Discussion: The Second Amendment III

[Phallic]

Then it's the culture that needs to change.

"Needs" here is the debatable term. The evidence simply is not there to indicate that the "gun culture," which is little more than just "American culture," needs to change.

And I'm thankful that even with the most recent tragedy, it's not likely going anywhere.

 

[jmc]

Then your government needs to stop acting like your nation is the moral example to the rest of the world then.

 

[Phallic]

Then your government needs to stop acting like your nation is the moral example to the rest of the world then.

Allowing people to defend themselves is a hell of a lot more moral than telling people to bend over and take it.

 

[Baramos]

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

Do you keep your guns in a gun safe?

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?

I'm not sure why you think an argument for conspicuous consumption is a positive argument for owning assault weapons.

I do enjoy the kneejerk reaction you are having in this topic, though. "Hey, you guys talking about gun control! Look at me, I got 700 rounds of ammo in the mail today and big clips to put them in! Neener neener neener!" At least make some real arguments like Phallic.

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.

Background checks are not required at gunshows. Background checks are not required between individual private owners. That's why 65% of the users on Armslist and other websites can't pass legal background checks--they go where they can get guns illegally.

 

[jmc]

You all wanna live in a place where gun fire is as common as sunshine then knock yourself out, just don't come preaching to the rest of us when you can't sort out your own ****.

 

[Webfoot Hero]

You all wanna live in a place where gun fire is as common as sunshine then knock yourself out, just don't come preaching to the rest of us when you can't sort out your own ****.

It's only common in major urban areas. You get out of those cities and America is fairly safe and livable. We aren't telling you how to live in Australia so don't be lecturing us how live here.

 

[Phallic]

You all wanna live in a place where gun fire is as common as sunshine then knock yourself out, just don't come preaching to the rest of us when you can't sort out your own ****.

To add to what the previous poster said, a vast majority of theses areas are very anti gun with strict gun control laws.

Just shot yourself in the foot there.

 

[jmc]

Well best of luck to you all then, it's been fun. Merry Christmas.

 

[Kable24]

Do you keep your guns in a gun safe?



I'm not sure why you think an argument for conspicuous consumption is a positive argument for owning assault weapons.

I do enjoy the kneejerk reaction you are having in this topic, though. "Hey, you guys talking about gun control! Look at me, I got 700 rounds of ammo in the mail today and big clips to put them in! Neener neener neener!" At least make some real arguments like Phallic.



Background checks are not required at gunshows. Background checks are not required between individual private owners. That's why 65% of the users on Armslist and other websites can't pass legal background checks--they go where they can get guns illegally.

My guns are locked.
How is me buying two high cap mags and 700 rounds a kneejerk reaction? I was low on .22lr and I wanted the mags for my Ruger 10/22 I recently purchased.
As for making arguments I gave up with the stubborn asses in this thread months ago. They don't want to be open minded about anything and feel that I am to blame for some mental defective killing people because I own rifles. My AR's are not "assault weapons or assault rifles" as they have no assaulted anything.

Back ground checks are required at gun shows. I've purchased several guns at shows and every time, I had to go through the standard paperwork and background check as if I had purchased it in a gun store. The so called gun show loop hole is a when two private citizens sell a gun, then there is no paperwork. That I feel needs to change. Purchasing any gun online can only be shipped to a licensed FFL dealer. Guns cannot be shipped right to someone's house.

but of course those who know nothing about guns and gun laws will tell me I'm wrong and they are right.

 

[Phallic]

Well best of luck to you all then, it's been fun. Merry Christmas.

Same to you. A good debate is a good way for me to refresh up on the stats and facts

 

[JJJ's Ulcer]

It's only common in major urban areas. You get out of those cities and America is fairly safe and livable. We aren't telling you how to live in Australia so don't be lecturing us how live here.

Actually most shooting sprees seem to happen in suburban areas. Gangs shooting each other is common in urban areas, but the stuff I worry about are the random massacre spree-shootings and those always seem to be in suburban schools, cinemas, churches, strip-malls, etc.

 

[wiegeabo]

Actually most shooting sprees seem to happen in suburban areas. Gangs shooting each other is common in urban areas, but the stuff I worry about are the random massacre spree-shootings and those always seem to be in suburban schools, cinemas, churches, strip-malls, etc.

Which are only a small percentage of the shootings. It's just that because they're relatively rare, and involve a large number of people at one time (instead of a large number of people over time), the press are more willing to jump on it. And all that attention makes it seem like they're more common, or at least a bigger threat, than all the other urban shootings constantly going on.

Just like airplane crashes are rare, but when they happen, they're big. And yet air travel is still the safest way to go. And suburban areas are much safer, despite these mass shootings.

 

[AndrewGilkison]

Which are only a small percentage of the shootings. It's just that because they're relatively rare, and involve a large number of people at one time (instead of a large number of people over time), the press are more willing to jump on it. And all that attention makes it seem like they're more common, or at least a bigger threat, than all the other urban shootings constantly going on.

Just like airplane crashes are rare, but when they happen, they're big. And yet air travel is still the safest way to go. And suburban areas are much safer, despite these mass shootings.

And how long do you think it's going to stay that way if we do nothing?

 

[wiegeabo]

I never said we should do nothing.

 

[Baramos]

My guns are locked.
How is me buying two high cap mags and 700 rounds a kneejerk reaction? I was low on .22lr and I wanted the mags for my Ruger 10/22 I recently purchased.
As for making arguments I gave up with the stubborn asses in this thread months ago. They don't want to be open minded about anything and feel that I am to blame for some mental defective killing people because I own rifles. My AR's are not "assault weapons or assault rifles" as they have no assaulted anything.

Back ground checks are required at gun shows. I've purchased several guns at shows and every time, I had to go through the standard paperwork and background check as if I had purchased it in a gun store. The so called gun show loop hole is a when two private citizens sell a gun, then there is no paperwork. That I feel needs to change. Purchasing any gun online can only be shipped to a licensed FFL dealer. Guns cannot be shipped right to someone's house.

but of course those who know nothing about guns and gun laws will tell me I'm wrong and they are right.

I mean that it seemed to be a kneejerk reaction to come into a gun control topic and for your post simply to be posting that you just bought a bunch of ammo and you can't stop me, etc. instead of talking about stuff like the rest of THIS post which is that apparently from your experience gun shows do indeed require background checks except when they don't. Glad to know you think that the private citizen transaction not having this requirement should change.

 

[Godzilla2000]

You know, I'm quite bothered by all this talk of tough stances on Gun Control. What's been bothering me is that absolute nutso wackos have been abusing this right to bear arms. The solution I think is that we need to recall all of our troops back to the U.S. because the military was set up to protect our country and her borders. Civilians should only be allowed to own guns meant for hunting game in the wild. Why do people need all these handguns, assault rifles, etc. etc.? The only people who should have any access to guns of this nature are soldiers and police. Seriously...some nutjob where my sisters live just set fire to a house and killed 2 firemen before killing himself. This whole gun ownership thing is getting out of hand. It's getting so that you're even afraid of being in your own home now.

 

[Kable24]

I mean that it seemed to be a kneejerk reaction to come into a gun control topic and for your post simply to be posting that you just bought a bunch of ammo and you can't stop me, etc. instead of talking about stuff like the rest of THIS post which is that apparently from your experience gun shows do indeed require background checks except when they don't. Glad to know you think that the private citizen transaction not having this requirement should change.

This is not a gun control topic. This is to discuss the 2nd amendment. If you have seen my past posts, I did contribute, but as I said it falls on deaf ears or the downright stubborn who can't be reasonable, so I'm not going to bother and post things showing me exercising my 2nd amendment rights.
I suggest you go to a gun show and go up to any vendor and ask if you have to do a background check. I guarantee 100% of them will say yes. If they are a business and have an FFL license they are not going to sell you a gun without performing a background check. If they did the ATF would be all over them, strip them of their license, fine them and possibly even jail time. But I don't know what I'm talking about, because I've only been around and bought guns for years. Someone who knows nothing and gets their info from Wikipedia will know more about gun show laws.

 

[The Overlord]

My guns are locked.
How is me buying two high cap mags and 700 rounds a kneejerk reaction? I was low on .22lr and I wanted the mags for my Ruger 10/22 I recently purchased.
As for making arguments I gave up with the stubborn asses in this thread months ago. They don't want to be open minded about anything and feel that I am to blame for some mental defective killing people because I own rifles. My AR's are not "assault weapons or assault rifles" as they have no assaulted anything.

Back ground checks are required at gun shows. I've purchased several guns at shows and every time, I had to go through the standard paperwork and background check as if I had purchased it in a gun store. The so called gun show loop hole is a when two private citizens sell a gun, then there is no paperwork. That I feel needs to change. Purchasing any gun online can only be shipped to a licensed FFL dealer. Guns cannot be shipped right to someone's house.

but of course those who know nothing about guns and gun laws will tell me I'm wrong and they are right.

I don't think the problem is just with guns, its also gun culture. Adam Lanza's mother was paranoid and thought society was going to fall apart and bought a ton of guns. She just had one gun for protection, then Adam wouldn't have been able to kill as many people.

It seems like this type of paranoid attitude inflicts parts of the American psyche and its not healthy or sane. Do people think the US is going to become a oppressive dictatorship overnight and that having guns is only to prevent it? The US government has access to the military industrial complex, can a hand gun defeat a tank? Also what about other countries, Canada, UK, France, Germany and many other Western democracies have tougher gun laws, does anyone think those countries are going to become dictatorships over night? Also why does the US have way more gun violence then other Western democracies?

 

[dnno1]

[YT]xPteJHPWyt0[/YT]
Oh, it could go off by itself if knocked the right way.

 

[wiegeabo]

[YT]xPteJHPWyt0[/YT]
Oh, it could go off by itself if knocked the right way.

So it didn't go off by itself. Someone still had to mess with it.

 

[wiegeabo]

I don't think the problem is just with guns, its also gun culture. Adam Lanza's mother was paranoid and thought society was going to fall apart and bought a ton of guns. She just had one gun for protection, then Adam wouldn't have been able to kill as many people.

That right there tells me the problem isn't with the guns. It's with the people.

Would it be acceptable if he'd used a knife because he would have only killed five? Of course not! But you wouldn't hear a call for banning knives, would you? Of course not. Because it's not the weapon's fault. It's the person misusing it.

Yes, guns need to be handled with respect. Yes, guns need to be properly secure. Yes, guns need to be sold only to vetted owners. And anyone violating these need to be punished severely.

The real problem is how we treat the mentally ill of this country who commit these crimes. And by treat, I mean completely ignore until it's too late. If we actually did a halfway decent job with the mentally disturbed in this country, we'd probably find we could get rid of a lot of gun restrictions (based on type of gun) and still drastically reduce the amount of gun crime like this.

 

[Phallic]

You know, I'm quite bothered by all this talk of tough stances on Gun Control. What's been bothering me is that absolute nutso wackos have been abusing this right to bear arms. The solution I think is that we need to recall all of our troops back to the U.S. because the military was set up to protect our country and her borders. Civilians should only be allowed to own guns meant for hunting game in the wild. Why do people need all these handguns, assault rifles, etc. etc.? The only people who should have any access to guns of this nature are soldiers and police. Seriously...some nutjob where my sisters live just set fire to a house and killed 2 firemen before killing himself. This whole gun ownership thing is getting out of hand. It's getting so that you're even afraid of being in your own home now.

As I've said before, the "right to bear arms" was not intended for hunting. So let's leave hunting out of this as it's irrelevant to the argument at hand. If you want to go for a strictly constitutional viewpoint, then everyone who is of age, not mentally deficient and not a convicted felon should be allowed to own a fully automatic M4A1.

Restricting guns etc. to just hunting weapons pretty much negates the entire intention of the second amendment - if you have a real problem with it, then go through the proper channels. If you feel that changing the constitution is too difficult, then tough ****, it was made that way for a reason. Trying to circumvent it will just tie up the courts as they are forced to rule such asinine laws unconstitutional, as they have been doing consistently over the past decade.

And there is a very real reason to own a semi-automatic handgun. I have a CCW, and carry a handgun for self protection as I see fit. The gun is a Glock 19, one of those evil 15 round capacity black semi-automatic handguns that you anti-gun people love to claim are these evil killing machines. If law abiding people with legally obtained guns, the same people who commit less than 1% of all firearm related crimes, scare you so badly, then perhaps it's time for you to evaluate your own paranoia.

With regards to the firemen incident, it's worth noting that the man was a convicted felon, convicted of murdering his own grandmother. He got his gun illegaly (what a surprise) as he would not have been able to purchase a gun legally. No gun law would have prevented that from happening. Focusing on guns here is ridiculous - the real question should be: Why the hell was this scumbag allowed out of prison?

It's a failure of enforcement of our laws and the justice system - not guns.

 

[Phallic]

I don't think the problem is just with guns, its also gun culture. Adam Lanza's mother was paranoid and thought society was going to fall apart and bought a ton of guns. She just had one gun for protection, then Adam wouldn't have been able to kill as many people.

It seems like this type of paranoid attitude inflicts parts of the American psyche and its not healthy or sane. Do people think the US is going to become a oppressive dictatorship overnight and that having guns is only to prevent it? The US government has access to the military industrial complex, can a hand gun defeat a tank? Also what about other countries, Canada, UK, France, Germany and many other Western democracies have tougher gun laws, does anyone think those countries are going to become dictatorships over night? Also why does the US have way more gun violence then other Western democracies?

Two points here:

1) Adam Lanza only used one gun throughout the attack. The handgun was only used when he committed suicide. Therefore, the number of guns would have done nothing to prevent any of the deaths.

2) The Virginia Tech shooter used primarily a .22 LR Walther P22, a caliber so weak that nobody in their right mind would consider using it for self defense. This gun had only a 10 round magazine capacity. He managed to kill 32 people.

Your ideas would, sadly, have done nothing to prevent this tragedy from happening.

With regards to your statements about other countries, I'd advise you do a bit more research on this. This is probably the 10th time I've stated this here, but it's worth repeating - virtually every country that has enacted stringent gun control laws has seen a sharp increase in violent crime. The UK has the highest violent crime rate in the EU, with a crime rate double what it was prior to the ban. South Africa and Brazil are both two of the most dangerous countries in the world, both having banned guns prior. Australia witnessed a near universal increase in crime following their gun bans. Note that this is not just crime in general, but there was a sharp increase in gun crime as well (a faulty argument no less - it implies that death by gun is somehow worse than death by stabbing / bludgeoning / other means). If you were to exclude large inner cities from the US crime rate (which are primarily very anti-gun with strict gun control laws no less), the US crime rate would actually be very low.

 

[The Overlord]

Two points here:

1) Adam Lanza only used one gun throughout the attack. The handgun was only used when he committed suicide. Therefore, the number of guns would have done nothing to prevent any of the deaths.

2) The Virginia Tech shooter used primarily a .22 LR Walther P22, a caliber so weak that nobody in their right mind would consider using it for self defense. This gun had only a 10 round magazine capacity. He managed to kill 32 people.

Your ideas would, sadly, have done nothing to prevent this tragedy from happening.

With regards to your statements about other countries, I'd advise you do a bit more research on this. This is probably the 10th time I've stated this here, but it's worth repeating - virtually every country that has enacted stringent gun control laws has seen a sharp increase in violent crime. The UK has the highest violent crime rate in the EU, with a crime rate double what it was prior to the ban. South Africa and Brazil are both two of the most dangerous countries in the world, both having banned guns prior. Australia witnessed a near universal increase in crime following their gun bans. Note that this is not just crime in general, but there was a sharp increase in gun crime as well (a faulty argument no less - it implies that death by gun is somehow worse than death by stabbing / bludgeoning / other means). If you were to exclude large inner cities from the US crime rate (which are primarily very anti-gun with strict gun control laws no less), the US crime rate would actually be very low.

First of all, the situation in Australia is far more complex then you are making it out to be: http://www.snopes.com/crime/statistics/ausguns.asp

Second, if the US has crime in major urban centers, then contributes to the overall crime rate. Yes there is less crime in rural areas then large suburban areas, but that is true anywhere, because small towns have fewer people, thus they have less crime overall because there are fewer people to commit crimes and its harder to get away with a crime in a small town where everyone knows each other.

Why does say Canada, have a far lower crime rate then the US does? Canada has stricter gun laws and yet Canada is far safer then the US is.

Its not just guns, its also failed social policies, a gap between rich and poor that is far larger then other Western countries and clearly a insufficient mental health system. But the easy access to guns makes these problems worse, not better. Right wingers often say they don't like the government getting bigger, so would they be willing to put more fund into mental health? That's going to cost money, security guards at schools are not cheap either. So you have to pick, more gun control or more money going to all this other stuff and likely a tax hike to pay for it.

 

[Phallic]

First of all, the situation in Australia is far more complex then you are making it out to be: http://www.snopes.com/crime/statistics/ausguns.asp

Second, if the US has crime in major urban centers, then contributes to the overall crime rate. Yes there is less crime in rural areas then large suburban areas, but that is true anywhere, because small towns have fewer people, thus they have less crime overall because there are fewer people to commit crimes and its harder to get away with a crime in a small town where everyone knows each other.

Why does say Canada, have a far lower crime rate then the US does? Canada has stricter gun laws and yet Canada is far safer then the US is.

Its not just guns, its also failed social policies, a gap between rich and poor that is far larger then other Western countries and clearly a insufficient mental health system. But the easy access to guns makes these problems worse, not better. Right wingers often say they don't like the government getting bigger, so would they be willing to put more fund into mental health? That's going to cost money, security guards at schools are not cheap either. So you have to pick, more gun control or more money going to all this other stuff and likely a tax hike to pay for it.

There are so many factors that go into a crime rate that cross comparing countries is ridiculous. If this is the route you wish to go, then explain why the UK, Mexico, South Africa and Brazil have a higher overall violent crime rate when they have extremely strict gun laws? It's more telling to look at trends before and after the passing of legislation, which has been the focus of my argument.

Same goes with the trends I discussed. When handguns were banned from DC, they experienced a ridiculous increase in violent crime and murder rates. That has only declined since the repeal of their ban. Coincidence or not, the areas with the most strict gun control laws within the USA have not had in any way, shape, or form any reduction in crime because of it. Chicago and Washington DC are two of the most dangerous places in the country and make up a significant portion of the overall violent crime rate - until recently it was virtually impossible to own a handgun in both areas. Vermont has allowed anybody legally allowed to own a handgun to carry one without a license. Vermont consistently has a very low crime rate.

Answer this question for me, and I will continue to ask it until I get one. If less than 1% of legal gun owners commit a violent crime with their gun, and less than 0.1% is committed by CCW holders, then what good would limitations on legal gun owners do to the overall violent crime rate when a vast majority of guns used in crimes are smuggled in from other countries? (most recent study indicated that a small percentage of guns used in crimes were stolen from legal gun owners).

Why has the US experienced a significant decline in overall crime rates despite a loosening of gun laws and an increase in gun ownership?

Why should another assault weapons ban be introduced when the last one did nothing to prevent violent crime? (not one academic study claimed that it did, and plenty claimed it did nothing).

Why do countless other countries and areas that enact strict gun control experience an increase in violent crime? (UK, Australia, Brazil, South Africa, Washington DC, Chicago etc.) while the passage of CCW laws in many states resulted in a serious reduction of violent crime?

Why has every mass shooting with the exception 2 resulting in the deaths of 4 people or more in the past 50 years taken place in "gun free zones?" Shouldn't these laws be doing something?

Or is it that criminals don't give a flying **** about laws and do as they please?

Right wingers don't oppose having the government act, it's on how they act. They don't want the government encroaching on aspects that they don't need to encroach on - with issues of mental health and school security, that is a different story.