn't give a shit anyway... so either way it's a bit pointless right? At the very least, a law stopping progress would be.

Surely, that's how a Democracy works? It's the same with us (we have a Monarchy but they are effectively powerless). Who made the Constitution? The founders... essentially the government of the time (right...?). You trusted them to do what was best, so you should trust those still in power now to do the same. I don't know if I'm talking crap here.. but basically I see no reason why the government should not amend the Constitution if they think doing so will help, improve,benefit, be more efficient etc. I mean, why settle for laws that are not as good as they should be? Answering a question like that and expecting everyone to agree based on just your opinion kind of goes against the point of a Democracy.

Sure, some things go through that not many people would agree with. But that's because nobody wants taxes, everyone wants a gun, everyone wants as much liberties and free will as they can have. But it's not your job to think of the benefits or consequences of that.

Bork
9 Mar 2013, 08:59pm
I don't see how a law should be there just because you don't trust the government. Why is the government there? It is there for you. Who voted those officials to represent you? You did. If you don't trust them to do what is best for your country and what is best for you, then don't vote them in. You do not live in a tyrannical state, which is exactly why you do not need laws that overrule the government. But, if you did live in a tyrannical state, they wouldn't give a shit anyway... so either way it's a bit pointless right?

I laughed too hard at this. I...I can't even respond to that.

dolph1n
9 Mar 2013, 09:16pm
Dolphin, the Constitution DOES apply to gangs....It applies to EVERYONE in the country. Scenario: A gang member breaks into a rival gang members house, shoots him in the forehead and goes home. Police know who done it, kick down his door and arrest the guy, seize the weapon and hey look, some coke on the table...Guess what? None of that evidence will be allowed into court because of the 4th Amendment, illegal search and seizure.



Actually, that evidence can be admitted to court because there are exceptions to the 4th amendment. That would fall under the "plain view" exception.

But I get what you're saying. I agree with you, guns shouldn't be banned, I just don't think that using the 2nd amendment is the right reason. I agree whole heartedly that the rights given to you by the Bill of Rights are deserved and should be regarded with the utmost respect. However, it is also fair to say that the majority of the constitution is a bit outdated. Also, about the gang topic, I think we're on different pages. I know that creating a gang is completely legal, what I said wasn't legal is when they participate in illegal activities, such as drug dealing, or money laundering, etc. Anyway the main point I was trying to get at in that paragraph was that violent gangs should be a something Dirkjr cares about, not about what constitutional rights gangs get.

One of the stupidest regulations in my eyes is the ban on magazine size. Are they really that naive to think that limiting the magazine size will put any dent in public attacks? Absolutely not. Criminals will just bring more smaller magazines, or buy regular sized magazines on the black market.

I guess politicians are just trying to appease Americans by making it look like they're passing comprehensive legislation.

Bork
9 Mar 2013, 09:24pm
Dolphin, there is no plain view...The entering of the house was illegal, deeming everything that came after illegal. Police cant just go and kick people's doors down. They need to establish probable cause and get a warrant. Anyway, these bills proposed are all only "feel good" bills...Nothing will get fixed and they're just pissing off a whole bunch of people. And yes, maybe the Constitution is a bit outdated, but then again, it may not be. Is the 1st Amendment outdated? The 4th? 5th?...No...Neither is the 2nd, imo. Government should be as regulated as anything else. If anything, maybe we should have regulated Fast and Furious or all the drone strikes D:

Lux
9 Mar 2013, 11:47pm
I laughed too hard at this. I...I can't even respond to that.

You just did. But nothing different than I expected.

Personally, anyone who is that sceptical obviously has no faith in the government. Yet, you still fight for rights which were put in place by the government. Only the ones you like though, of course.

But this is all veering off topic. I think the reason to have arms is to defend yourself. The government will not turn on it's own citizens, no country is going to invade. If more was done to stop people fearing for their lives maybe you wouldn't have to worry about guns? That is all that it should be about. Anyone who tries to argue the need for everyone to have guns for another reason is probably being selfish.

Tamahome
10 Mar 2013, 12:57am
Why is the government there? It is there for you. Who voted those officials to represent you? You did.

No aaaaand....no. So you're saying when Bloomberg limited what size soft drink people can buy, he was representing the people of NYC?


You do not live in a tyrannical state yet

Fixed that for ya.


The founders... essentially the government of the time (right...?). You trusted them to do what was best, so you should trust those still in power now to do the same.

The founders made the constitution. Our current government wipes their ass with it. I guess it's hard to really tell what's going on here from all the way over there in England but we've become more of a pseudo-democracy at this point.

All limiting magazine rounds does is give people the illusion of safety until the next school shooting happens and guess what happens then? More gun legislation and the cycle continues. I'll bet the government can't wait 'til the next mass shooting goes down so they can limit magazine capacities to 1 round

dolph1n
10 Mar 2013, 07:47am
Dolphin, there is no plain view...The entering of the house was illegal, deeming everything that came after illegal. Police cant just go and kick people's doors down. They need to establish probable cause and get a warrant. Anyway, these bills proposed are all only "feel good" bills...Nothing will get fixed and they're just pissing off a whole bunch of people. And yes, maybe the Constitution is a bit outdated, but then again, it may not be. Is the 1st Amendment outdated? The 4th? 5th?...No...Neither is the 2nd, imo. Government should be as regulated as anything else. If anything, maybe we should have regulated Fast and Furious or all the drone strikes D:

Lol honestly, when you said they kicked down the door I assumed you meant they had a warrant as well. Obviously they need a warrant to do that and if they had one, which is what I assumed, then the coke on the table would be admissible due to the plain view exception.

And I absolutely agree that the drone strikes and Fast and Furious should have been regulated, if not shut down altogether.

I do think however that some parts of the constitution are outdated. Can you honestly tell me that weapons are a necessity in today's society? Absolutely not. However, I don't think they should be banned because of what 1 mentally handicapped person did, no matter how horrific.

Lux, we have reason not to have faith in our government. I honestly don't know how it is in Britain and I'm not trying to draw any comparisons, but here in America, our government is a complete and utter shithole. The whole Executive Branch is bought by multinational conglomerations and corporations, there are just so many problems wrong with it that even when you fix one, you make 2 new loopholes.

But that's not the topic of this thread. I've already stated my opinion on gun bans and magazine limits, but to honestly think that the US government will turn on its people is honestly outlandish and a complete farce. Could it happen? I suppose, but it won't. Thinking someone will invade us is just plain stupid.

Lux
10 Mar 2013, 10:23am
No aaaaand....no. So you're saying when Bloomberg limited what size soft drink people can buy, he was representing the people of NYC?

Well it sounds like that to me, yeah. I'm assuming the reason was because soft drinks are bad for you and they want to stop people being so obese? Eventually, we will move towards further cuts, restrictions, bans on fast foods, soft drinks etc because obese people are a problem. It's even more of a problem here because we offer free healthcare, but even without that a fat work force is hardly a good thing, people will die early as well.

In terms of whether that decision was what NYC would have voted for had they all been given a vote, maybe not. But that's part of the reason for a government. People would vote no either because they want the right to a larger drink, or because they really do just want the larger drink. It's not general people's job to care about what people being obese means so of course the result might be different. I'd compare it to a kid and not wanting to do his homework. The parent makes him do it and even if the kid didn't want to do it he'll benefit from it.

--

In terms of the government and multinationals, palms being greased etc...... I'm not naive. Sometimes, people at the bottom get the shit end. We had a bank crisis too and the people at the top always get paid even if they fuck up. But that's how it has to be. London and ultimately Britain is relevant because of it's financial services and it's access to the European Union and it's market.

There are a lot of people who want to leave the European Union because it means that a lot of laws are forced upon us by people in Brussels. It means millions of immigrants are allowed to waltz in and take any benefits they wish in a country that's already overcrowded, who already has people who could do with some help without more needy people being allowed in. But that's just the negatives, leaving would cost us.

If you don't give companies a good deal they can go elsewhere where someone else will give them a good deal. If they go elsewhere that's less business, less money and less jobs. So it's a cost we do not want to see, it's unfair, but that's how it is. I don't think that means that generally the government does not care about it's people.

In a country that's close to defaulting it's debts, can you afford to turn away multinational companies?

Harpr33t
10 Mar 2013, 10:52am
No aaaaand....no. So you're saying when Bloomberg limited what size soft drink people can buy, he was representing the people of NYC



Sent from my HTC VLE_U using Tapatalk 2

He was elected so he does represent us.

And he didnt ban soft drinks just the large sizes. He did that because in nyc healthcare is highly subsidized and free until you are 21. So its another way to help end obesity.

Bork
10 Mar 2013, 12:52pm
I'm not a conspiracy theorist that believes the country will turn on us, but it's true that they've been wiping their rear ends with the constitution over the years. Either way, yes, Dolphin, I firmly, 110% believe that guns are a NECESSITY in our day and age. With the population steadily going bat shit crazy, the youth that we have today being absolutely retarded, and the simple fact that home invasions, robberies and A+Bs happen on a DAILY basis, yes...Guns are a necessity for protection. However, that's why it's called a RIGHT, not a requirement. You don't like guns, don't need them, awesome, don't buy them. It's your right not to. But to say that someone shouldn't have the right to own a 15 round magazine to protect themselves from people that obviously do not abide by the law and own such things as well, is stupid.

Pretty soon, toilet paper will be banned in NY. Bloomberg wants to ban styrofoam...REALLY? And Lux, face it. People vote for their officials based on the BS that they feed them during their campaign, not how they do a complete 180 during their term.

dolph1n
10 Mar 2013, 01:13pm
I'm not a conspiracy theorist that believes the country will turn on us, but it's true that they've been wiping their rear ends with the constitution over the years. Either way, yes, Dolphin, I firmly, 110% believe that guns are a NECESSITY in our day and age. With the population steadily going bat shit crazy, the youth that we have today being absolutely retarded, and the simple fact that home invasions, robberies and A+Bs happen on a DAILY basis, yes...Guns are a necessity for protection. However, that's why it's called a RIGHT, not a requirement. You don't like guns, don't need them, awesome, don't buy them. It's your right not to. But to say that someone shouldn't have the right to own a 15 round magazine to protect themselves from people that obviously do not abide by the law and own such things as well, is stupid.


I'm getting tired of repeating myself. I agree with you, how do you not see that?? I too think the ban on guns is stupid and I too think the ban on certain sized magazines is even stupider. I also agree that the government has wiped their asses with the constitution. Where we disagree is the necessity. While I wholeheartedly agree it's a right to own a gun with reasonable restrictions, you can't deny the facts. Crime rates have gone down almost every year for the past 20-30 years. America, albeit more relatively dangerous than other countries, is an extremely safe country. Having a gun is absolutely not a necessity. But you're entitled to your opinion, however wrong it may be. :cheesy:

Just to recap: I agree with you on gun rights, where I disagree is the necessity. Please don't make me explain it again.

Tamahome
10 Mar 2013, 05:15pm
Well it sounds like that to me, yeah. I'm assuming the reason was because soft drinks are bad for you and they want to stop people being so obese? Eventually, we will move towards further cuts, restrictions, bans on fast foods, soft drinks etc because obese people are a problem. It's even more of a problem here because we offer free healthcare, but even without that a fat work force is hardly a good thing, people will die early as well.

In terms of whether that decision was what NYC would have voted for had they all been given a vote, maybe not. But that's part of the reason for a government. People would vote no either because they want the right to a larger drink, or because they really do just want the larger drink. It's not general people's job to care about what people being obese means so of course the result might be different. I'd compare it to a kid and not wanting to do his homework. The parent makes him do it and even if the kid didn't want to do it he'll benefit from it.


Obesity is a problem you can't just legislate away. Banning large-sized sodas did nothing but force people to buy two smaller-sized drinks. People make poor decisions and no law is gonna change that. The government is not our parent. We are not all a bunch of children who need someone to decide what's best for us.

Same thing goes for gun violence. It's a very complicated issue with a lot of factors involved(mental illness, gang culture, etc.). We're just looking for a simple solution when there really isn't one.


He was elected so he does represent us.

I heard he pretty much bought his election and not many people actually like him. I don't live there so I don't really know.

Lux
10 Mar 2013, 07:36pm
Obesity is a problem you can't just legislate away. Banning large-sized sodas did nothing but force people to buy two smaller-sized drinks.

I'm not sure everyone would buy two. Maybe it made a small difference, maybe not. It would be better to do more to do more to stop obesity and I'm sure they are. That legislation was never anyone's one answer to curing obesity.


People make poor decisions and no law is gonna change that. The government is not our parent. We are not all a bunch of children who need someone to decide what's best for us.

That's really not entirely true though. Quick example... illegal drugs. Could you still make the mistake? Sure. Does the government decide that you shouldn't though? Yeah it does.



Same thing goes for gun violence. It's a very complicated issue with a lot of factors involved(mental illness, gang culture, etc.). We're just looking for a simple solution when there really isn't one.

There is no simply solution. It takes a lot of work, effort, money and time. I don't think just giving everyone guns and leaving them to it is the answer though.

Tamahome
10 Mar 2013, 08:24pm
I'm not sure everyone would buy two. Maybe it made a small difference, maybe not. It would be better to do more to do more to stop obesity and I'm sure they are. That legislation was never anyone's one answer to curing obesity.


They can figure out other ways of making people understand what's not so good for their health than making a law against consuming it. If not then okay fair enough but we gotta stop calling ourselves a free country.



That's really not entirely true though. Quick example... illegal drugs. Could you still make the mistake? Sure. Does the government decide that you shouldn't though? Yeah it does.

Our government didn't decide we shouldn't smoke weed or do cocaine. They decided we can't. Meanwhile, more people die from legal drugs they decided were better for our health.



There is no simply solution. It takes a lot of work, effort, money and time. I don't think just giving everyone guns and leaving them to it is the answer though.

And neither is making further restrictions for law-abiding citizens. I mean if anybody needs proof, just look at Chicago. I hear they're pretty tough on guns down there and look how many gun-related crimes happen every week in that city. They might have more gun deaths in a week than the entire state of Texas. We've always had proper restrictions in place. We just need to do a much better job at enforcing the laws we already have.

Lux
10 Mar 2013, 08:59pm
The points about free country etc. Not country is completely free. You can't walk down the road naked and do whatever you want. If you really want that, go live in the wilderness.


I mean if anybody needs proof, just look at Chicago. I hear they're pretty tough on guns down there and look how many gun-related crimes happen every week in that city.

You always bring that up. But it's pretty ineffective to do that when places around Chicago and America have a whole are not equally as tough.

Dirk
10 Mar 2013, 10:30pm
You dont seem to understand the point Lux. Its not that banning large drinks is stupid because it wouldnt help anyone its stupid because its not the government's place to try and do so. “Government exists to protect us from each other. Where government has gone beyond its limits is in deciding to protect us from ourselves.” -Ronald Reagan Doing things like this is the government butting in where they dont belong. I believe in free markets and personal liberty not some nanny state.

Lux
10 Mar 2013, 10:53pm
You dont seem to understand the point Lux. Its not that banning large drinks is stupid because it wouldnt help anyone its stupid because its not the government's place to try and do so. “Government exists to protect us from each other. Where government has gone beyond its limits is in deciding to protect us from ourselves.” -Ronald Reagan Doing things like this is the government butting in where they dont belong. I believe in free markets and personal liberty not some nanny state.

I guess we will have to agree to disagree on that.

There's no such thing as a pure free market.

Dirk
10 Mar 2013, 10:54pm
I should also reinterate that not everyone should have a gun and not everyone needs a gun. Owning one is a responisbility and should not be taken lightly. Like driving a car, guns are to be taken seriously, and used with caution. You are dealing with something that can cause serious harm if care is not taken, if you cant handle the responsibility, dont buy one. If someone does buy one and does something stupid with it, they should be punished severely. With proper usage, however, guns can be extremely safe, fun, and extremely usefull tools. Target shooting and hunting are quite enjoyable passtimes and many people rely on guns to keep them safe. The only sort of gun regulation I support is strict punishment for those who misuse them and strict standards of production so that firearms are not made which are dangerous to use.

On a side note about the NY magazine capacity ordeal, it appears the law at this point also prohibits law enforcement from having guns with greater than 7 round capacity. But of course if there is no reason to ever have more than 7 rounds of ammunition thats fine with me. (although honestly if I were an officer I would love to trade my glock in for a revolver like they used to issue any day)

Dirk
10 Mar 2013, 11:05pm
I guess we will have to agree to disagree on that.

There's no such thing as a pure free market.

Well yeah, by free market I mean, unregulated except where self regulation has been prooven to be a danger to the people. I guess its a good thing we live in our respective countries. You like your system and I like mine.

Harpr33t
11 Mar 2013, 11:17am
Too lazy to quote but using Chicago as an example that gun control doesn't work is stupid. Once you go out of city limits the gun laws aren't in effect. So what criminals do is go out of the city and buy guns and sneak them back in.

And in nyc the ban in certain sizes is justified because we have extremely subsidized healthcare here. The next step will be to cut off soda and junk food from the food stamp program




Sent from my HTC VLE_U using Tapatalk 2

Tamahome
11 Mar 2013, 11:17am
You always bring that up. But it's pretty ineffective to do that when places around Chicago and America have a whole are not equally as tough.

I think when you look at North America and see that where gun laws are strictest, the gun crime rate is highest, it's safe to say that the guns themselves have nothing to do with why there is so much violent crime.


The points about free country etc. Not country is completely free. You can't walk down the road naked and do whatever you want. If you really want that, go live in the wilderness.

What Dirkjr said.


Too lazy to quote but using Chicago as an example that gun control doesn't work is stupid. Once you go out of city limits the gun laws aren't in effect. So what criminals do is go out of the city and buy guns and sneak them back in.


Sent from my HTC VLE_U using Tapatalk 2

Then why is it that the gun states they're supposedly sneaking their guns in from aren't total warzones? I only use Chicago because it's one of the worst places.


The next step will be to cut off soda and junk food from the food stamp program

That I would support because it's just saying "you can buy unhealthy junk food. We're just not gonna pay for it".

Bork
11 Mar 2013, 12:49pm
Too lazy to quote but using Chicago as an example that gun control doesn't work is stupid. Once you go out of city limits the gun laws aren't in effect. So what criminals do is go out of the city and buy guns and sneak them back in.

Quoted for dumb. So say a federal "assault weapons" ban goes into effect, as well as a country-wide ban on high-cap mags. Criminals won't sit there and go, "Well shhheeeiiittt...I guess we better turn in all of our stuff." Instead, I'll tell you right now, they'll simply drive down south and go buy back all the weapons that Brock Obongo put into Mexico. Now, this is all my opinion from here on out, but think about it. Driving all the way to Mexico to get weapons. Costs will rise. What does this mean? Drug trafficking will rise and burglaries/robberies in order to make up for the increased cost for weapons. Even if they don't go all the way to Mexico and just buy from a newly established underground market of weapons in-country, the costs would have gone up as well. Btw, you can't own weapons in Mexico, nice place they got there :bitchpls:. Chicago, is in fact, the perfect place to use as an example that gun control does NOT work. Whatever the reason, it will NOT work. Simple as that. The problem in Chicago are the gangs and not a thing will prevent those groups from getting their weapons/drugs. These gangs have been around for decades because of their ability to adapt and get around our retarded system and will continue to do so.

Harpr33t
11 Mar 2013, 03:06pm
Quoted for dumb. So say a federal "assault weapons" ban goes into effect, as well as a country-wide ban on high-cap mags. Criminals won't sit there and go, "Well shhheeeiiittt...I guess we better turn in all of our stuff." Instead, I'll tell you right now, they'll simply drive down south and go buy back all the weapons that Brock Obongo put into Mexico. Now, this is all my opinion from here on out, but think about it. Driving all the way to Mexico to get weapons. Costs will rise. What does this mean? Drug trafficking will rise and burglaries/robberies in order to make up for the increased cost for weapons. Even if they don't go all the way to Mexico and just buy from a newly established underground market of weapons in-country, the costs would have gone up as well. Btw, you can't own weapons in Mexico, nice place they got there :bitchpls:. Chicago, is in fact, the perfect place to use as an example that gun control does NOT work. Whatever the reason, it will NOT work. Simple as that. The problem in Chicago are the gangs and not a thing will prevent those groups from getting their weapons/drugs. These gangs have been around for decades because of their ability to adapt and get around our retarded system and will continue to do so.

Thanks for proving how stupid you are.

Do you know how many guns were sent south of the border during operation fast and furious?

Did you know almost 100 percent of the guns used in Mexico are bought at gun stores in the states bordering Mexico ?

"Now, this is all my opinion from here on out, but think about it."

Chicago is perfect example to show you can't stay in the shallow end of the pool and then claim you can swim. Same with Mexico.

Sent from my HTC VLE_U using Tapatalk 2

Dirk
11 Mar 2013, 06:20pm
Regaurding the limit on drink sizes in NY Judge halts mayor's soda ban, calls it 'arbitrary and capricious' - NYPOST.com (http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/mayor_bloomberg_believes_themselves_enfmR96eplT88T yLQInuoI)

Bork
11 Mar 2013, 07:15pm
Thanks for proving how stupid you are.

Do you know how many guns were sent south of the border during operation fast and furious?

Did you know almost 100 percent of the guns used in Mexico are bought at gun stores in the states bordering Mexico ?

"Now, this is all my opinion from here on out, but think about it."

Chicago is perfect example to show you can't stay in the shallow end of the pool and then claim you can swim. Same with Mexico.

Sent from my HTC VLE_U using Tapatalk 2

About 2,000 guns, including .50 caliber rifles. And almost 100% of their guns come from here? Are you high? 85-90% of their weapons come from Central America, you know, that area that isn't the US? Most of their weapons are stolen from the militaries in those areas, not to mention sold by the corrupt there as well. There is no "shallow end of a pool" here. The fact that you refuse to accept the actuality surrounding the ineffectiveness of the laws in Chicago and Mexico's drug cartels possessing weapons like RPGs they got from surrounding countries, shows not only how uninformed you are, but extreme, willful ignorance on the matter. None of this, is opinion.

Harpr33t
11 Mar 2013, 07:55pm
About 2,000 guns, including .50 caliber rifles. And almost 100% of their guns come from here? Are you high? 85-90% of their weapons come from Central America, you know, that area that isn't the US? Most of their weapons are stolen from the militaries in those areas, not to mention sold by the corrupt there as well. There is no "shallow end of a pool" here. The fact that you refuse to accept the actuality surrounding the ineffectiveness of the laws in Chicago and Mexico's drug cartels possessing weapons like RPGs they got from surrounding countries, shows not only how uninformed you are, but extreme, willful ignorance on the matter. None of this, is opinion.

Sorry not 90 percent but 70 percent come from the states.

It's all here http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?Fuseaction=Files.View&FileStore_id=beaff893-63c1-4941-9903-67a0dc739b9d
and here: Mexican cartel leader claims gang buys all its guns in US - CSMonitor.com (http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Americas/Latin-America-Monitor/2011/0708/Mexican-cartel-leader-claims-gang-buys-all-its-guns-in-US)

Now do you have any proof to back your claims up? Because this is the politics section. Either you back up your claims or you do not post. I'll give you that you were correct about the 2000 guns but blaming it on Obama is uncalled for when it was basically a continuation of Operation Wide Receiver

Now are you seriously comparing Chicago gangs with the cartels who consist of ex special forces and police forces? there has not been one incident of gang bangers in Chicago using rpgs.

Here is how they get their weapons. How Criminals Get Guns: In Short, All Too Easily - New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/1992/03/11/us/how-criminals-get-guns-in-short-all-too-easily.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm)

Majority of them being from Cook county. Now if there would be a federal ban on guns and a 30 day turn in period like they had in other countries there would be a reduction in gun crime.

Bork
11 Mar 2013, 08:34pm
Cops Find Rocket Launcher During Weapons Raid | NBC Chicago (http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/Cops-Find-Rocket-Launcher-During-Weapons-Raid-84297437.html)

Feinstein is a snake and has already said she would be willing to do anything to get guns off the street, and even said she'd have the government confiscate all weapons. I would LOVE to see them try. Again, the "lets ban guns so gun crime will go down" is an absolute farce as a result of ignorant fear of an inanimate object, from people that have absolutely no clue as to the actual functioning of a weapon and would rather bend over and take it.

Where Drug Cartels Really Get Their Arms (http://frontpagemag.com/2011/ryan-mauro/where-drug-cartels-really-get-their-arms/)

If you believe ANYTHING a drug cartel member tells you......Won't even say it.

I didn't place the blame solely on Obongo, but the entire project should have been scrapped. Not every member of the drug cartel is ex-military, and even as such, further pushes what I said about ties to corrupt military in order to get their weapons. Chicago gangs aren't just CHICAGO gangs. Those gangs are spread across the ENTIRE country. Their numbers run in the hundreds of thousands, much higher than the Mexican cartels, who, btw, do operate in the US as well. To simply say that those gangs have "nothing" on the Mexican cartels is stupid. I'd love to know your experience working with such people, as I've got plenty. They're just as ruthless and won't stop for anything to get their message across.

Now yes, I agree, in some places, it's WAY too easy to get weapons. Should there be background checks, yes, but not the way they are proposing. It won't work and will just make people jump through meaningless hoops for nothing. Howabout mental health? This entire country is so worried about image and won't speak up or ask questions simply because "omg but we can't call this person mentally ill cause it'll hurt their feelings". But banning them, by no means, will stop anything. Turn in period? How many people do you think would turn in their guns? Better yet, how about the gang bangers, the people that actually contribute to the UCR statistics? Every single bill being proposed is a feel-good bill as nothing will get fixed, but they can say "Well, we tried".

You don't like guns? Awesome, great, don't buy one. It's your right. However, it's not your right to decide what anyone should use for their own protection or the protection of their family, granted it's reasonable. You'd rather turn around, bend over and take it, it's your right. It's a gun owner's right to protect himself from those gangs, anyone that poses an imminent threat of serious bodily injury or death, or, if you're a Constitution nut, a tyrannical government.

Some more reading material since Harp seems to be grasping at straws here to make me look dumb cause he's bad a games.

Obama Orders Prosecution Of Fast And Furious Perpetrators (Sort Of) - Forbes (http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2013/01/29/obama-orders-prosecution-of-fast-and-furious-perpetrators-sort-of/)

The Myth of 90 Percent: Only a Small Fraction of Guns in Mexico Come From U.S. | Fox News (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/04/02/myth-percent-small-fraction-guns-mexico-come/) (Hate FoxNews)

Dianne Feinstein caught in a lie - YouTube (http://youtu.be/k3DKuN2ey80) Feinsteins bs

Harpr33t
11 Mar 2013, 08:46pm
Cops Find Rocket Launcher During Weapons Raid | NBC Chicago (http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/Cops-Find-Rocket-Launcher-During-Weapons-Raid-84297437.html)

Feinstein is a snake and has already said she would be willing to do anything to get guns off the street, and even said she'd have the government confiscate all weapons. I would LOVE to see them try. Again, the "lets ban guns so gun crime will go down" is an absolute farce as a result of ignorant fear of an inanimate object, from people that have absolutely no clue as to the actual functioning of a weapon and would rather bend over and take it.

Where Drug Cartels Really Get Their Arms (http://frontpagemag.com/2011/ryan-mauro/where-drug-cartels-really-get-their-arms/)

If you believe ANYTHING a drug cartel member tells you......Won't even say it.

I didn't place the blame solely on Obongo, but the entire project should have been scrapped. Not every member of the drug cartel is ex-military, and even as such, further pushes what I said about ties to corrupt military in order to get their weapons. Chicago gangs aren't just CHICAGO gangs. Those gangs are spread across the ENTIRE country. Their numbers run in the hundreds of thousands, much higher than the Mexican cartels, who, btw, do operate in the US as well. To simply say that those gangs have "nothing" on the Mexican cartels is stupid. I'd love to know your experience working with such people, as I've got plenty. They're just as ruthless and won't stop for anything to get their message across.

Now yes, I agree, in some places, it's WAY too easy to get weapons. Should there be background checks, yes, but not the way they are proposing. It won't work and will just make people jump through meaningless hoops for nothing. Howabout mental health? This entire country is so worried about image and won't speak up or ask questions simply because "omg but we can't call this person mentally ill cause it'll hurt their feelings". But banning them, by no means, will stop anything. Turn in period? How many people do you think would turn in their guns? Better yet, how about the gang bangers, the people that actually contribute to the UCR statistics? Every single bill being proposed is a feel-good bill as nothing will get fixed, but they can say "Well, we tried".

You don't like guns? Awesome, great, don't buy one. It's your right. However, it's not your right to decide what anyone should use for their own protection or the protection of their family, granted it's reasonable. You'd rather turn around, bend over and take it, it's your right. It's a gun owner's right to protect himself from those gangs, anyone that poses an imminent threat of serious bodily injury or death, or, if you're a Constitution nut, a tyrannical government.

Some more reading material since Harp seems to be grasping at straws here to make me look dumb cause he's bad a games.

Obama Orders Prosecution Of Fast And Furious Perpetrators (Sort Of) - Forbes (http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2013/01/29/obama-orders-prosecution-of-fast-and-furious-perpetrators-sort-of/)

The Myth of 90 Percent: Only a Small Fraction of Guns in Mexico Come From U.S. | Fox News (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/04/02/myth-percent-small-fraction-guns-mexico-come/) (Hate FoxNews)

Dianne Feinstein caught in a lie - YouTube (http://youtu.be/k3DKuN2ey80) Feinsteins bs

I never said I want all guns confiscated. I believe certain guns to be banned. That fox link is bs. They have traced weapons through serials.
Your earlier posts say that this would violate the second amendment when clearly amendments can be amended. The supreme has already determined that the 2nd guarantees a gun but limitations.

Is funny how people are crying about three state of mental health when the the airhead Reagan threw them all out.



Sent from my HTC VLE_U using Tapatalk 2

Dirk
11 Mar 2013, 09:00pm
I never said I want all guns confiscated. I believe certain guns to be banned. That fox link is bs. They have traced weapons through serials.
Your earlier posts say that this would violate the second amendment when clearly amendments can be amended. The supreme has already determined that the 2nd guarantees a gun but limitations.

Is funny how people are crying about three state of mental health when the the airhead Reagan threw them all out.



Sent from my HTC VLE_U using Tapatalk 2

So you support banning guns based on appearence? makes sense to me

Bork
11 Mar 2013, 09:00pm
The 2nd Amendment includes the right of the government to REGULATE, yes. However, regulating a person's magazine capacity to less than what's reasonable in this day and age shouldn't be allowed, nor the "assault weapons" ban. RPGs and fully automatic guns are ALREADY illegal, yet they are in circulation. The ban they want to put into place will simply ban ANY firearm with ONE cosmetic feature, such as a pistol grip or adjustable stock, simply because they're scary and have absolutely nothing to do with the actual inner workings of the weapon...Do you agree with that ban? Cause if so, you're as ignorant as the law makers pushing this.

Dirk
11 Mar 2013, 09:03pm
If you actualy care about stopping mass shootings and "protecting the children" you would support the removal of "gun free zones" which do nothing but invite such shootings.

Italian Jew
19 Mar 2013, 12:28am
If you actualy care about stopping mass shootings and "protecting the children" you would support the removal of "gun free zones" which do nothing but invite such shootings.

Just like smoke free zones invite mass smoking.

Dirk
19 Mar 2013, 01:30am
Just like smoke free zones invite mass smoking.

Your logic is terrible. Smoking doesn't deter more smoking and smokers aren't nut jobs out to kill people. Gun free zone = place where law abiding citizens aren't going to shoot back. The vast majority of shootings take place in these zones. Its like making a "cop free zone" and not expecting crime rates to go up there. Hmm... perhaps we could make drunk driving free zones and that will stop that problem too.

Sniper
19 Mar 2013, 06:50pm
In other news:

BBC News - Senate Democrats to drop assault weapon ban from gun bill (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-21849814)

Italian Jew
19 Mar 2013, 09:44pm
Your logic is terrible.

http://t.qkme.me/3lcd.jpg


Smoking doesn't deter more smoking and smokers aren't nut jobs out to kill people.

I don't even....

I never said smoking deterred smoking (although smoke free areas do deter smoking in that area:thumb:), but rather pointed out that it was rather silly to assume that once something is banned in an area, it is automatically calling out every person to go and use that banned thing in that area. That is just one REEEAAAALLLLLYYYY big assumption you are banking on.

Smokers are not nut jobs out to kill people. They can be, but that has nothing to do with any of this, so I will assume you wanted to fluff up your response to make you look smart. (Pro Tip: It's not working)


Gun free zone = place where law abiding citizens aren't going to shoot back.

Ah yes, sweet vigilante justice. You assume that if someone had a gun when one of these massacres started, that person would prevent or lessen the extent of the massacre. Again, REEEEEAAAAALLLLLYYYY big assumption. What if it is more than one person rolling in somewhere shooting up the place? What if you draw your gun out and the other guy takes a hostage (Counter-Strike does not qualify you for dealing with hostage situations)? What if you draw your gun, fire, and manage to hit innocent bystanders? What if the guy comes in wearing some form of protection for his body and heavier weaponry than your average pistol?

I could even make the argument that by having a gunman assume people were armed, he would try and take out more of them quicker to reduce the threat to himself. "Man, I really want to kill my boss, but somebody in this lobby might have a pistol. Better take off my vest and put down my SMG and act cool" - Said nobody ever.

He wouldn't move on to a new location because he is there for a specific reason, which brings me to...


The vast majority of shootings take place in these zones.

And every single one of them was caused by prior events causing the person to lose control. The fact that some of these places were "gun free" had nothing to do with some guy deciding to shoot up a school, office, government building, etc. You will see many instances of mental issues (shouldn't have a gun in the first place) or people who think they have nothing to lose (they don't care about dying).


Its like making a "cop free zone" and not expecting crime rates to go up there. Hmm... perhaps we could make drunk driving free zones and that will stop that problem too.

Cops are in place to deter crime, so you it seems you do not logic very well (I used it as a verb, :ok:) Cops wouldn't necessarily be the problem, crime would. Instead of saying "cop free zone" like the buffoon you are, you should have said "crime free zone". You would not expect, assuming a heavily crime ridden area, that crime would drop in a "crime free zone". Even then, it has no bearing on whether you think everyone should be able to carry guns anywhere.

Every road is a "drunk driving free zone", smartass. YOUR logic is terrible (see what I did there?) because if drunk driving was allowed, we'd have many more cases of drunken accidents because most people would be doing it. Prohibiting drunk driving actually does decrease the amount of drunk driving, at least the more severe cases anyway. I wish it would stop all of the drunk driving, but you'd have to remove all cars or alcohol for that, so no dice.


Your opinions on the matter are noted, but remember, they are just your opinions. Believing that carrying weapons in public would reduce massacres doesn't make it true. Having guns in the right hands at the right time would make a difference, but your average citizen being armed isn't always going to work out favorably. There is more to preventing these things from happening than guns (taking them away or having more of them).

Was initially pointing how your logic was flawed, but then you dun goofed, so I laid this all out.

Dirk
19 Mar 2013, 10:06pm
The only reason to carry a gun is to protect yourself in others. Why you think concealed carry holders wouldn't try and stop a mass shooting is beyond me. Saying we have cops (also people with guns) so we don't need civilians with guns is like saying we don't need fire extinguishers because we have fire departments. And when I said smoking doesn't deter smoking I am pointing out how your comparison does not factor in the fact that the threat of a gun will likely make a shooter think twice. If you are trying to kill a bunch of people, you would be a damn fool not to go someplace where they aren't going to shoot back. Concealed carry permit holders are you friends. They carry guns not just to protect themselves but also to protect others. And as to your comments about police, the police I have spoken with all encourage and welcome civilians carrying firearms. Also im not saying the threat of guns would end all shootings but I am saying it reduces them and cuts ones currently happening short. It is simply stupid to disarm those who would help children in a school shooting. Like you said "never go full retard"

edit:the reason it matters that smokers aren't out to kill people is that the majority of smokers wouldn't break the law and smoke in a non-smoking area. Killers on the other hand ARE CRIMINALS THEY DON'T LISTEN TO LAWS. Do you think keeping law abiding people from having guns actually helps with mass shootings?

Italian Jew
19 Mar 2013, 10:32pm
The only reason to carry a gun is to protect yourself in others. Why you think concealed carry holders wouldn't try and stop a mass shooting is beyond me.

But the gunmen have guns and they are shooting people, which I don't think is protecting them.

If you in an unknown or dangerous place, sometimes the instinct of self preservation kicks in. Having a much larger weapon waved in your face might stop you, not being able to see the guy (or guys) might stop you, a hostage might be in the way, etc.


Saying we have cops (also people with guns) so we don't need civilians with guns is like saying we don't need fire extinguishers because we have fire departments.

First, you are sort of proving the opposite of what you are trying to say. Cops are TRAINED people with guns (i.e. they know how to deal with crimes, hostage situations, shootouts) whereas your average civilian relies on Call of Duty. I would prefer a cop to handle a serious situation (shootout) than a minor crime that could be stopped by a civilian (robbery). I would still like the cop there for the robbery, but if I had a gun to stop someone or myself from being robbed, yay for me.

A fire extinguisher can be used for a minor fire (i.e. relates to minor crime/robbery). The fire department should be called if your entire house is on fire (i.e. major crime/shootout). I don't want my neighbor running into my blazing house trying to stop it from going down with a fire extinguisher because he is going to get his ass killed and cause the fire fighters to risk their lives and try to get him out.

Second, I never said civilians shouldn't have guns at all times.

I never said civilians shouldn't have guns, just that gun free zones typically work unless somebody has a mental breakdown and decides to shoot the place up. It being "Gun Free" has little bearing on the location.


And when I said smoking doesn't deter smoking I am pointing out how your comparison does not factor in the fact that the threat of a gun will likely make a shooter think twice. [If you are trying to kill a bunch of people, you would be a damn fool not to go someplace where they aren't going to shoot back

I'm pretty sure someone who plans to bring body armor and heavy weaponry (also a lack of sanity) isn't going to consider some guy who might have a pistol at a location. If he is mad at his boss and is set on shooting up his workplace, he will.

People who go around shooting children and random people don't really fall under the umbrella of rational thinkers.


Concealed carry permit holders are you friends. They carry guns not just to protect themselves but also to protect others.

They can be, but they could just as much be a danger to me as well. Every person with a concealed weapon permit is not a knight in shining armor. Sorry to pop that image out of your head.


And as to your comments about police, the police I have spoken with all encourage and welcome civilians carrying firearms.

Awesome! Every police officer doesn't share the same opinion on the matter though because they are people and people tend to disagree on things.


Also im not saying the threat of guns would end all shootings but I am saying it reduces them and cuts ones currently happening short. It is simply stupid to disarm those who would help children in a school shooting.

Care to share any real data that proves that having weapons during a school shooting would cut it short? Care to share anything to show that it definitely reduces shootings?

Can you tell me an armed teacher at Sandy Hook or Columbine would have stopped the massacres (there was an armed guard at Columbine; best thing he did was call backup)?

Stop assuming it would automatically be a positive thing. I'm not disagreeing SOME people could have success at stopping things, but it isn't the cure all solution to the problem like you are making it out to be. Can you acknowledge that it may not help? Can you, for me?


Like you said "never go full retard"

STAHP



edit:the reason it matters that smokers aren't out to kill people is that the majority of smokers wouldn't break the law and smoke in a non-smoking area. Killers on the other hand ARE CRIMINALS THEY DON'T LISTEN TO LAWS. Do you think keeping law abiding people from having guns actually helps with mass shootings?

Apparently, you haven't done college yet. Dorms are generally non-smoking, but college students tend to break that rule time and time again (both legal and illegal plants). All smokers are not out to kill people, but I wasn't trying to make that point anyway, so you can have it.

Killers are only criminals after they do the killing (unless they are actually criminals beforehand, which isn't that many for massacres any way). They listen to laws until they snap.

I think restricting certain types of weapons and ammo could be helpful, especially if certain background check criteria are taken into consideration. The problem is more along the lines of certain people being unable to handle certain things. Given enough stress or dire need to end things, they will find a way to implement their end game. I don't think having civilians armed would help as much as you think it would because massacres are surprise attacks. Civilians should not be expecting or predicting them, nor are they trained to do so.

Dirk
19 Mar 2013, 10:58pm
I might have posted this earlier but because you have apparently not read it here is the study that shows concealed carry DOES reduce the rate of mass shootings and DOES cut short ones in progress. http://www.thevrwc.org/JohnLott.pdf read it, you might learn something.

edit: also, when you say civilians aren't trained to deal with a situation like that you aren't taking into account that civilians receive training on proper reactions to such situations before they can receive the carry permit to begin with.

Italian Jew
19 Mar 2013, 11:25pm
I might have posted this earlier but because you have apparently not read it here is the study that shows concealed carry DOES reduce the rate of mass shootings and DOES cut short ones in progress. http://www.thevrwc.org/JohnLott.pdf read it, you might learn something.

And there are two that question that study's validity.

Firearms and Violence: A Critical Review (http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?isbn=0309091241&page=2)

Shooting Down the More Guns, Less Crime Hypothesis by Ian Ayres, John Donohue :: SSRN (http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=343781)

If you've only got one study that has been criticized for systemic bias and improper methodology, then there isn't much to say.

Also, one study, even a flawless one (which this isn't) doesn't prove anything.



edit: also, when you say civilians aren't trained to deal with a situation like that you aren't taking into account that civilians receive training on proper reactions to such situations before they can receive the carry permit to begin with.

Is it training to the level of a police officer or something you just check off to get your permit and get out of the way? Be honest.

Dirk
19 Mar 2013, 11:49pm
And there are two that question that study's validity.

Firearms and Violence: A Critical Review (http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?isbn=0309091241&page=2)

Shooting Down the More Guns, Less Crime Hypothesis by Ian Ayres, John Donohue :: SSRN (http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=343781)

If you've only got one study that has been criticized for systemic bias and improper methodology, then there isn't much to say.

Also, one study, even a flawless one (which this isn't) doesn't prove anything.



Is it training to the level of a police officer or something you just check off to get your permit and get out of the way? Be honest.

Never said it was the level of training of a police officer but the way you brush aside the possibility of a civilian with a gun being of any use is just silly. Also, I only posed one study because you specifically asked for one and all I had to do was check my earlier posts to find it. That wasn't a list of every pro-concealed carry study. Now if you can somehow explain why preventing law abiding citizens from having a gun while criminals can still have them is going to stop a shooting, please do so.

"Care to share any real data that proves that having weapons during a school shooting would cut it short? Care to share anything to show that it definitely reduces shootings?" well I did

Italian Jew
20 Mar 2013, 12:05am
Never said it was the level of training of a police officer but the way you brush aside the possibility of a civilian with a gun being of any use is just silly.

Never said it was impossible, just unlikely it would stop a massacre. Maybe a robbery or something small scale, but something along the lines of Aurora or Sandy Hook probably would not have been stopped.


Also, I only posed one study because you specifically asked for one and all I had to do was check my earlier posts to find it. That wasn't a list of every pro-concealed carry study.

I just got back to the forums. I'm not reading through every single page of stuff.

I wanted something from someone who doesn't modify his research to benefit his beliefs.


Now if you can somehow explain why preventing law abiding citizens from having a gun while criminals can still have them is going to stop a shooting, please do so.

I never said citizens shouldn't have weapons so stop trying to spin it that way. They can have them in their homes for defense, but I don't believe they should go unchecked into the public. There is a difference in finding little problem with gun free zones and outright claiming nobody should have guns.



"Care to share any real data that proves that having weapons during a school shooting would cut it short? Care to share anything to show that it definitely reduces shootings?" well I did

From a guy who has modified his research and has been discredited many times.

Bork
20 Mar 2013, 12:08am
Civilian firearms training involves many of the same things that police officers train in. The only differences would be the situational scenarios that police officers are put through in order to ensure their ability to pull their weapon quickly and pull the trigger. Training isn't the issue here.

And Italian Jews, no. Criminals are criminals ONCE they have the intent to commit a crime. That's why there are charges such as ATTEMPTED Murder and ATTEMPTED Larceny. Now, as far as data that proves that if a legally carried firearm would have stopped a mass shooting, there isn't any. Think about it. Law abiding firearms owner do not carry their weapons to places that forbid it. That would be against the law. Do I think that a licensed firearm owner would stop a mass shooter if they were armed on the premise? I don't know. A multitude of different things could happen. The guy could freeze or hesitate, getting killed himself. He could turn around and run, even though he has a gun on him. However, there is still that chance that he could draw his weapon, take aim, and shoot the gunman. That chance alone is worth thinking about.

Trying to argue that the law abiding are the ones to watch out for is absolutely retarded. Every one of these mass shootings were committed by someone who obtained illegal firearms and used them illegally. I don't understand how people still try to argue that a licensed firearm owner is the one that may commit these acts. Chicago's murders are committed by KIDS and gangs. None of them legally own firearms. In Newton, Lanza was unlicensed, murdered his mother, and stole HER weapons. Now, she had them stored in a very shitty manner and if she were alive, I'd support charges against her, as improper storage of firearms is already against the law.

The simple fact of the matter is this. It's every person's right to be able to defend themselves through whatever reasonable means. It's reasonable to believe that any criminal in this day and age possesses a firearm, whether it be a 5-6 shot revolver or a submachine gun. That is our right. It's also a person's right to choose NOT to get a firearms license or own any firearms. Neither side should be telling eachother what to do, and that is the problem here. Something to think about coming from someone in law enforcement...Average response time is about 10 or so minutes, more or less. It takes a second for a burglar to turn the situation into a home invasion. A typical 9mm handgun, which could hold up to 15 rounds, could fire a round at 1100ft per second. If you want to wait on the police go for it, but no one should make anyone have to wait.

Italian Jew
20 Mar 2013, 12:34am
Civilian firearms training involves many of the same things that police officers train in. The only differences would be the situational scenarios that police officers are put through in order to ensure their ability to pull their weapon quickly and pull the trigger. Training isn't the issue here.


But it would be the issue if an armed civilian was presented as a deterrent for someone committing a massacre. I am not of the belief that an average citizen would be up to par with a trained police officer in that situation (which is what we were talking about for along time).



And Italian Jews, no. Criminals are criminals ONCE they have the intent to commit a crime. That's why there are charges such as ATTEMPTED Murder and ATTEMPTED Larceny.

Key word, ATTEMPTED. That means they got off their ass and tried to kill someone rather than sit on their ass and think about killing someone. Furthermore, a criminal is someone who has committed a crime (they did something). Intent is not the actual crime, just a representation of the state of someone's mind during the crime (i.e. you cannot have criminal intent unless you committed a crime or tried to).

So Borks, yes.


Now, as far as data that proves that if a legally carried firearm would have stopped a mass shooting, there isn't any. Think about it. Law abiding firearms owner do not carry their weapons to places that forbid it. That would be against the law. Do I think that a licensed firearm owner would stop a mass shooter if they were armed on the premise? I don't know. A multitude of different things could happen. The guy could freeze or hesitate, getting killed himself. He could turn around and run, even though he has a gun on him. However, there is still that chance that he could draw his weapon, take aim, and shoot the gunman. That chance alone is worth thinking about.


It is worth thinking about, but so are the negatives which you listed and some people *cough* Dirkjr *cough* can't understand is what I am throwing into this. There is a degree of uncertainty to the issue, so you cannot blanket the problem with this one solution.



Trying to argue that the law abiding are the ones to watch out for is absolutely retarded. Every one of these mass shootings were committed by someone who obtained illegal firearms and used them illegally. I don't understand how people still try to argue that a licensed firearm owner is the one that may commit these acts. Chicago's murders are committed by KIDS and gangs. None of them legally own firearms. In Newton, Lanza was unlicensed, murdered his mother, and stole HER weapons. Now, she had them stored in a very shitty manner and if she were alive, I'd support charges against her, as improper storage of firearms is already against the law.


Most massacres were committed with legally obtained weapons. See Columbine, Fort Hood, Aurora, Sandy Hook, etc.

I think we can all agree using weapons to kill innocent people is an illegal use of firearms.

The law abiding ones are the people you do not hear about. I'm not saying watch out for them. I'm saying we need a better way to restrict how certain people get guns and what guns/modifications they can legally purchase (which is open to discussion). It's the ones who obtain legal weapons and use them to kill innocent people that I am worried about, not your average guy who has a collection in his house.



The simple fact of the matter is this. It's every person's right to be able to defend themselves through whatever reasonable means. It's reasonable to believe that any criminal in this day and age possesses a firearm, whether it be a 5-6 shot revolver or a submachine gun. That is our right. It's also a person's right to choose NOT to get a firearms license or own any firearms. Neither side should be telling eachother what to do, and that is the problem here. Something to think about coming from someone in law enforcement...Average response time is about 10 or so minutes, more or less. It takes a second for a burglar to turn the situation into a home invasion. A typical 9mm handgun, which could hold up to 15 rounds, could fire a round at 1100ft per second. If you want to wait on the police go for it, but no one should make anyone have to wait.

And the debate is what is considered reasonable means.

The discussion was about massacres, not home invasions. I already clearly supported weapons for home defense. The issue is defending the public and what the consequences could be if civilians tried to do so.

Dirk
20 Mar 2013, 12:44am
Again please explain why we should continue to have gun free zones. Please demonstrate how preventing law-abiding citizens from having guns will stop crimes. This started when I made a statement saying we should get rid of gun free zones because they only disarm would be victims and do nothing to hinder a criminal from having a gun in those areas. Now would you please come up with a real argument for why we should keep these gun free zones. Start by explaining how the sandy hook massacre would have gone worse if there had been other guns there and how a teacher with a gun would have had no chance of stopping the deaths of children.

Tamahome
20 Mar 2013, 03:04am
The issue is defending the public and what the consequences could be if civilians tried to do so.

There's a worse possible scenario than 1 armed guy with intent to kill everything he sees? If you happened to be at Sandy Hook during the shooting, you wouldn't have been hoping and praying that there was SOMEBODY else on the property with a gun so at the very least you have a fighting chance?

There was a mall shooting last year that was stopped by a concealed carry owner. I think the gunman ended up killing two people before being confronted by the guy. Now just imagine how many more people the shooter would've killed before offing himself had the legal gun owner not been there. It would've been another massacre.

Bork
20 Mar 2013, 09:37am
(i.e. you cannot have criminal intent unless you committed a crime or tried to)

Absolutely wrong. While an overt act is required of those charges I mentioned, intent can be implied, verbal, physical or even constructive. Many crimes don't even require intent as an element, however, criminal intent can be established at any time before, during or after a crime. No overt act is required to establish that.


Most massacres were committed with legally obtained weapons. See Columbine, Fort Hood, Aurora, Sandy Hook, etc.

Wrong. The Columbine shooters were underage and went into a gun free zone. AND...

"In the months prior to the attacks, Harris and Klebold acquired two 9 mm firearms and two 12-gauge shotguns. Their friend Robyn Anderson bought a rifle and the two shotguns at the Tanner Gun Show in December 1998.[17] Through Philip Duran,[18] another friend, Harris and Klebold later bought a handgun from Mark Manes for $500.

Using instructions acquired upon the Internet, Harris and Klebold constructed a total of 99 improvised explosive devices of various designs and sizes. They sawed the barrels and butts off their shotguns to make them easier to conceal.[4] They committed numerous felony violations of state and federal law, including the National Firearms Act and the Gun Control Act of 1968, before they began the massacre."

Are you REALLY saying that the shooting in Newton was committed using legal firearms? The KID, kid...Underage...Murdered his mother. He illegally took possession of her firearms and went into a gun free zone. So now, not only did he possess them illegally, they were also illegal, because they had been stolen and possessed in a forbidden area. Again, in the matter of proper storage, which is already required by law, I agreed its something to be looked at.

Fort Hood consisted of a psychiatrist who had shown previous signs of extremist views. He was a military man and would have had access to firearms whether or not he was licensed. The problem here was the inadequate investigations into his actions leading up to the shooting. It's clear as day that the issue to be looked at is mental health and how people can take those early warning signs and tell someone. Prevent these things from happening.

Now, yes, I agree with you that certain things aren't needed and that many people shouldn't possess firearms. But this will all start with fixing mental health care rather than outright banning something that is guaranteed by the Constitution. Do I support an "assault weapons" ban? No, absolutely not because it is an absolute joke. There is no logic and consists of absolute ignorance (banning a weapon because of cosmetics). Do I support a magazine ban? Not really. I believe people should be allowed to use whatever they deem necessary in order to defend themselves. Criminals nowadays have access to all sorts of shit. I'd rather be over-prepared than have my dick in my hand. Now, in the case of the Aurora shooting, the 100 round magazine he possessed. That should be something HIGHLY regulated, like fully automatic weapons are. Do I support background checks? Yes and no. I believe there should be a more in depth check when someone applies for their license, maybe consisting of a mental health check as well. However, I do not support the checks that have been proposed because they STILL consist of loopholes, will practically make a list of registered gun owners (kinda like a sex offender list) and make good people have to jump through hoops while criminals continue doing what they do.


And the debate is what is considered reasonable means.

The discussion was about massacres, not home invasions. I already clearly supported weapons for home defense. The issue is defending the public and what the consequences could be if civilians tried to do so.

Reasonableness is whatever a sane mind deems necessary. Mental health needs to be fixed. Simple as that. There will ALWAYS be consequences whenever ANYONE, even police, draw their weapons or fail to do so. There is no doubt about that at all. The thing here, is exactly what Tomahome said. Are YOU willing to cower down and take it up the rear? Or would you rather have someone be there that MAY (because you can't predict an outcome) muster up the courage to pull his weapon and shoot a gunman? The mall shooting was never heard of because it doesn't help the political agenda, btw. But incase you haven't heard of it, there was a gunman in a mall, with a rifle (don't know how he managed to walk in with it), that shot and killed 2 people. A CIVILIAN (with no police training), drew his pistol, and at first glance, noticed other civilians running for cover behind the gunman, who was in his sights. He decided not to fire and took cover, afraid to hit those civilians behind the gunman. The gunman noticed that he had a gun drawn on him and decided to take his own life. The gunman noticed that he had a gun drawn on him and decided to take his own life. As is the case with MOST mass shootings. Not a single round was fired by the civilian. That right there should make the point that someone, whether it be a licensed conceal carry or a professional armed guard, present should be enough to either help stop or even deter a massacre. Again, you can't predict the outcome, but that is the only way to try and fix anything.

Italian Jew
20 Mar 2013, 10:37pm
There's a worse possible scenario than 1 armed guy with intent to kill everything he sees? If you happened to be at Sandy Hook during the shooting, you wouldn't have been hoping and praying that there was SOMEBODY else on the property with a gun so at the very least you have a fighting chance?

There was a mall shooting last year that was stopped by a concealed carry owner. I think the gunman ended up killing two people before being confronted by the guy. Now just imagine how many more people the shooter would've killed before offing himself had the legal gun owner not been there. It would've been another massacre.

I think you would be more concerned with not getting shot than worrying if someone else was there to save you. It was a school and I wouldn't assume a kid would be packing heat. Even if some of the teachers were, the priority is to lock down individual classrooms to prevent a shooting from spreading from room to room. The only hope in that situation would be that the teachers that first encountered the guy would have been armed and able to fire at the gunman before he fired at them. You're not guaranteed a fighting chance even if someone is armed because the bad guys always have the element of surprise and decide who/what/when/where/why.

The civilian confronted the gunman after the gunman's gun jammed (i.e. he got lucky enough to have time to draw). Even then, the civilian did not fire because he was afraid of hitting an innocent bystander and then hid somewhere. The gunman ran to some stairs, pointed his gun at another guy but didn't shoot, and eventually killed himself. The civilian drawing his gun may have scared the gunman away, but the gunman may have never even seen him and ran away because his gun was jammed. I think the life saving thing in that case was that his rifle jammed and he could no longer fire at people.

One instance where you do not know exactly what happened does not mean the idea would generally work.


Absolutely wrong. While an overt act is required of those charges I mentioned, intent can be implied, verbal, physical or even constructive. Many crimes don't even require intent as an element, however, criminal intent can be established at any time before, during or after a crime. No overt act is required to establish that.

You cannot have intent unless you have committed a crime or attempted to commit a crime. It specifically must occur before or during an act that is committed by someone. This means it is linked to that act, so if there is no act, there can be no intent. Attempting to purchase drugs to sell them later, but being caught can result in charges of intent to distribute. If someone didn't purchase the drugs in the first place but wanted to sell drugs, they could not be charged with intent because they didn't do anything. This isn't Minority Report; you need an action to tie into the intent because it is essentially used to prove someone's guilt.


Wrong. The Columbine shooters were underage and went into a gun free zone. AND...

I meant to word it as they were originally bought legally before being given/sold to someone else. This is one of those reasons why background checks for private sales would be a good idea. The two teenagers were with the older guy buying the weapons and according to him, the sellers understood who the guns were going to. Also, the two teenagers could buy ammo and clips without and ID, so we have a major case of too many people not giving a shit.


Are you REALLY saying that the shooting in Newton was committed using legal firearms? The KID, kid...Underage...Murdered his mother. He illegally took possession of her firearms and went into a gun free zone. So now, not only did he possess them illegally, they were also illegal, because they had been stolen and possessed in a forbidden area. Again, in the matter of proper storage, which is already required by law, I agreed its something to be looked at.

An illegal action used to obtain something does not make that object illegal. The guns were purchased legally, making them legal firearms. Obtained meant purchased in my original statement, so sorry for the confusion.

Still, we have a case of people not giving a shit. We clearly both agree that the mother should have had taken extra care with her weapons considering how many she had. Its a little hindsight to bring in the son, but if you have those types of weapons, they need to be kept private and secure at all times.


Fort Hood consisted of a psychiatrist who had shown previous signs of extremist views. He was a military man and would have had access to firearms whether or not he was licensed. The problem here was the inadequate investigations into his actions leading up to the shooting. It's clear as day that the issue to be looked at is mental health and how people can take those early warning signs and tell someone. Prevent these things from happening.

I don't think he had that much access considering he had to buy the gun that was used. I think only military police can carry around guns in a military base, so I don't think he would have had access to one normally. he had another gun with him, but I haven't heard anything about where he got it (wasn't used). Even then, I don't suppose they actually checked for guns when he entered the area, so I there are questions everywhere.

Again, people ignored warning signs and shit went down.



Now, yes, I agree with you that certain things aren't needed and that many people shouldn't possess firearms. But this will all start with fixing mental health care rather than outright banning something that is guaranteed by the Constitution. Do I support an "assault weapons" ban? No, absolutely not because it is an absolute joke. There is no logic and consists of absolute ignorance (banning a weapon because of cosmetics). Do I support a magazine ban? Not really. I believe people should be allowed to use whatever they deem necessary in order to defend themselves. Criminals nowadays have access to all sorts of shit. I'd rather be over-prepared than have my dick in my hand. Now, in the case of the Aurora shooting, the 100 round magazine he possessed. That should be something HIGHLY regulated, like fully automatic weapons are. Do I support background checks? Yes and no. I believe there should be a more in depth check when someone applies for their license, maybe consisting of a mental health check as well. However, I do not support the checks that have been proposed because they STILL consist of loopholes, will practically make a list of registered gun owners (kinda like a sex offender list) and make good people have to jump through hoops while criminals continue doing what they do.

I also think mental health and other non-gun factors should be the primary focus, but there should be some limits on weapons and ammo/clip size. This isn't necessarily outright banning every assault weapon, just that there should be background checks for every purchase (private and licensed) and those background checks should actually have some merit to them. There should be coordination among different agencies and states for the checks and they should follow one set of rules, not variable (i.e. background checks at gun shows for every state). They need to get the system fixed because, yes, there are still too many problems.

Preventing the purchase of obscenely sized magazines does not violate one's 2nd Amendment and limiting the amount and type of ammo (to a certain degree) is completely open for discussion.

There is no easy way about it, but things need to get done.



Reasonableness is whatever a sane mind deems necessary. Mental health needs to be fixed. Simple as that. There will ALWAYS be consequences whenever ANYONE, even police, draw their weapons or fail to do so. There is no doubt about that at all. The thing here, is exactly what Tomahome said. Are YOU willing to cower down and take it up the rear? Or would you rather have someone be there that MAY (because you can't predict an outcome) muster up the courage to pull his weapon and shoot a gunman? The mall shooting was never heard of because it doesn't help the political agenda, btw. But incase you haven't heard of it, there was a gunman in a mall, with a rifle (don't know how he managed to walk in with it), that shot and killed 2 people. A CIVILIAN (with no police training), drew his pistol, and at first glance, noticed other civilians running for cover behind the gunman, who was in his sights. He decided not to fire and took cover, afraid to hit those civilians behind the gunman. The gunman noticed that he had a gun drawn on him and decided to take his own life. The gunman noticed that he had a gun drawn on him and decided to take his own life. As is the case with MOST mass shootings. Not a single round was fired by the civilian. That right there should make the point that someone, whether it be a licensed conceal carry or a professional armed guard, present should be enough to either help stop or even deter a massacre. Again, you can't predict the outcome, but that is the only way to try and fix anything.

As I said above, there is no definite account as to why the gunman killed himself. The witness cannot know for sure because he hid right after deciding not to shoot him. The gunman managed to run away and not shoot another person who got in his way. The threat of police intervention would surely be enough of a reason to kill himself, so you cannot assume the civilian's actions were the cause. You cannot narrate the events as you see fit as some media outlets chose to do.

To be honest, the gun jamming played a much bigger part in this than the civilian. Without the gun jamming, assuming the gunman saw him, he would probably have been shot because he wouldn't have fired his pistol because of the innocent bystanders.

I would be fine with it if civilians were to have specific training rather than basic safety lessons, but until a program is developed that teaches people how/when to react in those situations, you are not going to find significant success with it. People with police/military training or people who take a more in depth class than your average gun safety course would be A-OK in my book. An average joe who thinks he can play Call of Duty and hunts isn't a good option.

Dirk
20 Mar 2013, 10:43pm
Pearl High School shooting - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pearl_High_School_shooting) and in this instance the shooter was stopped by an assistant principle with a 1911 .45

I am not saying civilians carrying guns will stop a crime but I am saying they can and have. I see gun free zones as removing this possibly life saving factor from the table, something I do not believe should be done.

Italian Jew
20 Mar 2013, 10:46pm
Pearl High School shooting - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pearl_High_School_shooting) and in this instance the shooter was stopped by an assistant principle with a 1911 .45

The assistant principal was also a U.S. Army Reserve Commander, so he would be someone I would believe to be trained appropriately in that situation.

Dirk
20 Mar 2013, 11:16pm
The assistant principal was also a U.S. Army Reserve Commander, so he would be someone I would believe to be trained appropriately in that situation.

Many people would have been able to handle the situation. But the whole gun free zone denies them the chance. Its a good thing that man broke the law and brought that gun that day.

Bork
21 Mar 2013, 02:22pm
The civilian confronted the gunman after the gunman's gun jammed (i.e. he got lucky enough to have time to draw). Even then, the civilian did not fire because he was afraid of hitting an innocent bystander and then hid somewhere. The gunman ran to some stairs, pointed his gun at another guy but didn't shoot, and eventually killed himself. The civilian drawing his gun may have scared the gunman away, but the gunman may have never even seen him and ran away because his gun was jammed. I think the life saving thing in that case was that his rifle jammed and he could no longer fire at people.

The gunman DID look right at the conceal carry guy as his gun jammed. While the jam may have given time for civilians to run and hide for cover, the gunman ultimately killed himself because he was now facing someone else on somewhat equal terms.




An illegal action used to obtain something does not make that object illegal. The guns were purchased legally, making them legal firearms. Obtained meant purchased in my original statement, so sorry for the confusion.

Yes, it very much does. ESPECIALLY when firearms are involved.


Preventing the purchase of obscenely sized magazines does not violate one's 2nd Amendment and limiting the amount and type of ammo (to a certain degree) is completely open for discussion.

I agree. Anything over 30 is obscenely sized in my book and should be highly regulated. 15, 10, 7 (in NYs case) is absolutely stupid. Again, the background checks is touchy. While I agree that more should be done in that particular area, I strongly disagree with the way it has been proposed.

And to clear up intent. Intent is a separate element from an overt act, because with different crimes, one may not even be necessary. Involuntary Manslaughter involves an overt act, however there is no intent to kill a person. Howabout in, let's say, a Statutory Rape crime. In many cases involving a sort of set up by police, all that is needed to establish a case is that the suspect INTENDED to meet and engage in sexual acts with an underage person. Now, while it may be required that the suspect actively tried and set up a date to meet and actually TRY to meet, those acts alone are not illegal, and intent was present before the meeting had been established and is REQUIRED in order to charge the suspect.

Italian Jew
23 Mar 2013, 01:10am
The gunman DID look right at the conceal carry guy as his gun jammed. While the jam may have given time for civilians to run and hide for cover, the gunman ultimately killed himself because he was now facing someone else on somewhat equal terms.

You are welcome to your own interpretation, but you are relying on extrapolation based on one witness who can't even be sure of what happened because he hid after deciding not to shoot (unless he is a telepath, how did he know the last shot was because of him?). If that is reasonable, why discount the assumption that he killed himself because he knew he was trapped (the police were surely on their way by that point). It's also reasonable to assume that he had planned on killing himself knowing he wouldn't make it out alive regardless of what happened in the area.

So assuming if the guy's story is completely accurate, his wishful thinking isn't automatically the truth no matter how badly one want it to be true.


Yes, it very much does. ESPECIALLY when firearms are involved.

The gun wouldn't magically become illegal. The criminal just uses the legal weapon in an illegal fashion.


And to clear up intent. Intent is a separate element from an overt act, because with different crimes, one may not even be necessary. Involuntary Manslaughter involves an overt act, however there is no intent to kill a person. Howabout in, let's say, a Statutory Rape crime. In many cases involving a sort of set up by police, all that is needed to establish a case is that the suspect INTENDED to meet and engage in sexual acts with an underage person. Now, while it may be required that the suspect actively tried and set up a date to meet and actually TRY to meet, those acts alone are not illegal, and intent was present before the meeting had been established and is REQUIRED in order to charge the suspect.

You cannot have intent without an act that leads toward an illegal action. I am not saying you need intent, but that if there was no act, there can be no intent. It is the state of mind accompanying an act, so if the meeting had never taken place, you would not have had intent. The intent is used to prove guilt, so if there is no action given to pursue the crime (talking/planning is an action), intent does not exist. Technically, it occurs the instant the act is carried out and previous thoughts/statements/actions that occurred are used to prove intent existed the moment the act was executed (not that those previous things were the actual intent).

Again, anything the guy said that led to the suspicion of crime and the physical meeting constitutes an attempt at a crime thereby allowing for the existence of that guy's intent to prove he meant to commit the crime.

Dirk
3 Apr 2013, 02:15pm
You have to admire how much these politicians know about what they are trying to ban.

CO State Rep. Diana DeGette (D) on the topic of high capacity magazines "I will tell you these are ammunition, they’re bullets, so the people who have those now they’re going to shoot them, so if you ban them in the future, the number of these high capacity magazines is going to decrease dramatically over time because the bullets will have been shot and there won’t be any more available." (April 2, 2013, Denver Post forum)

oh of course, high capacity magazines cant be reloaded, seems legit

lmfao

Sniper
18 Apr 2013, 12:50pm
In blow to gun control backers, background check compromise falls 6 votes short - First Read (http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/04/17/17795377-in-blow-to-gun-control-backers-background-check-compromise-falls-6-votes-short?lite)

Hate to beat this dead horse, but this article is relevant to the topic.

Dirk
19 Apr 2013, 02:31pm
http://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/603652_494588667256669_1393599407_n.png

Italian Jew
19 Apr 2013, 11:16pm
If you're really putting this out there to compare doctors and guns..

Let's see, people usually see doctors when they are sick and possibly already near death. People are practically guaranteed to see a doctor throughout their life, so the exposure is guaranteed. Everybody doesn't come into close contact with a gun. Also consider other factors lumping into that vague definition of an accidental physician death, like it not differentiating between physicians', nurses', surgeons', lab technician' mistakes or other things incorrectly attributed as accidents.

Medical professionals, in general, typically aim to help people who are sick or to prevent people from getting sick. It is advised to see one when the need arises. Guns don't do that, so I see it unfit to compare the two. Even including information about intentional gun deaths (what the main discussion is regarding gun control) it would be unfair. You'd see a greater ratio of intentional gun deaths than with intentional physician assisted deaths, but that wouldn't mean guns are more dangerous than physicians. The two sets of statistics are unrelated and shouldn't be used in the same thought unless a physician was using a gun to kill someone.

So if you REALLY, REALLY had to compare the two sets of data, include some sort of proper background of the information. Otherwise I would suggest leaving this kind of misuse of statistics for the next circle jerk rally because using this methodology, I could link any set of statistics with any policy idea, for or against. The NRA/Gun Lobby loves to blatantly lie to scare dimwits into submission, so this isn't the first time statistics have been misused for this discussion or any other policy discussion for that matter.

So STAHP!

Vy
20 Apr 2013, 04:58am
Not sure why you even want to keep explaining them anything. They have completely no sense in them at all :p

harro
23 Apr 2013, 12:42am
http://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/603652_494588667256669_1393599407_n.png

This is retarded as fuck. You are comparing gun owners to people trying to save lives. Honestly it's bullshit reasoning like this that promotes the general 'pro gun rights retardation' stereotype, way to go.

Dirk
23 Apr 2013, 12:51am
If you're really putting this out there to compare doctors and guns..

Let's see, people usually see doctors when they are sick and possibly already near death. People are practically guaranteed to see a doctor throughout their life, so the exposure is guaranteed. Everybody doesn't come into close contact with a gun. Also consider other factors lumping into that vague definition of an accidental physician death, like it not differentiating between physicians', nurses', surgeons', lab technician' mistakes or other things incorrectly attributed as accidents.

Medical professionals, in general, typically aim to help people who are sick or to prevent people from getting sick. It is advised to see one when the need arises. Guns don't do that, so I see it unfit to compare the two. Even including information about intentional gun deaths (what the main discussion is regarding gun control) it would be unfair. You'd see a greater ratio of intentional gun deaths than with intentional physician assisted deaths, but that wouldn't mean guns are more dangerous than physicians. The two sets of statistics are unrelated and shouldn't be used in the same thought unless a physician was using a gun to kill someone.

So if you REALLY, REALLY had to compare the two sets of data, include some sort of proper background of the information. Otherwise I would suggest leaving this kind of misuse of statistics for the next circle jerk rally because using this methodology, I could link any set of statistics with any policy idea, for or against. The NRA/Gun Lobby loves to blatantly lie to scare dimwits into submission, so this isn't the first time statistics have been misused for this discussion or any other policy discussion for that matter.

So STAHP!

Clearly that is not intended as a serious comparison. I posted it because I thought it was funny. And it does a good job of demonstrating how few gun owners are actually involved in deaths. IDGAF about the doctor stats and im clearly not "anti-doctor" just interesting how rare gun deaths really are. The part about doctors is just thrown in for scale as far as I can tell.

Dirk
23 Apr 2013, 12:55am
This is retarded as fuck. You are comparing gun owners to people trying to save lives. Honestly it's bullshit reasoning like this that promotes the general 'pro gun rights retardation' stereotype, way to go.

Again. This isnt anti-doctor. Just thought it was funny. Didnt make it either. Although it does do a good job of showing that gun owners are very rarely involved in deaths. The doctor stats are not intended as a commentary, they are to provide scale to demonstrate how small the "gun violence problem" really is. I am guessing whoever made this did so in response to the people who think gun owners are just out to cause trouble.

Many people don't like Muslims because they think they might be extremest. Don't you think a statistic showing just how rare extremists actually are would have some merit? This like that is intended to dispel stereotypes and fight people's irrational fears.

harro
23 Apr 2013, 01:29am
Again. This isnt anti-doctor. Just thought it was funny. Didnt make it either. Although it does do a good job of showing that gun owners are very rarely involved in deaths. The doctor stats are not intended as a commentary, they are to provide scale to demonstrate how small the "gun violence problem" really is. I am guessing whoever made this did so in response to the people who think gun owners are just out to cause trouble.

Many people don't like Muslims because they think they might be extremest. Don't you think a statistic showing just how rare extremists actually are would have some merit? This like that is intended to dispel stereotypes and fight people's irrational fears.

You do realize your statistics say 'accidental deaths' right? Nothing to do with violence.

"In 2010 there were 11,078 firearm-related homicide deaths in the United States."

"In 2009, according to the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, 66.9% of all homicides in the United States were perpetrated using a firearm.[5] There were 52,447 deliberate and 23,237 accidental non-fatal gunshot injuries in the United States during 2000."

Love it when idiots skew statistics.

For the record I'm not completely on either side, it's just your reasoning is really dumb. And that picture isn't funny, it's just retarded and is an insult to people that have died to gun violence. (In the way you described it.)

Dirk
23 Apr 2013, 01:44am
You do realize your statistics say 'accidental deaths' right? Nothing to do with violence.

"In 2010 there were 11,078 firearm-related homicide deaths in the United States."

"In 2009, according to the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, 66.9% of all homicides in the United States were perpetrated using a firearm.[5] There were 52,447 deliberate and 23,237 accidental non-fatal gunshot injuries in the United States during 2000."

Love it when idiots skew statistics.

For the record I'm not completely on either side, it's just your reasoning is really dumb. And that picture isn't funny, it's just retarded and is an insult to people that have died to gun violence. (In the way you described it.)

Again this was probably intended for those who think owning a gun inherently endangers the public. How is that manipulating statistics? I have even seen people say in chat box that they want guns banned because that way they are less likely to be accidentally shot by someone. This statistic clearly shows just how unlikely that is. Do explain how comparing the rate of gun ownership to the rate of accidental death to show how safe most gun owners are is "really dumb reasoning"?

Alot of people seem to have this idea that people who own guns are extremely unsafe with them and endanger the public. Clearly that is not true. How can you have a problem with that?

This thread is being used to discus gun control right? Well gun control laws only affect law abiding citizens and law abiding citizens don't go around murdering people. Intentional deaths involving self defense should also be ignored because those deaths are examples of firearms performing their intended roll as a defensive weapons (saving the inocent). So there you have it, gun control legislation's only purpose would be to prevent people from owning guns because they are inherently dangerous. Those statistics clearly demonstrate that they aren't.

harro
23 Apr 2013, 03:09am
Again this was probably intended for those who think owning a gun inherently endangers the public. How is that manipulating statistics? I have even seen people say in chat box that they want guns banned because that way they are less likely to be accidentally shot by someone. This statistic clearly shows just how unlikely that is. Do explain how comparing the rate of gun ownership to the rate of accidental death to show how safe most gun owners are is "really dumb reasoning"?

Alot of people seem to have this idea that people who own guns are extremely unsafe with them and endanger the public. Clearly that is not true. How can you have a problem with that?

This thread is being used to discus gun control right? Well gun control laws only affect law abiding citizens and law abiding citizens don't go around murdering people. Intentional deaths involving self defense should also be ignored because those deaths are examples of firearms performing their intended roll as a defensive weapons (saving the inocent). So there you have it, gun control legislation's only purpose would be to prevent people from owning guns because they are inherently dangerous. Those statistics clearly demonstrate that they aren't.

Quit trying to change your argument. I pretty much put everything you said stupid in red when I quoted you. Statistics that I just showed you were homicide cases, intentional deaths involving self defense rarely happen. Most reports of actual gun defense are just people waving them around as a use to intimidate. Laws affect everyone, not just "law abiding citizens". Honestly if you think people want guns banned due to the fear of being "accidentally shot" you are dumb. It is because they are an easily obtained weapon commonly used in homicides and massacres.

The U.S. has the most lenient gun policies in (I'm pretty sure) all countries with market economies. It also has the highest homicides v.s. population density compared to similar market economy country with more regulations and restrictions on guns by more than 3 times the next country.

Do I want guns completely banned? No. Do we need more restrictions on them? Clearly, from unbiased statistics, we do. Accidents have little to do with anything, your statistics are irrelevant as fuck.

Hey, look! Real Sources

http://fce.ufm.edu/catedraticos/jhcole/Cole-Marroquin.pdf

Harvard School of Public Health » Harvard Injury Control Research Center » Gun Threats and Self-Defense Gun Use (http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/gun-threats-and-self-defense-gun-use-2/)

Also here's some fun facts:

In 2010, nearly 6 times more women were shot by husbands, boyfriends, and ex-partners than murdered by male strangers.
• A woman's chances of being killed by her abuser increase more than 7 times if he has access to a gun.
• One study found that women in states with higher gun ownership rates were 4.9 times more likely to be murdered by a gun than women in states with lower gun ownership rates.

In 2011, nearly 10 times more people were shot and killed in arguments than by civilians trying to stop a crime.
• In one survey, nearly 1% of Americans reported using guns to defend themselves or their property. However, a closer look at their claims found that more than 50% involved using guns in an aggressive manner, such as escalating an argument.
• A Philadelphia study found that the odds of an assault victim being shot were 4.5 times greater if he carried a gun. His odds of being killed were 4.2 times greater.

Owning a gun has been linked to higher risks of homicide, suicide, and accidental death by gun.
• For every time a gun is used in self-defense in the home, there are 7 assaults or murders, 11 suicide attempts, and 4 accidents involving guns in or around a home.
• 43% of homes with guns and kids have at least one unlocked firearm.
• In one experiment, one third of 8-to-12-year-old boys who found a handgun pulled the trigger.

Mass shootings stopped by armed civilians in the past 30 years: 0
• Chances that a shooting at an ER involves guns taken from guards: 1 in 5

People with more guns tend to kill more people—with guns. The states with the highest gun ownership rates have a gun murder rate 114% higher than those with the lowest gun ownership rates. Also, gun death rates tend to be higher in states with higher rates of gun ownership. Gun death rates are generally lower in states with restrictions such as assault-weapons bans or safe-storage requirements.

12588

Source: http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/01/pro-gun-myths-fact-check

Now please, come at me with the one in a million theoretical arguments about how someone would have died if they weren't waving a revolver in their hand.

Dirk
23 Apr 2013, 03:29am
I have used "real" sources. If you look back at this massive thread you will notice a number of in depth studies being cited. And yes there ARE those that want guns banned because they think gun owners accidentally shoot people, I have met many people in person who flat-out refused to come to my house because they found out I own a firearm (locked up in a safe mind you). And anyway I did not make that image or intend it as a serious argument in the slightest. Someone posted that image, I saw it and thought "hey thats a funny statistic" and posted it the only place on SG it fit (the general gun-control thread was lost in the great purge of 2012).

Also the assumption that America's high homicide rates are due to lenient gun laws is completely silly. There are endless factors that effect a nations crime rates (gang violence, law enforcement, poverty rates, ect...). There are rural counties not far from me with EXTREMELY high rates of gun ownership and low crime but there are also counties that are mostly suburban to urban and have extremely high crime rates. Does this have anything to do with gun ownership? almost certainly not. The two areas are completely different. That two areas subject to the same guns laws have vastly different homicide and general crime rates should really tell you something.

harro
23 Apr 2013, 03:37am
I have used "real" sources. If you look back at this massive thread you will notice a number of in depth studies being cited. And yes there ARE those that want guns banned because they think gun owners accidentally shoot people, I have met many people in person who flat-out refused to come to my house because they found out I own a firearm (locked up in a safe mind you). And anyway I did not make that image or intend it as a serious argument in the slightest. Someone posted that image, I saw it and thought "hey thats a funny statistic" and posted it the only place on SG it fit (the general gun-control thread was lost in the great purge of 2012).

Also the assumption that America's high homicide rates are due to lenient gun laws is completely silly. There are endless factors that effect a nations crime rates (gang violence, law enforcement, poverty rates, ect...). There are rural counties not far from me with EXTREMELY high rates of gun ownership and low crime but there are also counties that are mostly suburban to urban and have extremely high crime rates. Does this have anything to do with gun ownership? almost certainly not. The two areas are completely different. That two areas subject to the same guns laws have vastly different homicide and general crime rates should really tell you something.

You're saying a bunch of shit without any real sources again. Also I just checked back every single page and the only shit that you really link to are articles with a bunch of rhetoric and no actual facts. "I have met many people" already constitutes a weak backing to your argument so I'm just going to conclude with a "I'm not going to take you seriously until you present a debate that I can take more seriously than a high school freshman's." Sorry for the attack but I'm done with wasting my time unless you have anything that can hold its weight.

(Also, nice try blaming urbanization and poverty, but China has a lower homicide rate and I'm pretty damn sure we are better off on those, gonna blame the water next? Gun ownership is not the only factor to homicide rate, but it definitely is a major one. A correlation clearly exists if you look at statistical data.)

Dirk
23 Apr 2013, 03:50am
You're saying a bunch of shit without any real sources again. Also I just checked back every single page and the only shit that you really link to are articles with a bunch of rhetoric and no actual facts. "I have met many people" already constitutes a weak backing to your argument so I'm just going to conclude with a "I'm not going to take you seriously until you present a debate that I can take more seriously than a high school freshman's." Sorry for the attack but I'm done with wasting my time unless you have anything that can hold its weight.

The only way to find out what affect gun laws or lack of gun laws has on crime rates, homicide or otherwise, is to find areas where virtually every other factor is held constant. This is most easily done when comparing the same area before and after a change in gun laws.

In fact, If you look at the history of the US's homicide rates compared to the UK's you will see that the UK's was MUCH lower than the US's long before their strict gun legislation. In fact the US's homicide rate has dramatically dropped over the last two decades.

Also do explain how I am going to cite the three people who didnt want to come to my house because I own a firearm? I will admit that saying "many" was a bit of an exaggeration.

edit: I just checked and as far back as 1920 (source didnt have anything earlier than that) the UK has had a MUCH lower homicide rate than the US so any claim that gun laws are the cause is clearly pointless.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/table-1

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate_by_ decade

yes I know that is wikipedia but its the only place I have seen that many countries compared with more than one year of data.

harro
23 Apr 2013, 04:10am
The only way to find out what affect gun laws or lack of gun laws has on crime rates, homicide or otherwise, is to find areas where virtually every other factor is held constant. This is most easily done when comparing the same area before and after a change in gun laws.

In fact, If you look at the history of the US's homicide rates compared to the UK's you will see that the UK's was MUCH lower than the US's long before their strict gun legislation. In fact the US's homicide rate has dramatically dropped over the last two decades.

Also do explain how I am going to cite the three people who didnt want to come to my house because I own a firearm? I will admit that saying "many" was a bit of an exaggeration.

edit: I just checked and as far back as 1920 (source didnt have anything earlier than that) the UK has had a MUCH lower homicide rate than the US so any claim that gun laws are the cause is clearly pointless.

FBI ? Table 1 (http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/table-1)

List of countries by intentional homicide rate by decade - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate_by_ decade)

yes I know that is wikipedia but its the only place I have seen that many countries compared with more than one year of data.

Nice try. The UK's had stricter gun laws than the US for more than a century.

Dirk
23 Apr 2013, 04:17am
Nice try. The UK's had stricter gun laws than the US for more than a century.


true, but the UK's extremely strict gun legislation only went into place with the 1997 firearms act which banned the ownership of handguns entirely. adding to the 1988 ban on all semi automatic, level action, and pump action rifles. in the early 60s and prior the UK had much less strict gun laws and was still far below the US in homicide rate.

harro
23 Apr 2013, 04:22am
true, but the UK's extremely strict gun legislation only went into place with the 1997 firearms act which banned the ownership of handguns entirely. adding to the 1988 ban on all semi automatic, level action, and pump action rifles. in the early 60s and prior the UK had much less strict gun laws and was still far below the US in homicide rate.

They were less strict than they are now but still way more strict than anything we have in the US, therefore, your comparison is still irrelevant.

Dirk
23 Apr 2013, 04:26am
They were less strict than they are now but still way more strict than anything we have in the US, therefore, your comparison is still irrelevant.

not really. It used to be quite possible to buy semi auto rifles and handguns and the UK and now it is virtually impossible.

harro
23 Apr 2013, 04:33am
not really. It used to be quite possible to buy semi auto rifles and handguns and the UK and now it is virtually impossible.

Yet in the US it's still possible for ex felons to easily obtain firearms. Now tell me please, why do we allow this?

Caution
23 Apr 2013, 04:38am
Mass shootings stopped by armed civilians in the past 30 years: 0

Wasn't there one that was just stopped in a mall a few months ago?

Dirk
23 Apr 2013, 04:40am
Yet in the US it's still possible for ex felons to easily obtain firearms. Now tell me please, why do we allow this?

Really? do explain how a felon can easily obtain such a weapon through legal means?

harro
23 Apr 2013, 05:15am
Wasn't there one that was just stopped in a mall a few months ago?

That was stopped by a security guard, wouldn't say it counts considering it's sort of their job.

@Dirk, Private Sellers are not required to use NICS unless required by state law.

Caution
23 Apr 2013, 05:18am
Tbh I would. It is hardly a typical mall security guards job to stop an armed shooter (lets be real). Either way, you said civilian, and I would still consider a mall "cop" a civilian lol.

harro
23 Apr 2013, 05:23am
Tbh I would. It is hardly a typical mall security guards job to stop an armed shooter (lets be real). Either way, you said civilian, and I would still consider a mall "cop" a civilian lol.

Bad wording I guess, so I'll surrender that to you, still though, they don't really count as 'bystanders' and I wasn't trying to make an argument to take guns from security guards.

Caution
23 Apr 2013, 05:32am
I'll take 'Semantics' for $400.



Even doing a quick google search pulls up this

List of 15 mass shootings stopped by Armed Citizens - Illinois Tactical Blog (http://blog.uritraining.com/?p=88)


There's 15 links to 'Mass shootings stopped by armed civilians'. While I'm sure a couple of those could get thrown out of the argument by some sort of technicality (whatever that may be), I looked over a few of them and they seemed to be pretty legit and concrete against your claim of 0 stopped mass shootings by armed civilians - unless you're definition of 'mass' is like 100+. But IMO anybody who goes into a public area with the intent to kill anybody they see, that's a pretty good indication of a potential mass shooting lol. Still, that's just the first link I clicked on.




I'm not even stating any type of stance here, I'm just saying that claim of '0 Stopped mass shooting by armed civilians' REEKED of bullshit, so I had to check on that, and this is what I found...


In the wake of the slaughters this summer at a Colorado movie theater and a Sikh temple in Wisconsin, we set out to track mass shootings in the United States over the last 30 years. We identified and analyzed 62 of them, and one striking pattern in the data is this: In not a single case was the killing stopped by a civilian using a gun.

From Mother Jones.

Read this (http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/it-true-armed-civilians-have-never-stopped-mass-shooting_690808.html), it makes sense lol. Obviously a mass shooting (by their standards, includes 4 confirmed deaths) would not occur if the gunman was killed or subdued before he either got any kills or even less than 4.

Dirk
23 Apr 2013, 05:57am
That was stopped by a security guard, wouldn't say it counts considering it's sort of their job.

@Dirk, Private Sellers are not required to use NICS unless required by state law.

It is illegal for a private individual to sell to someone they know to be a felon. A felon would have to buy a firearm from someone in person. At this level, regulation becomes extremely difficult if not impossible without seriously infringing upon people's rights.

harro
23 Apr 2013, 06:16am
I'll take 'Semantics' for $400.



Even doing a quick google search pulls up this

List of 15 mass shootings stopped by Armed Citizens - Illinois Tactical Blog (http://blog.uritraining.com/?p=88)


There's 15 links to 'Mass shootings stopped by armed civilians'. While I'm sure a couple of those could get thrown out of the argument by some sort of technicality (whatever that may be), I looked over a few of them and they seemed to be pretty legit and concrete against your claim of 0 stopped mass shootings by armed civilians - unless you're definition of 'mass' is like 100+. But IMO anybody who goes into a public area with the intent to kill anybody they see, that's a pretty good indication of a potential mass shooting lol. Still, that's just the first link I clicked on.




I'm not even stating any type of stance here, I'm just saying that claim of '0 Stopped mass shooting by armed civilians' REEKED of bullshit, so I had to check on that, and this is what I found...



From Mother Jones.

Read this (http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/it-true-armed-civilians-have-never-stopped-mass-shooting_690808.html), it makes sense lol. Obviously a mass shooting (by their standards, includes 4 confirmed deaths) would not occur if the gunman was killed or subdued before he either got any kills or even less than 4.

Pearl High School Link

-Was military

Appalacian Law School Link

-Was military vet/police officer

Muskegon Shooting Link

-Was a robbery [one guy]

New Life Church

-Former police officer

Santa Clara Gunshop

Gun shop employee <- I'll give you that one I guess?

Aniston Shoney’s Shooting

-Armed robberies usually don't turn into massacres.

Golden Food Market Shooting

-Robbery

Early Texas Peach House Shooting

-Isolated/Domestic

AT&T store Link

-Police Officer

College Park Link

-Police Officer

Trolley Square Shooting Link

-Police Officer + SWAT

Winnemuca Shooting Link

Parker Middle School Dance Shooting

Destiny Christian Center Shooting

-Police Officer

Tyler Courthouse

-Police Officer

Granted yeah, I will say that the claim I stated earlier is farfetched. But you don't really have many examples to go off of in the long run, and if this is the only list you can bring up, I'd say 2/3 legit examples out of all of these doesn't really bode well, and the only thing it really shows is that in most cases, police officers do their job just fine without the help of civilian interference.

And even further, once again, I'm not arguing for a complete ban on guns. In every single case, the people that did use their weapons in self defense in every single valid situation on that list would most likely have been able to do so even with stricter policies on obtaining firearms.

Police Officers do count as civilians under military definition but they do not under general definition.


It is illegal for a private individual to sell to someone they know to be a felon. A felon would have to buy a firearm from someone in person. At this level, regulation becomes extremely difficult if not impossible without seriously infringing upon people's rights.

Gun vending behind closed doors shouldn't even be allowed tbh. Fact is you can't hold someone responsible if "they had no idea", therefore you put them in a position where they can be. Constitution protects your rights to bear arms, but it does not protect your rights to sell or trade them.

Dirk
23 Apr 2013, 06:23am
Pearl High School Link

-Was military

Appalacian Law School Link

-Was military vet/police officer

Muskegon Shooting Link

-Was a robbery [one guy]

New Life Church

-Former police officer

Santa Clara Gunshop

Gun shop employee <- I'll give you that one I guess?

Aniston Shoney’s Shooting

-Armed robberies usually don't turn into massacres.

Golden Food Market Shooting

-Robbery

Early Texas Peach House Shooting

-Isolated/Domestic

AT&T store Link

-Police Officer

College Park Link

-Police Officer

Trolley Square Shooting Link

-Police Officer + SWAT

Winnemuca Shooting Link

Parker Middle School Dance Shooting

Destiny Christian Center Shooting

-Police Officer

Tyler Courthouse

-Police Officer

Granted yeah, I will say that the claim I stated earlier is farfetched. But you don't really have many examples to go off of in the long run, and if this is the only list you can bring up, I'd say 2/3 legit examples out of all of these doesn't really bode well.

Police Officers do count as civilians under military definition but they do not under general definition.



Gun vending behind closed doors shouldn't even be allowed tbh. Fact is you can't hold someone responsible if "they had no idea", therefore you put them in a position where they can be.

police officers do not count as civilians but ex-military DOES count as civilian. My grandfather was in the navy for 22 years but hasn't been for quite a while, I would hardly say he isnt a civilian

harro
23 Apr 2013, 06:29am
police officers do not count as civilians but ex-military DOES count as civilian. My grandfather was in the navy for 22 years but hasn't been for quite a while, I would hardly say he isnt a civilian

I counted one ex military on that list and he was also a police officer. The first one was active reserve. Either way, that's not the point. No one's looking to take firearms from people proven responsible enough/in a position of authority to use them (discounting that one ex marine that went to the top of UT tower).

Dirk
23 Apr 2013, 07:00am
It should also be considered that the reason there are so few examples of mass shootings being stopped by civilians is that most mass shootings occur in gun-free zones where no law abiding civilian is allowed to have a gun.

Sniper
23 Apr 2013, 07:17am
It should also be considered that the reason there are so few examples of mass shootings being stopped by civilians is that most mass shootings occur in gun-free zones where no law abiding civilian is allowed to have a gun.

That and the media can be biased.

Fartingo
23 Apr 2013, 10:37am
We should all carry a gun so we don't get shot by someone, right?

Are you done yet? Or are you just here to post half-baked, smartass responses?

Caution
23 Apr 2013, 10:40am
Pearl High School Link

-Was military

???

Military still has 0 extra rights granted towards carrying handguns than regular civilians do. LITERALLY 0. The ONLY thing going for your argument there is some sort of extra 'training' he has received, but it still has nothing to do with the fact was he was at a fucking a high school, not in the middle of Afghanistan.

Appalacian Law School Link

-Was military vet/police officer

"Besen, a Marine veteran and former police officer"

Once again, =/= actively doing either. His ex cop status SURE gave him the ability the carry without having to go through a bunch of extra hoops, but he still was a civilian. So good try writing this one off.

Muskegon Shooting Link

-Was a robbery [one guy]

Erm, it was four people that were thwarted by a man with a shotgun.

New Life Church

-Former police officer

Santa Clara Gunshop

Gun shop employee <- I'll give you that one I guess?


zzzz

Aniston Shoney’s Shooting

-Armed robberies usually don't turn into massacres.

" Hennard calmly climbed out of his pickup [after crashing it into the fucking store], took out two 9-millimeter semi-automatic pistols, and started shooting people in the cafeteria's serving line.

Hennard continued shooting for 10 minutes, reloading five times."


LOL BUT THIS ONE APPARENTLY WAS GOING TO, BY THE LOOKS OF IT.

Golden Food Market Shooting

-Robbery


Oh, didn't realize if somebody's intent was to rob then that automatically means it can't be a mass shooting.
Early Texas Peach House Shooting

-Isolated/Domestic



AT&T store Link

-Police Officer


As I said, one of the ones that could be thrown out, due to technicalities.

College Park Link

-Police Officer

Same as above

Trolley Square Shooting Link

-Police Officer + SWAT

Same

Winnemuca Shooting Link

Parker Middle School Dance Shooting

Destiny Christian Center Shooting

-Police Officer

Same.

Tyler Courthouse

-Police Officer

Same, and ultimately removes 5 from a list of fifteen due to them being off-duty police officers.

Granted yeah, I will say that the claim I stated earlier is farfetched.

Obviously, it is. ANYBODY who stops and thinks about it will realize how ridiculous it sounds.

But you don't really have many examples to go off of in the long run, and if this is the only list you can bring up,


"I"m not stupid, you're stupid!" is your argument right there. As I stated in the previous response, I hadn't even touched other stories or links, so I don't know where you get off saying I don't have anything else, as I could probably go through and find damn near close to meh, 20? 30? Why would I need to though? The original point was to simply find one instance to make your statement crumble underneath itself. With the list I've gave (good attempt at trying to discard legitimate claims, 6/10 for effort) plus whatever mall shooting that was thwarted by that security guy, that puts us at what, 12? I haven't counted how many in the list got discarded due to off-duty cops, I think 5? The point is that your statement was garbagio.

I'd say 2/3 legit examples out of all of these doesn't really bode well, and the only thing it really shows is that in most cases, police officers do their job just fine without the help of civilian interference.

B.S.

Are there instances where sometimes yes, police officers could handle it entirely by themselves without anyone else needing to get hurt? Absolutely. However you are SO mindlessly brainwashed if you seriously think that 6 or more times out of 10, a good guy with a legal ability to carry a gun is going to do more harm than good stopping a criminal with the intent of killing numerous people.



And even further, once again, I'm not arguing for a complete ban on guns. In every single case, the people that did use their weapons in self defense in every single valid situation on that list would most likely have been able to do so even with stricter policies on obtaining firearms.

Not even arguing anything to do with that. Only thing I'm arguing is the bullshit claim you made lol.

Police Officers do count as civilians under military definition but they do not under general definition.

I wouldn't count them as civilians in this argument, hence why I took the 4 (or whatever the count was) off the total from that list.



Red. If you seriously want to continue arguing I am game, but you should really stop and look at what you're saying and then re-read the articles.

Caution
23 Apr 2013, 10:41am
Nauzhror is banned from the thread.

harro
23 Apr 2013, 02:15pm
Nauzhror is banned from the thread.

Four people thwarted by one man with a shotgun still =/= massacre. For the defense of actual store valuables though, I would say it's completely okay to have a firearm in the shop.

Where you use big caps and the passive aggressive sarcasm and try to make me look like a big dumb, you actually quoted the wrong article. There's 2 in there and the guy that did shoot into the cafeteria line was stopped by police, but the main branch that you posted earlier was actually referring to the article below that. (Cause I actually read the whole thing you know)

As for the Golden Food Market Shop, if you treated every convenience store robbery as a massacre, well, that's a lot of massacres.

Like I said earlier, my point isn't to try to take guns out of the hands of people responsible enough to use them, so if you want to try to make that point "crumble beneath itself" I'll surrender that to you as it's not really big a deal (I already have). I haven't said a single thing about taking CCW or anything like that away. However we do need way more hoops to jump through/regulations on how many firearms the general public has access to.

No, I don' think 4/10 people are inherently bad, but when civilians take part in playing Robin to Batman, they are endangering themselves, and it's usually a lot safer to just let the guy empty the cash register and run. Like I said, if you're a shop owner and it's your property that you're trying to defend, I'm completely okay with that. If you're a security job and it's your duty to defend the property/area, then I'm also completely okay with that. But if you're a bystander in a store, you have no right to endanger your own life and everyone else's life in that store/bank/whatever. If you pull out a weapon and fail you're not only fucking yourself, but every other captive in that area.

So yeah you're the one that called semantics, so quit trying to argue semantics, because Ex Cop/Ex Military/whatever you define as a civilian, it's not my point. My point is there are people trained to use weapons to defend themselves/others and there are others that are a danger to themselves and everyone around them, and the difference needs to be acknowledged.

(Quoted the wrong post but I don't have my glasses on and too lazy to change)

Caution
23 Apr 2013, 02:59pm
ah my bad with the misquote then, with 15 links it's easy to happen.






So yeah you're the one that called semantics, so quit trying to argue semantics, because Ex Cop/Ex Military/whatever you define as a civilian, it's not my point. My point is there are people trained to use weapons to defend themselves/others and there are others that are a danger to themselves and everyone around them, and the difference needs to be acknowledged.

Lmfao this quote. No, the ENTIRE point of this was you were using some bullshit statistic that there has never been a mass shooting stopped by an armed civilian in the past 30 years. TRAINING has nothing to do with what you said, because that wouldn't even be a big deal if they were forced to qualify to a certain degree with accuracy to obtain a CCW. I see no issue with that. My entire issue was with what you said about there never being an armed civilian stopping a massacre in the last 30 years.



My point is there are people trained to use weapons to defend themselves/others and there are others that are a danger to themselves and everyone around them, and the difference needs to be acknowledged.


Also, this is so subjective you can't even argue it. There are SO many variables that come into play with each specific situation, so short of making people qualify on a range (which isn't even a bad idea), there's not really much else to be done, as every situation / person is going to differ. And at the end of the day, when it's all said and done, if somebody had a weapon and they did not use it to stop someone that was shooting others, they would get SO much shit from everyone and be labeled as a horrible person for not attempting to stop it. But as I said, there are so many specific variables that we can sit here day and night and go through scenarios where it would and would not be appropriate to try and stop someone.

harro
23 Apr 2013, 03:16pm
ah my bad with the misquote then, with 15 links it's easy to happen.





Lmfao this quote. No, the ENTIRE point of this was you were using some bullshit statistic that there has never been a mass shooting stopped by an armed civilian in the past 30 years. TRAINING has nothing to do with what you said, because that wouldn't even be a big deal if they were forced to qualify to a certain degree with accuracy to obtain a CCW. I see no issue with that. My entire issue was with what you said about there never being an armed civilian stopping a massacre in the last 30 years.

And I surrendered that to you like 4 posts ago, so I really don't see the problem here.



Also, this is so subjective you can't even argue it. There are SO many variables that come into play with each specific situation, so short of making people qualify on a range (which isn't even a bad idea), there's not really much else to be done, as every situation / person is going to differ. And at the end of the day, when it's all said and done, if somebody had a weapon and they did not use it to stop someone that was shooting others, they would get SO much shit from everyone and be labeled as a horrible person for not attempting to stop it. But as I said, there are so many specific variables that we can sit here day and night and go through scenarios where it would and would not be appropriate to try and stop someone.

Which is why I still agree with having CCW permits, it should be more regulated. We need to make sure people with those permits are able to differentiate these scenarios, like you just stated, and the current gun safety course required to get the CCW permit is an absolute fucking joke.

blah

Sniper
8 May 2013, 03:24pm
US gun homicides at 20-year low, surveys say

Gun homicides in the United States have fallen sharply since peaking in 1993, two studies have found.

The federal Bureau of Justice Statistics said firearms-related homicides had dropped to 11,101 in 2011 from 18,253 - a reduction of 39%.

Meanwhile, the Pew Research Center found gun homicides fell to 3.6 per 100,000 people in 2010 from 7 in 1993.

The figures were released three weeks after US senators rejected proposals to extend background checks on gun sales.

President Barack Obama has campaigned for tighter firearms laws after 26 people died in a school shooting in Connecticut in December.
Held steady

Both reports found the rate of non-lethal crimes involving guns had also fallen significantly over that period.

The Bureau of Justice Statistics, an office of the justice department, found that non-fatal firearms crimes dropped by 69% from 1.5 million to 467,300 during the period under study.

However, the justice department study also suggested that the percentage of US homicides committed with a firearm had held steady at around 70% between 1993-2011.

Despite the drop, some 56% of Americans believe gun crime is higher than two decades ago and only 12% think it is lower, according to the Pew Reseach Center.

Pew also found that African Americans made up a disproportionate share of gun homicide victims - 55% in 2010, despite accounting for 13% of the overall population.

In 2010, white people were 25% of victims but 65% of the population, while Hispanics were 17% of victims and 16% of the population.

BBC News - US gun homicides at 20-year low, surveys say (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-22443441)