Discussion: The Second Amendment III

[jmc]

And training reduces the tendency of committing crimes how again?

http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp

As per your desire for some stats, here are a bunch.

Perhaps the Swiss have a better way of preventing kids from becoming criminals in the first place. Them being neutral and all what else they gonna do? They're not paranoid about war like other Western countries.

 

[Phallic]

Perhaps the Swiss have a better way of preventing kids from becoming criminals in the first place. Them being neutral and all what else they gonna do? They're not paranoid about war like other Western countries.

I agree we have a problem with our youth. Our disagreement is on the gun issue. I don't think nothing should be done - I think that focus on guns is going to ensure that nothing *is* done.

 

[Kable24]

2 high capacity magazines and 700 rounds delivered by UPS this afternoon. I love the 2nd amendment.

 

[AndrewGilkison]

The way I see it - guns are designed to be weapons. Cars weren't designed to be weapons, and not all knives are intended for that purpose, but guns have no other purpose other than to be weapons. Therefore, I don't see why the standards we hold to people who want to buy and own them shouldn't be as high as we can make it. Because this year we've tragically been reminded of what happens when guns - especially ones powered by high capacity magazines and over 600 rounds of ammo - are in the hands of suicidal, mentally disturbed, people. What is wrong with trying to do everything possible to keep them out of the wrong hands?

Looking at our gun laws should not be off the table just because you're a lawful gun owner afraid of the government coming to take your guns away. Being a gun owner shouldn't just be a right, it should also be a RESPONSIBILITY. The founding fathers saw it that way too. That is why they put "well regulated militia" in the 2nd amendment.

 

[wiegeabo]

2 high capacity magazines and 700 rounds delivered by UPS this afternoon. I love the 2nd amendment.

So when are you gonna go out and kill a bunch of people?

Because that's all those are good for, right?

 

[Kable24]

So when are you gonna go out and kill a bunch of people?

Because that's all those are good for, right?

Apparently! According to the narrow minded on here I am evil for owning AR15's and high cap magazines and I'm just looking to shoot everyone I meet. Yet, for owning rifles and pistols for years they have yet to leave my home and go on shooting sprees. I think they are broken.

 

[jmc]

^ What do you need them for?

 

[Kable24]

^ What do you need them for?

Because I enjoy the sport of shooting target. No different than collecting comic books, toys, movies or whatever you enjoy.

 

[Kable24]

 

[Phallic]

^ What do you need them for?

Since when was freedom about what you "need?"

What do you "need" a car for? What do you "need" a computer for? What do you "need" a TV for?

What kind of freedom is that when you don't have a choice as to how you wish to live your lives?

He never hurt anyone, I've never hurt anyone. Why should he, I, or hundreds of millions of other gun owners in this country be punished because of one ****ed up pyschopath?

 

[AndrewGilkison]

If only every gun owner was as responsible as you, Kable.

 

[jmc]

Since when was freedom about what you "need?"

What do you "need" a car for? What do you "need" a computer for? What do you "need" a TV for?

What kind of freedom is that when you don't have a choice as to how you wish to live your lives?

He never hurt anyone, I've never hurt anyone. Why should he, I, or hundreds of millions of other gun owners in this country be punished because of one ****ed up pyschopath?

Ah, freedom, you American's love that word, you think that if certain things aren't available to you somehow you're being oppressed. Why don't you call some folks up in North Korea and ask them about their interpretation of 'freedom'.

 

[Phallic]

The way I see it - guns are designed to be weapons. Cars weren't designed to be weapons, and not all knives are intended for that purpose, but guns have no other purpose other than to be weapons. Therefore, I don't see why the standards we hold to people who want to buy and own them shouldn't be as high as we can make it. Because this year we've tragically been reminded of what happens when guns - especially ones powered by high capacity magazines and over 600 rounds of ammo - are in the hands of suicidal, mentally disturbed, people. What is wrong with trying to do everything possible to keep them out of the wrong hands?

Looking at our gun laws should not be off the table just because you're a lawful gun owner afraid of the government coming to take your guns away. Being a gun owner shouldn't just be a right, it should also be a RESPONSIBILITY. The founding fathers saw it that way too. That is why they put "well regulated militia" in the 2nd amendment.

The problem is the laws proposed here will do little to nothing to keep them out of the hands of the mentally unstable. Had our mental health policies been better, this sicko, who was known by virtually everyone around him to be mentally ill, would not have been out in society. The mentally ill aren't allowed to own firearms - the fact that he was mentally ill and was still had one is not a failure in laws but a failure in enforcement.

His mother is also an accomplice to this. She knew he was mentally deranged to the point of wanting to have him committed - yet she kept her guns unsecured. I live alone, and I still keep my guns locked up. It's just the smart thing to do.

The AR15 isn't exactly a "high powered" rifle. The .223 is notorious for it's relatively weak ability to stop threats. He could have done just as much with a standard caliber handgun. Just because a gun looks scary doesn't make it any more dangerous. In addition, the magazine capacity limits that people wish for have historically done nothing. Again, the gun used almost exclusively in the Virginia Tech Shooting was a .22 LR Walther P22 with a 10 round or less magazine capacity. Despite the .22 LR being a target round, not designed for use against people, he managed to kill 32 people.

You aren't going to regulate criminals, or their means to kill people. Attempts to do so have only gotten good people killed.

 

[Phallic]

Ah, freedom, you American's love that word, you think that if certain things aren't available to you somehow you're being oppressed. Why don't you call some folks up in North Korea and ask them about their interpretation of 'freedom'.

Unlike Australia, we here don't blindly have faith in our governments. I find it amazing that despite the known corruption we have here in our own government, that there are many who still choose to have blind faith in our government.

How you can advocate taking things away without any facts to back it up - and what you have proposed here hardly constitutes a compelling argument as to supporting the confiscation of valuable property from hundreds of millions of people - and claim to be a "civil" or "reasonable" person? You can live there where you are only allowed to own things the government decides you "need." I'll choose to live here.

And I don't know what you are trying to say with regards to North Korea. Probably deflection or a strawman argument, if anything.

 

[Kable24]

Since when was freedom about what you "need?"

I love when people ask me why I "need" all of the guns and ammo I have. I tell them straight out, I don't need them. I wanted them and I bought them. My hobby doesn't hurt anyone.

Why does a person need a $70,000 sports car when a Ford Fiesta gets you from point A to point B the same way?
Why do you need that HDTV when a simple SDTV gives you the same channels?

 

[Kable24]

If only every gun owner was as responsible as you, Kable.

The world would be a better place.

 

[jmc]

Unlike Australia, we here don't blindly have faith in our governments. I find it amazing that despite the known corruption we have here in our own government, that there are many who still choose to have blind faith in our government.

And I don't now what you are trying to say with regards to North Korea. Probably deflection or a strawman argument, if anything.

I bring up North Korea because I've heard it time and time again that doing things like bringing in tougher gun control is an attack on citizens freedoms. That is bull ****, not one of you born in the US knows what it's like to live in a country without freedom, in fact you should be grateful you don't. Placing restrictions on firearms is about saving yourselves for christ sake, it's not about losing freedoms, if law abiding citizens are affected by stricter gun control then that's a price you should be willing to pay if it means fewer people being killed. The great irony is the US has always tried to present itself as the moral example to the rest of the world yet it's people are not willing to do what's right morally in their own backyard for the betterment of their nation. Dove tail question, what exactly are your so paranoid about in regards to your government?

 

[Phallic]

I bring up North Korea because I've heard it time and time again that doing things like bringing in tougher gun control is an attack on citizens freedoms. That is bull ****, not one of you born in the US knows what it's like to live in a country without freedom, in fact you should be grateful you don't. Placing restrictions on firearms is about saving yourselves for christ sake, it's not about losing freedoms, if law abiding citizens are affected by stricter gun control then that's a price you should be willing to pay if it means fewer people being killed. The great irony is the US has always tried to present itself as the moral example to the rest of the world yet it's people are not willing to do what's right morally in their own backyard for the betterment of their nation.

No, but I have plenty of family members who lived in China during the communist revolution - my great grandfather was publically executed during this time. I know exactly what an oppressive government entails and I'd not make assumptions. My grandfather fled China to Taiwan during the Korean War as a soldier. The reason why we have the 2nd amendment is because there was a time that we were oppressed. We said "never again," and ensured that should the time come again that we would be ready. Don't think it can't happen again. On September 10, 2001, the notion that 2 airliners would strike the twin towers would have been laughed at. Those who believe it "can't happen again" are usually the first ones it happens to. Far too often I hear people say "I can't believe this could happen in this idyllic town with no crime," after these shootings. Every time in fact.

The problem with your argument is the assumption that stricter gun control laws indicate fewer people being killed. I've given you tons of statistics that you've either ignored, or fleetingly discounted without much of a reason, that indicate that gun control laws have done virtually nothing to prevent deaths of innocent people. Until you can point to an unbiased academic study that can claim that gun control laws clearly reduce crime, which I'd love to see, the desire to introduce strict gun control laws is nothing more than an emotionally fueled desire without the facts to support it.

 

[Phallic]

Dove tail question, what exactly are your so paranoid about in regards to your government?

I would think it's pretty obvious the dangers of allowing a ruling entity exclusive access to weapons. The biggest perpetrators of mass murders in human history have been governments. While I don't think our government would do that, the fact that the 2nd amendment exists is the only thing we have to ensure that it doesn't.

There are also plenty of instances of our own US government overstepping the boundaries of what's acceptable - Japanese internment camps during WWII ring a bell? What about the PATRIOT act as a more recent example? Or the fact that the government supposedly wants to reduce violent crime, yet ships fully automatic assault rifles to Mexican drug cartels - the very same ones that have killed our own law enforcement?

Why should I trust this government with a monopoly on power again?

And before someone says that this is "exclusive" to the US, you'd be delusional to assume that your government is free from similar corruption.

 

[jmc]

No, but I have plenty of family members who lived in China during the communist revolution - my great grandfather was publically executed during this time. I know exactly what an oppressive government entails and I'd not make assumptions. My grandfather fled China to Taiwan during the Korean War as a soldier. The reason why we have the 2nd amendment is because there was a time that we were oppressed. We said "never again," and ensured that should the time come again that we would be ready. Don't think it can't happen again. On September 10, 2001, the notion that 2 airliners would strike the twin towers would have been laughed at. Those who believe it "can't happen again" are usually the first ones it happens to. Far too often I hear people say "I can't believe this could happen in this idyllic town with no crime," after these shootings. Every time in fact.

The problem with your argument is the assumption that stricter gun control laws indicate fewer people being killed. I've given you tons of statistics that you've either ignored, or fleetingly discounted without much of a reason, that indicate that gun control laws have done virtually nothing to prevent deaths of innocent people. Until you can point to an unbiased academic study that can claim that gun control laws clearly reduce crime, which I'd love to see, the desire to introduce strict gun control laws is nothing more than an emotionally fueled desire without the facts to support it.

I haven't ignored anything, you're refusing to acknowledge the percentage of gun related deaths, you're simply lumping every murder in one category and using it as justification that things won't work. No, crime will never go away, but I've given you examples from Australia in the years following our stricter gun controls how things can go, whether you want to accept the data or not is up to you. We had 364 murders in 1998, we had 260 in the last statistics in 2011, we had 23,000 robberies in 1998, in 2011 14,000, the only thing up is assault, the vast majority of which didn't involve firearms. The point is, you don't know unless you try do you? The issue seems to me you're not willing to try, that you're happy with the status quo because you don't want the chance of being denied the right to bare arms. What are you afraid of? That some background check my raise a red flag? And so what if it does are you not within your right to challenge it? It should be difficult for people to obtain firearms, in fact it should be extremely difficult to obtain them. Seems to me the issue is that people don't want things made more difficult. But again, that should be something you're willing to do as a human being in order to stop massacres like the recent one happening.

 

[jmc]

I would think it's pretty obvious the dangers of allowing a ruling entity exclusive access to weapons. The biggest perpetrators of mass murders in human history have been governments. While I don't think our government would do that, the fact that the 2nd amendment exists is the only thing we have to ensure that it doesn't.

There are also plenty of instances of our own US government overstepping the boundaries of what's acceptable - Japanese internment camps during WWII ring a bell? What about the PATRIOT act as a more recent example? Or the fact that the government supposedly wants to reduce violent crime, yet ships fully automatic assault rifles to Mexican drug cartels - the very same ones that have killed our own law enforcement?

Why should I trust this government with a monopoly on power again?

And before someone says that this is "exclusive" to the US, you'd be delusional to assume that your government is free from similar corruption.

Oh for christ sake, no government is free of corruption, we've got our own issues to but you know what we do if we don't like the government? We elect a new one. For crying out loud, if things are so bad over there you may as well overthrow the government and start fresh.

 

[Phallic]

I haven't ignored anything, you're refusing to acknowledge the percentage of gun related deaths, you're simply lumping every murder in one category and using it as justification that things won't work. No, crime will never go away, but I've given you examples from Australia in the years following our stricter gun controls how things can go, whether you want to accept the data or not is up to you. We had 364 murders in 1998, we had 260 in the last statistics in 2011, we had 23,000 robberies in 1998, in 2011 14,000, the only thing up is assault, the vast majority of which didn't involve firearms. The point is, you don't know unless you try do you? The issue seems to me you're not willing to try, that you're happy with the status quo because you don't want the chance of being denied the right to bare arms. What are you afraid of? That some background check my raise a red flag? And so what if it does are you not within your right to challenge it? It should be difficult for people to obtain firearms, in fact it should be extremely difficult to obtain them. Seems to me the issue is that people don't want things made more difficult. But again, that should be something you're willing to do as a human being in order to stop massacres like the recent one happening.

We already have background checks here. What did you think, that you can just go to the local 7-11 and buy a Glock with a pack of cigarettes and a can of soda?

We've tried the banning "assault weapons" here - for 10 years in fact. It did literally nothing to prevent massacres and violent crime. We've tried it as well as the "Gun free murder zones" that anti-gun people love to advocate. Our crime rates have been decreasing despite (or because, depending on which side you're on) the rapid rise in gun ownership and CCW permits issued. In a vast majority of countries where strict gun control laws have been enacted (as well as cities and locales here in the USA), gun crime and crime in generally has soared. This is undeniable - it's simply fact.

It's not that we don't want to make it harder for psychos and criminals to get guns. It's that the ideas proposed by the anti-gun crowd have been tried and have been proven ineffective. This isn't even theory at this point - this is history.

 

[jmc]

Then maybe new proposals need to be thought of.

 

[Thundercrack85]

I do think a lot of non-Americans don't get the American gun mentality.

America was essentially founded by a well armed posse, fighting a gun-grabbing monarchy. And then came the frontier days (everyone and their brother (and sister) had a revolver). Casual possession of firearms is as much a part of American culture as tea is in British culture. Or a more modern comparison would be Koreans and computer games.

Even most liberal Americans are okay with semiautomatic handguns being legal.

 

[jmc]

Then it's the culture that needs to change.