Guns

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

This thread is so circular and stupid I think it should be locked.

[newbie]

This thread is so circular and stupid I think it should be locked.

I agree but the majority rules, 37 say yes and 33 say no. Case closed time to move on.

[Sayonara]

I agree but the majority rules, 37 say yes and 33 say no. Case closed time to move on.

As usual, around 32 of those 37 have not been able to put any case forward to support their decision, and the arguments of the other 5 or so people who actually took part have been utterly thrashed, so yeah - "case closed".

[atinymonkey]

How did people live and eat before the market place? Easy, they hunted there prey. It goes way back in time, so yes, hunting is a past-time.

 

Actually, farming has existed since the stone ages. It damn well existed many many thousands of years before trade markets existed. Hunting was only a recreational activity in feudal Europe in the 14 century, before the gun even became widespread. It's laughable to suggest America is so backwards that hunting is still necessary to sustain the economy, given that it had ceased to be a part of economics thousands of years prior to the colonization of the Americas.

 

Besides all that, I've been hunting. I used to go quite often. I never needed to use a gun though, because I'm not some big flouncing girl that needs a gun as a crutch to lever advantage over a dumb animal. I don't really mean to cause offence, but hunting with a rifle isn't hunting. Only old men use guns to hunt in the UK, they can't really be outside for more than a few hours so they use shotgun and beaters to scare the animals into their path.

[john5746]

I agree but the majority rules, 37 say yes and 33 say no. Case closed time to move on.

 

Some of the problem is the question. For example, I voted yes, but I think it should be very limited and if the country didn't already have this right, I would be against it.

 

Same with cigarettes.

[r1dermon]

why should it be limited, the constitution does not distinguish between firearms, a firearm is a firearm, whether its a simple musket, or a fully auto mp-5, the 1934? ban on automatics is unconstitutional. even if automatic weapons were legalized for private ownership without huge expenses and rare permits, do you think a criminal is going to spend 8 grand on an automatic weapon(which is about what they cost, depending on make) so that they can shoot a bunch of people and then dump it in a river? no, they will go out and buy a .38spl(the #1 choice of murderers) which is also a revolver, and they will dump that in a river, for a cost of around 2-300 bucks. i could go buy a ruger 10/22. this looks like a regular hunting rifle, then i could go out and buy an ar-15, which looks like a military rifle...well, the 10/22 can kill someone with the same rate of fire and accuracy(to a point) as the ar-15. the ar-15 is banned why? because how it looks...but honestly, i think that people would be just as scared if you walked down the street with a 10/22 as if you walked down the street with an ar-15...which by the way is illegal....the whole assault weapons ban is so retarded that its difficult to comprehend. what is so bad about a bayonette lug? well, up here in MA, where everything is banned, we have drive-by bayonettings all the time...seriously, where is dianne feinsteins head.

budullewraag, i really like your idea...lol...i laughed for at least 15 minutes when i saw it...that would be a great movie scene...lol.

[drz]

not to mention a well guided dremel tool can make a common 22 rifle automatic.

[john5746]

My reasoning for it being limited is simple, it is a compromise because I don't think we can realistically get rid of all guns. If we could, I would be for it.

 

You must read the constitution like some people read the bible. The constitution is a living document and can be amended and interpreted. Why is the right to bear arms in the damn thing? So you have a right to kill your government? I don't think so. To fight a foreign invader? Not very effective if our own army got whipped.

 

Do you draw the line anywhere? No limits for arms?

[blike]

In an interesting development, Kerry told "Outdoor Life" (October Issue) that he owns a chinese assault rifle. whoops.

[MolecularMan14]

lol, cue the liberal excuses

[blike]

In an interesting development, Kerry told "Outdoor Life" (October Issue) that he owns a chinese assault rifle. whoops.

 

Update on this: It appears that was an aide's mistake.

[atinymonkey]

lol, cue the liberal excuses

 

LOL cue the extremist's apologies.

[jattaway]

>>

 

In several places (I'm aware of 2 in the US, and 1 in AU), there's a law on the books REQUIRING everyone to own a gun. The crime rate for these towns is virtually zero.

 

>>

 

I live in one of those places, Kennesaw - Georgia. We are just outside of the city of Atlanta and while 5 to 10 miles away crime is rampant, here we have virtually none. There are a lot of factors involved (one being it is safer to break in a house someplace else), but I would argue that on average crime rates will be lower in areas where firearms are common in households than in areas with strict gun control laws.

[jattaway]

Why is the right to bear arms in the damn thing? So you have a right to kill your government? I don't think so.

 

That is exactly the reason.

 

"A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government."

- George Washington

[Sayonara]

I'm fairly sure that this has come up already, but here it as again anyway:

 

Corrolation is not causation.

 

[edit] to post #588

[jattaway]

Statistics are the only real guide here. Finding statistics without an agenda appears to be the difficult thing.

 

For me, it is pretty simple.

 

There are far too few police to prevent crime

 

The safety of my family is my chief concern

 

I am home with my family more often than the police are at my door guarding it

 

That makes me the person most often on hand to pretect them. The easiest way to do this and keep my family secure is with a firearm.

 

I am in favor of training classes for proper use and safety.

[jattaway]

protect even....

[Sayonara]

And yet staggering numbers of people still get shot and killed every year, both in and outside of their homes.

 

Imagine that happening even with all those guns around.

[jattaway]

I think we are back to

correlation is not causation

. ;-)

 

Assuming you could remove guns from the hands of criminals (which is no more possible than removing drugs) then other means would be used to achieve the same end. You would have people killed with improvised weapons, or any number of items that can be picked up at a hardware store (ax, machete, knife, etc). So the argument that people would be killed less frequently is not that strong. If you are referring to accidental shootings, as a percentage, swimming pools are more dangerous, as are ponds, lakes, streams, roads, trains and accidental stabbings with scissors and knives.

 

My wife with a handgun >= thug with a hand gun

 

With no other weapon does that equation hold true.

[Sayonara]

I think we are back to [corrolation is not causation]

Maybe so, but now we at least have opposing examples. It seemed to be okay for you when it was just the view from your side.

*suspicious looks*

 

 

Assuming you could remove guns from the hands of criminals (which is no more possible than removing drugs) then other means would be used to achieve the same end. You would have people killed with improvised weapons, or any number of items that can be picked up at a hardware store (ax, machete, knife, etc).

We've been over all this already (at considerable length). The right to own or purchase a thing was agreed to be contingent on the intended use and design purpose of that thing.

 

 

So the argument that people would be killed less frequently is not that strong. If you are referring to accidental shootings, as a percentage, swimming pools are more dangerous, as are ponds, lakes, streams, roads, trains and accidental stabbings with scissors and knives.

The argument is that people will not be shot (i.e. attacked with a gun), not that they won't be killed (i.e. attacked with anything). In the case of shootings per se, corrolation and causation actually do coincide quite well, what with you needing a gun to be able to do it.

 

 

My wife with a handgun >= thug with a hand gun

With no other weapon does that equation hold true.

It seems to work okay in other countries. In the UK for example, although we might occasionally like to shoot a mugger in the face to teach them a lesson, we tend to just get on with our lives instead and allow criminals to face actual justice.

[Rasori]

...A bullet to the head isn't actual justice?

LOL j/k.

 

Not that I'm a professional criminal, or that professional OR unprofessional criminals think at all like me, but here's my two cents:

Assuming I have a gun and am planning to go into a building to steal or... whatever, I would much quicker choose the building that has outlawed guns (thus putting me at an advantage) than one that has required, or even just allowed, its inhabitants to have one.

 

Common sense is not so common, yes, but I think that goes beyond common sense into instinct.

[Sayonara]

The reason why "but only the law-abiding will hand in their guns" is not a bad thing has already been demonstrated in the UK to great effect, and indeed discussed in this very thread.

[john5746]

That is exactly the reason.

 

"A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them' date=' which would include their own government."

- George Washington[/quote']

 

I know that - this is why I said it. Do you think this makes sense today? Ruby Ridge, Waco - did it work for them?

[jattaway]

Ruby Ridge and Wako are Red Herrings. 20 people, 50 people or 50,000 people are not going to change the face of US Government. Wako you can blame on Hillary and Reno, those people where crazy, but should not have been gunned down like that, and the children murdered there bring my blood to a boil. In short, a bad situation with a terrible result.

 

The point to the second amendment, and why it is the most important amendment that we have is that it gives the majority of our population the ability to change a hostile government if it ever became oppressive.

 

As for the UK, Australia and other areas, every place that has removed guns from law abiding citizens have seen their crime rates sky rocket. I will find as many resources that you like, the information is all public record or published information.

 

http://www.angelfire.com/pa/sergeman/issues/firearms/control.html

 

This link is a link to multiple links and sources with information like that listed below:

 

One year after gun-owners were forced to surrender 640,381 personal firearms, including semi-automatic .22 rifles and shotguns, to be destroyed in a government program costing over 500 million dollars, the results are in...

 

The latest crime statistics reveal a dramatic increase in criminal activity. Gun control advocates respond "Just wait... we'll be safer... you'll see...".

 

Unfortunately, the ban has made the Australian criminal safer now.

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

OBSERVABLE FACT AFTER 12 MONTHS OF DATA

 

 

 

 

 

Australia-wide, homicides are up 3.2%.

 

 

Australia-wide, assaults are up 8.6%.

 

 

Australia-wide, armed-robberies are up 44%. (yes, FORTY-FOUR PERCENT)

 

 

In the state of Victoria, homicides-with-firearms are up 300%!

 

 

The steady decrease in homicides-with-firearms that occurred during the previous 25 years became an increase in the last 12 months.

 

 

The steady decrease in armed-robbery-with-firearms that occurred during the previous 25 years became an increase in the last 12 months.

 

 

There has been a dramatic increase in breakins-and-assaults-of-the-elderly.

 

 

At the time of the ban, the Prime Minister said "self-defense is not a reason for owning a firearm".

 

 

From 1910 to present, homicides in Australia have averaged about 1.8-per-100,000 or lower, a safe society by any standard.

 

 

The ban has destroyed Australia's standings in some international sport shooting competitions.

 

 

The membership of the Australian Sports Shooting Association has increased by 200% in response to the ban and in an attempt to organize against further controls, which are expected.

 

 

Australian politicians are on the spot and at a loss to explain why no improvement in "safety" has been observed after such monumental effort and expense was successfully expended in "ridding society of guns". Their response has been to "wait longer".

[Mad Mardigan]

The Swiss have the best answer for guns in society.