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 72
  1. #41
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    hoodsport, wa
    Posts
    86
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The case against arms control

    Quote Originally Posted by FruitandNut View Post
    The video is a very baised work of 'faction' by an interest that is not interested in the wider and more inconvenient truth.
    in other words, someone who does not support your personal world view.
    I am a Brit. AND I am a Brit. who has been an armourer and knows his way around everything from medium artillery down through machine guns and assault rifles and bolt action types to automatic and revolver hand guns. I don't panic or spook easily and I am suspicious of statistics that do not ask or tell the whole story.
    ok, you are a brit. and you have done military service, and you are not afraid of things that go bump. and you are suspicious of statistics. point?

    Firstly all gun crime figures in the UK are even now, per capita, a heck of a lot lower than in the US. Secondly, most gun crime these days is drug related gang on gang 'turf war' stuff - only very occasionally do 'innocent' folks get caught in the cross-hairs. Thirdly, even including stabbings the rates are significantly lower, per capita, than in the States. I have only once heard guns going off in a British street - in Bristol - between armed police and armed 'baddies'. I feel very safe in the UK, thankyou. And yes, I have lived in other countries that have guns more 'freely' available, but prefer places that are not flooded with guns, especially when in the hands of flakey and/or volatile folks - many of whom are not properly trained and disciplined. I am also wary about so much access to firearms when it comes to children and the suicidal.
    as squatch so astutely point out, your crime rates have always been low than ours. the question is whether or not your gun confiscation program has had a posittive effect within you own nation. i live in a relatively rural area of the u.s.. i have never heard shots being fired between cops and baddies in 63 years of living here. innocent folks being caught in crosshairs is extremely rare here as well, but when it happens the media loves to play it up as if it were epidemic. gangland shootings also skew the numbers here. i have heard is said that take away gang related gun deaths and we are pretty much even with the u.k. in overall crime rate. and yes that is a bit of heresay on my part as i have not done the research, but it sounds about right. i have talked at length to several brits who do not share you opinions, so it seems you have similar lines drawn on your side of the pond as far as liberal vs. conservative viewpoints, wht ever you call it there. when it comes to flakey folks with guns, i share your concerned. i find the scariest of these to be the ones wearing badges.

    just a thought: i wonder how much the fact that you can't walk you dog aroung the block without being picked up by a dozen or so surveillance cameras may have to do with your lower crime rates?


    ps. I am glad that I am protected from the 2nd. Amendment over this side of the Pond.
    at least we can agree that we are both glad to have you on that side of the pond.
    i fear the fate of all mankind is in the hands of fools.....
    -king crimson-

  2. #42
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Sheffield, S.Yorks., UK
    Posts
    8,862
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The case against arms control

    Hi, Puma, I take it you are what might be referred to over here as a 'Redneck' - are you a fan of the NRA and its policies - and what kind of an armoury do you have?
    "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." - Anais Nin.
    Emitte lucem et veritatem - Send out light and truth.
    'Fere libenter homines id quod volunt credunt' - Julius Caesar (rough translation, 'Men will think what they want to think')
    Kill my boss? Do I dare live out the American dream? - Homer Simpson.

  3. #43
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,609
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The case against arms control

    Quote Originally Posted by FruitandNut View Post
    Hi, Squatch, hope things are hunky dory with you.
    Same with you, I head the weather is a little bit nasty over there, hope you are staying warm and dry.

    Quote Originally Posted by F&N
    When it comes to the damage guns can and do in the hands of 'we' humans - I ponder this question, I wonder {excluding combat], and pro rata, the ratio between those ODN members who are American and those who are not, who have close friends and family killed or maimed by guns?
    I imagine whatever that figure would be would be much, much too small to make any real valid conclusion on. But I would also be curious to compare it to the number of times a gun has been used to stop a crime, specifically a crime that is likely to result in death. That happens quite often over here as well, though it isn't as talked about since its harder to report on what "might have been."

    I would still point out that there is clearly a cultural factor at work here. Even if we were to take away all guns in both countries and reissue one per person, I think the US would have a higher per capita homicide rate than the UK would. Guns aren't really the causal mechanism here. It is hard to argue they are since murders increased after the ban over there right? Or since gun murders were lower there even when you had laxer gun laws than we did.

    Quote Originally Posted by F&N
    ps. Most Brit 'violent crime' is down to booze or being high on drugs or those in need of an anger management course. Mostly domestics and weekend apres pubs and clubs out times, and mostly fists, heads/nutting, and feet/kicking.
    We seem to have similar statistics, though I think the gang beating of random people is a bit higher over there than here, but probably within the margin of error.
    "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
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Sheffield, S.Yorks., UK
    Posts
    8,862
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The case against arms control

    Oh, I forgot to mention:

    Murder and killing rates in England and Wales are at their lowest level since 1978, figures show.

    The Office for National Statistics confirmed 549 homicides were recorded by police between October 2011 and September 2012 - a fall of 10%.

    The drop is part of an overall trend of falling crime levels both from police figures and the Crime Survey of England and Wales (CSEW).

    Police figures show a 7% fall in overall crime and the CSEW, which is published by the ONS, shows an 8% drop - the lowest level since 1981.

    ps. Squatch - The weather is a little inclement, but everything is relative and we generally don't get anything as bad as the worst the winter throws at parts of the States and Canada. It is set to be the coldest night of the winter here in South Yorkshire tonight, with temps getting down to -6c. I'm staying in the warmth of my bungalow this evening and tonight!
    "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." - Anais Nin.
    Emitte lucem et veritatem - Send out light and truth.
    'Fere libenter homines id quod volunt credunt' - Julius Caesar (rough translation, 'Men will think what they want to think')
    Kill my boss? Do I dare live out the American dream? - Homer Simpson.

  5. #45
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    hoodsport, wa
    Posts
    86
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The case against arms control

    Quote Originally Posted by FruitandNut View Post
    Hi, Puma, I take it you are what might be referred to over here as a 'Redneck' - are you a fan of the NRA and its policies - and what kind of an armoury do you have?
    well, ny grandmather on my mother's side did move out here to washington state from arkansas in the early forties and is rumored to have built the first still on mock-chehalis creek. but that's about it for my redneck pedegree. by the time i was old enough to know him he was just a millworker who kept a fine garden next to his cabin. i am just your average joe who just happens to think it important to try and keep track of the shennanigans of his government. i used to think more highly of the nra; lately they seem a bit waffly. i am more a fan of the bill of rights. and i consider it to be a matter of utmost importance in these times to keep the integrity of these amendments intact.
    oh, and my armoury does not exist. i own no guns nor any type of defacto assault or defense type weaponry.

    f&r, what comes to your mind when someone mentions the crown? or the city?
    Last edited by puma237; January 24th, 2013 at 10:20 PM.
    i fear the fate of all mankind is in the hands of fools.....
    -king crimson-

  6. #46
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    193
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The case against arms control

    I live in Chicago where we have about 600 murders a year. That is one city with more murders than all of Britain. Interesting fact is that gangs do not have guns legally they have black market guns. Unfortunately gun control laws wont help Chicago at all. Before Newtown we actually were going to legalize conceal carry in Chicago. Not sure if that will happen now.

    I also find it amazing how kids die in Chicago almost everyday and you don't see that on the news.

    ---------- Post added at 05:23 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:21 PM ----------

    Appeals court overturns Illinois concealed carry law in gun rights victory
    By Dave McKinney on December 11, 2012 11:21 AM
    http://blogs.suntimes.com/politics/2...d_weapons.html

    Hows that for strange timing??

    ---------- Post added at 06:09 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:23 PM ----------

    You will never hear pro gun control people talk about chicago....

    This is a great article and explains things perfectly

    http://frontpagemag.com/2012/dgreenf...-gang-problem/

  7. Thanks puma237 thanked for this post
  8. #47
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    hoodsport, wa
    Posts
    86
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The case against arms control

    thanks for that link michael, very nice piece. kinda makes it obvious that the constitution is under attack.
    i fear the fate of all mankind is in the hands of fools.....
    -king crimson-

  9. #48
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    The River Styx
    Posts
    53
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The case against arms control

    Quote Originally Posted by wakko View Post
    You're getting the logic backwards. It's not my place as a free man to justify to my government why I should have something. It's their responsibility to adequately justify why I can't. We, the people, have delegated specific powers to our government and so they must show that, within the scope of their powers, is the ability to override our natural rights in this way.
    Gun rights as we all know are granted by the Second Amendment, which reads: "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."
    http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitut...cond_amendment

    All political viewpoints agree with this amendment, the right of the government to maintain an armed militia to protect the nation. But the disagreement has historically been as to whether or not it guarantees the right of all persons to own/use guns any place and at any time. I've seen what a 556 round does to the human body, and in my opinion it has no place in the hands of the general public. I have yet to hear a valid argument for these types of weapons and high capacity mags.

    So now that America is protected by a trained, volunteer military force rather than a civilian militia, is the Second Amendment still valid? Does it exclusively provide for a separate universal right to bear arms?
    Your pain is the breaking of the shell that encloses your understanding.It is the bitter potion by which the physician within you heals your sick self.
    Therefore trust the physician, and drink his remedy in silence and tranquility:

    Kahlil Gibran

  10. #49
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    193
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The case against arms control

    I've seen what a 556 round does to the human body, and in my opinion it has no place in the hands of the general public. I have yet to hear a valid argument for these types of weapons and high capacity mags.
    A baseball bat can do a lot of damage to a body too. Depends on what you classify as high capacity mags doesn't it? Bad guys got high capacity weapons. If someone invades my home I sure as hell dont want to reload after 6 shots.

    I wish nobody had guns honestly but unfortunately many criminals do so I may need the right to bear arms someday especially if our society keeps going down the crapper. I think Im a formidable weapon myself but anyone with a gun can beat me if I dont have one. If bad guys got guns then good guys need guns too.

  11. #50
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    The River Styx
    Posts
    53
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The case against arms control

    Quote Originally Posted by Michael View Post
    A baseball bat can do a lot of damage to a body too.
    I've heard this argument before, and by this logic a steel toed work boot can be used as a weapon.

    Depends on what you classify as high capacity mags doesn't it? Bad guys got high capacity weapons.
    Magazines that hold upwards of 50 to 100 rounds. Here is a link, I want you to take note of the image they are using for people that use these weapons. You have to ask yourself, why not use your "everyday Joe" for the picture?
    http://www.surefire.com/tactical-equ...magazines.html

    If someone invades my home I sure as hell dont want to reload after 6 shots.
    This is a "what if" argument that can't really be answered. I would like to see the stats on invaders that had to be taken down by assault rifles, and compare that to the stats where a hand gun worked just as good.

    I wish nobody had guns honestly but unfortunately many criminals do so I may need the right to bear arms someday especially if our society keeps going down the crapper.
    Can you give me an scenario, and evidence that this scenario will actually happen?

    I think Im a formidable weapon myself but anyone with a gun can beat me if I dont have one.
    I'm sure you've heard that a gun gives people false courage, and some even do things they wouldn't do if they didn't have a gun. Also, a gun is no guarantee that you won't get hurt or killed

    If bad guys got guns then good guys need guns too.
    Kids bring guns to school, are you a proponent of teachers being armed while they are at school? They do have their bad days.

    Teacher Assaults Student in Class
    http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=4a9_1352975501

    An elementary school teacher in Chesapeake, Va. has been charged with simple assault after a parent claimed her daughter’s hand was cut open as a result of the teacher yanking her arm aggressively while trying to teach students an “Islamic hand sign.”
    http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2012...nd-sign-drill/


    Looking at recent events, how about guns in the church or the theater? Many people have your same opinion and this type of society is where that point of view can have use living in.
    Your pain is the breaking of the shell that encloses your understanding.It is the bitter potion by which the physician within you heals your sick self.
    Therefore trust the physician, and drink his remedy in silence and tranquility:

    Kahlil Gibran

  12. #51
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,609
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The case against arms control

    Quote Originally Posted by FruitandNut View Post
    Murder and killing rates in England and Wales are at their lowest level since 1978, figures show.
    Excuse me for saying, but isn't that still higher than it was when the last comprehensive gun regulation was passed?

    The US has seen falling rates as well, I'm not sure that really buoys the gun control argument.

    Quote Originally Posted by F&N
    ps. Squatch - The weather is a little inclement, but everything is relative and we generally don't get anything as bad as the worst the winter throws at parts of the States and Canada. It is set to be the coldest night of the winter here in South Yorkshire tonight, with temps getting down to -6c. I'm staying in the warmth of my bungalow this evening and tonight!
    Once you have to preference the temperature with a - it doesn't really matter anymore. Good to hear you have a well heated place!

    Quote Originally Posted by Seventy View Post
    All political viewpoints agree with this amendment, the right of the government to maintain an armed militia to protect the nation. But the disagreement has historically been as to whether or not it guarantees the right of all persons to own/use guns any place and at any time.
    Given that it is referring to the militia, which is defined as:
    (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.

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Seventy
    I've seen what a 556 round does to the human body, and in my opinion it has no place in the hands of the general public.
    You realize that the 5.56 (or .223) is a "varmint" round right? It was designed to hunt small animals. If you object to the 5.56 round for this reason, what about a 7.62 round?

    Quote Originally Posted by Seventy
    I have yet to hear a valid argument for these types of weapons and high capacity mags.
    Why do police officers have them then? If there are no valid arguments for their use to defend one's self or others, then why do the military and civilian law enforcement agencies regularly carry them?

    As for having not heard the argument, please see this female columnist's review below. (I would add to her defense that the standard "assault rifle" is designed more as a platform, it allows easy and reliable customization of hand grips (both for comfort and being left handed), optics and light sources, all of which are extremely useful in a home defense situation).


    Our goal when defending against a home invader is simple: to hit where we aim. One shouldn’t underestimate the value of target practice, but using an accurate weapon is the key to hitting a target with ease and confidence.

    The AR-15 is lightweight and practical. As light as five pounds, it produces low levels of recoil, and it’s easy to shoot. It also looks intimidating, which is what you want when facing an assailant or intruder. But don’t let its appearance intimidate you. Assault rifles such as the AR-15 aren’t more “dangerous,” as liberals claim. They don’t fire faster than other rifles, and don’t normally contain more powerful ammunition.

    Accuracy? Check. Ease in handling? Check. Intimidation factor? Check. An AR-15 might be a woman’s best friend.

    We are rational women who, as law-abiding citizens, understand the need — and the right — to defend ourselves. We don’t want to be caught underprepared in the kind of desperate situation that happens too frequently to people across America.

    This past week in Georgia, an intruder entered the home of a mother and two children. The mother grabbed her two children and her gun, and proceeded to hide in a crawlspace in the attic. When the intruder entered the attic, the mother fired and hit him with five out of six shots (he still lived).

    Imagining ourselves in a high-stress, violent situation, we want a gun with enough ammo, and more, to get the job done. Sometimes, you only get one shot. At other times, you may need more. When you don’t have time to reload in the heat of a home invasion, the AR-15’s 30-round magazine gives you the flexibility and security a handgun will not.

    High-capacity magazines serve as a life-saving insurance mechanism, a self-defense back-up if something doesn’t go according to plan. Yet you would never think of these guns in this sense by listening to anti-gun zealots and their allies in media.

    Assault rifles and high-capacity magazines have been under fire from our nation’s legislators since the Newtown massacre. It only took Senator Dianne Feinstein two days to announce her intention to reinstate the Clinton-era assault-weapons ban to get “these dangerous weapons of war off our streets.” New York governor Andrew Cuomo took it upon himself to make his state the first to tighten gun laws post-Newtown, proudly outlawing magazines over seven rounds because “no one needs ten bullets to kill a deer.”

    Senator Feinstein and Governor Cuomo: We may not need ten bullets to kill a deer, but we sure need them in our own defense. Criminals rarely use assault rifles. Nearly ten times as many murders are committed with hammers and clubs, and 35 times as many with knives. Does that mean we need to ban those too, Senator Feinstein? Banning assault weapons will only take weapons away from my house — not from criminals on the street.

    Criminals with the intent to harm or kill will always find ways to do so. If they want to kill with an assault rifle or using high-capacity magazines, they will also find a way to do so, regardless of the law. As young, responsible women, we want the ability to defend ourselves against these criminals, and we should be able to do so with weapons of equal or greater power.

    Violence is always going to exist. As women, we should possess the right to best defend ourselves against it, whether with a handgun or our much preferred AR-15. So, Mr. President, use the First Amendment as much as you like to rail against our AR-15s, but hands off our Second Amendment right to use them.


    Quote Originally Posted by Seventy
    So now that America is protected by a trained, volunteer military force rather than a civilian militia, is the Second Amendment still valid? Does it exclusively provide for a separate universal right to bear arms?
    According to SCOTUS and the Framers, yes. The 2nd Amendment was specifically written with the idea that a completely citizen army could be formed, or form itself with all the necessary accoutrements for war (including sabers, horse and cannon). The "militia" at this time was not the Army (ie the Continental Army), nor was it the National Guard (State Militias), it was the vast bulk of armed citizens available to assist these forces.
    "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.


  13. Likes MindTrap028 liked this post
  14. #52
    Owner / Senior Admin

    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    19,394
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The case against arms control

    Another example of how guns SAVE lives...

    Police say a gunman, identified as Jesus Manuel Garcia, chased patrons from the nearby China Garden Restaurant into the lobby of the Santikos Mayan 14 movie theater at around 9 p.m. on Sunday. Garcia, an employee of the restaurant, reportedly walked in the establishment looking for a woman.

    When the woman, also reportedly a restaurant employee, wasn’t there, Garcia pulled out a gun and attempted to open fire in the restaurant but his weapon jammed.

    “It started at the restaurant and then went into the parking lot and then into the movie theater,” Deputy Lou Antu told 1200 WOAI news.

    The commotion sent horrified restaurant patrons into the movie theater lobby, but the gunman followed. He again attempted to open fire, and this time his gun didn’t jam. Garcia reportedly shot one man in the chest before Antu says an off-duty sheriff’s deputy working security the theater shot him, dropping him to the floor.


    http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2012...th-one-bullet/


    For those who do not believe there should be CCW or armed guards in local businesses such as these...how would YOU have stopped this shooter from killing everyone? Ask him nicely not to? Promise to buy him a ticket to the Hobbit? Use the Jedi Mindtrick on him? Or stand in a corner and keep saying to yourself "This isn't happening...this isn't happening"?
    -=]Apokalupsis[=-
    Senior Administrator
    -------------------------

    I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. - Thomas Jefferson




  15. #53
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    hoodsport, wa
    Posts
    86
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The case against arms control

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch
    According to SCOTUS and the Framers, yes. The 2nd Amendment was specifically written with the idea that a completely citizen army could be formed, or form itself with all the necessary accoutrements for war (including sabers, horse and cannon). The "militia" at this time was not the Army (ie the Continental Army), nor was it the National Guard (State Militias), it was the vast bulk of armed citizens available to assist these forces.
    nice post above squatch. just wanna add one small change to the last part here. could better read; .....vast bulk of armed citizens available to assist and/or resist these forces.
    i fear the fate of all mankind is in the hands of fools.....
    -king crimson-

  16. #54
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    The River Styx
    Posts
    53
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The case against arms control

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post

    Why do police officers have them then? If there are no valid arguments for their use to defend one's self or others, then why do the military and civilian law enforcement agencies regularly carry them?
    I was speaking in terms of the general public, and the police have them because of the lessons learned during the North Hollywood shootout in 97.

    "We had trained for terrorists as part of the Olympics, but this was beyond what anyone thought would ever happen," Moore said.

    They had obtained a number of weapons, including automatic rifles and had more than 3,300 rounds of ammunition, many of them armor-piercing bullets.

    Still, the North Hollywood shootout highlighted how officers were unprepared to face off against heavily armed suspects. In the middle of the gunbattle, five officers went to the B&B Gun Shop, which has since closed down, and borrowed weapons and ammunition.
    http://www.dailynews.com/ci_20057928

    I personally don't want a citizen to be better armed than the people that are sworn to protect me.
    Your pain is the breaking of the shell that encloses your understanding.It is the bitter potion by which the physician within you heals your sick self.
    Therefore trust the physician, and drink his remedy in silence and tranquility:

    Kahlil Gibran

  17. #55
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,609
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The case against arms control

    Quote Originally Posted by Seventy View Post
    I was speaking in terms of the general public, and the police have them because of the lessons learned during the North Hollywood shootout in 97.
    That doesn't invalidate the argument at all, it, if anything, supports it. The police found AR-15 variants as extremely useful in defending themselves against armed gunmen. What about me being "not a policeman" now makes that exact weapon not useful in defending myself and others against armed gunman?

    Quote Originally Posted by Seventy

    I personally don't want a citizen to be better armed than the people that are sworn to protect me.
    First, as has been stated on here numerous times, the Police have no obligation to protect you.

    Second, that is a spurious argument (especially given that the weapons they used were illegal at the time and have been so since the mid 1930s). The real argument is do you want a law abiding fellow citizen better armed than the criminal trying to assault or murder you?
    "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.


  18. #56
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    The River Styx
    Posts
    53
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The case against arms control

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    First, as has been stated on here numerous times, the Police have no obligation to protect you.
    You're right,I said sworn duty.

    Police Officers are sworn to protect the life and property of the people. Officers are also sworn to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, not just for some but for all. This is the basic principle of the Constitution and so should it be for our police department.
    http://thecityofwillits.com/city-departments/police/

    We're getting away from the topic so to get back on, let me ask you a question. Is there a limit to the type of gun the public should be allowed to own? For example a 50 cal BMG which does tremendous damage to anything it hits. If your answer is yes, what requirements would you want met for ownership?
    Your pain is the breaking of the shell that encloses your understanding.It is the bitter potion by which the physician within you heals your sick self.
    Therefore trust the physician, and drink his remedy in silence and tranquility:

    Kahlil Gibran

  19. #57
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,609
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The case against arms control

    Quote Originally Posted by Seventy View Post
    You're right,I said sworn duty.
    That oath gives little comfort when it takes them 25 or more minutes to respond to your 911 call.

    Quote Originally Posted by Seventy
    We're getting away from the topic so to get back on, let me ask you a question. Is there a limit to the type of gun the public should be allowed to own? For example a 50 cal BMG which does tremendous damage to anything it hits. If your answer is yes, what requirements would you want met for ownership?
    I'm assuming you mean an M2 .50Cal? Not that it really matter, suffice it to say, a large, automatic rifled weapon right?

    First, let me point out that this is clearly a hypothetical since no one, not the SCOTUS, not the NRA or virtually anyone else is calling for this.

    That said I have very little concern about sales of the M2 outside of what is generally used now under the "Imminent Threat" doctrine. IE felons, those deemed by a court or medical doctor as a threat to themselves and others.

    Having witnessed someone shot with an M2 and having shot someone with a Barret I agree that they do a horrendous amount of damage. But not signficantly more than a 45 at close range. There is only so much dead that you can be.

    What is the concern with citizens purchasing this $10K weapon? Are they going to be able to kill more people in a generally armed society at one time than a shooter with handguns and 30, 10 round mags? Lets remember that a 50Cal isn't exactly concealable, It is large, its ammo is heavy and it is obvious. It isn't something you can carry around a mall shooting people.

    This concern generally comes from a mis-understanding of the role machine guns play. They are not, contrary to popular belief, designed to kill large numbers of people. Machine guns are employed for suppressive effects. IE, I shoot a lot of bullets at you, you have to hide to avoid getting shot and that keeps you from shooting at me or moving away as my buddies flank and assault you at close range.
    "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.


  20. Thanks Michael thanked for this post
  21. #58
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    9,044
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The case against arms control

    Quote Originally Posted by SEVENTY
    Is there a limit to the type of gun the public should be allowed to own?
    No. Because owning them is a right and that right shouldn't be abridged, and is necessary for the protection of liberty namely from tyrannical gov as well as invasion.

    The problem with arguments used to TAKE AWAY and limit those rights, is that they are all based on perceived "need". They will say "you don't need a 50cal. Unfortunately, that is not a valid reason to take away the rights of people. Could we argue to make swear words illegal because you don't "need' to use them in order to express yourself?

    Only arguments based on actual harm should be considered acceptable. There is simply no need to legislate away the right to a 50cal if NO ONE is using them improperly. Or if the number of improper uses doesn't represent a considerable threat to the safety of every American.

    If the 2nd amendment were to have covered Nukes (which i don't think they do) you would have no problem getting 100% (or close to it) gun rights advocates agreeing that we should limit that right. The argument would be a compelling one regarding the danger they pose to our very society.

    The demonetization of guns in general or random components that make them, or the over all look and style based on a statistically insignificant and emotionally charged event is to abandon reason. The political push is not based on fixing a problem, or addressing a social danger. It is rooted in expanding gov, and making more otherwise law abiding citizens criminals (the way gov controls peoples). One the actual application of the restrictions are understood, this become painfully obvious. Like the idea that banning high capacity mags will magically make millions of them already in existence and readily available disappear or stop effecting society.


    I saw where someone said they haven't seen a good argument FOR some guns. That is the wrong approach. I don't have to justify the use of my rights, you must justify taking them away from me. I am innocent until proven guilty.
    To serve man.

  22. #59
    Banned Indefinitely

    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    200
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The case against arms control

    Quote Originally Posted by puma237 View Post
    careful h, you are teetering on the brink awareness now. nice cogent little post for a change.

    rights lost include, but not limited to:

    posse comitatas.
    habeous corpus
    warranted search and seizure
    speedy trial
    uncompromised elections
    the right to travel unfettered about the nation
    the right to invoke the constitution in a court of law
    the right to be fully informed about the workings of our own governments
    congressional declaration of war
    (as you pointed out above) the right to keep the fruits of our labor
    antitrust protection

    rights in jeopardy or in the process of being diminished and/or taken away.

    the first amendment
    the second amendment
    the fourth amendment

    just for openers h.
    Proof? For any of these?

    "the right to keep the fruits of our labor", I could be wrong, but is this a constitutional right or an imaginary one? It must be packed away between the Interstate Commerce Clause and the 14th Amendment.

    ---------- Post added at 10:26 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:18 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Michael View Post
    I live in Chicago where we have about 600 murders a year. That is one city with more murders than all of Britain. Interesting fact is that gangs do not have guns legally they have black market guns. Unfortunately gun control laws wont help Chicago at all. Before Newtown we actually were going to legalize conceal carry in Chicago. Not sure if that will happen now.

    I also find it amazing how kids die in Chicago almost everyday and you don't see that on the news.

    ---------- Post added at 05:23 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:21 PM ----------

    Appeals court overturns Illinois concealed carry law in gun rights victory
    By Dave McKinney on December 11, 2012 11:21 AM
    http://blogs.suntimes.com/politics/2...d_weapons.html

    Hows that for strange timing??

    ---------- Post added at 06:09 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:23 PM ----------

    You will never hear pro gun control people talk about chicago....

    This is a great article and explains things perfectly

    http://frontpagemag.com/2012/dgreenf...-gang-problem/
    I find it amazing how kids die in Burkina Faso literally everyday (or violence, hunger, poverty, disease) and you dont see that on the news. You wanna talk about media incompetancy?

    Ignorance never ceases to amaze me. Americans think that they live in the center of the universe and that all the happening in it are followed with the same vigour everywhere that is not america.

    Get over yourselves and your "american exceptionalism" what about "Human Exceptionalism", what "Living Things Exceptionalism". Life is a bigger miracle that democracy can ever be.

    ---------- Post added at 10:29 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:26 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by puma237 View Post
    thanks for that link michael, very nice piece. kinda makes it obvious that the constitution is under attack.
    Yah, like the 14th amendment.

  23. #60
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Westford, MA
    Posts
    197
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The case against arms control

    Good grief. I'm too busy to check up on my thread for a week, and we've got a bunch of half-assed statistics (singular and disconnected data points, really) bandied about as if they prove anything.

    Let's look at some real data, shall we?

    Allow me to direct your attention to the FBI Uniform Crime Report from 2011

    Pick a state. Any state. My favorites are the bastions of supposedly "good" gun control policies, California, Illinois, DC, and New York.

    Proportionally, those four are consistently in the top 5 states with the highest rates of murder and other violent crimes, and they've been in at least the top-10 range pretty consistently for the last 20-30 years. They're also the states with some of the largest cities in the nation. Perhaps that's relevant. Also, a good statistician will look for correlations between total crime rates and per-capita crime rates with each weapon and find that there is NO CORRELATION between arms ownership rates and violent crime rates. The materials linked in the OP by Don B. Kates, Jr. along with the research by Lott and Mustard as well as the studies done by Kleck all conclude this.

    So. Peer-reviewed academic studies published across the last 30 years (and their investigation goes back even further) find no correlation. Anyone claiming otherwise has a very, very high standard to meet before their claims are at all meaningful. Cherry-picking singular data points isn't at all useful and does not make a valid point. Either bring a degree that says you know how to do statistical analysis and interpret data or defer to the experts in the field. Seriously.

    Next, a closer inspection of the FBI data reveals something very interesting. Let me spell it out explicitly for everyone in the cheap seats.

    1. Top tool used in murders: Handgun.
    2. Second-most used tool in murders: Knife.
    3. Third-most used tool in murders: Hands.

    You have to go beyond hammers and clubs (#4 and #5) before you get to shotguns and rifles.

    Think about this for a minute. What do the top three all have in common? It ain't bullets.

    It's convenience, cost, and concealability.

    Again, this is consistent with what Wright and Rossi found when they actually bothered to talk to the felons. Convicted criminals admit that they have some fairly specific parameters for what tools they use. None of those characteristics make large weapons a suitable primary choice.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    If the 2nd amendment were to have covered Nukes (which i don't think they do) you would have no problem getting 100% (or close to it) gun rights advocates agreeing that we should limit that right. The argument would be a compelling one regarding the danger they pose to our very society.
    Let me help you out. Here's the relevant excerpt from DC v. Heller:

    Quote Originally Posted by DC v. Heller (2008)
    Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152–153; Abbott333. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. See, e.g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann., at 489–490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251; see generally 2 Kent *340, n. 2; The American Students’ Blackstone 84, n. 11 (G. Chase ed. 1884). Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment , nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.26

    We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons.” See 4 Blackstone 148–149 (1769); 3 B. Wilson, Works of the Honourable James Wilson 79 (1804); J. Dunlap, The New-York Justice 8 (1815); C. Humphreys, A Compendium of the Common Law in Force in Kentucky 482 (1822); 1 W. Russell, A Treatise on Crimes and Indictable Misdemeanors 271–272 (1831); H. Stephen, Summary of the Criminal Law 48 (1840); E. Lewis, An Abridgment of the Criminal Law of the United States 64 (1847); F. Wharton, A Treatise on the Criminal Law of the United States 726 (1852). See also State v. Langford, 10 N. C. 381, 383–384 (1824); O’Neill v. State, 16Ala. 65, 67 (1849); English v. State, 35Tex. 473, 476 (1871); State v. Lanier, 71 N. C. 288, 289 (1874).

    It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment ’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.
    So, that should dispense with any reductio ad absurdum claims about the Second Amendment covering anything other than small arms. Nuclear weapons and even most explosives are likely covered under the header of "dangerous and unusual weapons".

    ---------- Post added at 04:01 AM ---------- Previous post was at 03:50 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Seventy View Post
    Gun rights as we all know are granted by
    Wrong and fallaciously appealing to the majority. Natural rights are not granted by any authority other than $deity. Please (re-)read Locke's Second Treatise on Government for a full analysis on this point.

    Quote Originally Posted by Seventy View Post
    All political viewpoints agree with this amendment, the right of the government to maintain an armed militia to protect the nation.
    Wrong again and (yet again) fallaciously appealing to the majority. Read the DC v. Heller decision and, ideally, its dissent and amici before continuing.


    ---------- Post added at 04:12 AM ---------- Previous post was at 04:06 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Seventy View Post
    So now that America is protected by a trained, volunteer military force rather than a civilian militia, is the Second Amendment still valid? Does it exclusively provide for a separate universal right to bear arms?
    All laws are valid until one of two conditions are met. Either a court ruling deems the law invalid or congress passes a law overriding and/or nullifying the law. Neither condition has happened and, in fact, the Supreme Court has ruled in exactly the opposite direction in DC v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago. See my OP for links to the cases themselves.
    ---------- Post added at 04:06 AM ---------- Previous post was at 04:01 AM ----------


    Quote Originally Posted by Seventy View Post
    http://www.dailynews.com/ci_20057928

    I personally don't want a citizen to be better armed than the people that are sworn to protect me.

    Reality check.

    1. The scumbags involved in the North Hollywood shootout illegally modified their firearms to be in violation of the NFA. So, already this isn't a "normal citizen" type situation.
    2. These scumbags were robbing a bank. Again, not something Joe Average Gun Owner does.
    3. LEOs nationwide immediately changed tactics after this incident. They learn from their mistakes and now carry M4s in the trunks of their patrol cars for exactly this kind of situation. This is in addition to the standard-issue Glock 19 sidearm and the shotgun that is positioned in the center console most of the time during patrols. Like most intelligent people, the cops have adapted to the changing environment.[COLOR="Silver"]
    "... freedom is not, as we are told, a liberty for every man to do what he lists but a liberty to dispose, and order as he lists, his person, actions, possessions, and his whole property, within the allowance of those laws under which he is, and therein not to be subject to the arbitrary will of another, but freely follow his own." -- John Locke, Second Treatise on Government

 

 
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. A Felons' Right to Bare Arms
    By jzzyprin93 in forum Social Issues
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: October 2nd, 2014, 10:46 AM
  2. The Right to Bear Arms
    By JohnLocke in forum Social Issues
    Replies: 47
    Last Post: July 13th, 2011, 12:36 PM
  3. Just in case you haven't noticed...
    By Prime Zombie in forum Shootin' the Breeze / Off-Topic
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: March 18th, 2008, 06:24 AM
  4. The Right to Bear Arms in America...
    By Telex in forum Social Issues
    Replies: 64
    Last Post: April 25th, 2005, 01:11 PM
  5. Should it be the case...
    By Apokalupsis in forum Philosophical Debates
    Replies: 58
    Last Post: March 16th, 2005, 08:22 AM

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
  •