Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 74
  1. #41
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Chicago IL
    Posts
    1,241
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011

    I agree with Squatch. Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, and Marines all swear an oath to the Constitution first, before anything. I think if an uprising occurred, where the government was genuinely out of line... I don't think the military would turn it's guns on civilians.
    Witty puns...

  2. #42
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    9,174
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011

    Quote Originally Posted by DEVILPUP
    I think if an uprising occurred, where the government was genuinely out of line... I don't think the military would turn it's guns on civilians.
    The major problem being that even if the gov is "genuinely" out of line, it may not be clearly out of line. In other words, the gov uses "emergencies" to do what it never could otherwise..
    What is that saying
    "never let an emergency go to waist".
    Anyway, during Katrina they confiscated the guns of the civilians out right. In the face of it, what is a civilian to do? They raided houses like it was a drug bust, all of a sudden your a civilian and you have armed to the teeth police officers breaking into your house to take your gun (not arrest you).. maybe "relocate" you.
    So it was that when the police chief said "no citizen will have guns in N.O."... the police blindly followed. now everything was "o.k. in that the gov was brought to court by the NRA, and was found guilty of unconst actions..... but what about next time when there is no guarantee that there will be a trial after the fact?

    Can you imagine what the gov would have done if the law abiding people, gathered and "arrested" the police.. or "relieved them of duty by force". Because of the say "fog of war" going on, on the outside it would have appeared that the city had gone even more rogue than just looting. Rather than a rebellion though, it would be people taking the only action they could against a gov that was violating the const powers given to them by the people.

    Anyway, just an example of how "clarity" isn't always there even when the gov is acting genuinely out of line. P.S. there are plenty of stories of the military shooting civilians in New Orleans during Katrina... true/false/rumor.. maybe I don't know, but they are there. I just wish I could be as confident as you are that the military would never, ever fire on civilians.
    To serve man.

  3. #43
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,752
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Anyway, during Katrina they confiscated the guns of the civilians out right. In the face of it, what is a civilian to do? They raided houses like it was a drug bust, all of a sudden your a civilian and you have armed to the teeth police officers breaking into your house to take your gun (not arrest you).. maybe "relocate" you.
    So it was that when the police chief said "no citizen will have guns in N.O."... the police blindly followed. now everything was "o.k. in that the gov was brought to court by the NRA, and was found guilty of unconst actions..... but what about next time when there is no guarantee that there will be a trial after the fact?
    True enough, but remember the military point blank refused to either a) cooperate with those collection or b) allow police officers military personnel were escorting to do it. And these were military personnel who had just gotten back from Iraq so weapons confiscation was old hand to them.

    The military killing civilians story from Katrina was (imo) mostly the police covering themselves. My sister brigade was deployed (along with my roommate) to Katrina within 24 hours of the hurricane. Plenty of them reported the police officers they were escorting mysteriously disappearing and a dead body being found later or an escalation of force incident happening quite often when the police officer had wandered out of view. I think Katrina was an excuse for the police to kill some people they didn't like.

    I should also add that the Cav brigade (I'm not sure about the 82nd's guys) wasn't issued ammo while it was in New Orleans, so escalation of force incidents would have been difficult. Now I bet some soldiers smuggled some ammo in there (we had been back from Iraq for like two weeks at that point), but shooting someone in a not super clear situation would have been risky even for joe.
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  4. #44
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Pray for our troops
    Posts
    5,340
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011...

    Quote Originally Posted by SgtPeppers View Post
    People always say the second amendment provides a constitutional right to own a gun, and quite simply it does not guarantee that right without an important contingency.

    The full amendment says (I have made a point of memorizing it): A well regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms call not be infringed.

    Did you notice the first 13 words? They provide a contingency on the right to bear arms that it applies because a free state requires a well regulated militia. That was in the days prior to a proper US army existing. A well armed militia is no longer necessary, and the right to bear arms is contingent upon it being so.
    Why is it Liberals only like the idea of the U.S. Supreme Court, and the pricnipal of judicial review when they like the rulings the USSC issues?

    "Militia" as defined by the USSC and U.S. Code is:

    http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/311

    “a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
    (b) The classes of the militia are—
    (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
    (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.”


    ---------- Post added at 12:51 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:42 PM ----------

    The U.S. military has been used against civilians in the U.S. numerous times in U.S. history. A recent example is Waco, where U.S. soldiers were driving the U.S. Army tanks and Armored Personnel Carriers used by the BATFE there.

    ---------- Post added at 12:52 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:51 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by DevilPup John View Post
    I agree with Squatch. Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, and Marines all swear an oath to the Constitution first, before anything. I think if an uprising occurred, where the government was genuinely out of line... I don't think the military would turn it's guns on civilians.
    see above...
    "I've noticed that everyone who is for abortion has already been born" -- Ronald Reagan

    How can a moral wrong be a Civil Right?

  5. #45
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Chicago IL
    Posts
    1,241
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    The major problem being that even if the gov is "genuinely" out of line, it may not be clearly out of line. In other words, the gov uses "emergencies" to do what it never could otherwise..
    What is that saying
    "never let an emergency go to waist".
    Anyway, during Katrina they confiscated the guns of the civilians out right. In the face of it, what is a civilian to do? They raided houses like it was a drug bust, all of a sudden your a civilian and you have armed to the teeth police officers breaking into your house to take your gun (not arrest you).. maybe "relocate" you.
    So it was that when the police chief said "no citizen will have guns in N.O."... the police blindly followed. now everything was "o.k. in that the gov was brought to court by the NRA, and was found guilty of unconst actions..... but what about next time when there is no guarantee that there will be a trial after the fact?

    Can you imagine what the gov would have done if the law abiding people, gathered and "arrested" the police.. or "relieved them of duty by force". Because of the say "fog of war" going on, on the outside it would have appeared that the city had gone even more rogue than just looting. Rather than a rebellion though, it would be people taking the only action they could against a gov that was violating the const powers given to them by the people.

    Anyway, just an example of how "clarity" isn't always there even when the gov is acting genuinely out of line. P.S. there are plenty of stories of the military shooting civilians in New Orleans during Katrina... true/false/rumor.. maybe I don't know, but they are there. I just wish I could be as confident as you are that the military would never, ever fire on civilians.
    A fair point to make, and one many people fear. I can't deny that.
    Witty puns...

  6. #46
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    689
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011...

    Quote Originally Posted by JohnAdams View Post
    I will not carry a gun.... I'll carry your books, I'll carry a torch, I'll carry a tune, I'll carry on, carry over, carry forward, Cary Grant, cash and carry, carry me back to Old Virginia, I'll even hari-kari if you show me how, but I will not carry a gun! ~Hawkeye, "Officer of the Day," original airdate 24 September 1974, written by Laurence Marks, directed by Hy Averback

    I concur with the gentleman from Maine.


    Guns are for killing and I don't like killing. Screw the 2nd amendment and screw America. Any country where I can get shot simply for looking threatning, and the shooter can get away with it, is nowhere I want to live. I will be celebrating the Day Without Hate from a safe distance, as to not piss any Republicans off.
    You better not drive a car either. So many people die from car accidents each year.

    Your thought process is backward.

    You could get stabbed for the wrong look too.

    Guns are used to thwart crime, injury and murder millions of times a year.

    Don't let one killing (justified or not) skew your judgment.

    ---------- Post added at 05:02 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:00 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by JohnAdams View Post
    I'm on a phone right now, so I apologize if my response is slightly crude.
    First I want everyone to realize that it is possible to resist and fight without using violence. Second, when your freedom gets in the way of my freedom then we have a problem, I along with everyone else is entitled to life and it is and always shall be illegal and immoral to take the life of another no matter the circumstances.

    Guns kill, that is the main purpose of the tool. Without guns we would fight with sticks and stones and maybe even, god forbid, words or the lack of words.

    I can't feel sympathy for someone who own a tool designed for murder.
    A gun is also a tool that is used to prevent crime.

    ---------- Post added at 05:12 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:02 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by SgtPeppers View Post
    People always say the second amendment provides a constitutional right to own a gun, and quite simply it does not guarantee that right without an important contingency.

    The full amendment says (I have made a point of memorizing it): A well regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms call not be infringed.

    Did you notice the first 13 words? They provide a contingency on the right to bear arms that it applies because a free state requires a well regulated militia. That was in the days prior to a proper US army existing. A well armed militia is no longer necessary, and the right to bear arms is contingent upon it being so. This is not to account for the fact that when they said "arms", they were talking about muskets that take 14 seconds to load and fire. I doubt they could comprehend the idea of an M-16 with a mounted grenade launcher and armour piercing rounds. Jefferson himself said that he thought that with changing societies, the constitution would need to be rewritten every generation to keep pace.[COLOR="Silver"]
    A militia consists of The People. The term "well-regulated" does not refer to government regulations.

    ---------- Post added at 05:16 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:12 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by kevin View Post
    I think that radicals on the far right are very interested in destroying the way our society works. They want a wild west social darwinism. A dog eat dog near state of nature. Where the weak suffer and die, an the strong prosper. A country where if I don't want that girl scout on my porch begging for money I can shoot her. Where six year olds can be forced to work 12 hour days in factories. Where if you hate a homosexual you are protected by religion and can hate with near impunity. They want a country with no public school, no public hospitals, no social security. A place where the greedy desires of the individual may be indulged to the hearts desire.
    Where do you come up with this BS when discussing the National Reciprocity Act? What's the correlation?
    In God We Trust
    Support Our Troops!

  7. #47
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    9,174
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011

    Quote Originally Posted by SQUATCH
    True enough, but remember the military point blank refused to either a) cooperate with those collection or b) allow police officers military personnel were escorting to do it. And these were military personnel who had just gotten back from Iraq so weapons confiscation was old hand to them.

    The military killing civilians story from Katrina was (imo) mostly the police covering themselves. My sister brigade was deployed (along with my roommate) to Katrina within 24 hours of the hurricane. Plenty of them reported the police officers they were escorting mysteriously disappearing and a dead body being found later or an escalation of force incident happening quite often when the police officer had wandered out of view. I think Katrina was an excuse for the police to kill some people they didn't like.

    I should also add that the Cav brigade (I'm not sure about the 82nd's guys) wasn't issued ammo while it was in New Orleans, so escalation of force incidents would have been difficult. Now I bet some soldiers smuggled some ammo in there (we had been back from Iraq for like two weeks at that point), but shooting someone in a not super clear situation would have been risky even for joe.
    Well, that certainly helps my opinion a lot.
    It is just very easy to see all gov employees as equal, or at least equally susceptible to doing wrong or "just following orders". It is true the police have a much worse track record around here, and unfortunately the "covering their butts" point ring very true especially with the Danzenger bridge incident (where police killed unarmed citizens and then covered it up, now convicted) As a side note, the guy who fired his gun but didn't hit anyone got over 30+ years, while the man who was the head in covering it up got only 6.
    To serve man.

  8. #48
    Banned Indefinitely

    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    The People's Republic of Wyoming (also known as Dick's Head)
    Posts
    151
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011...

    Quote Originally Posted by onalandline View Post
    You better not drive a car either. So many people die from car accidents each year.
    Dude, i dont drive......

    Your thought process is backward.

    You could get stabbed for the wrong look too.

    Guns are used to thwart crime, injury and murder millions of times a year.
    They also cause many, many more deaths than lives......
    Don't let one killing (justified or not) skew your judgment.
    One Killing!?!?!?!?! What about all of gun related deaths that have ever happened. School Shootings happen because of the easy access to guns. Im not letting a single killing skew my judgement, I am letting hundreds and thousands of killings skew my judgement.





    A gun is also a tool that is used to prevent crime.
    I dont doubt that to some degree, but in the UK most cops dont even carry guns and the crime rate is much lower there.


    In Jesus we trust............ Love Your Enemies........

  9. #49
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Chicago IL
    Posts
    1,241
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011

    Will you be responding to Squatch's challenge, or mine, or both, or neither?

    Do you have any support to show that the UK is less violent than the US?
    Witty puns...

  10. #50
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,752
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011

    Quote Originally Posted by JohnAdams View Post
    Dude, i dont drive......
    Do you swim in pools? They kill far more children every year than guns do.

    Quote Originally Posted by JA
    They also cause many, many more deaths than lives......
    Whoaa there, Challenge to support a claim. This sentence is going to need support because I am 100% sure it is wrong. Guns are used far more often to prevent violent crimes than to initiate them.

    Quote Originally Posted by JA
    One Killing!?!?!?!?! What about all of gun related deaths that have ever happened. School Shootings happen because of the easy access to guns. Im not letting a single killing skew my judgement, I am letting hundreds and thousands of killings skew my judgement.
    I think you are falling for a confirmation bias here. What about all the killings that were done with spears for tens of thousands of years, should they too be banned?
    More relevantly, what about all the killing, raping, stealing and slavery that has been prevented by guns?

    Quote Originally Posted by JA
    I dont doubt that to some degree, but in the UK most cops dont even carry guns and the crime rate is much lower there.
    Also, lets get some support here Challenge to support a claim.. Also we should note that UK home break-ins are far more likely to occur when the home owner is home than in the US. They are also far more likely to end violently.
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  11. #51
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    689
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011...

    Quote Originally Posted by JohnAdams View Post
    Dude, i dont drive......

    They also cause many, many more deaths than lives......
    One Killing!?!?!?!?! What about all of gun related deaths that have ever happened. School Shootings happen because of the easy access to guns. Im not letting a single killing skew my judgement, I am letting hundreds and thousands of killings skew my judgement.





    I dont doubt that to some degree, but in the UK most cops dont even carry guns and the crime rate is much lower there.


    In Jesus we trust............ Love Your Enemies........
    Guns aren't the problem. People would just kill with other weapons. We need to focus on prosecution. Most cops in the UK do indeed carry guns.
    In God We Trust
    Support Our Troops!

  12. #52
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    129
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011...

    I'm personally a "state's rights" kinda guy and I think this is clearly a violation of those rights... However, the recent events of rational, law abiding (when cognizant of the law) citizens being prosecuted as if they are hardened criminals simply because they were unaware of the lack of reciprocity agreements between their home state and another really illustrates the need for our legal system to re-evaluate the abandonment of the concept of "mens rea". Mens Rea is a latin term meaning "guilty mind". Despite popular belief that "ignorance of the law is no excuse", the courts have indeed upheld that ignorance IS sometimes an excuse, or at least a mitigating element.

    State v. Godwin - "reasonable compliance upon an official statement of law, afterward determined to be invalid or erroneous" does not constitute a criminal act.

  13. #53
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    689
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011...

    Quote Originally Posted by WingNut View Post
    I'm personally a "state's rights" kinda guy and I think this is clearly a violation of those rights... However, the recent events of rational, law abiding (when cognizant of the law) citizens being prosecuted as if they are hardened criminals simply because they were unaware of the lack of reciprocity agreements between their home state and another really illustrates the need for our legal system to re-evaluate the abandonment of the concept of "mens rea". Mens Rea is a latin term meaning "guilty mind". Despite popular belief that "ignorance of the law is no excuse", the courts have indeed upheld that ignorance IS sometimes an excuse, or at least a mitigating element.

    State v. Godwin - "reasonable compliance upon an official statement of law, afterward determined to be invalid or erroneous" does not constitute a criminal act.
    This bill does not affect any State law that is Constitutional and/or messes with the Bill of Rights. I had States' rights concerns too, but if a State restricts the ability to defend yourself with a gun, then that State is messing with the Constitution.
    In God We Trust
    Support Our Troops!

  14. #54
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Chicago IL
    Posts
    1,241
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011...

    Quote Originally Posted by WingNut View Post
    I'm personally a "state's rights" kinda guy and I think this is clearly a violation of those rights... However, the recent events of rational, law abiding (when cognizant of the law) citizens being prosecuted as if they are hardened criminals simply because they were unaware of the lack of reciprocity agreements between their home state and another really illustrates the need for our legal system to re-evaluate the abandonment of the concept of "mens rea". Mens Rea is a latin term meaning "guilty mind". Despite popular belief that "ignorance of the law is no excuse", the courts have indeed upheld that ignorance IS sometimes an excuse, or at least a mitigating element.

    State v. Godwin - "reasonable compliance upon an official statement of law, afterward determined to be invalid or erroneous" does not constitute a criminal act.
    As stated above, this bill would only require states that already allow carry to recognize another states license. Much like your drivers license in say, Illinois, is recognized in Indiana, or Michigan, etc.

    An Indiana license would be recognized in every state that allows carry (I believe Illinois is the only one that doesn't). So those states that do not allow carry would not be affected.
    Witty puns...

  15. #55
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    129
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011...

    Quote Originally Posted by DevilPup John View Post
    As stated above, this bill would only require states that already allow carry to recognize another states license. Much like your drivers license in say, Illinois, is recognized in Indiana, or Michigan, etc.

    An Indiana license would be recognized in every state that allows carry (I believe Illinois is the only one that doesn't). So those states that do not allow carry would not be affected.
    The requirements for concealed carry permits and the circumstances under which they are issued differ immensely from state to state. There is no enumerated power within the constitution that would allow the federal government to issue a directive by way of legislation that requires individual states to recognize concealed carry laws of other states.

    In some states concealed carry permits are as simple as a driver's license. In others the individual must show justification for the permit (i.e. working private security). If a state endeavors to protect it's citizens by setting high standards and strict training requirements for concealed carry permits, what right does the federal government have to negate those requirements by forcing the state to honor permits from states that issue permits to virtually anyone who can legally possess a handgun, and with no training requirements?

  16. #56
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,752
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011...

    Quote Originally Posted by WingNut View Post
    The requirements for concealed carry permits and the circumstances under which they are issued differ immensely from state to state. There is no enumerated power within the constitution that would allow the federal government to issue a directive by way of legislation that requires individual states to recognize concealed carry laws of other states.
    Would it be within their power then to simply overrule all local rules on gun ownership and carry? The 2nd amendment is pretty broad in its application here, especially given Court purview on it in the past.
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  17. #57
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Chicago IL
    Posts
    1,241
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011...

    What Squatch said. Stop beating me to stuff dude... You're too quick!
    Witty puns...

  18. #58
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Ontario
    Posts
    277
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Do you swim in pools? They kill far more children every year than guns do.

    Whoaa there, This sentence is going to need support because I am 100% sure it is wrong. Guns are used far more often to prevent violent crimes than to initiate them.
    I very much doubt that, unless you are counting the police arresting the perpetrators using guns. The facts are that the leading cause of death for black men under 30 is homicide and way to many of those deaths are being caused by guns. It would do far more good to disarm both sides. Actually forget disarming, is everyone here agreed that there is no reasonable purpose for someone to be able to buy a compact semi-automatic with armour piercing bullets? If not, do you at least agree we should have physiological evaluations and background checks so we don't have psychopaths and know criminals buying a f***ing automatic pistol without anyone raising an eyebrow?

  19. #59
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    689
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011

    Quote Originally Posted by SgtPeppers View Post
    I very much doubt that, unless you are counting the police arresting the perpetrators using guns. The facts are that the leading cause of death for black men under 30 is homicide and way to many of those deaths are being caused by guns. It would do far more good to disarm both sides. Actually forget disarming, is everyone here agreed that there is no reasonable purpose for someone to be able to buy a compact semi-automatic with armour piercing bullets? If not, do you at least agree we should have physiological evaluations and background checks so we don't have psychopaths and know criminals buying a f***ing automatic pistol without anyone raising an eyebrow?
    There is already a system of background checks in place.

    Don't forget about all the times guns are used to thwart crime.
    In God We Trust
    Support Our Troops!

  20. #60
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,752
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011

    Quote Originally Posted by SgtPeppers View Post
    I very much doubt that, unless you are counting the police arresting the perpetrators using guns.
    I think you've been in public school too long. The numbers aren't even close.

    In 2008 there were 10,886 murders involving firearms.

    Counter that with 162,000 incidents in which it was determined that someone would "almost certainly would have been killed [if they] had not used a gun for protection." Its important to note that this number does not include "professional security" including security guard, police and federal officials.

    "Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun." By Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, Fall 1995.

    Lets expand the principle beyond just murders.

    From the DOJ: roughly 436,000 violent crimes (about 8% of total) committed with a gun in the United States during 2008. In that category we can include rapes, murders, sexual assault and aggravated assault or aggravated robbery.

    In the Journal of Quantitative Criminology, we find that U.S. civilians use guns to defend themselves from crime at least 989,883 times per year.


    I think even more damningly, lets hear the word from the horse's mouth:

    Felons were surveyed about their experience with firearms,

    34% had been "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim"
    40% had decided not to commit a crime because they "knew or believed that the victim was carrying a gun"
    69% personally knew other criminals who had been "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim"

    Armed and Considered Dangerous: A Survey of Felons and Their Firearms (Expanded Edition). By James D. Wright and Peter D. Rossi. Aldine De Gruyter, 1986 (Expanded edition published in 1994).


    Quote Originally Posted by SGTPeppers
    It would do far more good to disarm both sides.
    Under what logical assumption? The most violent internal incidents in world history in the last 150 years were in nations with strict gun control laws. It should be noted that Rwanda has the fasted death rate of any genocide in known history and it was largely a guneless country.
    Importantly, what data do you have at all that shows that nations with less firearms are relatively more peaceful? Anything?

    Quote Originally Posted by SGTPeppers
    Actually forget disarming, is everyone here agreed that there is no reasonable purpose for someone to be able to buy a compact semi-automatic with armour piercing bullets? If not, do you at least agree we should have physiological evaluations and background checks so we don't have psychopaths and know criminals buying a f***ing automatic pistol without anyone raising an eyebrow?
    You are shifting the burden of proof, it is not my requirement to show why I should be able to purchase a gun, its the government's burden to show why I shouldn't.

    As to your specific question, the answer to both are no.

    1) Why should that particular weapon be banned? Few homicides are committed by assault rifles, or weapons with armor piercing bullets, why ban them?

    2) Do you really trust the government to regulate such evaluations? How long before espousing conservative opinions is considered mentally deficient? Or more likely, given the demographic data of this country, what happens if Christian fundamentalists come to power (and there are a lot more of them then of you), and regulate that atheistic views are mentally unstable given the proclivity towards violence that atheistic nations have had during the 20th century? Ignore the fact that you don't agree with the argument, it doesn't have to be valid for the government to impose it.
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


 

 
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Men should look and act masculine, women should look and act feminine!!!
    By TheSparrow in forum Shootin' the Breeze / Off-Topic
    Replies: 47
    Last Post: August 1st, 2012, 09:30 AM
  2. Open Carry
    By invictus33 in forum Social Issues
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: October 18th, 2008, 02:08 PM
  3. How many credit cards do you carry?
    By Zenstone in forum ODN Polls
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: July 11th, 2006, 03:10 AM
  4. Concealed carry, vigilantism?
    By CC in forum General Debate
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: November 16th, 2005, 09:17 AM
  5. Universal National Service Act of 2003
    By KneeLess in forum Politics
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: May 3rd, 2004, 05:38 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •