Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

Incorrect again. Having guns has been proved time and again that it lowers crime through deterrance. Removing them, and you crime goes through the roof - just examine the UK as a model on that one. That logic follows the #7 from my list above:

Originally Posted by Ostfriese

Crime goes through the roof without gun control? That's hilarious, especially if an American tells this to a German. There's been very strict gun control in Germany since 1945, and our crime rates are WAY below American crime rates in just any aspect. Even though our population density is about 8 times higher than the American... Where would our crime rate be if we had no gun control at all? According to your theory there wouldn't be any crime here any more...

Originally Posted by Ostfriese

This is something I'm used to hear from Americans who have never been to my country. So full of themselves, so 'We are the world'. And to argue with brainwashing is again quite hilarious - this is something your media and your politicians can do far better and do far more than over here.

Originally Posted by Skybird

This thread is tzzzzz. :nope:

Firearms are tools of death, and exclusively so. they are designed to hurt and to kill, nothing else. This is what they excel in, they are of no other use. Like a Katana is optimized to cut only one material: human flesh, firearms are optimized to bring as much death as often and quickly as possible.

america makes a fetish of weapons, but this idol is a cruel god, and from time to time it demands your first-borne as a sacrifice.

If it is argued that a problem caused by firearms - can be healed by even more firearms and easy access to them, then the debate is beyond any hope. If the problem is compared to drug abuse, and Iraq war, then it has already dissappeared in the swamps of irrationality. - As expected.

the part of the bill of rights (I think the weapons thing is anchored in that, right?) that allowed citizens to carry weapons - was written in a different world, and time, when the young US where under threat by the British, and huge parts of the wilderness still were a "non-civilised" country. but these threats are gone. The Queen does not demand the submission of amerian citizens anymore. Would the bill of rights, if written today, include this part on weapons, too? I don't think so. Those minds authoring it were no idiots, and were considering the situation and it's future developement only so far, and not beyond. This passage today - is abused only. Or better: it's content and context gets perverted.

Violance is omni-present in media, film, TV, computer games. It serves as en example for social learning by example-setting. It influences thinking, and behavior patterns, especially of young ones still developing. But be assured that it has no effect on the minds of people and especially young ones. :smug:

Weapons are a very lucratice business in the the US. We all know that this has nothing to do with lobbying for less gun control laws. :smug:

I can assure you that none of the things anyone of you may grew fond of has anything to do with these events. So don't worry, none of you have to change his habits, and everything can happily stay as it is. :smug:

Seen that way, the shooting event has it's good sides. It tells us that everything is good. :up:

Firearms... every idiot can use them and cause havoc at short range without training. No quality in character is needed. No education. No self-discipline or self-restraint. Some very clever even are stupid enough to hurt themselves with them. Go on, sell them even more. See where it will lead you. - Probably straight to hell.

You arm yourself as if you expect to fight wars in your streets and cities, homes and living rooms? Guns, rifles, even automatic rifles, ha!: even explosives? Well, yesterday the fruits of your deeds have found you again. Stop complaining, these events are results of your very own society you have built. Welcome to the jungle. Both perpetrator and victims are your sons and daughters. They are no Martians who just fell down from the sky.

On the level of individual fates I express my condolences.

On a national, community-wide level I say: you got what you deserved. If you play with fire, you get your fingers burned.

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

I did. Why have armies? Why have any sort of defense? I see nothing different. I did answer your question because there is no difference. The analogy is identical.

The key word is deterrence. ANother is response. More come to mind.

Originally Posted by Fish

You want to compare a lunatic with your army? :hmm:

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

Are you talking the liberal biased whacko that made the 30 reason list? Whya re you reposting it?

Originally Posted by Skybird

COULD YOU BUSTER ANY OF THE MYTH BUSTING THAT THE MAN HAS CONDUCTED? Referring to postings 213, 215, 216 here.

Originally Posted by Skybird

Can you counter in substantial, legal argument any of what the man says in argument and says by referring to lawsuits and valid laws and remarks on the second amandement, yes or no?

Labelling someone as a "liberal leftist whacko" does honour to a pubescent male teen trying to impress his girlfriend by behaving loud - beyond that, it is pointless. so please, enlighten us: could you counter what the man says on the legal situation, yes or no?

COULD YOU BUSTER ANY OF THE MYTH BUSTING THAT THE MAN HAS CONDUCTED? Referring to postings 213, 215, 216 here.

Originally Posted by August

A 10 second research project yielded this:

A three-judge panel led by Senior Judge Laurence Silberman struck down parts of Washington, D.C.'s strict gun-control ordinance as a violation of residents' Second Amendment right to bear arms in Parker v. District of Columbia

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

[This is coming from the same people that listened to the Nazi's.

Originally Posted by Fish

Is that necessary?

Originally Posted by August's link

(...) D.C. government officials offered no immediate word about possible appeals, but it appears likely that the city, under new Mayor Adrian Fenty, will at least seek an en banc review of the ruling. "The fact that, even on this panel, there was one dissent is a sign that the decision is open to question," says David Gossett, a partner at Mayer, Brown, Rowe & Maw in the District, which wrote a brief for the Violence Policy Center and the Brady Center in support of the D.C. ordinance. (...)
Even if the high court rules in favor of an individual right, it would not spell the end of all gun regulation. As even Silberman points out, the high court has allowed reasonable restriction of other individual rights such as freedom of speech. But such a decision could trigger litigation over a range of laws, including those that make criminal penalties more serious if they involve possession of firearms. (...)
The Miller court in 1939 and many scholars since have viewed it as an articulation of the right of state militias -- not individuals -- to bear arms. Over the years, the high court, apparently glad to avoid the hot-potato issue, has consistently declined to take up Second Amendment challenges to laws restricting gun use and possession. (...)
Henderson's dissent dismisses the majority decision as "superfluity" because, in her view, the Second Amendment applies only to states -- not to the District of Columbia.

Originally Posted by Skybird

@Subman,

nice zig-zagging of yours. Will there come anything substantial from you? The guy gave solid references to legal aspects of the issue, and additionally referred to the questionable quality of several crime statistics as well. Can you, will you counter it, or zig-zag even more? I am no expert on these things, so if you can proove that it is all wrong what he says, me and probabaly others as well would be interested to learn about where the guy is misinformed. If you have substantial legal arguments, now is the time to bring them and give up loudness instead.

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

Did you bother to read my last post on the subject to you? I didn't zig zag. You are quoting in mass. If you feel like arguing a 'single' point, bring one specific point to the floor and we can argue about it. Then we can move on to 'another' point. Such a concept! Wow! What you post above is 50 pages of crap! I am not going to write a book on a forum thread!

So when you feel like getting specific and bringing one point from the subject to discuss, feel free. I am waiting.

-S

Originally Posted by Skybird

And having felt a growing feeling of alarm, I searched a bit for this judge Laurence Silberman (August's article) and found this, amongst others:

Laurence Silberman: the Right Man or the Right's Man?
http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=13902

Originally Posted by Skybird

Zig.