The Gun Debate That Will Happen Whether You Like It Or Not

[Zipzopdippidybopbop]

......I give up debating on this thread. I mentioned previously - its pointless arguing with people who are convinced they are right. Its almost fanatical =/

I stand by my initial argument; without further gun restrictions more massacres will continue to creep up on the news; one won't even need to click on the title to guess where abouts the massacre will be.

A removal of the right to carry a weapon will NOT result in the sudden outbreak of robberies all over the country; be realistic here. Someone breaking into a house is most likely made of the same stuff you are made of - flesh and bone. All can be driven off without the use of deadly force. While the idea of someone breaking into my home is quite intimidating I wouldn't feel safer with a gun - I personally don't think I could find comfort in the fact that I had killed someone, no matter what their purpose was (or if it was in self defence). Besides, as I said before, no one's getting into my house without a severe fight on their hands ¬_¬
If your really that afraid of being attacked, get a taser or pepper spray (or perhaps both). One of those will help even the field against an attacker.

My reasons for gun control are simple - I don't want to see civilian deaths at the rate they are. Personal freedom (in this case) is secondary to protecting and preserving life. Feel free to rant and rage all you want, but I value life (not just my own) much more than a projectile weapon.

/out

[Whukid]

What's your point? That the Government will take away your guns and then the Blakcs/Latinos/Insert ethnicity here will come murder you in your sleep?

That's awful bigoted and woefully ignorant of you to assume that because I am a proponent of self defense means I'm an angry white man.

Just sit back for a second and reflect on what you jut wrote. Are you really bringing up the Rwandan genocide in a debate about gun control in a stable, secular democracy?

Actually the point of it was that you can murder people with all types of weapons, not just guns, and these genocides generally follow total disarmament of the populace. So why don't we sit back and reflect on that? Besides, Hitler was elected by the people of Germany in a stable, secular democracy, sooo that doesn't really do anything to help your point.

And while I'm bothering to delve back into this cluster of a thread, why do you automatically equate gun control with total disarmament? You can have your precious second amendment and yet still have control measures in place to prevent nut jobs getting their hands on weapons that make it easy for them to go shoot up a school.

Ah, you mean things like Connecticut's Assault Weapons ban, put in place in 1993 (http://www.chattanoogan.com/2012/12/...-A-Ban-On.aspx), or the NFA from 1968, that makes it a federal crime to be in possession of a handgun if you're not 21 (http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2012/10/25/...ople-under-21/), the federal law that keeps people from bringing a gun of any kind on school property (http://www.fedcoplaw.com/html/federa...arms_laws.html), or any of the other laws that should've stopped Adam Lanza.

Why don't we also go over the laws that were supposed to stop the Columbine or Virginia Tech shootings, including the 1994 assault weapons ban? Because they don't work. They only disarm people who shouldn't be disarmed, leaving the government and the crazies armed and dangerous.

[Zipzopdippidybopbop]

That's awful bigoted and woefully ignorant of you to assume that because I am a proponent of self defense means I'm an angry white man.



Actually the point of it was that you can murder people with all types of weapons, not just guns, and these genocides generally follow total disarmament of the populace. So why don't we sit back and reflect on that? Besides, Hitler was elected by the people of Germany in a stable, secular democracy, sooo that doesn't really do anything to help your point.



Ah, you mean things like Connecticut's Assault Weapons ban, put in place in 1993 (http://www.chattanoogan.com/2012/12/...-A-Ban-On.aspx), or the NFA from 1968, that makes it a federal crime to be in possession of a handgun if you're not 21 (http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2012/10/25/...ople-under-21/), the federal law that keeps people from bringing a gun of any kind on school property (http://www.fedcoplaw.com/html/federa...arms_laws.html), or any of the other laws that should've stopped Adam Lanza.

Why don't we also go over the laws that were supposed to stop the Columbine or Virginia Tech shootings, including the 1994 assault weapons ban? Because they don't work. They only disarm people who shouldn't be disarmed, leaving the government and the crazies armed and dangerous.

Not to pick hairs here, but Weimar Germany was anything but stable.

[Mithridate]

That's awful bigoted and woefully ignorant of you to assume that because I am a proponent of self defense means I'm an angry white man.

Actually the point of it was that you can murder people with all types of weapons, not just guns, and these genocides generally follow total disarmament of the populace. So why don't we sit back and reflect on that? Besides, Hitler was elected by the people of Germany in a stable, secular democracy, sooo that doesn't really do anything to help your point.

Yea... totally, this is just so mindbogglingly wrong i just... really? Google Germany and read, its enlightening and interesting

[Ummagumma]

Why don't we also go over the laws that were supposed to stop the Columbine or Virginia Tech shootings, including the 1994 assault weapons ban? Because they don't work. They only disarm people who shouldn't be disarmed, leaving the government and the crazies armed and dangerous.

People being disarmed is a bad thing, as evidenced by the rampant murder rates and tyrannical government of the UK, combined with their every-other-day massacres. It's a mess. Someone should give us all guns.

(I really don't care if they have guns or not in the US (I'm not going there), and none of us here has even an ounce of weight on any legislation to be able to 'take away' any guns. I am just pointing out that it is a nonsensical argument. Cheerio.)

[Whukid]

Yea... totally, this is just so mindbogglingly wrong i just... really? Google Germany and read, its enlightening and interesting

Not to pick hairs here, but Weimar Germany was anything but stable.

Here, let's quote everyone's favorite Internet encyclopedia;

Gustav Stresemann was Reichskanzler for 100 days in 1923, and served as foreign minister from 1923–1929, a period of relative stability for the Weimar Republic, known in Germany as Goldene Zwanziger ("Golden Twenties"). Prominent features of this period were a growing economy and a consequent decrease in civil unrest.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weimar_...2.80.931929.29


Now, Hitler came to power in 1932, (3 years after these "golden twenties") after being democratically elected.

Hardly the same as an African warlord..

[motiv-8]

Weimar Germany was notoriously unstable and racked with not just that instability but open revolts and Bolshevik uprisings from its inception. Hitler came to power in 1933. His Nazi Party came to power by exploiting the instability of the Republic and using violence. They were not democratically elected, the election in 1933 that enabled Hitler to become Chancellor was not democratic by any means.

[Whukid]

People being disarmed is a bad thing, as evidenced by the rampant murder violent crime rates and tyrannical government incapable of solving the problem in the UK, combined with their every-other-daily massacres increase in gang-related activity. It's a mess. Someone should give us all guns, since the violent crime rate here is 4 times that of the United States and you have a higher chance of being raped in Edinburgh than in Chicago.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...of-Europe.html

http://www.newsy.com/videos/uk-plan-...bers-at-age-3/
Fixed, to be factually correct.

[Whukid]

Weimar Germany was notoriously unstable and racked with not just that instability but open revolts and Bolshevik uprisings from its inception. Hitler came to power in 1933. His Nazi Party came to power by exploiting the instability of the Republic and using violence. They were not democratically elected, the election in 1933 that enabled Hitler to become Chancellor was not democratic by any means.

The only open revolts took place just after the Weimar republic came to power, all of which were silenced by 1924. The National Socialist Workers Party only managed to obtain 33% of the vote in 1932, the Social Democrats still being the majority party when Hitler took over as chancellor in 1933 under Bismark's watch. The Weimar republic was hardly the mascot of a stable democracy, however it was far from being a collapsed dictatorship by which Hitler grasped power through the military might of his SA.

[Zipzopdippidybopbop]

The only open revolts took place just after the Weimar republic came to power, all of which were silenced by 1924. The National Socialist Workers Party only managed to obtain 33% of the vote in 1932, the Social Democrats still being the majority party when Hitler took over as chancellor in 1933 under Bismark's watch. The Weimar republic was hardly the mascot of a stable democracy, however it was far from being a collapsed dictatorship by which Hitler grasped power through the military might of his SA.

The Golden 20s were over long before Hitler came to power (remember the unemployment crisis which succeeded it). The Republic was by this point anything but a republic, with the President actively refusing to allow Hitler the Chancellorship..... it wasn't until near his death that Hindenburg allowed Hitlers appointment.

Moreover, Hitlers "Brown Shirts" were actively engaged in street fighting with communist sympathisers and party members. Hardly the actions seen in a stable democracy.

While some would argue that Hindenburgs opposition to Hitlers rise was a good thing, it was hardly democratic.

[Ummagumma]

Fixed, to be factually correct.

Yeah. The UK 4 times the level of violent crime... yet the US has at least 3 times the murders. I wonder why?
The UK has 1 or 2 mass killings in a decade. The US.. will do that in a few months.
I don't think I've ever known anyone here think they need to be armed because of some imagined tyrannical government.

Maybe they should have more fist fights over there? It would save a lot of folks from being killed.

[motiv-8]

Hitler literally did grasp power with the violence of the SA, it was the SA using violence at polling stations and intimidating voters and candidates that gave the Nazis enough representation to push through Hitler as supreme leader via the enabling act.

But like others I'm still not sure what that has to do with this thread.

[Ciabhán]

Yeah. The UK 4 times the level of violent crime... yet the US has at least 3 times the murders. I wonder why?
The UK has 1 or 2 mass killings in a decade. The US.. will do that in a few months.
I don't think I've ever known anyone here think they need to be armed because of some imagined tyrannical government.

Maybe they should have more fist fights over there? It would save a lot of folks from being killed.

The US has as many(probably significantly more in fact) gang-members as the entire population of Birmingham(for those unfamiliar the second most populous city and borough in England). The billions of dollars per year worth of drug trade that they fight over is what causes a massive part of US firearms homicide.

What we'd consider a weekend punch up between friends in the UK and Ireland can be a felony offense in the US. That can easily mean 2-20 for punching your mate in the gob.

Law-abiding citizens, being law-abiding, aren't doing a whole lot of killing just because they have access to firearms. Nutters will no matter what they end up using as the tool and criminals will because they're criminals. Without completely closing the borders the US will never be able to disarm the majority of it's criminals as some other countries have done. The drug trade is too lucrative and organised crime both internally and externally will always support and help arm their street level gang members.

[The spartan]

The wording of the 2nd Amendment. And yes the 2nd Amendment is absolutely about the the right of the people to keep and bear arms in opposition to a standing army. The descriptive part of the text outlines it as necessary for the security of a FREE state. The 2nd Amendment is a codified facilitator of the people's right of revolution, a right which Washington was strongly in favor of. Afterall he just waged a revolution against his own lawful government and fought almost entirely against a certain standing army.

Ah yes, the common misconception that the American Revolutions was for "freedom everywhere for everyone always!". Is that why Washington disarmed people during the whiskey rebellion? Again, security of a "free" state is reference to states being able to protect themselves from a large variety of threats, back when we didn't have a standing army or a police force, not "so you can rebel against the government whenever you feel like it". The founding fathers were not in favor of that.

At what point does the possibility of something happening justify being prepared for it? Or do you not own a smoke detector, fire extinguisher, seat belts, health insurance, auto insurance, homeowners insurance, maybe a generator, etc? Seeing as you are not a paranoid lunatic you must not need any of those.

That is precisely my point. There is a line to draw against what is a reasonable threat to you and your security, and a man breaking into your home with an AK 47 is very, very low on the list. The chance of my home going up in flames or me getting into a car accident are much, much more likely than being someone randomly breaking into my home to attack me.

[Mithridate]

At what point does the possibility of something happening justify being prepared for it? Or do you not own a smoke detector, fire extinguisher, seat belts, health insurance, auto insurance, homeowners insurance, maybe a generator, etc?

It should be noted that its hard to kill anyone with a smoke detector, slice someone up with insurance ir strangle them with a seat belt while guns are rather effective at killing. One could argue some generators being used as bombs and fire extinguishers blunt weapons but id like to stay realistic.

Everyone should have these things and it would make things safer in the case of the unlikely, everyone having guns would surely be good in case of the unlikely, but cause a lot of harm while not.

[Ciabhán]

That is precisely my point. There is a line to draw against what is a reasonable threat to you and your security, and a man breaking into your home with an AK 47 is very, very low on the list. The chance of my home going up in flames or me getting into a car accident are much, much more likely than being someone randomly breaking into my home to attack me.

Someone breaking into my home with an AK yes that's statistically rare. Someone breaking into my home and causing bodily harm to a member of the household? That happens 266,000+ times per year.

U.S. Department of Justice
Office of Justice Programs
Bureau of Justice Statistics

Special Report

National Crime Victimization Survey

Victimization During Household Burglary

September 2010 NCJ 227379

Shannan Catalano, Ph.D.,
BJS Statistician

Between 2003 and 2007--

*A household member was home in 28% of the 3.7 million average
annual burglaries that occurred between 2003 and 2007 (table
1).

*In nonviolent burglaries, household members knew the offender
in 30% of the burglaries taking place while someone was home;
the offender was a stranger in 24%. The identity of the
offender was unknown in 46% of burglaries.

*On average, household members became victims of violent crimes
in about 266,560 burglaries annually. Offenders known to their
victims accounted for 65% of these burglaries; strangers
accounted for 28%.

Because the NCVS does not determine offender motivation for
entering an occupied household, the survey cannot address the
more stringent application of the term "home invasion" that
includes offender intent. Additionally, the NCVS does not
distinguish between a household member who is present when the
offender gains entry and one who arrived home unexpectedly
while the burglary was in progress.

Now obviously the degree of harm varies but since I have no way of knowing to what degree someone might harm a member of my family I assume the worst. On top of that I'd personally be willing to inflict severe or lethal harm on someone to prevent even relatively minor harm to one of my children.

I'm not against a ban on 'assault' weapons. I'm not against firearms controls. I'm just against any outright bans.

On top of this, as it applies to the current proposals, I also realise that banning assault weapons is rather more a political point than effective strategy. More people are beaten to death with bare hands yearly than are killed by rifles of all varieties either intentionally or accidently.

[Whukid]

Yeah. The UK 4 times the level of violent crime... yet the US has at least 3 times the murders. I wonder why?
The UK has 1 or 2 mass killings in a decade. The US.. will do that in a few months.
I don't think I've ever known anyone here think they need to be armed because of some imagined tyrannical government.

Maybe they should have more fist fights over there? It would save a lot of folks from being killed.

Yes, because being raped is so much better than being murdered.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ooa98FHuaU0

Let's talk about the fist fights thing and killing. The murder per capita rate in the US triples when you get into heavy urban environments; places like Gary,Chicago, Alexandria, DC and Jersey City to name a few. What we have in common in all these heavy urban environments is they have excessively strict gun control laws. Chicago (which had over 500 [documented] murders via firearm last year) even has a "violence" tax on ammunition, while having literally one of the strictest gun regulations in the United States, as does the District of Columbia.

That last city comes with an interesting twist. Just across the river from DC, literally a stones throw away, lies Arlington, Virginia. You're apparently not from the US, so I'll give you alittle bit of background on these two cities; If a river didn't cut the two in half, you'd never know you crossed from Arlington into DC or Alexandria besides the landmarks. What's interesting is that Arlington has no gun restrictions outside of what the State of Virginia has already outlawed. You know something else? There were NO MURDERS IN ARLINGTON IN 2011. That's a murder rate per capita of zero.
http://www.wjla.com/articles/2012/01...011-70944.html

The SAME YEAR, Washington DC, with it's handgun ban, had over a hundred murders as of November, 132 the previous year at that time. In fact, in 2010 (the year before), DC had a murder rate of 21 per 100,000. In english, you had a higher chance of getting shot in the 9th ward than you did in Afghanistan. This is in a place where guns are illegal.
http://www.wjla.com/articles/2011/12...ars-70861.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Washington,_D.C.

[Condottiere 40K]

While it's true no government actually wants an armed citizenry, that isn't the case when faced with an external, at the time, existential threat.

At some stage in their history,the Greeks had armed citizens, the Romans had armed citizens, the English had long bow armed yeomen. This caused a balance of powers between the commoners and the elite, to some extent. But those citizens had extensive military training, cohesion and discipline, compared to any nutjob that can go and pick up a weapon at a Walmart.

The crossbow started the trend that you could minimally train a military force with a weapon with that could disrupt the enemy at a distance, the fire-arm just carried it forward. But just being able to fire straight, at command and in unison with the rest doesn't create the required cohesion that distinguishes disciplined soldiery, even disciplined militia, from someone taking potshots.

[The spartan]

Someone breaking into my home with an AK yes that's statistically rare. Someone breaking into my home and causing bodily harm to a member of the household? That happens 266,000+ times per year.

And how many of those are done by someone the person knows/done in poor neighborhoods?

[King Nud]

So uh.. GOOD JOB 'MURRICA. DEY TOOK ARRR JABZ DEY GON TAKE ARR GUNZ NIXT!

I'll just leave this here.