Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[The Riddler]

To all of the above bashing:

Explaining to you how you're wrong isn't bashing you. Don't take it personally. Everyone who is wrong has to be told so at some point.

I'm telling you you already ARE living in a police state mostly, American citizens are stripped of any rights under many of the mentioned acts, which all happened while u were proudly thumping your right to bear arms. That's why I find the notion that you need the 2nd amendment and weapons to protect your rights laughable.

To what specifically are you referring? We're stripped of 'any rights'? What does that mean? I can point to the Bill of Rights and find 10 rights I'm not stripped of right there. And so you fight the fact that people want to defend even the most basic of their ennumarated rights in the Constitution laughable. That's why you are wrong and should be ignored.

My cheek? I am in fact an American citizen and have grown up with American media.

But you don't live here, look down your nose at the Constitution, and tell us we shouldn't bother defending our enumerated rights. Sounds pretty cheeky to me.

Oh and I find it funny that having a black Democrat as president is now (quietly, on the side) mentioned as a reason for having to own guns.

This shows you entering a realm of political goofballery and nonsense that is a red-flag that you get all your news either from MSNBC, Daily Kos, DU, or some other leftist idea shill factory. No one is either saying or actually buying guns because Obama is black. They're buying guns because Obama, Fiensteien, and other Democrat lunkheads are openly saying they want to ban guns and/or start dismantling the 2nd Amendment right. Doesn't matter that one of them is a half-insane white woman, and the other is a Machiavellian black man. Those are the labels that Democrats and Leftists obsess over. Not normal people.

[Deadvolcanoes]

Constitutionally, it's the primary reason.

Outside of that, it would seem nuts to maintain a firearm for that reason in any time other than when it was needed.

Basically, (and I don't own one, but if I did), these would be my arguments:

1) I want to be able (within reason) to defend my rights against all comers, be they intruders, a foreign power, or my own government.

2) From my childhood, I know that I enjoy shooting sports, whether it is hunting(for food), target shooting, plinking, etc.

I know everyone tries to marginalize people as anti-government crazies- and in many cases that is valid. In many other cases, though, people such as myself are strong enough in ourselves to know that there are differences between 'legal' and 'moral', and that the government being strong doesn't mean the government is right. I hope we never reach that point in my lifetime, or in my family's lifetime. That said, if we one day are in the situation Syria is in now, I will fight.

You can call me crazy, but we have had countless generations of people that think the same way. That thinking has seen this nation through its' darkest times. 300 years ago, there were people that thought the same way, and I'm glad for them, too. I'm glad they had the faith and the courage to stand up when being called crazy was the least of their worries. I hope to never be called in that manner. Violence, to me, should always be a last resort, and a mournful one at that.

Constitutionally, yes, but hunting was also a major reason for owning a firearm. Back then, if you or those close to you didn't hunt, you didn't eat.

As for the "protect against government" argument: I can't think of a single way, or a single reason, for which our government would want to become hostile towards its citizens. I mean we the people are the government, by definition. In this modern day democracy, with things like the internet, facebook, an independent media, the UN, NATO, etc...I just don't see how its possible, and therefore I think its a bad argument.

[miffy23]

Explaining to you how you're wrong isn't bashing you. Don't take it personally. Everyone who is wrong has to be told so at some point.



To what specifically are you referring? We're stripped of 'any rights'? What does that mean? I can point to the Bill of Rights and find 10 rights I'm not stripped of right there. And so you fight the fact that people want to defend even the most basic of their ennumarated rights in the Constitution laughable. That's why you are wrong and should be ignored.



But you don't live here, look down your nose at the Constitution, and tell us we shouldn't bother defending our enumerated rights. Sounds pretty cheeky to me.



This shows you entering a realm of political goofballery and nonsense that is a red-flag that you get all your news either from MSNBC, Daily Kos, DU, or some other leftist idea shill factory. No one is either saying or actually buying guns because Obama is black. They're buying guns because Obama, Fiensteien, and other Democrat lunkheads are openly saying they want to ban guns and/or start dismantling the 2nd Amendment right. Doesn't matter that one of them is a half-insane white woman, and the other is a Machiavellian black man. Those are the labels that Democrats and Leftists obsess over. Not normal people.

I cannot decide if you're a troll or just unbelievably ignorant and living in a dream world of your own.

First of all, noone can claim to be "right" or "wrong" here, it is a discussion of opinions. The fact that you feel so entitled only your own could possibly be "right" and beyond criticism unveils your ignorance. Oh don't worry i'm not taking any of this personally. I'm not the one lashing out defensively.

If you actually read through some of the "emergency legislation" such as Patriot Act and the likes, you would find that no American citizen has any rights whatsoever if SUSPECTED of terrorist activities. No trial, jury, phone call, etc etc. Just read some of the laws that are actually passed and you'll find fascinating details that may shock you.

The right to bear a personal firearm is not one of your most "basic rights", it is up for debate since the reason for that amendment is doubtful nowadays at best, as the past decades of horrifying shootings, home tragedies and crime have illustrated clearly. Your most basic right would be freedom of speech for example, which you clearly seem to think does not apply to people of differing opinions.

I in no way look down my nose at the constitution, i actually take a sharp look at what legislation we live under since critical thinking and voicing your opinion is any entitled citizens right and yes, even duty. It is a lamentable American novelty to be insulted by any outside intelligence discussing theoretical ideas and current practises.

I in fact do not follow any American news media at all, for if u followed actual independent news coverage from other countries (the kind that does not have a major media corporation with it's own political agendas behind it), then u are more likely to find just the facts and be able to form your own opinions, whereas both sides of American media lobbies tend to give it not just their own spin, but outright report flat out lies as facts. And please look up what Machiavelli actually proposed before calling someone by his name derogatively, this is just like American conservatives not understanding what "socialism" or "national socialism" for that matter actually mean...

[bergmann620]

1) You defend your rights by voting for the party that represents your opinion in a democracy, by striking, by protesting and raising your voice and discussing, NOT by shooting an offender in the face. This reasoning is based on people in the 1800's having a lot of other concerns than what pizza to order or which channel to watch (this applies to all of the Western world, myself included). Which is why it is outdated and irrelevant.

That is how I defend my rights. The only time I would shoot an 'offender' in the face is if there was no remaining recourse in a situation where my life or my family's (or a stranger's on the street, for that matter) life was in danger. And, while it's not the 1800's, in bad parts of Chicago, or Baltimore, or hell, Akron, it might as well be.

2) Your hobby is your own, and if your sports firearms are kept at the range, or you are actually a licensed hunter in a hunting ground, i see no issue with that. The issue with people claiming to ahve to own personal firearms in their homes and in their private property. The justification for that is wobbly at best.

I find it humorous at best, chilling at worst, how the progressive mind always seeks to give me permission to conduct my life, or to 'protect' me, as if they alone have the only true insight into what's best for me or my community. Perhaps I wouldn't be so quick to defend my rights if you weren't so quick to point out which ones you don't think I need or deserve?

And countless of generations thought that way, yet never did a flash mob pick up arms and force their way into the Senate to stop such jaw-dropping legislature like the Patriot Act. Ameria was "seen through it's darkest days" by freedom of speech, exchange of ideas and forming consensus for the benefit of all, which has sadly turned into bashing of a differing opinion and sitting at home scared.

I fought, and continue to fight, through civil channels, against the Patriot Act, NDAA, drone strikes in non-warzones, marriage equality, gun rights, and every other issue that is important to me. We only won freedom of speech by picking up arms in the first place. Slaves didn't win their freedom through exchange of ideas. The Syrian government gives fuck-all about forming consensus.

As I said to you several pages ago- you are free to have an opinion, but if you bring it to a public forum, expect it to be contested, and vigorously.

My opinion is that freedom is best in most cases, and that to take away freedom, the state is burdened with proving why it is necessary.

Your opinion seems to amount to the idea that people in a country you don't live in shouldn't be allowed to personally possess firearms.

Your opinion carries a burden of proof that mine does not. Have you given any?

[miffy23]

I did not seek to give you permission in any way. You fail to see however, that the topic at hand is that of GUNS, and why there are so many mass shootings and gun-related incidents in the US, which led to the proposed ban etc. THAT is why people are questioning the relevance of having the right to own a gun privately, no other reason. It's about preventing more bloodshed, not impeding on your way of life. Let's say another country had a law in practice that endangered it's own citizend for no readily apparent reason than that it creates cash flow, basically. Wouldn't you wonder about the necessity of such a law?

Btw you're living in the US, not in Syria. Besides the fact that Syria has been a dictatorship for decades, and not a "government suddenly turned on it'S citizens".

I never voiced any kind of unhappiness with having my opinion contested, that's what a forum is there for. It's really mostly Americans that get insulted over simple discussions, since that is the atmosphere that the increasingly hysterical media over there have been spinning for decades now. There is no more culture of discussion sadly.

If you cannot see that the number of guns available and the way in that they are easily obtainable is immediately connected to the number of gun-related incidents, and that having a deadly firearm so readily handy is begging for trouble, i really can't help you.

[vaeevictiss]

If you cannot see that the number of guns available and the way in that they are easily obtainable is immediately connected to the number of gun-related incidents, and that having a deadly firearm so readily handy is begging for trouble, i really can't help you.

not sure how you came to that conclusion. I have about 20 guns in my safe at home and never had a problem with any of them murdering someone by themselves. I can turn that around with proof of armed citizens that have stopped armed criminals and say the readily handy firearm saved lives.

[miffy23]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_...ita_by_country
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datab...hip-world-list
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...te#cite_note-5

As you can see, while the death rate is not nearly as high as say El Salvador or Jamaica, it is miles higher than any other "1st world" country (an offensive and clumsy term, I apologize for using it).

The fact you have 20 guns and no incidents taking place does not prove the availability of guns isn't directly related to gun-related crimes. Just as the fact that firearms prevented tragedies occasionally does not mean they do not cause far more problems than they solve.

[Spoiler]

I cannot decide if you're a troll or just unbelievably ignorant and living in a dream world of your own.

First of all, noone can claim to be "right" or "wrong" here, it is a discussion of opinions. The fact that you feel so entitled only your own could possibly be "right" and beyond criticism unveils your ignorance. Oh don't worry i'm not taking any of this personally. I'm not the one lashing out defensively.

If you actually read through some of the "emergency legislation" such as Patriot Act and the likes, you would find that no American citizen has any rights whatsoever if SUSPECTED of terrorist activities. No trial, jury, phone call, etc etc. Just read some of the laws that are actually passed and you'll find fascinating details that may shock you.

The right to bear a personal firearm is not one of your most "basic rights", it is up for debate since the reason for that amendment is doubtful nowadays at best, as the past decades of horrifying shootings, home tragedies and crime have illustrated clearly. Your most basic right would be freedom of speech for example, which you clearly seem to think does not apply to people of differing opinions.

I in no way look down my nose at the constitution, i actually take a sharp look at what legislation we live under since critical thinking and voicing your opinion is any entitled citizens right and yes, even duty. It is a lamentable American novelty to be insulted by any outside intelligence discussing theoretical ideas and current practises.

I in fact do not follow any American news media at all, for if u followed actual independent news coverage from other countries (the kind that does not have a major media corporation with it's own political agendas behind it), then u are more likely to find just the facts and be able to form your own opinions, whereas both sides of American media lobbies tend to give it not just their own spin, but outright report flat out lies as facts. And please look up what Machiavelli actually proposed before calling someone by his name derogatively, this is just like American conservatives not understanding what "socialism" or "national socialism" for that matter actually mean...

First of all, you make very little sense. One does not have to read far to get a good laugh out of your imminent contradictions, or mere nonsense. We all claim to be right, even in discussions of opinion. The whole purpose of discussing is to become better educated as to what is truly right and wrong, and most the time we will agree to disagree. The notion that one will claim to be wrong is ridiculous.

The US is no where near a police state. Granted, it is closer than it was a decade ago, but added surveillance does not constitute a police state.

The right to bear a personal firearm is a basic right until the law says otherwise. The debate in the US is whether to ban "assault weapons," and worst case all current gun owners will still retain the rights to own their firearms. Your statement that owning a firearm is not a basic right is false, not because I'm claiming to be right, but because the current law claims you wrong.

The bill of rights was drafted by critical thinkers, and many critical thinkers continue to support the 2nd amendment. The fact that you purport to be a critical thinker carry's little effect.

[Deleted]

I can turn that around with proof of armed citizens that have stopped armed criminals and say the readily handy firearm saved lives.

Criminals that were only armed because of the lax legislation and whose only reason for shooting is that law-abiding citizens are threatening their lives by potentially having guns.

---------- Post added 2013-01-05 at 12:30 AM ----------

The bill of rights was drafted by critical thinkers, and many critical thinkers continue to support the 2nd amendment. The fact that you purport to be a critical thinker carry's little effect.

Yeah no, the bill of rights was written by men like you and me. Well, I hope they were smarter than that, but you can find the same kind of person today, on both side of the fence.

[saleitem]

uhhhhhh wtf? they do realize that any full-auto weapon is against the law to own AND any magazine that holds over 30 rounds is too right? how can you ban something that is already against the law to own?

um no there not.... depending on your state you can purchase and own fully automatic weapons with a certain liscense. And 30 round clips and 100 round drums are legal to own and purchase once the weapons ban was not renewed.

[Spoiler]

Yeah no, the bill of rights was written by men like you and me. Well, I hope they were smarter than that, but you can find the same kind of person today, on both side of the fence.

Thanks for supporting my point. Not sure what the "yeah no" was for.

[bergmann620]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_...ita_by_country
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datab...hip-world-list
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...te#cite_note-5

As you can see, while the death rate is not nearly as high as say El Salvador or Jamaica, it is miles higher than any other "1st world" country (an offensive and clumsy term, I apologize for using it).

I see that that stats you offer have very, very little context. They say nothing about in-general violent crime, which is often higher in those other '1st World' countries.

The fact you have 20 guns and no incidents taking place does not prove the availability of guns isn't directly related to gun-related crimes. Just as the fact that firearms prevented tragedies occasionally does not mean they do not cause far more problems than they solve.

The fact that you need to have guns to have gun crime is not in dispute. That said, you have no solid statistical backing to show that guns cause more or less crime than they prevent. A prevented crime is one that will often never be tracked. Further, there is no way to actually measure deterrence rates. I could say that England's 'hot burglary' rate is more than twice that of the U.S., or that they record almost twice as many violent assaults per capita as the U.S.... Alas, I can claim causation no more than you can when you try to draw a line between legally owned firearms and crime.

Further, the U.S. has a higher non-gun homicide rate than many Euro countries have as a total murder rate. Should we be looking to ban other things?

[Deleted]

I see that that stats you offer have very, very little context. They say nothing about in-general violent crime, which is often higher in those other '1st World' countries.

Here, have some more context.
http://www.heuni.fi/Satellite?blobta...pplication/pdf
The problem is, every country has a different way of recording crime. Murder is the one that's the most comparable. The USA does not do well in any regard.

And you've said that we need to provide evidence that there is a need for further legislation. How much do you need ? People are getting killed for no reason, repeatedly for over a decade. At this point it's up to you to provide arguments for why the legislation should not be modified.

[FusedMass]

First of all, you make very little sense. One does not have to read far to get a good laugh out of your imminent contradictions, or mere nonsense. We all claim to be right, even in discussions of opinion. The whole purpose of discussing is to become better educated as to what is truly right and wrong, and most the time we will agree to disagree. The notion that one will claim to be wrong is ridiculous.

The US is no where near a police state. Granted, it is closer than it was a decade ago, but added surveillance does not constitute a police state.

The right to bear a personal firearm is a basic right until the law says otherwise. The debate in the US is whether to ban "assault weapons," and worst case all current gun owners will still retain the rights to own their firearms. Your statement that owning a firearm is not a basic right is false, not because I'm claiming to be right, but because the current law claims you wrong.

The bill of rights was drafted by critical thinkers, and many critical thinkers continue to support the 2nd amendment. The fact that you purport to be a critical thinker carry's little effect.

I suggest when insulting someone in their post. At least provide some feedback in your own. You virtually threw his entire situation out the window but provided no meaningful feedback on what you think personally. Actually since the World Trade Centers were attacked. The budget for national defense has DOUBLE. That is a huge difference.

Second we did not use to use drones in such a large number blowing up other places. Since that attack almost a decade ago a ton of things has changed. Now we dropped some of our personal freedoms in order to feel secure about our self. For example TSA we never had to go through a full body scan at airports. Laws have changed to allow the President to hold a person forever without ever seeing the court.

We did not use to go out and torture people. (At least not so obvious in the media eye) Gitmo for example. I support everyone to have their own feedback but you argued with virtually dropping nothing on the table at all. We have tons of rights in America. Does not mean laws made over two generations ago favor a society currently that we live in.

[miffy23]

Spoiler, u were the one who claimed i was "wrong", go back and read your posts. And simply claiming i'm contradicting myself and pointing the finger laughing does little to illustrate your point, which seems to mostly be...uhm. Well, when i said it's not your basic right i did not mean your bill of rights, but actually the common sense of what every human being is entitled to. Which in most other parts of the world, is just not a firearm. That was my point.

In any case, you do little to argue pro guns and very much to simply slander and throw out random statements about your discussion partner that u later forget you made.

Anywho, i'll join up with Guilu and turn it around. What, then, is the oh-so important justification for the private ownership of deadly weapons, namely firearms. Besides being scared of media-conjured boogeymen and your own government, ofc. Other countries don't have firearms in such abundance, not even by a long shot. Weirdly enough their homicide rates and gun-related crime is far lower too. Hmmm.

[Frozen Death Knight]

Yeah no, the bill of rights was written by men like you and me. Well, I hope they were smarter than that, but you can find the same kind of person today, on both side of the fence.

The 2nd Amendment would have made perfect sense by the time it was written (the history of the U.S. is very much tied to the necessity of citizens using guns). Now, not so much. As the circumstances change, so must the rules be changed, which in this case would be the restriction of guns. It is an issue that needs to be worked at and there is no fast way to solve it (too many guns around), but it needs to be done to improve the current issues the 2nd Amendment create today.

[wilbbailey]

I would like to point out that since the "government" has started talking about an assault weapons ban sales have been nearing record highs. I wonder if this is an intended consequence?

[Deleted]

I would like to point out that since the "government" has started talking about an assault weapons ban sales have been nearing record highs. I wonder if this is an intended consequence?

Let's not tread there.
Democrats being in bed with the gun industry would be the world upside down.

[Spoiler]

Spoiler, u were the one who claimed i was "wrong", go back and read your posts. And simply claiming i'm contradicting myself and pointing the finger laughing does little to illustrate your point, which seems to mostly be...uhm. Well, when i said it's not your basic right i did not mean your bill of rights, but actually the common sense of what every human being is entitled to. Which in most other parts of the world, is just not a firearm. That was my point.

In any case, you do little to argue pro guns and very much to simply slander and throw out random statements about your discussion partner that u later forget you made.

Anywho, i'll join up with Guilu and turn it around. What, then, is the oh-so important justification for the private ownership of deadly weapons, namely firearms. Besides being scared of media-conjured boogeymen and your own government, ofc. Other countries don't have firearms in such abundance, not even by a long shot. Weirdly enough their homicide rates and gun-related crime is far lower too. Hmmm.

In my reply I highlighted where you contradicted yourself.

My post was not to make a pro gun argument, but to discredit your anti-gun argument. I've made one post today, and that was the first time I claimed you "wrong." Not sure what you want me to go back and read? There are plenty of "rights" that we have that do not fall under your "basic rights" category, so I made the assumption you were staying on topic. I do agree, owning a gun should not be on the same level as having food or shelter.

I do own firearms, and own them to hunt with the father-in-law and go target shooting with friends. It's a hobby that I enjoy participating in. I have friends that collect different models of handguns and rifles. It's their hobby. I know few people that simply own a firearm for self defense. However, I believe owning a firearm for self defense is a legitimate reason.

[Seranthor]

The budget for national defense has DOUBLE. That is a huge difference.

FY2000 = $295B
FY2008 = ~485B
FY2011 = $549B

Not double... up 86% since 2000.