Yay, GUNS!

[John Cuthber]

I'm sure whey you are finished eliminating the second amendment, the first will follow soon after.

 

You keep saying this nonsense which is obviously untrue. The strong can easily overcome the weak. The many can easily overcome the one or the few. Just ask the women of Cologne Germany.

 

The first of those not only demonstrates your paranoia, it's a logical fallacy- usually referred to as the " slippery slope" argument.

So that's clearly nonsense.

Do you understand that it's logically invalid?

 

And the second is nonsense too. Once again, it's a logical fallacy because you have misrepresented what I said.

Here's what I actually said

" one is that for the most part, if the other guy doesn't have a gun, you don't need one."

 

Your point about "The strong can easily overcome the weak." would be a valid point if only nice people were allowed guns- but you can't do that. The only way to stop bad people having guns is to stop everyone having them.

At best, giving everyone a gun gives the clear upper hand to the bad guy. He knows he is up to no good so he can shoot first.

Why do you think that is a good idea?

[iNow]

iNow, the NRA has no legal powers and therefore cannot block anything. The references you give and your own use of the work "block" is rhetorical. The NRA is simply a grass roots lobbying organization representing the will of it's membership. The opinions of the NRA can be completely ignored by everyone including members of congress.

I enjoy how you've just implicitly suggested that the NRA is no more worrisome than a local Girl Scout troop, no more powerful than the members of a rural rotary club or elk lodge.

 

Clever tactic, but it unfortunately misses the fact that even most NRA members also support the measures being proposed by the president.

 

http://www.thetrace.org/2015/11/gun-owners-poll-nra-universal-background-checks/

In one of the most striking findings, 56 percent of the Republican gun owners polled said they would be more likely to support a candidate who favors universal background checks; only about a quarter said that such a stance would likely cost an office-seeker their vote. Even among NRA members, the survey found openness to reform. Forty-eight percent indicated they’d be more inclined to cast a ballot for a politician who wants to close the private-sale loophole. For another 14 percent of NRA members, a candidate’s stance on background checks would not tilt their support one way or the other.

 

That political data was undergirded by the strong favorability the poll found for tougher restrictions as a policy solution: 83 percent of all gun owners and 72 percent of the NRA members surveyed voiced support for universal background checks. Past surveys have had similar takeaways. In July 2012, the Republican pollster Frank Luntz conducted a poll of gun owners on behalf of Mayors Against Illegal Guns (a predecessor to Everytown for Gun Safety, which is a seed donor to The Trace). Luntz’s firm found 74 percent of NRA members favored background checks for every gun transaction. Pew Research asked the same question of households with NRA members in 2013, and got the same answer.

So, about my repeated request to you to begin basing your arguments in reality, should we anticipate any progress on that particular front?

[Willie71]

That silly old piece of paper that modern liberals hate and love to ignore. I'm sure whey you are finished eliminating the second amendment, the first will follow soon after. After all, for starters, we can't have free speech hurting peoples feelings.

 

 

 

 

 

You keep saying this nonsense which is obviously untrue. The strong can easily overcome the weak. The many can easily overcome the one or the few. Just ask the women of Cologne Germany.

 

The 1968 gun control act does not empower the government to act in the ways defined by Obama's recent executive order, but thank you for providing the information. I think from here on out we should stop taking about this order as and executive order but instead refer to it as Presidential Law.

 

iNow, the NRA has no legal powers and therefore cannot block anything. The references you give and your own use of the work "block" is rhetorical. The NRA is simply a grass roots lobbying organization representing the will of it's membership. The opinions of the NRA can be completely ignored by everyone including members of congress. The risk that members of congress have in ignoring the NRA is that the organization represents voters which may vote congress members out for enacting gun control against the wishes of there chosen lobbying group. You know that but you prefer to have a bogeyman to castigate.

 

Please explain then why people are more likely to be shot by their own gun than shoot a "bad guy?"

[John Cuthber]

 

The NRA is simply a grass roots lobbying organization representing the will of it's membership.

I forgot to mention earlier that it's not grass roots. It's "astroturf" since it's largely funded by the gun makers.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astroturfing

[overtone]

Do you realise that saying we can't have gun control because words on a piece of paper say so is absurd?

So:

1) I never say that, and that's not the strong form of the argument.

2) Everybody knows the Constitution can be amended. So do that, or quit bitching about it, ok?

3) Do you realize that having a whole bunch of gun control advocates describe the Constitution as a "piece of paper", "just an old bit of paper", and so forth is one of the major factors killing gun control in the US?

The "self defence" argument has several very clear problems; one is that for the most part, if the other guy doesn't have a gun, you don't need one.

 

That's fairly clear and reasonable, yet you cite it as an example of lunacy

 

I'm tempted to just quote that, and add it to the list.

Not "lunacy" - wrong, silly, and threatening.

Wrong: you "need" a gun (if ever) whenever you are small, old, female, frail, slow, solo, sick, asleep at home, sitting in a car, or in any other way the physical inferior of your assailant(s).

Silly: That's the most common situation that people carry guns for - not to get in gunfights, for pity's sake.

Threat: how are you planning to see to it that in the US the other guy does not have one of those 300 million guns?

 

And, since you cited my comment on my having no guns, yet having liberty you really ought to show that there's something wrong with it

It's oblivious. You've been lucky - that's nice.

Edited January 10, 2016 by overtone

[neutrinosalad]

Do you realize that having a whole bunch of gun control advocates describe the Constitution as a "piece of paper", "just an old bit of paper", and so forth is one of the major factors killing gun control in the US?

 

Exactly. I love the Constitution and the Bill of Rights because they formed the basic governing architecture that allowed the United States to grow both economically and in power into the leading country that it is today. As a United States citizen, I am glad that so many other people in this country protect those "pieces of paper" so fervently because they have granted us inalienable rights that few countries in the world have today. Even large swaths of Europe lack many of the basic rights that United States citizens have today.

 

----------------------------------------------------------------

 

Also, I want to help clarify things for people here who are interpreting the 2nd amendment granting rights strictly to well-organized militias.

 

Here is the 2nd amendment in full:

 

 

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.

 

It says clear as day that people (individual, law-abiding citizens) have the right to bear arms. The sentence is split up syntactically to make this clear.

 

Also, I get the feeling that gun control advocates on here are ideologically driven. Statistics can be created and studies can be performed that twist reality in order to support an ideological desire to change something in the world.

 

So I want to offer up some information that goes against some of the beliefs here:

 

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/10/21/gun-homicides-steady-after-decline-in-90s-suicide-rate-edges-up/

 

This is data collected by pew research that shows that the number of firearm deaths per 100,000 people has gone down by half between 1993 and 2014 and has recently stabilized. This is statistically a drop from 7 in 100,000 to 3.4 in 100,000 on a year to year basis.

 

Also, gun ownership in the US has declined steadily since the 1970's:

 

http://www.norc.org/PDFs/GSS%20Reports/GSS_Trends%20in%20Gun%20Ownership_US_1972-2014.pdf

 

In 1973, the % of households with guns was 47%. In 2014, the % of households with guns was 31%. That is a 16% drop in household gun ownership over a 41 year period.

 

I agree that we should strengthen background checks in order to ensure that guns do not get into the hands of non-law-abiding citizens and the mentally ill, but beyond that I will not budge.

[overtone]

1-3 Guns are not used millions of times each year in self-defense

So? Besides noting the undercounting (the reduction in breakins of occupied dwellings noticeable in high-gun neighborhoods is not even estimated, for example. The most common self-defense benefit expected - rightly or wrongly - from a gun, is the crime that does not happen because a gun is or might be present. ) we also note that "millions" of such events are not necessary for the gun owner's argument.

 

 

Please explain then why people are more likely to be shot by their own gun than shoot a "bad guy?"

You are interpreting the stat backwards. If guns worked perfectly for self defense, the only people shot would be by accident - most likely the gun owner, mishandling. Edited January 10, 2016 by overtone

[John Cuthber]

So:

1) I never say that, and that's not the strong form of the argument.

2) Everybody knows the Constitution can be amended. So do that, or quit bitching about it, ok?

3) Do you realize that having a whole bunch of gun control advocates describe the Constitution as a "piece of paper", "just an old bit of paper", and so forth is one of the major factors killing gun control in the US?

 

 

 

 

That's fairly clear and reasonable, yet you cite it as an example of lunacy

I'm tempted to just quote that, and add it to the list.

Not "lunacy" - wrong, silly, and threatening.

Wrong: you "need" a gun (if ever) whenever you are small, old, female, frail, slow, solo, sick, asleep at home, sitting in a car, or in any other way the physical inferior of your assailant(s).

Silly: That's the most common situation that people carry guns for - not to get in gunfights, for pity's sake.

Threat: how are you planning to see to it that in the US the other guy does not have one of those 300 million guns?

 

It's oblivious. You've been lucky - that's nice.

Well, since you feel that while asleep at home you can aim and fire a gun you have clearly demonstrated your grasp of reality.

 

But the point you missed is the one I made earlier.

If the other guy has a gun- and plans to use it and you have a gun- but he takes you by surprise, your gun will still be in your pocket when you die.

It doesn't matter who is bigger.

 

And re the constitution.

I'm happy to never mention it again, never mind "bitching" about it.

Indeed, you may recall that I said as much earlier.

 

You keep ignoring the reality that I have no gun and I have liberty.

And that's the same for essentially all the 70 million people with whom I share this island-

 

it's not luck; it's proper gun control.

You should think about it.

[Ten oz]

Threat: how are you planning to see to it that in the US the other guy does not have one of those 300 million guns?

 

 

Gun advocates often site the number of guns in circulation as a justification for needing even more guns in circulation. It a is circular logic. Edited January 10, 2016 by Ten oz

[overtone]

Gun advocates often site the number of guns in circulation as a justification for needing even more guns in circulation. It a is circular logic.

And gun control advocates often cite benefits from gun control only available by somehow making all those guns go away - that's a threat.

 

 

But the point you missed is the one I made earlier

I didn't miss it, I illustrated its foolishness. It's irrelevant - you describe a situation where having a gun makes no difference. There are many such. Fine. So what? People carry them (so they say) for the other situations.

 

 

You keep ignoring the reality that I have no gun and I have liberty.

No, I don't. I keep quoting you saying that, obviously thinking you are making some kind of point, as evidence for my thesis. Edited January 10, 2016 by overtone

[iNow]

See how that keeps happening? We were talking about ensuring all dealers do background checks, maybe invest some money in mental health resources and smart gun tech. Now, like 3 or 4 posts later, we're once again back to arguing about oppression and tyrants and combatting strawmen about the removal of all guns from all people. Fancy.

[Ten oz]

Exactly. I love the Constitution and the Bill of Rights because they formed the basic governing architecture that allowed the United States to grow both economically and in power into the leading country that it is today. As a United States citizen, I am glad that so many other people in this country protect those "pieces of paper" so fervently because they have granted us inalienable rights that few countries in the world have today.

I love the United States. I grew up in California, spent a few years in Idaho, spent a year in Virgina, and currently live in DC. I have close family I often visit in Arizona, Texas, and Florida. There is only a handful of states I have not visited yet. I have been all over this country and believe it to be a great country. The Constitution and Bill of Right were absolutely a terrific base to form our union from, no question. However it is a document of its time. That is why it initially included slavery and only allowed land owners to vote. Many rights have had to be redefined or changed. Doing so is in keeping with the Constitution. It is was not meant to be scripture; adorned and unchangable. As free people we can make decisions.

"strict observance of the written law is doubtless one of the high duties of a good citizen, but it is not the highest. The laws of necessity, of self-preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of higher obligation. To lose our country by a scrupulous adherence to the written law, would be to lose the law itself, with life, liberty, property and all those who are enjoying them with us; thus absurdly sacrificing the ends to the means."

-Thomas Jefferson

 

 

Even large swaths of Europe lack many of the basic rights that United States.

 

Which "many basic rights" are you referencing?

[StringJunky]

"...To lose our country by a scrupulous adherence to the written law, would be to lose the law itself, with life, liberty, property and all those who are enjoying them with us; thus absurdly sacrificing the ends to the means."

-Thomas Jefferson

I think if he were alive today, based on my understanding here, he would support commonsense rules regarding weapons.

[rangerx]

 

Also, I get the feeling that gun control advocates on here are ideologically driven. Statistics can be created and studies can be performed that twist reality in order to support an ideological desire to change something in the world.

 

 

How is this any different from the ideologically driven meme "Obama wants to take our guns" for simply trying strengthen background checks and licensing of businesses?.

 

The majority of gun owners including yourself support these changes, but are they content to overlook right-wing craziness so as to keep the issue untenable? Why would they not repudiate these fools and get behind their president to protect it's citizens from needless gun violence and accidents?

 

Besides that, most of the civilized countries the world already have gun control and live far more safely than the USofA because of it. For anyone on the outside looking in, it's the American gun lobby that expects the world to change something.

 

Outside of the US, the 2nd Amendment doesn't mean diddly squat. In fact it's quite laughable how it's interpreted.

[neutrinosalad]

I love the United States. I grew up in California, spent a few years in Idaho, spent a year in Virgina, and currently live in DC. I have close family I often visit in Arizona, Texas, and Florida. There is only a handful of states I have not visited yet. I have been all over this country and believe it to be a great country. The Constitution and Bill of Right were absolutely a terrific base to form our union from, no question. However it is a document of its time. That is why it initially included slavery and only allowed land owners to vote. Many rights have had to be redefined or changed. Doing so is in keeping with the Constitution. It is was not meant to be scripture; adorned and unchangable. As free people we can make decisions.

"strict observance of the written law is doubtless one of the high duties of a good citizen, but it is not the highest. The laws of necessity, of self-preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of higher obligation. To lose our country by a scrupulous adherence to the written law, would be to lose the law itself, with life, liberty, property and all those who are enjoying them with us; thus absurdly sacrificing the ends to the means."

-Thomas Jefferson

 

I understand that the government needs to evolve. When demographics, technology, and social mores change, so too does the government have to change. But here is the thing, most of the amendments created and evolution of the government was to open up civil rights to more people.

 

One amendment, the 17th amendment, was created to prevent the fragrant abuse of the government because as the time it was created multiple corporations had abused a weakness in the government that had essentially allowed them to bring in reps for their companies and turn them into senators.

 

There was also the 18th amendment, prohibition. I think we all saw how removing the right to purchase alcohol turned out.

 

To remove a civil liberty from people, like the right to bear arms, would be reversing the trend of opening up more and more rights to more and more people, and it is a slippery slope and it does have unintended consequences.

 

And to that extent, I agree with you and what Thomas Jefferson said, but here is my question why do people believe that the 2nd amendment is no longer necessary? Why should people be denied the right to bear arms? Because they are dangerous?

 

There may be cases of mass shootings, but these cases fall well outside of the realm of day to day life as is evidenced by the overall reduction in homicides and gun ownership over time in the United States. Data supports this.

 

Also, people have a tendency to focus purely on obscure cases in order to make a point, rather than focusing on large scale trends in order to form the basis of their beliefs. One thing I have not seen brought up here is how homicides due to guns are largely localized events. There are certain communities driving this homicide number up.

 

Why are we not looking into these communities and their overarching values and find localized solutions to prevent gun crimes? You should look into this, the data on increased homicides in certain communities is interesting.

 

Why are we extrapolating from localized data and using that as an argument for how we should enforce rules upon the entire society?

 

And I will restate that I agree with increasing background checks in order to ensure that the mentally ill and non-law-abiding citizens do not get guns. I also agree with allowing longitudinal studies that go over how we can implement background checks and control private sales in order to ensure that mentally ill and non-law-abiding citizens do not get guns as Obama mentioned in his State of Union. I am not open to things beyond that scope, and I believe that law-abiding citizens still have the right to have access to, store, and bear arms.

 

Which "many basic rights" are you referencing?

 

By many, there were two that I had in mind when saying that. One of them I won't go into, but the other is gun rights in Europe itself. In certain areas of Europe, gun ownership is suppressed: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overview_of_gun_laws_by_nation. You can look through the list and see the variance in liberty and suppression.

How is this any different from the ideologically driven meme "Obama wants to take our guns" for simply trying strengthen background checks and licensing of businesses?.

 

The majority of gun owners including yourself support these changes, but are they content to overlook right-wing craziness so as to keep the issue untenable? Why would they not repudiate these fools and get behind their president to protect it's citizens from needless gun violence and accidents?

 

Besides that, most of the civilized countries the world already have gun control and live far more safely than the USofA because of it. For anyone on the outside looking in, it's the American gun lobby that expects the world to change something.

 

Outside of the US, the 2nd Amendment doesn't mean diddly squat. In fact it's quite laughable how it's interpreted.

 

I don't own any guns and I will probably never own a gun in my lifetime, but I have the right to go out and buy a gun. This is the point I am trying to make here.

 

Could it be that they are safer for different reasons? If you look at localized data of gun homicides, you will see that certain communities in the US have almost zero gun homicides on a year to year basis. Ex: http://www.city-data.com/city/Irvine-California.html. In 2008, Irvine, California had 1 murder per 100,000 people in 2008.

 

Also, I agree that there is a lot of right-wing craziness that is why I am purposely avoiding using apocalyptic language and focusing on facts in order to make an argument.

[overtone]

See how that keeps happening? We were talking about ensuring all dealers do background checks, maybe invest some money in mental health resources and smart gun tech

Did you notice how that happened? Did you notice we had almost complete agreement about all that stuff? So do most Americans.

 

 

Also, I get the feeling that gun control advocates on here are ideologically driven. Statistics can be created and studies can be performed that twist reality in order to support an ideological desire to change something in the world.

 

How is this any different from the ideologically driven meme "Obama wants to take our guns" for simply trying strengthen background checks and licensing of businesses?.

 

It isn't much different. That's my point.

 

 

Besides that, most of the civilized countries the world already have gun control and live far more safely than the USofA because of it.

Your estimate of your safety is maybe a bit careless, and your ascription of your safety to your gun control even more so. Edited January 11, 2016 by overtone

[rangerx]

Also, I agree that there is a lot of right-wing craziness that is why I am purposely avoiding using apocalyptic language and focusing on facts in order to make an argument.

 

While certainly not apocolyptic, you did paint the gun control advocates on this forum with a wide brush. You've suggested they're solely motivated to change the world and little else. There's nothing wrong with trying to protect people from needless violence. If it were terrorism, they'll scream from the roof tops that the president isn't doing enough, yet gun violence kills more Americans than terrorists ever will. Those are some seriously fucked up priorities, imho.

 

You've also suggested that any facts presented by them are solely intended to "twist" the discussion, but on the other hand provided a single link from a single study for a single year (seven years ago). Do you understand that others might see that as twisting something narrow into something broad, especially as to suggest there is no problem overall?

 

I respect your right to buy a gun for whatever lawful reason. I would never suggest otherwise, unless of course you had mental or criminal issues. It's that simple. Why does the gun lobby not take that at face value from reasonable people, instead to conflate it into something it's not? If you must, I know very few, even among extreme liberals who think all guns need to be taken away. If anything, many are right up there with the right wing crazies in this delusion.

 

I'm not directing this at you personally, but broadly speaking the mere suggestion that expanding current laws or wider enforcement is a slippery slope to the gulags and insisting Obama is acting like a king is craziness.

 

Crazy is what gets guns taken away... not because rights are infringed. Really, it has absolutely nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment. Any judge would laugh someone out of court for suggesting the two are related, yet it remains in the public specter nonetheless.

 

We only need to look at the 1st amendment of your constitution to reveal a whole lot of hypocrisy in the gun lobby's way interpreting the the 2nd.

 

"Amendment I. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." Gun violence is a valid grievance issue. Hence the claim "inalienable" cannot possibly stand as absolute to the individual, but to only to the state. The state always had reasons to take away guns, hence nothing changes by the president's current proposal. Nada, zilch... zip.

 

If this huge percentage of gun advocating self-declared patriotic yankee doodle dandies are so concerned about breaching constitutional amendments, they only need to repudiate Donald Trump who is openly advocating acts contrary to the 1st amendment. Instead, they applaud it. Hypocrites, all of them.

Your estimate of your safety is maybe a bit careless, and your ascription of your safety to your gun control even more so.

 

 

BS. Do not presume to know what my safety concerns are or how they apply to law of land where I live, when clearly you have no idea.

[neutrinosalad]

While certainly not apocolyptic, you did paint the gun control advocates on this forum with a wide brush. You've suggested they're solely motivated to change the world and little else. There's nothing wrong with trying to protect people from needless violence. If it were terrorism, they'll scream from the roof tops that the president isn't doing enough, yet gun violence kills more Americans than terrorists ever will. Those are some seriously fucked up priorities, imho.

 

You've also suggested that any facts presented by them are solely intended to "twist" the discussion, but on the other hand provided a single link from a single study for a single year (seven years ago). Do you understand that others might see that as twisting something narrow into something broad, especially as to suggest there is no problem overall?

 

I agree that whatever information that I present is not more valid than other information.

 

I did paint with a broad brush for the sake of brevity. The real goal here is to present contrary evidence in order to bring a greater level of nuance to how we should resolve these issues.

 

The link I presented was to make a point. You can actually go through all of the cities of the US and begin to see a large variance in murder rates. The website is here: http://www.city-data.com/and they have data for large swaths of cities throughout the US. I am not going to go out and collect a bunch of links to make this point. It is in that website. The CIA, FBI and other government databases have a lot of the same information.

 

And I will repeat, if you go through city data or any other database, you will see a large variance in homicide rates from city to city. This variance cannot be ignored and it is important to the gun control debate as it calls in a variety of factors affecting homicide rates that are currently being left out of the discussion.

 

 

I respect your right to buy a gun for whatever lawful reason. I would never suggest otherwise, unless of course you had mental or criminal issues. It's that simple. Why does the gun lobby not take that at face value from reasonable people, instead to conflate it into something it's not? If you must, I know very few, even among extreme liberals who think all guns need to be taken away. If anything, many are right up there with the right wing crazies in this delusion.

 

We only need to look at the 1st amendment of your constitution to reveal a whole lot of hypocrisy in the gun lobby's way interpreting the the 2nd.

 

"Amendment I. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." Gun violence is a valid grievance issue. Hence the claim "inalienable" cannot possibly stand as absolute to the individual, but to only to the state. The state always had reasons to take away guns, hence nothing changes by the president's current proposal. Nada, zilch... zip.

 

These two statements contradict each other.

 

Losing steam at this point. I will repeat that I do support an increase in background checks and increasing research into how we can implement a variety of legal methods to prevent guns from getting into the hands of mentally ill people and non-law-abiding citizens.

 

Just here to offer up some ideas and I apologize to anyone who found my broad brush strokes about gun control ideology insulting.

[Willie71]

So? Besides noting the undercounting (the reduction in breakins of occupied dwellings noticeable in high-gun neighborhoods is not even estimated, for example. The most common self-defense benefit expected - rightly or wrongly - from a gun, is the crime that does not happen because a gun is or might be present. ) we also note that "millions" of such events are not necessary for the gun owner's argument.

You are interpreting the stat backwards. If guns worked perfectly for self defense, the only people shot would be by accident - most likely the gun owner, mishandling.

That's not what happens though. Someone gets ahold of the owners gun and kills or injures them. Edited January 11, 2016 by Willie71

[John Cuthber]

 

By many, there were two that I had in mind when saying that. One of them I won't go into, but the other is gun rights in Europe itself. In certain areas of Europe, gun ownership is suppressed: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overview_of_gun_laws_by_nation. You can look through the list and see the variance in liberty and suppression.

 

Well, two isn't "many" in the real world.

Also, it seems that the only right we Europeans have lost as a (possible) result of gun control is the right to own a gun.

That's a circular argument at best.and once again it shows that the pro-gun lobby have to resort to fallacy to seek to bolster their point of view.

 

Did you notice how that happened? Did you notice we had almost complete agreement about all that stuff? So do most Americans.

 

So, all those things are in place are they?

If not perhaps you could introduce them, but every time someone tries a bunch of people start shouting about tyranny etc.

Sounds familiar somehow.

[overtone]

That's not what happens though. Someone gets ahold of the owners gun and kills or injures them.

That's not common, especially among non-criminal private citizens, but does happen. So?

 

I respect your right to buy a gun for whatever lawful reason. I would never suggest otherwise, unless of course you had mental or criminal issues. It's that simple. Why does the gun lobby not take that at face value from reasonable people, instead to conflate it into something it's not?

For one thing, because it's so often contradicted by other stuff they say and the actual legislation they support. And it's not just the "gun lobby" noticing this.

 

Also, it seems that the only right we Europeans have lost as a (possible) result of gun control is the right to own a gun.

Tell that to the Bosnians. How about the Ukrainians?

 

But you have had a good run, at least among proper Europeans since the Berlin Wall fell, of various unarmed people not being subjugated by men with guns. May it continue.

 

In the US, of course, the oppression of disarmed black and red people is fresher in mind.

 

BS. Do not presume to know what my safety concerns are or how they apply to law of land where I live, when clearly you have no idea.

I was responding to this post you made: " Besides that, most of the civilized countries the world already have gun control and live far more safely than the USofA because of it. " . Clearly I don't have to have any idea of your immediate personal circumstances, or even which country you live in, to respond. I only need an adequate familiarity with most of the civilized countries in the world, which you chose to speak for. Edited January 11, 2016 by overtone

[rangerx]

 

For one thing, because it's so often contradicted by other stuff they say and the actual legislation they support. And it's not just the "gun lobby" noticing this.

 

Clearly I don't have to have any idea of your immediate personal circumstances, or even which country you live in, to respond. I only need an adequate familiarity with most of the civilized countries in the world, which you chose to speak for.

 

 

I read this entire thread before responding to it and a few others. Do you ever get to the point on any matter without saying dumbass shit? Apparently not.

 

As to the first point my only response is if you think this is some grand shadow conspiracy by people pretending to be reasonable and rational to take everyone's guns away, then you're even more batshit than your posts allude.

 

And the second. You clearly don't know jack about your own country's laws, no less others.

 

As a debater you're an epic failure.

Edited January 11, 2016 by rangerx

[Ten oz]

 

I understand that the government needs to evolve. When demographics, technology, and social mores change, so too does the government have to change. But here is the thing, most of the amendments created and evolution of the government was to open up civil rights to more people.

 

One amendment, the 17th amendment, was created to prevent the fragrant abuse of the government because as the time it was created multiple corporations had abused a weakness in the government that had essentially allowed them to bring in reps for their companies and turn them into senators.

 

There was also the 18th amendment, prohibition. I think we all saw how removing the right to purchase alcohol turned out.

 

To remove a civil liberty from people, like the right to bear arms, would be reversing the trend of opening up more and more rights to more and more people, and it is a slippery slope and it does have unintended consequences.

 

And to that extent, I agree with you and what Thomas Jefferson said, but here is my question why do people believe that the 2nd amendment is no longer necessary? Why should people be denied the right to bear arms? Because they are dangerous?

 

There may be cases of mass shootings, but these cases fall well outside of the realm of day to day life as is evidenced by the overall reduction in homicides and gun ownership over time in the United States. Data supports this.

 

Also, people have a tendency to focus purely on obscure cases in order to make a point, rather than focusing on large scale trends in order to form the basis of their beliefs. One thing I have not seen brought up here is how homicides due to guns are largely localized events. There are certain communities driving this homicide number up.

 

Why are we not looking into these communities and their overarching values and find localized solutions to prevent gun crimes? You should look into this, the data on increased homicides in certain communities is interesting.

 

Why are we extrapolating from localized data and using that as an argument for how we should enforce rules upon the entire society?

 

And I will restate that I agree with increasing background checks in order to ensure that the mentally ill and non-law-abiding citizens do not get guns. I also agree with allowing longitudinal studies that go over how we can implement background checks and control private sales in order to ensure that mentally ill and non-law-abiding citizens do not get guns as Obama mentioned in his State of Union. I am not open to things beyond that scope, and I believe that law-abiding citizens still have the right to have access to, store, and bear arms.

 

 

By many, there were two that I had in mind when saying that. One of them I won't go into, but the other is gun rights in Europe itself. In certain areas of Europe, gun ownership is suppressed: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overview_of_gun_laws_by_nation. You can look through the list and see the variance in liberty and suppression.

 

No where have I said we should do away with the 2nd amendment. Gun advocates treat any and all form of gun control as though it all leads to total confiscation. There was an assualt weapons ban in place from 94'-04' do you look back on those days as tryanny? Were we oppressed? We can have both private gun ownership and gun control. We do not have to choose between the two.

 

I don't think it is for us to decide how free people in European countries are or not. They do not have guns by choice. They support the laws that prohibit them. Freedom is about choices and the ability to shape your government. In Austrilia they went from liberal gun policy to very strict gun policy but I don't believe Aistrilians are any less free. Also, freedom can be oppressive in itself. In many middle eastern countries men have the freedom to beat their wives and daughters. Such freedom is not allowed here in the United States. Hardly means they are more free than we are.

[swansont]

I read this entire thread before responding to it and a few others. Do you ever get to the point on any matter without saying dumbass shit? Apparently not.

 

As to the first point my only response is if you think this is some grand shadow conspiracy by people pretending to be reasonable and rational to take everyone's guns away, then you're even more batshit than your posts allude.

 

And the second. You clearly don't know jack about your own country's laws, no less others.

 

As a debater you're an epic failure.

!

Moderator Note

Personal attacks in debates are also an epic failures, and against our rules. Stop it. Attack the issues, not the people discussing them. And do not respond to this modnote in the thread.

[John Cuthber]

 

Tell that to the Bosnians. How about the Ukrainians?

 

But you have had a good run, at least among proper Europeans since the Berlin Wall fell, of various unarmed people not being subjugated by men with guns. May it continue.

 

"Federation of Bosnia-Herzegovina has relatively liberal weapon laws compared to the rest of Europe. Weapons are regulated by "Weapons and Ammunition Law".^[73]

People over 18 are allowed to own guns, but must be issued a permit. People with criminal history, mental disorders, history of alcohol and illegal substance abuse, cannot be issued a permit. There is a thorough background check prior to license approval (neighbors and family). To obtain a permit, the applicant must complete a course and pass a written multiple choice exam. Police have the last word on the matter, and there is appeal possible, to police captain only. When at home, the guns must be kept in a "safe place", and owner irresponsibility could lead to gun confiscation by police. With a permit issued, a person is allowed to carry their gun concealed. Pepper spray is allowed to females only and must be registered with police."

from

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overview_of_gun_laws_by_nation#Bosnia-Herzegovina

The Berlin wall didn't fall because the populous had ready access to guns.

You don't need guns to overthrow an oppressive government.

(of course, it's better not to vote for one in the first place- so perhaps you should vote out any politician who thinks that banning three necked flasks or gay marriage is a reasonable act.