[QUOTE=MegaChalupa;39116400]It's stupid to think that disarming civilians is going to stop people in positions of power to obtains weapons.[/QUOTE]
Its stupid to think that arming citizens wont normalise the arming of organs of power (such as the military) as an acceptable thing
[QUOTE=Lonestriper;39116391]Alcohol has a wide range of medical and social benefits which far outweigh its negatives, nor was it originally designed to kill people.
[B]Still doesn't change the fact that it does, and while firearms were designed for the express purpose of breaking things, restraint has been shown with them far better than alcohol since more people die from alcohol than gun violence.[/B]
We don't live in a peaceful world because we allow the militarists, the people who benefit from war to hold positions of power, we allow them to dictate which group of people presents a threat when in reality they are no different from ourselves. It is defeatist to think that disarming people wont disarm them.
[B]It won't disarm them, as militaries have one thing in common: Everyone is issued a weapon (except chaplains but that is beside the point)[/B]
What, is it too difficult? I don't see how trying to create a better society isn't worth it
[B]I would say that making every gun ever dissapear would be difficult as all shit. Also, have you ever thought that people enjoy guns and have views different from your own version of a "better society?"
[/B][/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Lonestriper;39116409]Its stupid to think that arming citizens wont normalise the arming of organs of power (such as the military) as an acceptable thing[/QUOTE]
So you think that the formation of a formal military in the United States was the result of civilians owning firearms and not the result of the will of the people looking for means of ensuring national security in the face of global powers like the British, Spanish and French? The primary reason the second amendment is in the constitution is to protect the majority from the power of government and ensure that their rights would be maintained as well as giving them a fighting chance against existing organized powers.
[QUOTE=Lonestriper;39116391]Alcohol has a wide range of medical and social benefits which far outweigh its negatives, nor was it originally designed to kill people.[/QUOTE]
So why not restrict alcohol to hospitals and labs in the same way many advocate for guns to be restricted to police and military? And what social benefits does it hold, exactly?
Furthermore, repeatedly saying 'it wasn't originally designed to kill people' is a stupid point. What they were invented for was irrelevant, all that matters is the situation here and now, and the situation is that alcohol kills FAR many more people than guns and influences hundreds of thousands of people negatively every day in the form of alcoholism. Firearms do not have anywhere near the far reaching negative impact that alcohol does.
[QUOTE=Lonestriper;39116162]
Furthermore, as I am genuinely interested. DaCommie1, Lazerguided and Download, do you happen to be Libertarians?[/QUOTE]
I like some libertarian principles, but I also like (some) welfare, free healthcare and such. More like liberal-libertarian.
I generally go with the principle that if you're not hurting anyone, then the government has no right to tell you to stop or try to stop you from doing it. The actions of other people should not infringe on your rights or lead to them being infringed.
I also support the idea of licensing (but not banning) things that can cause harm to others, but I don't think that will work in the US due to the number of firearms
A good first step, all these shootings are starting to get ridiculous. The vocal minority will bitch, but this will be all for the better.
[QUOTE=gay_idiot;39116673]A good first step, all these shootings are starting to get ridiculous. The vocal minority will bitch, but this will be all for the better.[/QUOTE]
Here comes trouble
I've looked through all of your posts and can't find one that does not have to do with arguing about guns. I assume you're someones arguing alt
All these arguments would probably turn out better if you guys actually cited a source each time you said something instead of making sourceless statistics, using word-of-mouth facts, and appeals to authority.
There is a great video explaining violence statistics on the first page, but I haven't seen a single mention of it since.
Is everyone interested in proving a point or just arguing for the sake of arguing?
[QUOTE=Milkdairy;39116699]All these arguments would probably turn out better if you guys actually cited a source each time you said something instead of making sourceless statistics, using word-of-mouth facts, and appeals to authority.
There is a great video explaining violence statistics on the first page, but I haven't seen a single mention of it since.
Is everyone interested in proving a point or just arguing for the sake of arguing?[/QUOTE]
We're an old bunch who have been arguing for ages. We've shown eachother our respective stats time and time again
[QUOTE=Milkdairy;39116699]All these arguments would probably turn out better if you guys actually cited a source each time you said something instead of making sourceless statistics, using word-of-mouth facts, and appeals to authority.
There is a great video explaining violence statistics on the first page, but I haven't seen a single mention of it since.
Is everyone interested in proving a point or just arguing for the sake of arguing?[/QUOTE]
Citing every single source in a debate that will be forgotten in a few days is kind of a waste of time. It's far simpler to just give sources when people ask.
[QUOTE=download;39116743]We're an old bunch who have been arguing for ages. We've shown eachother our respective stats time and time again[/QUOTE]
Respectively, I've popped in on occasion, and I'm usually happy to see what I do see, albeit there's still some pretty bold claims that go around here which often turn out to be borderline technicalities or unchecked lies.
Such as the various occasions of comparing the US Crime rate to other countries.
Without regard for population and other factors or actually checking to see if it's true, but it's probably the fact that it's not very common for a source to actually be asked for, rather than just responding with an even more clever technical fact.'
Bear witness to my 9000+ edits within 2 minutes
oh god the hypocrisy in my post
[editline]6th January 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=Gordy H.;39116751]Citing every single source in a debate that will be forgotten in a few days is kind of a waste of time. It's far simpler to just give sources when people ask.[/QUOTE]
It may be forgotten in a few days, but it'll just start over with the same themes every time someone posts an article like this. Oh the treadmill of debate.
[QUOTE=Earthen;39115928]Guns just need to be like cars; mandatory courses, health checks, background checks, etc...[/QUOTE]
There are no health or background checks required to purchase or license a car.
[QUOTE=Ridge;39119429]There are no health or background checks required to purchase or license a car.[/QUOTE]
You don't even need a licence to purchase a car. And the only requirement to get a licence is a one time test if you're 18 (you can drive at 16 for most states, but requires classroom time and driving sessions prior to getting the licence up until 18)
[QUOTE=Lonestriper;39116162]Semi-automatic firearms are unnecessary for what I perceive as the acceptable uses of firearms. You can still successfully hunt, target shoot or masturbate with a bolt action rifle or break-open shotgun.[/QUOTE]
What about self defense against home invasion? with a break-open shotgun if you fuck up and miss you are fucked and with a bolt action they can just bum rush you while you are cycling the bolt.
[editline]6th January 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=Earthen;39115928]Guns just need to be like cars; mandatory courses, health checks, background checks, etc...[/QUOTE]
Uhh what? I can buy a car with just my learner's permit (Which I intend to do in a couple of weeks), and there's no background check or health check (other than a check box on the application and a vision test), and technically that required nothing to get.
Also there's currently a fucking 30 day wait to take the mandatory driving test for my full license, here due to how backlogged and swamped the system is.
Without guns america will fall in a zombie apocalypse.
[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;39115266]For a quick understanding of the NFA....
The background check is done[very similar to the 4473], but you're forced to pay a $200 tax stamp, forced to wait four to six months for a single piece of paper, and each one of your firearms will require this.
This is completely unconstitutional, and it breaches the 2nd, 4th, and 8th Amendments of the United States Constitution.[/QUOTE]
"Muh rights"
thats all i read.
[QUOTE=Midas22;39119958]"Muh rights"
thats all i read.[/QUOTE]
Epic for the win reddit memes, bro.
Its 4chan, actually.
First, how big is the problem? The government's most recent figures published by the CDC here: [URL]http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/homicide.htm[/URL] indicate that 11,493 people were victims of firearm homicides in 2009. The US has about 313 million people, so the firearm homicide number above constitute a three one-thousandths of a percent (0.003%) of the overall population. Of all of the deaths in the US about 2.44 million a year, only about one-half of one percent (0.5%) are due to firearm homicides. Homicide rates have been steadily dropping. In the last five years, annual firearms homicides have dropped by about 1500, see FBI statistics here [url]http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10shrtbl08.xls[/url]
The first data points show that there is no "epidemic" of firearms murders going on and, in fact, firearm homicides are already shrinking. In fact, firearms homicides aren't even in the top ten causes of death. The CDC reports above indicate that the flu regularly kills three times as many people as are murdered by firearms.
The foregoing numbers and some objective perspective on the problem contradict the unspoken assumptions in the media that there is a gigantic problem which needs draconian solutions.
Next, one must look at who is involved in murders. According to DOJ statistics compiled here [URL]http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/ascii/vfluc.txt[/URL] "An estimated 70% of violent felons in the 75 largest counties had been arrested previously. Seventy-three percent of those convicted of robbery or assault had an arrest record, as did 67% of murderers, and 53% of rapists... Fifty-nine percent of those convicted of assault and 58% of those convicted of murder had at least one prior felony arrest."
Data point 2: More than two-thirds of murders are committed by people with prior criminal records and over half by those who had prior felony arrests. If they were taken out of the equation, one could expect firearms homicides to plunge by two-thirds. In fact, the existing background checks appear to be working by denying criminals the ability to purchase firearms. However, to the extent that criminals are obtaining firearms anyway, they are only demonstrating that they are not law-abiding citizens and would not follow additional laws. New law would therefore address an extremely narrow subset of firearms homicides and have an extremely limited impact.
The natural question to ask next is: what firearms are being used for murders? Delving into the FBI gun homicide data at the link above, one can see that rifles are used at very low rates in homicides, only about 300 to 400 per year which, using the FBI number of 8,775 firearm victims in 2010 would show rifle use at about four and a half percent (4.5%).
The third data point shows that rifles aren't generally used in firearms homicides. If there was a compelling need for expenditures and legislation, directing it at rifles would narrow the impact so severely it would seem unlikely to create a meaningful reduction in homicide victims.
In fact, the proposed legislation would appear to have little practical impact upon anyone other than law-abiding citizens who are only using firearms in self-defense. FBI statistics here [url]http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/expanded/expandhomicidemain[/url] indicate that there were 665 justifiable homicides in 2010. Law enforcement killed 387 felons and private citizens justifiably killed 278 people in the commission of a crime.
The fourth data point shows that private citizens have properly deployed firearms and been responsible for 42% of the justifiable usages while the police carried the other 58%. The political leadership is being asked to effectively strip away civilian rights which will have the unintended consequence of making the police's job harder and the crime rate higher as criminals are unopposed.
This is never going to happen with a Republican House. Stop worrying.
[QUOTE=Used Car Salesman;39120056]This is never going to happen with a Republican House. Stop worrying.[/QUOTE]
Even with that there is still a possibility. Just gonna call up my representatives. I suggest everyone do the same. The thing about Feinstein is she wants all guns banned and she isn't going to give up easily.
[QUOTE=Used Car Salesman;39120056]This is never going to happen with a Republican House. Stop worrying.[/QUOTE]
Multiple flip-flop "republicans" support this (I.E the same ones that gladly take it up the butt when people want tax cuts)
Lmao this won't pass I don't know why anyone is bothering to freak out about this
I dont know why people still think gun control would reduce crime?
Heres an idea guys! Lets fix the outlook on life in this country! you know, snip that poverty problem in the bud, maybe even address the scam we call education? Maybe fix social services? Better psychiatric/mental health care? You know, things that would reduce actual violence and crime.
Did you know shotgun homicide is more popular than rifle homicide?
[url]http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8[/url]
Why do I think that if this was to go forward, it would have no effects whatsoever on anything?
All this is? The fruit of fear that something like what happened could happen again.
Will this do anything? Most likely wont. It's impossible to keep an eye on everyone and everything.
It's useless. The best you can do to actually prevent stuff like that from ever happening again would be with security. A weapons ban wont do squat when you can "shit a gun and piss the bullets for it". It's that easy.
[QUOTE=KorJax;39120425]Lmao this won't pass I don't know why anyone is bothering to freak out about this[/QUOTE]
Aha, you mean like all those internet-policing bills, the ones that include indefinite detention of American citizens, the continuation of Patriot-Act-Like legislation that can even extend out of the country.
Sure, some (some) of the first ones were shot down due to publicity - but really? If you think Congress is "in it for us" or even reads half (or even 10% of) the fucking bills; you need to get out of fantasy land. Unless people bring furious attention to it in the same fashion as some of the internet bills - it'll slip right on through. Which means it's really down to the people, because I can't really see any (big) news station having a flip-out about this. I'm not even sure if ol' hilarious FOX has touched this yet.
[QUOTE=Omali;39115350]What exactly does that have to do with requiring people to register their firearms?[/QUOTE]
Because getting photographed (again; @driver's license), and getting finger printed for owning a firearm, even before this law (if enacted) and having to go through all the legal paperwork is totally justified and doesn't treat anyone like a criminal. It could, potentially, open up to searches and seizures just because "oh no, you have an old gun." This is a weak argument that I'm sure could be done better (@ me.)
[QUOTE=Omali;39115350]The 8th amendment protects people from being disproportionately jailed/fined/punished compared to the severity of the crime. That means you can't be fined a billion dollars for robbing a bank, or shot for stealing someone's purse. Has nothing to do with requiring registration on guns.[/QUOTE]
Because a minimum sentence of putting someone in jail for five years if they can't produce paperwork on a gun - even a non-functional, historic, or one-before-the-ban is totally justified and not overkill. I won't even get into the fines and payments involved.
I like the articles unbiased viewpoint and source.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;39121116]I like the articles unbiased viewpoint and source.[/QUOTE]
Too bad that's actually what the bill is. Something totally pointless and retarded that will achieve nothing but make more paperwork for everybody.
[QUOTE=Governor Goblin;39116113]Nobody has killed 22 children with the sheer power of television, radio and internet.
I mean seriously. That's your argument?
You may think you got an epic bazooper of an argument for guns with your TV reference, but uh, yeah, unless I throw a TV at you or you slip on a radio and fall out a window, it REALLY has no baring on this argument.[/QUOTE]
Actually, I remember hearing of several instances of people having seizures due to spastic visuals in certain cartoons, as well as the organization of various riots over social media.
I was pointing out the fallacies in arguing against something based on necessity and desire. Nobody truly needs free speech, many nations survive fine without it, however there is an intense desire for the ability to speak and express oneself freely. If desire is not enough of a justification for something, then why would the desire for free speech be enough to justify it, when there is no true necessity?
I'm not saying that freedom of speech should disappear, I'm using it as an example to point out flaws in his argument.
To use another prominent example against the Second Amendment, people say that it was designed with only muskets in mind, and that it shouldn't cover modern firearms. The First Amendment was only designed with one's mouth and the printing press in mind, does that mean it should only cover printed media and one's own voice, and not have any bearing at all on television, internet, and the radio, since the founding fathers never knew about or envisioned these inventions or forms of media existing? People would argue that it should have bearing over all of those forms of media, and protect one's rights to them despite the fact that they didn't exist and the founding fathers would never have imagined them, the same people who use the muskets argument about the 2nd. Just because a law is old, doesn't mean it has no bearing on modern technologies or innovations in the field the amendment was designed around.
Obviously the intention of the First Amendment is clear, it was designed to protect Americans' rights to speak their minds freely over every form of media without fear of the government arresting them for what they're saying. Though this is not necessarily expressly stated in the amendment, it is clear that it covers all modern forms of media, not just "the press." The intention of the Second Amendment is sometimes less clear to people, and often misinterpreted, even by people who quite clearly modernize the interpretation of the First. When you look at quotes from many of the founding fathers about guns and the Second Amendment, it is quite clear what the amendment means, it states exactly, [quote=The Second Amendment]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.[/quote]
People say that this means the amendment should apply only to militias, others argue the comma is a separation between the two ideas. Really, the comma connects them in a way few seem to think of. Imagine there were 3 more words added to the beginning of the amendment, it would make its intention and meaning so much more clear. If the words" As they are" were added to the beginning of the amendment, or even if the original proposal had left a single comma in that was later removed [quote=The 2nd As Passed By Congress]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.[/quote] it would make thins so much clearer. The Second Amendment is about a militia, it guarantees the militia the right to keep firearms, as their existence is necessary to preserve a free state, and that militia consists of every American citizen. Congress and the founding fathers viewed every citizen of the United States as a member of a well regulated, though not explicitly stated, militia. This militia was based on the idea that the citizenry should be able to protect itself from both foreign attack and internal corruption, it was based on the original principle that the United States shouldn't have or have a need for a standing army. It was based on the idea that every citizen should be able to defend themselves against any armed force that invades the nation, and that each citizen is a member of a national militia that exists to protect the United States. Under this principle, it answers the question, "Would the founding fathers want people to own "assault rifles?" The answer is yes, because it would allow the citizenry to be able to defend the nation on a level playing field with any foreign or domestic military force. The founding fathers wanted people to be as well armed as any national army.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
