Gun Control

[Gelgoog]

What has changed? Just about every variable. The amount of guns, the amount of homicides, the amount of people...

Yes things have changed, it would would have bothered to read what I posted, then you would see that in the past 20 years, the amount of guns in the country has vastly increased as well as ownership, index crimes all across the board have gone down by a large margine (including homicides) and the population has become even more heterogenous and larger. Those studies from the 90s happened during the peak of crime in this country, things have got much better since then.

Not to mention that it's is a "source" from a book that was published twenty years ago and is not freely available.

I can also go and just claim that I have some sources in random books from 20 years ago. Maybe it's true, maybe it isn't.

If you have a study that is recent, peer-reviewed and cross-referenced in reputable papers with all the necessary context, sure. But random "data" taken (potentially out of context) from a book from 2 decades ago with no means of checking it? Lol.

Reposted them all for you with tons of sources detailing the last 50+ years of criminalistic studies and statistics. They did not come from one old book.

So please address post #182 and its contents if you want to continue to be relevant to this discussion.

 

[The spartan]

Lots of things were developed for military application that were lately utilized in different ways. Radios, telegraphs, the internet....god half the technology that we currently use was developed for military applications. So that argument is

The radio, telegraph, and internet were never designed to kill. I never said they were developed for military action, I said they were designed to kill. That is, the usefulness of the gun is in it's capacity to kill, wound, or disable (they were originally designed to kill). For target practice, you could use other, less lethal devices to practice accuracy, so why you need a lethal firearm to shoot at targets is beyond me.

 

[Surgeon]

Well, the US has one of the highest homicide rates per capita in the industrialised part of the world, with the most recent being 4.7. Among the countries the US prefers to be compared to on other factors we find the UK with 1.23, Canada with 1.7, Japan with 0.35, The Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden, Germany and Italy with 0.8-something etc.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

All countries with a fairly strict guncontrol. But a gun is only a tool, and they have many other things the US doesn't which could account for the lower homicide rate, higher income equality, generally higher levels of social mobility etc. Also worth noting is that those countries have completely different systems, and some of the controls present simply wouldn't go down well in the US. Not to mention the "gun culture" itself.

Personally I don't think more or less gun laws equal more or less crime, it's much more complicated than that. That's why you can have affluent, well off neighborhoods with few guns and low violent crime rates and marginalised, poor neighborhoods with many guns (or any other weapon for that matter) and a skyhigh violent crime rate.

You're right that comparing different countries' crime/homicide rates is a lost cause, since there's so many other things to consider. For example, it's true that, say, the UK has a lesser homicide rate than the US and has stricter gun control... but the UK also had a lesser homicide rate than the US before they passed their gun legislature. Also, in several countries like the UK and Australia crime rate was already falling sharply before strict gun control, yet increased a bit after it was instituted. Pretty much, proliferation of guns has yet to be nailed down as a control variable for crime and homicide, and I don't think it ever will be. If there was a positive correlation between the two then the US should have more crime than the rest of the world combined, given the amount of private arms they have.

 

[Gelgoog]

The radio, telegraph, and internet were never designed to kill. I never said they were developed for military action, I said they were designed to kill. That is, the usefulness of the gun is in it's capacity to kill, wound, or disable (they were originally designed to kill).

There is no better means to defending yourself then using a firearm. Since we can not count on police protection to save us, then that is justification enough for having them around. Firearms can take lives, they can also be used by women, children and the old to fight against much more physically fit attackers to better effect then any other type of defense. Most criminal who are confronted by an armed victim during the commission of a crime are not killed or even shot.

When we look at actual usage of firearms, they are far from the brazen shootouts that we see on TV. Most incidents in which a victim will defensively use their firearm, almost never involve both the attacker and victim in a shootout. About 24% of the incidents will actually involve a victim firing their gun. With only 16% of victims firing at the perpetrator. This points to the notion that just the presence of a firearm or the discharge of it( not at the attacker) takes place the majority of the time. Since only 4.5% of the incidents involve the offender shooting at the defender, with only 3% of the incidents in which defenders engage in a shootout. We can conclude that movie style gunfights are better left to fiction as they rarely occur in real life (Edel, 1995).

For target practice, you could use other, less lethal devices to practice accuracy, so why you need a lethal firearm to shoot at targets is beyond me.

Because other methods are not as reliable or as capable. Firearms send a projectile to a target better then any other means. Sure you do not understand target shooting, but it is an Olympic sport and a very popular series of sports in the US your interest in them is irrelevant.

 

[AUSSIE11]

i think what we need to do here is seperate gun ownership from "weaponisation" or "pistolization". This is one of my prime problems with this debate. Weaponisation is the process by which the possession of weapons is seen as an acceptable and open portion of daily human interaction. It is seen in extreme cases in countries like Yemen, where AK's are commonly carried by men even in safe areas and are commonly accepted.

I see America continuing down this path however. Decisions such as DC vs. Heller have led to the undertanding that citizens are allowed to possess arms within their own homes. There is a continued push to incorporate firearms further into everyday life. This actually runs contrary to what many scholars consider the "Civilisating Process" which contains a move away from personal reliance to one which relies upon the State for ones defence. This is what has happened in Europe since WWII with a positive effect upon homicide rates (Sheptycki & Edwards, 2009).

However weaponization and firearm possession are two very different things. Countries such as Finland and Switzerland have high gun ownership rates yet exceedingly low gun crime rates. This is because although gun possession is common in these coutries weaponisation is not common with only police and licensed security guards allowed to carry loaded weapons in public areas.

For example the graph showing the homicide rates vs gun ownership was very interesting, however the breakdown of long vs short weapons and the urbanization of the respective states would be extremely interesting. Many of the states at the top of that graph where agricultural states with larger rural populations. Many of the states at the bottom of the list were highly urbanized. From what I've seen those are the states which are similar to the Scandinavian countries and Australia where the majority of guns are sporting and working weapons, not tools of offense or defence.

This point always confuses me. The whole design of a gun is that of a weapon. A sword can be used to chop wood or carve (though it is not good at either) but it was designed as a weapon.

I own guns as sporting tools. You find me a tool which is better for the use upon individual Deer, pigs or foxes. Your comment about the sword not being effective as an everyday tool is also erroneous. Machetes are extremely useful and are in many ways as similar to a sword as a sporting rifle is to a military rifle. Ditto with war axes vs wood axes. A sporting rifle is unrecognizable to military rifle almost. In fact one of the types of guns i have no objection to banning is the AR and AK type rifles which in my view fit your description.

 

[HissingNewt]

^I have never heard of anywhere in America where it's acceptable to carry a loaded rifle around. That will end with you getting arrested. Something big would have to change for it to become even remotely acceptable. CHL on the other hand is acceptable because it's unseen and because they are overwhelmingly not criminals. Also, the cops aren't very good at getting to crimes in progress in America, so banning that would remove any easy self defense method your average citizen has.

 

[Gelgoog]

^I have never heard of anywhere in America where it's acceptable to carry a loaded rifle around. That will end with you getting arrested. Something big would have to change for it to become even remotely acceptable. CHL on the other hand is acceptable because it's unseen and because they are overwhelmingly not criminals. Also, the cops aren't very good at getting to crimes in progress in America, so banning that would remove any easy self defense method your average citizen has.

Open carry is legal in a lot of states (this means rifles or pistols). Now there are people who will exercise this right including myself. I always open carry when I am backpacking or hiking out in the woods. People who own a lot of farm land/grazing land also open carry frequently (due to the need to kill wolves, hogs, ground hogs). Then there are those who open carry in urban areas, now I have mixed feelings about open carry. It is fine that they are exercising their right to do it, but it is not as safe as concealed carry. Open carry also brings with it constant harassment from the police (who will try to charge you disturbing the peace), and panicky civilians who do not know open carry is legal. Concealed carry is a much better option all around. Also anyone that has carried a firearm will know how much of a nuisance it is. Carrying a firearm all the time is a pain in the ass, but I would hate to need it that one time I decided to leave it at home.

footnote: I carry every day as a peace officer, and always carry while off duty. Then again I carried before I entered law enforcement, so I am used to it by now.

 

[Simon Cashmere]

Decisions such as DC vs. Heller have led to the undertanding that citizens are allowed to possess arms within their own homes.

Not just within their homes, you can open carry in many states too, and then of course there are the CCW license states.

footnote: I carry every day as a peace officer, and always carry while off duty. Then again I carried before I entered law enforcement, so I am used to it by now.

I absolutely agree with that - our anti-gun culture extends to cops as well in Australia, who are absolutely forbidden to carry weapons off duty. You have to check your gun in when you leave. Which is kind of a bummer, because if crims want to track you down, or you see something happening while you are off duty (say, a bank robbery) you have no gun. If I ever get into politics, one thing I would change is allow cops to take their guns home. It is unreasonable to have them unarmed. The other thing I'd do is arm the bailiffs in Court. If the proverbial hits the fan, the whole 'no guns in court rule' that we inherited from the English is not going to help very much if someone who doesnt care for such rules brings a weapon into court. I've talked to cops about that and they've said, not much we can do without our guns.

Cops shouldn't harass citizens for open carry if the state allows it.They are meant to enforce the law as it is, not demonstrate their disagreement with it.

 

[HissingNewt]

Open carry is legal in a lot of states (this means rifles or pistols). Now there are people who will exercise this right including myself. I always open carry when I am backpacking or hiking out in the woods. People who own a lot of farm land/grazing land also open carry frequently (due to the need to kill wolves, hogs, ground hogs). Then there are those who open carry in urban areas, now I have mixed feelings about open carry. It is fine that they are exercising their right to do it, but it is not as safe as concealed carry. Open carry also brings with it constant harassment from the police (who will try to charge you disturbing the peace), and panicky civilians who do not know open carry is legal. Concealed carry is a much better option all around. Also anyone that has carried a firearm will know how much of a nuisance it is. Carrying a firearm all the time is a pain in the ass, but I would hate to need it that one time I decided to leave it at home.

footnote: I carry every day as a peace officer, and always carry while off duty. Then again I carried before I entered law enforcement, so I am used to it by now.

I was specifically talking about walking around in an urban or suburban environment with a rifle. I'm not sure if that was clear. That would attract some attention from the police even if it's legal.

 

[adampa1006]

I think cars kill more people than guns.

Simple liberal argument and solution. Ban it, and it fixes everything. Wow that gun ban in Chicago is so effective!

Sent from my Droid Bionic using Tapatalk 2

 

[Gelgoog]

I was specifically talking about walking around in an urban or suburban environment with a rifle. I'm not sure if that was clear. That would attract some attention from the police even if it's legal.

Yup, even if it is legal, you will have the police harassing you until either you give up or they detain you on trumped up charges.

Cops shouldn't harass citizens for open carry if the state allows it.They are meant to enforce the law as it is, not demonstrate their disagreement with it.

Well you have the officers who do not know the law regarding open carry. You have the officers who will try to bully you when they realize they are in the wrong. You have officers who want you to just stop doing it because they are getting too many 911 calls from panicky liberals who think your going to go on a rampage. You have police chiefs with a political bias who tell their officers to harass anyone open carrying. You also have the idiots who like to cause a confrontation with police (they usually have someone taping it) so they can scream police abuse. Open carry is a nice law to have, I just would not recommend it unless your state does not allow concealed carry. It was funny when I was in college, we actually had an open carry empty holster protest day (that I did not know about until it happened). Bunch of guys walking around campus with empty holsters to protest to "gun free" zoning (kill zones more like it).

 

[chilon]

All countries with a fairly strict guncontrol. But a gun is only a tool, and they have many other things the US doesn't which could account for the lower homicide rate, higher income equality, generally higher levels of social mobility etc. Also worth noting is that those countries have completely different systems, and some of the controls present simply wouldn't go down well in the US. Not to mention the "gun culture" itself.

weaponization and firearm possession are two very different things. Countries such as Finland and Switzerland have high gun ownership rates yet exceedingly low gun crime rates. This is because although gun possession is common in these coutries weaponisation is not common with only police and licensed security guards allowed to carry loaded weapons in public areas.

For example the graph showing the homicide rates vs gun ownership was very interesting, however the breakdown of long vs short weapons and the urbanization of the respective states would be extremely interesting. Many of the states at the top of that graph where agricultural states with larger rural populations. Many of the states at the bottom of the list were highly urbanized. From what I've seen those are the states which are similar to the Scandinavian countries and Australia where the majority of guns are sporting and working weapons, not tools of offense or defence.

I own guns as sporting tools. You find me a tool which is better for the use upon individual Deer, pigs or foxes. Your comment about the sword not being effective as an everyday tool is also erroneous. Machetes are extremely useful and are in many ways as similar to a sword as a sporting rifle is to a military rifle. Ditto with war axes vs wood axes. A sporting rifle is unrecognizable to military rifle almost. In fact one of the types of guns i have no objection to banning is the AR and AK type rifles which in my view fit your description.

These points deserve a further mention.

 

[Town Watch]

I do seem to recall that overall crime stats, Finland doesn't exactly stand as a proud example of lawfulness. Violent crime and overall crime, per capita.

In terms of weaponization, I think that's quite erronous term when talking about Swiss and Finnish. Both countries have a conscript military, actually to be accurate the both have a tradition of a citizens' army. That's right, we both have military slave labor even today

Conscript armies in Europe as of now, maybe Cyprus, Turkey, Greece and Russia, and the two already mentioned ones.

The way that the US would fit into the citizen army concept would be the revolutionary militia maybe, or modern US national guard. Although to be fair some elements of USNG are pretty much federalized and deployed combat units like any other in US military, like some Air NG units for example. And USA maintains as of now a professional standing army at arms alongside national guard and pool of reserves forces.

Swiss and Finnish armies for the most part of their manpower rely completely on called up formations of reserve troops. Specialized services in the military are fulfilled by career soldiers even in peacetime though, in the peacetime there's a batch of new conscripts every year in military training. As well as professional border guard officials who would be amalgated into armed forces should the need arise.

In that sense Finnish and Swiss societies for the better or worse are actually much more militarized societies than maybe the US. I think the Swiss might even have a system for tax breaks for people who choose the regular military service as opposed to the peaceful alternative, though I'm not sure on that.

Finland fought a civil war in 1918. White guards and red guards were civilian militia organisations, white guard formed the hard core of the national army of the newly independant country. In WW2 era it became an all emcompassing national army in terms that former "suspected communists" or whatever were drafted all the same and fought for the country like any other. Post war attitudes have emphasized often the social cohesion that the national army provides.

As to the actual spread of different types of guns in Finland. It's true that the gun laws are quite strict, for the better or worse. But they are not strict like Australia or UK where in effect certain forms of sports shooting are banned because the acquisition of this type of gun is impossible. It's bureaucracy, permits, backgroundcheck and interview IIRC.



Probably a good portion are still ("military")handguns of various types, old military weapons from the militarized past that collectors just love, semiautomatic rifles are seemingly quite popular in a sport called practical shooting or something, haven't done it but it's seemingly done with semiautos to simulate military type of mobile shooting.

Some countries I guess can't just curl up and hide from the world, and bury their heads in sand like an Australian emu. Some countries seemingly have a track record of wars against Russia and some against Emus

The Russians are directly across the thousand kilometer landborder and everybody knows it. It's no joke that some people own even these dreaded tools of crime-causing offensive or assault weapons, mostly semiauto I'd think, AK-47s or AK74s. Or a high power accurate hunting rifle, with excellent optics, that's what US snipers used in Vietnam when a military sniper rifle wasn't readily available all the time. Wasnt Remington 700 that modded hunting rifle that was quite popular?

 

[Menelik_I]

Here is one more example of a successful self-defense use of a handgun and it shows how being armed is a great force multiplier.

A 65-year-old woman fired two rounds from a handgun at five masked men after they attempted to rob her jewelry store in Garden Grove, Calif. on Sunday. Her shots sent the men fleeing in such a panic that they literally tripped over each other trying to exit the store,

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/gra...-old-woman-thwarts-robbery-using-her-handgun/

Other robbers weren't that much lucky :

Police say the suspects could be the same men who tried to rob another jewelry store at the Asian Garden Mall in Westminster one day later.
In that heist, the store owner shot a suspect in the face.

Of course the police is cautioning people about taking into account what is being the target they shoot, because people are liable for the stray bullets they shoot.

On the subject of weaponization brought up by Aussie, I there is no path of ''Civilization'' that pass people stopping to rely on their personal weapons to rely on state sanctioned police forces, even though this is a very seducing theory of some sort of social cohesion.

Gun ownership is more cultural and historical than anything, and the US proves that a culture at the top of human civilization can integrate in itself gun ownership, and the fact that Somalis carry AK-47 doesn't mean that the US is degenerating to become Somalia because gun use in the US is subject to different traditions and social norms.

 

[Town Watch]

i think what we need to do here is seperate gun ownership from "weaponisation" or "pistolization". This is one of my prime problems with this debate. Weaponisation is the process by which the possession of weapons is seen as an acceptable and open portion of daily human interaction. It is seen in extreme cases in countries like Yemen, where AK's are commonly carried by men even in safe areas and are commonly accepted.

I see America continuing down this path however. Decisions such as DC vs. Heller have led to the undertanding that citizens are allowed to possess arms within their own homes. There is a continued push to incorporate firearms further into everyday life. This actually runs contrary to what many scholars consider the "Civilisating Process" which contains a move away from personal reliance to one which relies upon the State for ones defence. This is what has happened in Europe since WWII with a positive effect upon homicide rates (Sheptycki & Edwards, 2009).

However weaponization and firearm possession are two very different things. Countries such as Finland and Switzerland have high gun ownership rates yet exceedingly low gun crime rates. This is because although gun possession is common in these coutries weaponisation is not common with only police and licensed security guards allowed to carry loaded weapons in public areas.

For example the graph showing the homicide rates vs gun ownership was very interesting, however the breakdown of long vs short weapons and the urbanization of the respective states would be extremely interesting. Many of the states at the top of that graph where agricultural states with larger rural populations. Many of the states at the bottom of the list were highly urbanized. From what I've seen those are the states which are similar to the Scandinavian countries and Australia where the majority of guns are sporting and working weapons, not tools of offense or defence.



I own guns as sporting tools. You find me a tool which is better for the use upon individual Deer, pigs or foxes. Your comment about the sword not being effective as an everyday tool is also erroneous. Machetes are extremely useful and are in many ways as similar to a sword as a sporting rifle is to a military rifle. Ditto with war axes vs wood axes. A sporting rifle is unrecognizable to military rifle almost. In fact one of the types of guns i have no objection to banning is the AR and AK type rifles which in my view fit your description.

So if we go back a few years ago, the shooting sprees in Finnish schools for example, or just a short while ago in a restaurant.

I guess the banning of allowing regular people (civilians) to carry firearms helped quite a bit in quelling shootings? Is it just me or is there something suspicious about this causality?

A gun owning person, a person who has attained control of a firearm, is going to be stopped from doing a mass shooting because he doesn't want to break the gun carrying law?


From my understanding of things, self defence can be legal in Finland with firearms btw. If the situation seems to necessiate such use of force to defend against equal threat to your life (or someone elses life). Such people who have shot in self defense, against threat of a gun for example, have been aqcuitted of charges/have had their verdicts overturned, in this country.

Even though the prevailing opinions of judges seems to be against self defense in this country, we do have a self defense clause written in the law, for whatever it's worth. And it's a civil law country.

 

[Col. Tartleton]

The difference between a citizen and a subject is that a citizen is free to defend himself and a subject is subject to whatever protection or oppression the government deems him worthy of.

The notion that being well armed is uncivilized is moronic and counter intuitive. The entire notion of citizen is based on being a man at arms. Having a weapon buys you a seat at the table of government. Government is the application of force. Being able to apply some individual lethal force is what makes you a citizen. Think about phrases like "Citizen-Soldier". In peace we are citizens, in war (via conscription or volunteering) we are soldiers.

The only way the police could be fully capable of actually protecting the people would be unmitigated totalitarian police state and that point you kind of ed up too.

The role of the police is clean up and documentation with occasional timely response with mixed results. Then it gets handed off to brainy detectives who try to connect the dots and catch people after the fact.

If anyone doesn't need guns it's the police. They're never there when it's dangerous.

A few months ago like five cops got shot on my road. One died. They were all armed. One criminal with I believe an illegal weapon shot them. What were the neighbors for a pretty large radius expected to do? Stay inside their houses and hope the guy doesn't try to take his neighbors hostage. The specialist police could barely get in to get the others out.

Police are not the answer.

 

[spanish_emperor]

In South America, you have a gun and the criminals will come kill you just to get their hands on it. So having a gun doesn't protect you in those countries it actually endangers you

 

[Gelgoog]

In South America, you have a gun and the criminals will come kill you just to get their hands on it. So having a gun doesn't protect you in those countries it actually endangers you

So is it the strict gun control making firearms generally unavailable that makes them go to such extremes to attain them?

Also if someone is coming to kill you for your gun then there is a solution for that.

 

[adampa1006]

I feel like more gun laws will have the reverse effect. It will continue the results of 80-90% of guns used in crimes aren't legally owned.

The point is someone mentioned more laws to "track" the guns better. I feel like it becomes so long and complicated to buy a gun, that you just buy a simple illegal gun from a friend, family member, or the street.

This is a gun that the governmt has no idea where it is, therefore they lose control.


Sent from my DROID BIONIC using Tapatalk 2

 

[truth1337]

Guns for all! I want all to be like FPSRussia at youtube, who owns his very own tank! Then the zionists who control USA and are stealing our gold reserves could be overthrown.

 

[Xanthippus of Sparta]

In 1967 New York passed a gun registration law. They promised it would never be used as a reference to confiscate firearms. In 1991 Mayor David N. Dinkins signed into law New York City Administrative Code, Sec. 10-303.1. This was a prohibition of certain semi-automatic rifles and shotguns. NYPD then notified the registered owners(under the 1967 law) of these semi-automatic rifles and shotguns that they had to be surrendered, rendered inoperable or physically removed from the city. The recipients of the notification were directed to send back a sworn statement indicating what had been done with those firearms.

Personally, I just don't think you know very much about the discussion you're having. I'd say the government has at least another century to go before they can convince the masses to trust them regarding a gun registration law.

Here's the ordinance...

[/LIST]

What I meant is, that I don't think a countrywide registration attempt, or another more localized confiscation effort, would be even contemplated by a politician who is certifiably mentally ill.

I suscribe to Field & Stream. In July, there was a blurb stating that in a 1959 Gallup poll, 60% of Americans thought that handgun ownership should be limited to law enforcement. In 2010, it had fallen to 29%. Support for gun ownership is high. Even in a lot of columns by Liberals who want a new assault weapons ban (one by Gabrielle Giffords' congressional assistant comes to mind), they say they support ownership of handguns and other long guns aside from some semi-autos.

As for your example...In a city that is different from any in the US, with a mayor who wields more power than any other in the [DEL]Americas [/DEL] world, it could and did happen. To me, this seems like an exception rather than a rule. A reflection of the time (80's and early 90's drug and gang violence) and place (NYC) more than anything.

What I find interesting is that calls for gun control usually spring up in times of mass shootings (by disturbed individuals) and inner city violence.

What if we attacked the core problems instead of going after guns?

Mental healthcare has been slipping in this country for decades. Graduating from college with a psychology degree is almost seen as a joke. Why not improve this?

The US could really use another war on poverty that takes into account the failings of LBJ's 60's era programs. Why not attempt this?

The funny thing is that if Conservatives want talk of gun control not to ever come up again, they would be for going after the societal problems that cause some Liberals to bring it up. But you certainly won't hear anything like this from the NRA. Not to say all Liberals are in the right, though. Most are far from putting the bigger picture together in a meaningful way.

 

[Town Watch]

What I meant is, that I don't think a countrywide registration attempt, or another more localized confiscation effort, would be even contemplated by a politician who is certifiably mentally ill.

I suscribe to Field & Stream. In July, there was a blurb stating that in a 1959 Gallup poll, 60% of Americans thought that handgun ownership should be limited to law enforcement. In 2010, it had fallen to 29%. Support for gun ownership is high. Even in a lot of columns by Liberals who want a new assault weapons ban (one by Gabrielle Giffords' congressional assistant comes to mind), they say they support ownership of handguns and other long guns aside from some semi-autos.

As for your example...In a city that is different from any in the US, with a mayor who wields more power than any other in the [DEL]Americas [/DEL] world, it could and did happen. To me, this seems like an exception rather than a rule. A reflection of the time (80's and early 90's drug and gang violence) and place (NYC) more than anything.

What I find interesting is that calls for gun control usually spring up in times of mass shootings (by disturbed individuals) and inner city violence.

What if we attacked the core problems instead of going after guns?

Mental healthcare has been slipping in this country for decades. Graduating from college with a psychology degree is almost seen as a joke. Why not improve this?

The US could really use another war on poverty that takes into account the failings of LBJ's 60's era programs. Why not attempt this?

The funny thing is that if Conservatives want talk of gun control not to ever come up again, they would be for going after the societal problems that cause some Liberals to bring it up. But you certainly won't hear anything like this from the NRA. Not to say all Liberals are in the right, though. Most are far from putting the bigger picture together in a meaningful way.

The problem for American gun owners, and supporters of gun rights in America is basically that the "liberals" have betrayed their principles when they are not actively defending gun rights, but are instead vilifying gun owners and supporting gun control laws.

Those kinds of liberals are probably not to be trusted with American gun owners rights, they kinda dug their own grave in that sense?

That's a fair thing to say in some sense. On a philosophical level, or moral or whatever, think about the abortion issue. Government shouldn't be regulating women's right to their own body, abortion ought to be legal right? Why would private ownership of firearms be any different? Free markets?

 

[Qasper]

The problem for American gun owners, and supporters of gun rights in America is basically that the "liberals" have betrayed their principles when they are not actively defending gun rights, but are instead vilifying gun owners and supporting gun control laws.

Those kinds of liberals are probably not to be trusted with American gun owners rights, they kinda dug their own grave in that sense?

That's a fair thing to say in some sense. On a philosophical level, or moral or whatever, think about the abortion issue. Government shouldn't be regulating women's right to their own body, abortion ought to be legal right? Why would private ownership of firearms be any different? Free markets?

That's my reasoning as well!

I don't get it why these liberals try to take away our guns. Anyone can buy a gun, and that's a civil right given to us by our founding fathers! And don't start with the founding fathers being only men or having scores of afro-americans as slaves and not letting women vote... I can't stand that liberal biased white-wash! It so absurd...

 

[The Last Spartan]

The liberal argument can best be summed up with this picture.

Spoiler

 

[Xanthippus of Sparta]

The problem for American gun owners, and supporters of gun rights in America is basically that the "liberals" have betrayed their principles when they are not actively defending gun rights, but are instead vilifying gun owners and supporting gun control laws.

Those kinds of liberals are probably not to be trusted with American gun owners rights, they kinda dug their own grave in that sense?

That's a fair thing to say in some sense. On a philosophical level, or moral or whatever, think about the abortion issue. Government shouldn't be regulating women's right to their own body, abortion ought to be legal right? Why would private ownership of firearms be any different? Free markets?

I agree wholeheartedly.

A lot of hardcore pro-gun control types on the left will claim that the second amendment is outdated. What if tomorrow, Mitt Romney declares that he believes the fourth amendment is outdated? These same people on the left will go nuts, as they well should.

Another arguement I hear a lot is that the second amendment was never meant to allow widespread gun ownership. This is bunk, as ownership of firearms in the US was not questioned in the 18th century.

 

[adampa1006]

The liberal argument can best be summed up with this picture.

Spoiler

Haha this is perfect. Finally some sense in this forum. You can't even say "common sense" since that is the least common thing nowadays

Sent from my DROID BIONIC using Tapatalk 2

 

[adampa1006]

And to all those people posting "well what do you need a hundred round magazine for?" "And who needs a fully automatic rifle?"


I'm gonna state this harshly. It's not your damn place to tell me what I do and don't need! I live my life, you don't, I have a way better sense of what I need than you. And certainly not some government beurocrat.
Sent from my DROID BIONIC using Tapatalk 2

 

[barbarossa pasha]

Yes, it's not the place of anyone to tell anyone anything. Until they go on a killing spree with a semi-automatic rifle. Honestly, I need an atomic weapon and you can't tell me otherwise, I was granted this right by nature and God.

 

[Condottiere 40K]

• 8:59PM Tuesday Aug 14, 2012

'Just kidding, don't shoot me!': Canadians ridicule unarmed US tourist's fears


Canadians this week ridiculed a nervous American tourist over his criticisms of Canada's strict gun laws following what he said was "menacing" encounter with two young men in a Calgary park.
Walt Wawra of Kalamazoo, Michigan detailed his account of a chance meeting in Nose Hill Park in a letter to the editor of the Calgary Herald, during a recent visit to the city in western Canada.
Wawra said he and his wife were confronted in broad daylight on a paved trail by two men who asked "in a very aggressive tone" if the couple had "been to the Stampede yet?"
"They approached in such an aggressive, disrespectful and menacing manner," he wrote, that the off-duty cop instinctively reached for where his sidearm would have been had he been south of the border.
Advertisement
"I quickly moved between these two and my wife, replying, 'Gentlemen, I have no need to talk with you, goodbye,'" he said. "I thank the Lord Jesus Christ they did not pull a weapon of some sort."
"Many would say I have no need to carry (a gun) in Canada," Wawra added. "Yet the police cannot protect everyone all the time. A man should be allowed to protect himself if the need arises."
The letter sparked a flurry of ridicule.
A Calgary restaurant owner wrote on a sidewalk sandwich board, "Have you been to the Stampede yet? Just kidding, don't shoot me!"
"At the off leash (dog park) this morning when two terriers started to sniff my dog. If only Canada would allow my dog to pack heat," tweeted Connor Turner.
"Ice cream truck just sped past house. Sir, I have no need for your refreshing pseudo-milk product treats. Goodbye," said Kikki Planet in another Twitter message.
The daily National Post recounted the story alongside photos of gun-totting actor Clint Eastwood in the movie Dirty Harry and Charles Bronson as a vigilante in Death Wish.
The Huffington Post, meanwhile, ran the headline: "Fear and Loathing in Cowtown," referring to Calgary's cattle industry links.
Subsequent to the furor, a tourism official said the two young men who encountered Wawra were simply giving out free passes to the Calgary Stampede rodeo.



Read more: http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/tra...rists-fears-20120813-243nt.html#ixzz23W9W9eCy

 

[Legio_Italica]

A lot of hardcore pro-gun control types on the left will claim that the second amendment is outdated. What if tomorrow, Mitt Romney declares that he believes the fourth amendment is outdated? These same people on the left will go nuts, as they well should.

Most on the Left do not call the Second Amendment outdated. They differ in interpretation. An important facet in the context of the amendment is the phrase that reads, "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." Note the curious fact that the latter is not even a proper sentence, but a fragment and a sentence separated by a comma, making cut-and-dry interpretation difficult. But this is beside the point. The important thing is that the amendment addressed the maintenance of state militias, and inferred that the states, not the federal government, would regulate guns. The United States was not supposed to have a permanent standing army, certainly not the military-industrial complex that we have today. "Homeland Security" was supposed to be the millions of modern registered gun owners in the US. The fact that we do have massive, federal, state, and local police forces and a military whose influence spans the globe damages the original context of the Amendment.

On the whole, I would agree that gun control laws keep guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens, not criminals. True gun control would need to limit the production and sale of firearms and tax them to make them expensive; something I may not be entirely opposed to from a policy if not ideological standpoint.

Another arguement I hear a lot is that the second amendment was never meant to allow widespread gun ownership. This is bunk, as ownership of firearms in the US was not questioned in the 18th century.

That is not entirely true. Most municipalities if not states have always had gun control laws. Guns were famously banned in Gettysburg and visiting gun-carriers were required to turn their weapons over to the constable for the duration of their stay. Despite folklore about the Wild West, nearly all municipalities in the US, as I said, had gun control laws and often prohibited people from carrying them. This was never an issue. What is at stake today is federal gun control.

As far as the 18th century is concerned, most firearms were expensive, meaning that if a person did have a firearm, it was likely a small arm, rifle or musket or rifle handed down generationally. The only place firearms were widely accessible was of course the state militias, and even people who did carry guns individually certainly did not own cannons or weapons capable of inflicting mass-death. The advanced nature and accessibility of modern firearms means that a real debate needs to be had about the context of the Second Amendment and the availability of more powerful weapons to private consumers. To demand the complete deregulation of the firearm industry is equally preposterous to the idea that regulating guns post-production will reduce firearm-related crimes.