Firearms yes or no

[Yahoshua]

Originally Posted by waste gate

You are correct, that is how I see it Yahoshua.

Kay.

[Yahoshua]

Originally Posted by micky1up

(A) stop deflecting the arguement the right of free religious belifs is nothing compared to the right to bare arms and we have no where near the history of massacres that you have i agree

(B) its not just the guns its also your way of life that is a threat but you had loads of guns avalible to the police involved that dint stop the individual killing 30 people did it

(C) your comparing what happened yesterday to land siezures get a grip will you thats a big insult to 30 plus grieving families

For god sakes START USING PUNCTUATON!!!

A. & C. This was brought up because you said our Constitution was "outdated." And my response was not only about our Constitution, but where the Constitution had roots of inspiration from: The Magna Carta.

The rights you enjoy under the Magna Carta are no different from the Constitution, and yet the constitution even added rights that were to be guaranteed by force. Or namely: U.S. citizens who are part of the militia (everyone over the age of 18 is involuntarily drafted into the militia, that part just isn't taught very well anymore). So that aspect of the argument DOES apply.

B. This is where all the problems come in: Guns do NOT cause crime. Guns account for a small percentage of weapons used in crime and they are acquired via illegal means (read John Lotts books I posted about earier, it goes into much greater detail on the issue).

More to come later, gtg school now.

[micky1up]

Originally Posted by Yahoshua

For god sakes START USING PUNCTUATON!!!

A. & C. This was brought up because you said our Constitution was "outdated." And my response was not only about our Constitution, but where the Constitution had roots of inspiration from: The Magna Carta.

The rights you enjoy under the Magna Carta are no different from the Constitution, and yet the constitution even added rights that were to be guaranteed by force. Or namely: U.S. citizens who are part of the militia (everyone over the age of 18 is involuntarily drafted into the militia, that part just isn't taught very well anymore). So that aspect of the argument DOES apply.

B. This is where all the problems come in: Guns do NOT cause crime. Guns account for a small percentage of weapons used in crime and they are acquired via illegal means (read John Lotts books I posted about earier, it goes into much greater detail on the issue).

More to come later, gtg school now.

i agree guns dont cause crime but as seen over and over they are easy to get hold of when someone goes bannanas like this and all the guns in the world couldnt stop this individual so the arguement that for protection you all need guns is defunked even with them you couldnt stop this

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by micky1up

i agree guns dont cause crime but as seen over and over they are easy to get hold of when someone goes bannanas like this and all the guns in the world couldnt stop this individual so the arguement that for protection you all need guns is defunked even with them you couldnt stop this

I find it a bit ironic that you still don't get the picture, and you still are emotionally upset about something happening in another country other than your own and you want to make sure we conform to your views.

Well, why don't you start with your own state for once? Your gun crime is on the rise (even though your Joe Public is unarmed - go figure). It has been rising every year this century.

The point is, your criminals now have channels to get the weapons they want, yet you have no way to defend yourself. So how do you explain that?

Now, why do you care what we do over here when you have your own problems? Your problems scare me way more than mine. I can do something over here. You over there just get to be a victim is all.

Nice

-S

[micky1up]

and yet even though ours is rising we dont have school masacres on the scale that you have them how many gun related crimes do you have a year ? i would wager even percentage wise we dont have a fraction of what you do! i have a house a wife 2 kids i dont own a gun ive never seen one in my civilian life outside of the navy except in the holster of a police man at the navy base, we have agreed that guns dont cause crime but what is the percentage of crimes that involves guns in the US ? the ready available nature of guns in the US is playing right into the hands of the lone madman whos got a grudge it isnt you hardend criminals that is doing this its everyday joe blog whos got a chip on his shoulder we can argue about it untill we are blue in the face but untill it happens to your family your never going to change your stance ,also we are not paraniod as a country right now and for many years your nation has been obsessed about protection and this is what the cost is

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by micky1up

and yet even though ours is rising we dont have school masacres on the scale that you have them how many gun related crimes do you have a year ? i would wager even percentage wise we dont have a fraction of what you do! i have a house a wife 2 kids i dont own a gun ive never seen one in my civilian life outside of the navy except in the holster of a police man at the navy base, we have agreed that guns dont cause crime but what is the percentage of crimes that involves guns in the US ? the ready available nature of guns in the US is playing right into the hands of the lone madman whos got a grudge it isnt you hardend criminals that is doing this its everyday joe blog whos got a chip on his shoulder we can argue about it untill we are blue in the face but untill it happens to your family your never going to change your stance ,also we are not paraniod as a country right now and for many years your nation has been obsessed about protection and this is what the cost is

As you missed above - you are forgetting the stress of living in America. That is what triggers these whackos. How many times do I have tell you the same thing?

Anyway, you have a ton of gun crime related to street drugs. Its epidemic actually in the UK. Do you know that you can buy a sawn off shotgun in London for only 50 pounds? That is cheaper than I can buy it in the US! You can buy an AK-47 fully automatic for only 800 pounds! I'd have an even harder time getting something like that in the States! Don't tell me that you don't have a problem when you do. The only difference is, your problem is a problem where you and you government bury their head in the sand.

Pistols still command a premium in London though, costing upwards of 1000 pounds due to the concealment factor, but are still easily had.

[Ostfriese]

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

The point is, your criminals now have channels to get the weapons they want, yet you have no way to defend yourself. So how do you explain that?

The criminals to have the same channels over here, but still... My home nation Germany has one quarter of the US population (82 million), eight times the population density (232 ppl/km²) and far less than 1/30 the number of deaths caused by guns (~300/year)

Now, why do you care what we do over here when you have your own problems? Your problems scare me way more than mine. I can do something over here. You over there just get to be a victim is all.

To be honest - I'd like to know what difference a gun makes. I'd like what your options are just because you have a gun. Honestly. Even though there are areas which aren't too safe at night over here I can still walk around, and the chance of facing the wrong end of a gun is extremely low. But imagining the situation - what good would a gun in that situation do?

From my point of view you Americans are extraordinarily scared of being threatened with a gun. This is understandable, but it leads to the strange conclusion that having a gun on your own would prevent you from being threatened with a gun. How is that supposed to work? What are you going to do if someone points a gun at you? It doesn't matter whether you have a gun of your own in that situation, you're just as helpless as you were without a gun.
Or the situation at Virginia Tech yesterday. What difference would a couple of armed students have made? Those who wouldn't have been too scared of the chaotic situation would have run around, guns drawn - and not having the slightest idea who of all those armed person the bad guy was. Again I'm imagining the situation, running around the camus, my gun drawn, nowing s**t about the situation. Upon spotting some other person with a gun, what would have been my options? Asking him/her, whether he/she was the bad guy? hilarious, if he /she was, he would have shoot me halfway through my question. No, I think it would even have increased the death toll, as those armed heroes would have killed each other by mistake/accident.

I'd say that carrying a gun even increases your chances of becoming a victim.

[Skybird]

This guy offers some interesting perspective and cleans some myths.

http://www.guninformation.org/

On the second amandement:
http://www.guninformation.org/secondamendment.html
http://www.guninformation.org/cases.html

More links on that site, on the left menu.

He sums it up like this:

Top 30 Reasons to Oppose Gun Control


1. In over two hundred years of American history, the courts have never invalidated a gun control law based on the second amendment, but the NRA knows more about the law and the Constitution than the courts.
2. Patrick Henry opposed adding the second amendment to the Constitution. That's why quotations from Henry are used by pro-gun activists to support their interpretation of the second amendment.
3. The Founding Fathers intended to create a libertarian utopia. That's very evident from reading the following quotations:
James Madison wrote, "In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men the great difficulty lies in this: You must first enable the government to control the governed, and in the next place, oblige it to control itself." (Federalist 51).
John Jay explained, "Nothing is more certain than the indispensable necessity of government, and it is equally undeniable, that whenever and however it is instituted, the people must cede to it some of their natural rights in order to vest it with requisite powers." (Federalist 2)
4. Guns don't kill people, they just make the bullets go faster so that they can kill people.
5. It's a good idea to own a gun at home because a gun is more likely to be used to kill a friend or family member rather than a criminal.
6. There have been gun control laws for over 200 years in America, but because of modern day circumstances gun-control is no longer needed.
7. The NRA knows more about American history than historians do.
8. Although firearms are inanimate objects and therefore can't kill people, they do somehow have the magical power to keep a person safe from criminals.
9. Although firearms are inanimate objects and therefore can't kill people, they do somehow have the magical power to protect a person against political tyrrany.
10. Guns are a protection against political tyrrany. For example, private ownership of guns was very common in Iraq while Sadam Hussein was in power. Guns are the reason the Iraqi people have enjoyed so much more freedom than people in England where guns have been banned.
11. It's a good idea to make it easy for criminals to obtain guns.
12. According to the British Crime Survey, crime in England has gone down. However, the NRA is the best source of information about crime.
13. Using Gary Kleck's methodology it could be shown that millions of Americans have seen spacecraft from another planet or have been visited by aliens. Despite this, Kleck's studies reveal the truth about defensive gun use.
14. John Lott is a reliable source of information although he kept changing his story about where he got his information for a study in his book More Guns Less Crime.

15. Gun advocate Gary Kleck commented in his book Targeting Guns: Firearms and their Control, "More likely, the declines in crime coinciding with relaxation of carry laws were largely attributable to other factors not controlled in the Lott and Mustard analysis." Kleck and Lott contradict each other so they both must be right. 16. During the 1980's the NRA tried to convince President Reagan to abolish the ATF, the law enforcment agency in charge of enforcing federal gun control laws. This is because the best way to enforce current gun laws is to abolish law enforcement.
17. It's a good idea to always have a loaded gun around when you lose your temper.
18. Children are safer if they have easy access to guns.

19. The International Crime Victim Survey found a positive correlation between gun ownership and increases in homicide and suicide, but the right to life doesn't matter. 20. Pro-gun propaganda is very good logic. Let's apply pro-gun propaganda to cars to demonstrate this- Cars don't kill people, people kill people. That's why stop signs and speed limits should be abolished.
21. Criminals don't obey laws and that's why all laws should be abolished.
22. Gun violence means more freedom. Just ask the family of any gun violence victim to verify this.
23. James Madison's first draft of the second amendment was "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person." It is clear from this that the term "bear arms" refers to rendering military service and not to carrying guns for personal purposes. However, modern day circumstances have changed the meaning of the second amendment.
24. In United States v. Miller the Supreme Court recognized that the "possession or use" of a weapon must be reasonably related to a well regulated miltia to enjoy second amendment protection. That's why there is an individual right to own any military weapon whether or not its possession or use is related to militia activity.
25. In United States v. Miller the Supreme Court stated that the purpose of the second amendment is to promote an effective militia. That's why the first part of the second amendment doesn't matter.
26. Assault weapons crime decreased after the passage of the 1994 Federal Assault Weapons Ban. Gun crime went down the most in states that didn't previously have their own ban on assault weapons. That's why the ban was ineffective.
27. There is much more gun violence in the US than other industrialized nations, but it's better to face an armed criminal.
28. Chanting a lie over and over again will somehow make it come true.
29. The gun industry should have a special immunity to lawsuits that isn't enjoyed by other industries. The gun industry should not be held responsible when it's negligent.
30. Most murders in the US are commited with guns, but killing is not the purpose of a gun.

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by Ostfriese

To be honest - I'd like to know what difference a gun makes. I'd like what your options are just because you have a gun. Honestly. Even though there are areas which aren't too safe at night over here I can still walk around, and the chance of facing the wrong end of a gun is extremely low. But imagining the situation - what good would a gun in that situation do?

From my point of view you Americans are extraordinarily scared of being threatened with a gun. This is understandable, but it leads to the strange conclusion that having a gun on your own would prevent you from being threatened with a gun. How is that supposed to work? What are you going to do if someone points a gun at you? It doesn't matter whether you have a gun of your own in that situation, you're just as helpless as you were without a gun.
Or the situation at Virginia Tech yesterday. What difference would a couple of armed students have made? Those who wouldn't have been too scared of the chaotic situation would have run around, guns drawn - and not having the slightest idea who of all those armed person the bad guy was. Again I'm imagining the situation, running around the camus, my gun drawn, nowing s**t about the situation. Upon spotting some other person with a gun, what would have been my options? Asking him/her, whether he/she was the bad guy? hilarious, if he /she was, he would have shoot me halfway through my question. No, I think it would even have increased the death toll, as those armed heroes would have killed each other by mistake/accident.

I'd say that carrying a gun even increases your chances of becoming a victim.

I'm sorry, but to be quite frank, that is some stupid logic. I mean, why have nuclear weapons? Same question pretty much.

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by Skybird

This guy offers some interesting perspective and cleans some myths.

He is whacked too in my opinion. His logic and reasoning on those 30 statements show a complete lack of logic wisdom and intelligence. Sad.

-S

[Ostfriese]

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

I'm sorry, but to be quite frank, that is some stupid logic. I mean, why have nuclear weapons? Same question pretty much.

We're talking about guns, one person against another person, each seeing each other. Not about weapons of mass dstruction.

So, if you don't mind, answer my question. Properly, please.

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by Ostfriese

We're talking about guns, one person agains another person, each seeing each other. Not about weapons of mass dstruction.

So, if you don't mind, answer my question. Properly, please.

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.

[Ostfriese]

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.

There is a serious mistake in your considerations. Armies and weapons of mass destructions result in fear, which itselfs may result in backing down (look at the US and North Korea). But this is not the case with guns, is the exact opposite. Your owning of a gun does NOT (repeat: does NOT) deter criminals of commiting crimes against you. It just increases the chance that you become not just a victim of robbery, but of murder.
Neither one nor a hundred armed students at Virginia Tech would have deterred that madman from his killing rampage.
The only 'response' you can make this way is setting an exclamation point that will just further provoke others .

[Kapitan_Phillips]

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

He is whacked too in my opinion. His logic and reasoning on those 30 statements show a complete lack of logic wisdom and intelligence. Sad.

-S

It is a bitterly sarcastic summary, or conclusions from the main texts as I had linked them. If you want to deal with him, pick the main texts, not the 30 items on that list. His arguments and references to lawsuits have more substance than yours.