CDZ Another Question for Gun Owners

[2aguy]

Other than the aforementioned feral subhuman criminal, whose lives do you think you would save by giving up your gun rights? Who are you going to kill, if you have a gun, if you don't even have the guts to kill a feral subhuman in order to defend your own life or that of someone you care about?

If you'll rephrase your questions in neutral language, I'll answer them. As they stand now as leading questions, I won't dignify them with replies.

I suppose that objection should not surprise me, coming from someone whose considers the life of the lowest criminal to be no less valuable than his own.

Reality is not neutral, so neither can the language be to describe it in honest terms.

In any event, my question was semi-rhetorical.

Obviously, you would not save anyone's lives by giving up your own right to posses weapons, unless you are someone who would have used those weapons to kill others.

320 believes he is a special little flower.....

 

[2aguy]

“To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them...”—Richard Henry Lee, 1788​

I agree with that principle. The problem as I see it is that people, young and not young, are just fine at learning how to use arms -- it's not as though basic gun use is all that hard "get" -- but they aren't very fine at all at learning and applying good sense about when to use them and when not to. Any fool can shoot someone else when they are angry with the other person. It takes a wholly different level of maturity to refrain from doing so and finding other ways to resolve the differences that rile them.

but they aren't very fine at all at learning and applying good sense about when to use them and when not to.


How do you figure that? with 357,000,000 guns in private hands.....and less than 8,124 of them used to commit murder....we are not talking about normal gun owners shooting people...all of the research into who commits murder confirms this.....the myth of the gun owner who decides to commit murder simply because they have a gun is just that...a myth...those shooting other people have long histories of violence and crime that go back to their teenage years........


357,000,000 to less than 8,124.....not even close ....

The context of my first remark and my subsequent remark in this discussion was minors, not "people" in general. The Lee quote, in response to my remark about minors was "on point." Your subsequent remark that extended the context to people in general, however, is not. I have no idea why, given that context, you focused on the "not young" part of the appositive "young and not young," but alas you did. (Rules for Comma Usage and Parenthetical Expressions - Grammar Once and for All) But that's not what inspired me to bother replying to your remarks....

Green:
If one is of the mind that ~8100 gunshot killings is acceptable in light of how many guns are privately held, well, all I have to say in reply is that I find that sum unacceptable. Of the folks who find that figure acceptable, they and I are at an impasse and there's no point in either of our bothering to discuss the matter.

In my mind, nobody who is authorized to own a gun should ever use it to kill another person. Period. I know it's going to happen occasionally no matter what we do, but every time it happens is one time too often and my view of human life is such that we owe it to ourselves as humans to get the figure as close as humanly possible to zero deaths due to involuntarily being shot.

You and others can present all the arguments and statistics you want, but that basic principle sits at the core of everything I think about guns and gun use/abuse. For the time being, that means that I find it acceptable that if some folks who've done nothing wrong may have to yield some of their right to own/have guns, or may have to yield some of the ease with which they may buy one, so that some of those ~8100 people don't die, then that's a concession/several concessions that must be made, if for no other reason than to in good faith and clear conscience try it/them in the U.S. and see if it/they work(s).

For me, it's not about whether folks die in mass shootings or single shootings. It's also not about whether folks die at the hand of a person with a criminal record or without a criminal record. It's not about the property one thinks one must defend. It's not even about whether I may save my own (or someone else's) life by using a gun in a defensive way, for as I see it, my ostensible passing at the hand of an assailant would be "worth it" if by my having given up part or all of my gun rights, I've allowed more than one other person to live. (One life, no matter whose it is, isn't more important than two or more other lives.) It's about doing whatever we can to reduce the number of people who die at the hands of a shooter when those folks were not anticipating that be the end of the time alive.

It'd be different were the context of the situation to fall fully within the realm of the natural world, or where all those deaths were purely accidental, but little about the "gun issue" falls within those spheres of events and circumstances. Therefore, it doesn't really matter to me what we try as a means to achieving the stated goal above; I'm fine with trying "whatever."

It is irrelevant to me what the Framers wrote in the Constitution's 2nd Amendment or that they wrote it; we already know they didn't get everything right, and we know they lived in a different time, a time with different cultural mores, than we do. I don't understand how gun rights advocates can be so selfishly devoted to their guns and using them that they cannot consider that the 2nd Amendment may have, like other Constitutional provisions did, outlived its time, or that the Framers were just wrong to have penned the 2nd Amendment in the first place. Most importantly, I don't see how any God-fearing person or moral atheist can live with themselves and actually stand on a position that inherently depends upon the supremacy of one's 2nd Amendment rights over another's right to remain alive if there's even the barest chance that by conceding some of one's gun rights another person's life be not taken.


Red:
I agree that, for the most part, adult folks don't just haul off and shoot others merely because they have possession of a gun and thereby can do so. I think some minors may be inclined to so that, but I don't know whether they actually do so.


Blue:
Do they now?

• Columbine
• Sandy Hook
• Orlando
• Dallas
• Baton Rouge
• "Philando" -- The guy had a "rap sheet" full of....wait for it....traffic violations. The cop who shot him is, well, a cop. As far as I know, he too had no criminal record.
  
  Philando Castile, the 32-year-old man shot by a police officer in Falcon Heights, Minnesota after a minor traffic stop, had no felony convictions, but being stopped by the police for small traffic hassles was a regular occurrence for him.
  
  New audio shows that he may have been stopped the night he died because police thought he looked like an armed robbery suspect due to the width of his nose.

It seems to me that there have been enough folks in recent times who have no history of violence and crime who also just "flip" one day and start shooting others that your claim cannot be true.


Other:
When gun rights advocates begin to apply the same principles to large guns that they apply to what are, for all intents and purposes "big guns," I may think there is some measure of integrity to their arguments opposing the idea of restricting access to guns and ammunition. Well, you see the very same folks who say that everyone should be free to buy a gun are also the folks who think on a national level we should deny other nations the right to own very big guns.

Well, the principle isn't all that well considered if it works on the small scale but not on a large scale. The gun issue is not the same in nature as that of quantum physics and Newtonian physics, and even if it were, it would still require that the principles apply and "hold water" in "micro" and "macro" scale scenarios as do quantum phenomena. (Quantum effect spotted in a visible object - physicsworld.com)

The very idea that we Americans should have unencumbered and supposedly inalienable right to the gun ownership while we should be the agents of encumbering that of other nations is just BS hypocrisy when considered in light of the dicta we espouse on a larger scale. Do you know what an inalienable right is? It's a right one has, is free to exercise/enjoy and is due no matter the political authority/system under which one lives. It's a right that is "bigger" than you, I, our families, our states, our nation or the body of nations and peoples on the planet. It is a right that is insoluble.

• We should do nothing to constrain the rights of Americans to use guns, but we must do "whatever" to constrain the right of other nations to have really big guns, such as nuclear tipped ICBMs.
• "So and so" is "nuts" or unpredictable or whatever and can't be trusted not to use nuclear tipped ICBMs against a target we'd rather s/he not destroy; therefore s/he should not have have them. On the other hand, as goes the only nation that has ever seen fit to use a nuclear weapon, it is somehow perfectly okay that it lots of them because, of course, the only thing that would inspire that nation to use them against others is an impediment to whatever the heck it thinks it wants to do, most likely something having to do with making money, that another nation won't let it do and of which the former nation has reached point of saying, "Enough. Be gone with you."

Unlike devout gun rights advocates, I don't have a problem with considering the right to bear arms a soluble right. It's not one I think should be be "willy nilly" vacated or taken, but I'm okay with taking it from individuals in general or specifically if other, the potential of preserving other and/or more important rights be in the offing.

It'd be nice to use the example one might take from measurements of gun use/abuse behavior and attitudes observed in other countries, but the reality is that those traits vary depending on culture. Some peoples and nations are more bellicose than others. Some value human life more than others. Some value tolerance more than others. Even in the same country, culture and what its people value varies with time. The culture of the U.S. in the 21st century is not the same as that of other nations nor is it the same as the U.S.' culture of the 18th century; therefore it makes no sense to any material extent use those cultures as surrogates for what may or may not happen in the U.S. were similar gun use/abuse provisions enacted. Were it so that attitudes and behaviors about gun use/abuse at such an intrinsic level of human existence that it be rightly ascribed as part of human nature, I would feel differently. But it doesn't and I don't.

• "So and so" is "nuts" or unpredictable or whatever and can't be trusted not to use nuclear tipped ICBMs against a target we'd rather s/he not destroy; therefore s/he should not have have them. On the other hand, as goes the only nation that has ever seen fit to use a nuclear weapon, it is somehow perfectly okay that it lots of them because, of course, the only thing that would inspire that nation to use them against others is an impediment to whatever the heck it thinks it wants to do, most likely something having to do with making money, that another nation won't let it do and of which the former nation has reached point of saying, "Enough. Be gone with you."

No....Iran is not unpredictable....they support terrorists murdering innocent people around the world....not an unknown quantity...they have specifically stated that they want to murder every Jew in the Jewish state...not an unknown quantity...they are essentially the equivalent of a convicted felon on an international level.......and you are the one who wants to ignore that status and arm them...while disarming normal, law abiding people who have harmed no one, and who have never threatened anyone...

You are the delusional one....

If someone tells you the tooth fairy will visit you tomorrow, would you believe that as well and find a tooth too put under your pillow?

You truly don't realize just how foolish what you wrote is coming as the thought of one who is ostensibly a grown person. If Iran's leadership and people were of a mind to rid Israel of every Jew, don't you think they'd at least be acting to do so even before they get hold of a nuclear weapon? What do you think the folks who want to achieve that goal are doing? Apparently you believe they are thinking, "Oh, well, lookey here, Al-Opie, we have a nuclear weapon we're building, so whaddya say? How about we just wait on that goal." The U.S. didn't cease and desist on its prosecution of the war against Japan because its leaders knew they had an atomic weapon "coming soon to Japanese theaters."

You mean like giving money, supplies and training to hezbollah terrorists?

You mean like that?

 

[320 Years of History]

Other than the aforementioned feral subhuman criminal, whose lives do you think you would save by giving up your gun rights? Who are you going to kill, if you have a gun, if you don't even have the guts to kill a feral subhuman in order to defend your own life or that of someone you care about?

If you'll rephrase your questions in neutral language, I'll answer them. As they stand now as leading questions, I won't dignify them with replies.

I suppose that objection should not surprise me, coming from someone whose considers the life of the lowest criminal to be no less valuable than his own.

Reality is not neutral, so neither can the language be to describe it in honest terms.

In any event, my question was semi-rhetorical.

Obviously, you would not save anyone's lives by giving up your own right to posses weapons, unless you are someone who would have used those weapons to kill others.

Red:
I guess it shouldn't surprise me that questions such as the ones you asked me describe anything at all.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Why do you guys feed the trolls?

 

[2aguy]

Why do you guys feed the trolls?

Well......sometimes the lies need to be addressed......otherwise they take root...like weeds.....

 

[FA_Q2]

If one is of the mind that ~8100 gunshot killings is acceptable in light of how many guns are privately held, well, all I have to say in reply is that I find that sum unacceptable. Of the folks who find that figure acceptable, they and I are at an impasse and there's no point in either of our bothering to discuss the matter.

In my mind, nobody who is authorized to own a gun should ever use it to kill another person. Period. I know it's going to happen occasionally no matter what we do, but every time it happens is one time too often and my view of human life is such that we owe it to ourselves as humans to get the figure as close as humanly possible to zero deaths due to involuntarily being shot.

You and others can present all the arguments and statistics you want, but that basic principle sits at the core of everything I think about guns and gun use/abuse. For the time being, that means that I find it acceptable that if some folks who've done nothing wrong may have to yield some of their right to own/have guns, or may have to yield some of the ease with which they may buy one, so that some of those ~8100 people don't die, then that's a concession/several concessions that must be made, if for no other reason than to in good faith and clear conscience try it/them in the U.S. and see if it/they work(s).

As has been stated elsewhere, these statements in connection with gun control relies on the supposition that such controls actually cause less people to die. The statistics are important weather or not you want to brush them off because they bear out the fact that gun controls do not actually cause fewer people to meed their end.

You might find some agreement somewhere if it was actually established that fewer guns means fewer deaths but alas, the problem is not that simple and the solution does not revolve around removing weapons from those that want to protect themselves.

Guns rarely used for self-defense in US - Yahoo News

For every justifiable homicide involving a gun, 32 criminal homicides carried out with a firearm occurred. Also, gun owners are far more likely to hurt themselves or others, than to use them for self defense.

And 90% of the homicides happened in the ghetto.

A big, huge point that all of you gun nuts ignore is that in countries where there are strict gun laws, the criminal element also has far, far fewer guns. That is a fact, a fact whitch you guys not only ignore, but you prant on and on about how if we have strict gun laws, only the criminals will have guns. That is simply not true.

And the homicide rate is unaffected.

A fact that 'anti-gun nuts' refuse to deal with. It is why you have to color ever statistic that you look at with 'gun' this or gun that rather than an objective look at how gun control measures actually effect crime rates (and specifically homicide rates).

Unaffected? Are you crazy? It is far, far lower than in the US.

These Laws Are The Reason Canada Australia Japan And The UK Have Such Low Gun Homicide Rates - Business Insider


The only countries that have a higher homicide rate (homicide by any means) than the US are not first world, developed countries, so you cannot, reasonably, compare them to the US. You cannot compare countries like Honduras or South Africa to the US.

Homicide rate per 100,000: US = 15,241; UK = 724; Turkey =2,320; Switzerland = 54; Sweden = 93; Spain = 399; Romania = 397; Portugal = 130; Norway = 29; Australia = 262; Bahrain = 6; Bulgaria = 144; Canada = 610; Croatia = 49; Cyprus = 19; France = 839; Finland = 121; Germany = 690; Hungary = 139; Italy = 590; Japan = 646; Monaco = 0; Malta = 4; Netherlands = 179; Belgium = 185; Burmuda = 5; Hong Kong = 35; Czech Republic = 92; Denmark = 47; Greece = 118; Iceland = 1; UAE = 39.

All of these countries have much stricter gun laws than the US. All of them are progressive, developed, first world countries. All of them have a far, far lower murder rate than the US--murder by any means, not just guns.

Having strict gun laws DOES lower the homicide rate.

Mapping murder throughout the world News The Guardian

Yes, ineffective because I am actually looking at the data that is relevant not data that fits my preconceived notion that I want it to fit.
You see, comparing the homicide rate between the US and England, for instance, is idiotic. It means nothing whatsoever.
WHY is our homicide rate higher? You demand that it is guns but do not provide a single piece of evidence showing CAUSATION. That is what is missing. Guns are not even close to the only difference as I ALREADY POINTED OUT and you completely ignored. What about culture, racial/ethnic diversity, borders, law, population, population density etc. You have controlled for NONE of those. Take your pick – gun control passed in England, Canada or other places have not changed the homicide rates IN THE PLACES THAT THEY WERE PASSED IN.
Why do you compare the homicide rate in one nation to our own rather than the homicide rate before and after the law was passed in the nation it was passed in? Because THAT does not fit the narrative:

Correct.

.... and??

Actually, the less guns there are in circulation, the less likely criminals have access to guns. In countries where there are strict gun laws, the criminals also have less guns.

Except that gun control laws do not change homicide rates at all. They certainly do not bring down other crime rates as well.

This is the case over and over and over again everywhere gun control is tried. It simply does not pan out.

Credible

I have done this all opver this board. You might have seen these links several times.

Many of the graphics are from Just Facts
England:

Without universal background checks, you are guaranteeing that bad guys will more easily be able to get guns.

The NRA opposes universal background checks, and want's everybody (even crooks) to be easily able to buy from a private seller with no checks of any kind.

You figure it out.

Fallacy. Even with universal background checks bad guys will get guns.
What do you think? Bad guys will be deterred by a background check? No one will sell to a bad guy without a bvackground check? Think, man! Think!!

Sure, they will be deterred. Background checks will eliminate the possibility of many guns from their purchase. I never said it would make it impossible, just that it would be much harder.

That assertion is not backed up by facts.

The fist problem that you have failed to address (and has been pointed out many times) is that the law is completely unenforceable. Tell me, how is a law that CANNOT BE ENFORCED supposed to make it more difficult for criminals to buy guns?

Second, there is no data showing that further gun control measures will do squat to reduce crime or homicides. What is the ultimate goal here? If it is safety then gun control falls flat on its face.

The ultimate goal of any gun control measure must be to reduce crime. This is most easily measured in homicides as that is the most prevalent target of gun control:

England outright banned guns and the effect on homicides? Zero. That is the base problem that you have with gun control laws - if you are willing to commit homicide or any other major offense then the extra law that says you cant have a gun is utterly meaningless - period. This has flushed out a myriad of places all across the globe as well as here. All your assertions are NOT backed up by any hard data.

And England is moving for more restrictive laws - if it doesn't work we can always try more right? That is exactly what gun control advocates want here. We have a shit ton of gun control laws on the books and all you can come up with is more that is not effective in the first place.

If outright banning does nothing, what makes you think that background checks that are completely unenforceable will be effective?

Australia (using their own governmental data):

No, it isn't dumbass. Now go play, you bore me.

Null and void. The further you carry this without backing up your assertion, the more ridiculous you look.

What a whiny little pussy you are. Here asswipe, read it and weep: Did gun control work in Australia - The Washington Post

the direct data disagrees with the assertions of that paper though.

When you mess with the data you can make it say anything you want. Mess with it by, say, taking large amounts of time and covering up the fact that there was almost no change at all in homicide rates from 96 (when the law was passed) and 03. Why, if the law was affective at all, did it take 7 years to see ANY GAINS?

Why are the homicide rates going down being attributed to a law that passed 7 years before it started to occur?

Its also noteworthy that the overall incidents have been on a downward trend for a long time - both before and after the law passed. Looking at the raw data shows that the law itself likely had zero impact on the actual number of incidents in general. There is no real drop after the law passed or change in direction from before the law passed.

Using raw data instead of allowing Washington Post authors do your thinking for you will show much more information.
Australian Institute of Criminology - Homicide statistics

In several states as well as relaxing gun control laws:

So, here we go again.

Clearly I am going to have to remake this argument in a few places so I am going to rework another post I did in one of these other threads. For those of you that heave read this from me, skip it. For the rest of the slow class: gun control advocates have no evidence supporting their demands. I ask the OP, how are the gun advocates on the 'wrong' side when you have no data to support your point where they have tons.

All over the place on this board I am seeing people demanding gun control and making a wide variety of claims about what we need or do not need but one thing is utterly lacking IN EVERY FUCKING THREAD: facts. I can count the number of facts used in the 10+ threads calling for gun reforms on one hand. Get educated, we have passed laws already and we have metrics to gauge their effectiveness.

First, common misinformation techniques must be addressed because you still find all kinds of false claims about higher 'death' rates with lax gin laws that are outright false. The metric we need to be looking at is homicides. Lots of people like to use 'gun' deaths but that is a rather useless term because you are not really measuring anything. That term is not fully defined and it is not as easily tracked and compared with different years as a solid statistic. I also hope that we can agree that what instrument kills the victim is irrelevant. If gun deaths are cut by 25% but knife deaths increase the same number by 50% we have not made progress. Rather, we regressed and are worse off. The real relevant information here is how many people are killed overall and whether or not stricter gun laws results in fewer deaths or crimes. That is what the gun control advocates are claiming.


Another common misinformation tactic is to compare US deaths to those on other countries. comparing international numbers is also utterly meaningless. Why, you ask. Well, that's simple. Scientific data requires that we control for other variables. Comparing US to Brittan is meaningless because there are thousands of variables that make a huge difference. Not only the proliferation of guns that already exists and the current gun laws but also things as basic as culture, diversity, population density, police forces and a host of other things would need to be accounted for. That is utterly impossible. Mexico and Switzerland can be used on the other side of the argument of Brittan and in the end we have learned nothing by doing this. How do we overcome this? Also, simple. You compare the crime rates before and after gun legislation has passed. We can do that here and in Brittan.
Gun Control - Just Facts

Here we see a rather large spike directly after gun laws are strengthened and no real increase after they are removed. Washington apparently did not get the memo that homicides were supposed to decrease after they passed their law.

Here we have Chicago where there is no discernable difference before and after the ban. Again, we are not seeing any real positive effects here. As a matter of fact, the rate has worsened as compared to the overall rate in the country even though it has slightly decreased. Form the caption:

Since the outset of the Chicago handgun ban, the Chicago murder rate has averaged 17% lower than it was before the law took effect, while the U.S. murder rate has averaged 25% lower.

Then we can use this same tactic in measuring the effectiveness in Britton. Lets actually look at the real numbers over there as well:

Oops, even in Brittan, when we account for other factors by using their OWN crime rates, we find that gun laws have NOT reduced the homicides they have suffered. Seems we are developing a pattern here. At least Chicago seen some reduction though it was far less than the national average decrease.


Then, you could always argue, what happens when we relax gun laws. If the gun 'grabbers' were correct, crimes rate would skyrocket (or at least go up). Does that happen:

Guess not. The homicide rate in Florida fell rather rapidly and faster than the national average. In Texas we get a similar result:

Then there are other statistics that do matter very much like the following:

* Based on survey data from a 2000 study published in the Journal of Quantitative Criminology,[17] U.S. civilians use guns to defend themselves and others from crime at least 989,883 times per year.[18]

* A 1993 nationwide survey of 4,977 households found that over the previous five years, at least 3.5% of households had members who had used a gun "for self-protection or for the protection of property at home, work, or elsewhere." Applied to the U.S. population, this amounts to 1,029,615 such incidents per year. This figure excludes all "military service, police work, or work as a security guard."[19]

* A 1994 survey conducted by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that Americans use guns to frighten away intruders who are breaking into their homes about 498,000 times per year.[20]

* A 1982 survey of male felons in 11 state prisons dispersed across the U.S. found:[21]

• 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"[22]

Clearly, claiming that gun control leads to better outcomes is blatantly false. Look at the data, it is conclusive that gun laws most certainly do not have any positive impact on homicides or any other meaningful metric. If you have information that states otherwise then please post it. I have yet to see some solid statistical evidence that points to gun control as being a competent way of reducing deaths. I hope I have not wasted my time getting this information. Try reading it, it will enlighten you.


In conclusion, over 10 separate threads have simply ceased to continue because not a single lefty here has any response to the given facts. I have serious doubts that the OP will be any different but I wait with bated breath for one single person to actually support their demands with something that resembles fact. So far, I have received nothing.

Canada (addressed in the end of my post and governmental data again):

Thank you for the well thought out response. I wish everyone here would do that rather than just take the talking points from the NRA or the far left for that matter. We might actually be able to fix the problem that way. I was just giving you a hard time about the clip. If you were arguing for gun control the pro gunners would say you don't know anything about guns and blah blah blah.

I try and I am always looking for a good debate. Sometimes its hard to find here.

I figured about the clip. I don’t get angry about misstatements like many here seem to do. The use of the word ‘clip’ and ‘magazine’ is separate from the actual point even if it was inaccurate.

I don't dissagree about someone having two .45's for example. But why even appose a ban on high capacity magazines then? Wouldn't two .45's with say 16 round magazines be more deadly yet? Since there aren't any examples of the high capacity magazines being used for defense I think at worst it doesn't hurt anything. At best maybe some guy has to reload and drops his clip and gets tackled.

I guess I view every life as being very valuable. If you can save a few lives in a mass shooting then why not try? Will it drastically effect the overall homicide rate? Probably not, I still like to think the mass shooting are very rare, but again every life is valuable.

This is likely the largest are that we are goig to disagree on but I hope that I can show you the light

You ask why does it matter then? I hold life just as important as you and think that we should try our damndest to save every person we can BU*T (and this is a BIG but) there is a line that we need to acknowledge. The reality is the safest and BEST government to live under if safety and preservation of life is the metric you are measuring would be fascism or despotism. That is a simple truth.

Preservation of life is important but not at the expense of freedom. Where you want to air on the side of protection I am absolutely against that concept. I ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS air on the side of FREEDOM. Whenever you wish to take anything away, be it a big gulp, a large clip or smoking, I err on the side of freedom and fight it with every breath I take unless there are real and tangable benefits that can be proven AND those benefits outweigh the cost in freedom.

For example, the restriction on the right of free speech that makes yelling fire in a theater (or other crowded place) illegal is a sound restriction on freedom. The right to privacy that has been taken by the patriot act CLEARLY has saved lives and protects us but the COST is way too damn high. The patriot act is terrible law. Life is not the ONLY thing to consider here, our freedom is also an important consideration. The cost is low and the payoff high as related to that cost. The payoff with a restriction on magazine size is not only not proven but utter conjecture. It lacks enough reasoning for me as well as I can fabricate a large capacity magazine with ease, aquire one that is already in circulation or use more than one weapon (ie, the 2 guns example that I gave earlier). My beef here with your idea is essentially this: you want to limit freedom because YOU don’t see it as a large loss of said freedom. I also do not have a need for large cap mags, don’t own any and have no plans on purchasing the, but the idea that freedom is taken from people without what I consider due diligence in the reasoning goes against everything that I stand for.

The people that created the patriot act likely used your exact same logic. DO you think it was applied correctly there? Are you comfortable with how far this hole goes? If limiting 10 is allright, why not 5 or 1. That, BTW, is NOT a slippery slope argument. It is the same logic applied universally and it is the logic that can and WILL be used again and again...

Every life is valuable. EVERY FREEDOM IS ALSO VALABLE. Do not discount freedom.

I agree with much of what you say about viewing numbers from other countries. You would have to admit that Russia is often given as a pro gun argument when it is really not valid. So how do you counter that? Well pointing out the low homicide rates of countries with strict gun laws. For the sake of the US I hope that the number of guns is in fact not much of a factor in homicide rate. It could be other countries ban the violent video games, or violent movies, or some of the drugs we use to treat mental health, or do better policing.... But given that all the countries with much better homicide rates do have more strict gun laws, I think that would be a mistake to not look into it further.

And many that have worse homicide rates ALSO have stricter gun laws. As a matter of fact, ALMOST THE WHOLE WORLD has stricter gun laws. I do not aspire to be like the rest of the world.

That said, IF, and only if, the statistical analysis showed that gun laws in those countries was a factor in the lower homicide rates would such a comparison be valid. As the data does NOT support that claim, such data is meaningless. You might as well claim that every country that has a lower homicide rate is does not contain states, or a congress, or have a bill of rights, or does not sell hummus on Tuesday. All those would be just as meaningful. FIRST you need to establish that gun laws have a positive effect, AND THEN you compare the gun laws with our gun laws. That is the ONLY logical order to do it in.

How about we look at Canada?

In 1991, Bill C-17 tightened up restrictions and established controls on numerous firearms. Since about then the violent crime rate went down through 2007. They currently have a homicide rate of 1.6 which is drastically better than ours. Not a perfect comparison of course, but is there something to learn from this? There may very well be. Is it wise to completely write if off? I think that would be a mistake.

How about we look at Canada. First, we need to address your thumbnail. It is not cited. It does not explain itself at all. It does not even use the metric we are going by: homicide rate. It does not even mention the country that it applies to. I REALLY hope you did not pull this from a blog. Essentially, you should not even have posted it

Really, I KNOW you can do better than that

It took some digging but here we go:
Police-reported crime statistics in Canada, 2011
official Canadian source on this with some good data.

All violent crime (except sexual assault against children) have been on a gradual down trend since 1980 and the data in your thumbnail is outright false. There is simply no dicernable way for me to fit the increase in your cite with the actual numbers. It looks as though the gun law had little to no effect in canida as well with the homicide rate starting at 2.5 and decreasing to just under 2.0 after a decade

We can see that directly after the law was passed (I did not check the date but I am going off of your 1991 timeframe) a sharp increase in homicides tool place, leveled out the next year and then continues the same downward trend that had been going on the previous years. Note: I am NOT attributing the spike to gun laws – spikes happen and that is a given. That trend line dies not really change at all. As far as I can tell, this is not a good piece of evidence for gun control, the law does not look like it altered the trend at all.

Further, the piece that interests me quite a bit is the fact that attempted murders and actual murders have CONVERGED a lot after the law passed. That went from a full point in difference to just .1 difference. That is, 40% of attempted murders FAILED and now a pithy 2% fail. Possible that might be due to people lacking protection but the criminals not lacking the offensive means to kill? I believe that is likely but I would need to pull up more evidence to support so I will just leave that as an interesting thing to think about for the time being.

All said and done, I don’t think Canada is the example you were looking for unless you can present this data in another way.

I have looked at several other nations as well and find the same thing pretty much everywhere, gun controls do not decrease tragedy.

 

[D Truth]

As has been stated elsewhere, these statements in connection with gun control relies on the supposition that such controls actually cause less people to die. The statistics are important weather or not you want to brush them off because they bear out the fact that gun controls do not actually cause fewer people to meed their end.

What does the weather have to do with any of this? Furthermore, what is this "meed" you speak of? Not quite sure you are using the English language?


It's really quite simple. If you don't want to live around people who have the right to defend themselves, then move. Yeah, the onus is on you to move. You are pissed off because someone has the means to defend themselves? boo-fecking-hoo. It will cost a lot of money for you to remove the right to self defense (even though gun grabbers think they will somehow trick people into funding their own surrendering of self defense)... Still, wouldn't it be cheaper to simply move to Chicago? I mean it has no guns and all the diversity you could dream of, isn't that your paradise? So go on now little miss, enjoy your utopia.
Hell, I'll even throw a few shekels to any gun grabber who wants to move to Chicago, I am a charitable sort.

Though, charity only goes so far...seriously, MOVE, because if you try to grab my gun I WILL END YOU Darren WIlson style. Get it?

 

[FA_Q2]

As has been stated elsewhere, these statements in connection with gun control relies on the supposition that such controls actually cause less people to die. The statistics are important weather or not you want to brush them off because they bear out the fact that gun controls do not actually cause fewer people to meed their end.

What does the weather have to do with any of this? Furthermore, what is this "meed" you speak of? Not quite sure you are using the English language?


It's really quite simple. If you don't want to live around people who have the right to defend themselves, then move. Yeah, the onus is on you to move. You are pissed off because someone has the means to defend themselves? boo-fecking-hoo. It will cost a lot of money for you to remove the right to self defense (even though gun grabbers think they will somehow trick people into funding their own surrendering of self defense)... Still, wouldn't it be cheaper to simply move to Chicago? I mean it has no guns and all the diversity you could dream of, isn't that your paradise? So go on now little miss, enjoy your utopia.
Hell, I'll even throw a few shekels to any gun grabber who wants to move to Chicago, I am a charitable sort.

Though, charity only goes so far...seriously, MOVE, because if you try to grab my gun I WILL END YOU Darren WIlson style. Get it?

And what does your comments have to do with what I stated. It seems that you have utterly misunderstood the point I made, some spelling errors aside.

 

[D Truth]

And what does your comments have to do with what I stated. It seems that you have utterly misunderstood the point I made, some spelling errors aside.

Well, state your point then, so that everyone is able to read it.

In the meantime...
I'll state my point another way.

Gun grabbers are the most cowardly sort. Why be rattled by them?
Like they would do anything to stand up to a violent confrontation? No! they only will show their backside... they won't even run. They shiver and hope they are good little socialists whenever violence and power shows it's true way. Good Lord, such cowardice is not to be reasoned with.

 

[Hiryuu]

Police around the nation have for years begged for assault weapons like those used in Dallas to be taken off the streets. They're overwhelmed.

If you claim to support the police, why not support them by supporting common sense regulation of these weapons and clips, etc?

The Constitution doesn't require the citizens to give up their rights to assist the police. The idea that people would give up their rights in a time when the police have been less than stellar in the performance of their job, based on the assumption it would be safer to call the people who are gunning down suspects, is kind of crazy.

 

[Howey]

Police around the nation have for years begged for assault weapons like those used in Dallas to be taken off the streets. They're overwhelmed.

If you claim to support the police, why not support them by supporting common sense regulation of these weapons and clips, etc?

The Constitution doesn't require the citizens to give up their rights to assist the police. The idea that people would give up their rights in a time when the police have been less than stellar in the performance of their job, based on the assumption it would be safer to call the people who are gunning down suspects, is kind of crazy.

I really don't know what you're talking about. Where did I say "citizens (should) give up their rights to assist the police"?

 

[Hiryuu]

I really don't know what you're talking about. Where did I say "citizens (should) give up their rights to assist the police"?

I know exactly what I am talking about. If you don't think citizens need to give up their rights to something, then why would ask them to? Because you may or may not think they already don't have that right, is irrelevant when they obviously do.

 

[Howey]

I really don't know what you're talking about. Where did I say "citizens (should) give up their rights to assist the police"?

I know exactly what I am talking about. If you don't think citizens need to give up their rights to something, then why would ask them to?

Again, and please forgive me if English isn't your primary language, but where have I "ask(ed) them to"?

I really don't know what you're talking about. Where did I say "citizens (should) give up their rights to assist the police"?

 

[Hiryuu]

Again, and please forgive me if English isn't your primary language, but where have I "ask(ed) them to"?

Well, technically you didn't ask them to, you asked them why they haven't. If you want to suggest that regulation won't do anything to diminish the rights they already have, then my English, nor the understanding of yours, are not the depth of your problem.

 

[jillian]

Police around the nation have for years begged for assault weapons like those used in Dallas to be taken off the streets. They're overwhelmed.

If you claim to support the police, why not support them by supporting common sense regulation of these weapons and clips, etc?

Thinking that a ban on assault weapons would somehow get them out of the hands of criminals, who by definition don't follow the law, is not common sense, it's lack thereof. The government in question would only be weakening the ability of citizens to defend themselves, while criminals would continue being able to use them. We've already had MANY stupid threads like this.

We don't take that approach legally to any other issue relative to the law do we, not one.

to be fair, there's really no such thing as an "assault weapon". what we should do is limit the number of shots in a clip. that seems a no brainer.

 

[jillian]

I really don't know what you're talking about. Where did I say "citizens (should) give up their rights to assist the police"?

I know exactly what I am talking about. If you don't think citizens need to give up their rights to something, then why would ask them to?

Again, and please forgive me if English isn't your primary language, but where have I "ask(ed) them to"?

I really don't know what you're talking about. Where did I say "citizens (should) give up their rights to assist the police"?

well, they'd rather pretend you're asking them to give up their guns then have an actual discussion. they only know how to repeat what the NRA tells them.

 

[Hiryuu]

to be fair, there's really no such thing as an "assault weapon". what we should do is limit the number of shots in a clip. that seems a no brainer.

How many rounds should someone be allowed to defend their family with?

 

[FA_Q2]

And what does your comments have to do with what I stated. It seems that you have utterly misunderstood the point I made, some spelling errors aside.

Well, state your point then, so that everyone is able to read it.

In the meantime...
I'll state my point another way.

Gun grabbers are the most cowardly sort. Why be rattled by them?
Like they would do anything to stand up to a violent confrontation? No! they only will show their backside... they won't even run. They shiver and hope they are good little socialists whenever violence and power shows it's true way. Good Lord, such cowardice is not to be reasoned with.

I did state it and everyone else seems to understand it just fine.

Grater gun control will not save lives. Grater gun controls does not reduce homicides. Gun control arguments rely on the assumption that those laws will save lives. As that is false, arguments from gun control advocates are erroneous.

 

[jillian]

to be fair, there's really no such thing as an "assault weapon". what we should do is limit the number of shots in a clip. that seems a no brainer.

How many rounds should someone be allowed to defend their family with?

you're more likely to have a gun taken from you than use it to defend your family.

and you're certainly statistically more likely to shoot a family member or friend or have one of them shoot themselves or you.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

Police around the nation have for years begged for assault weapons like those used in Dallas to be taken off the streets. They're overwhelmed.

If you claim to support the police, why not support them by supporting common sense regulation of these weapons and clips, etc?

Thinking that a ban on assault weapons would somehow get them out of the hands of criminals, who by definition don't follow the law, is not common sense, it's lack thereof. The government in question would only be weakening the ability of citizens to defend themselves, while criminals would continue being able to use them. We've already had MANY stupid threads like this.

We don't take that approach legally to any other issue relative to the law do we, not one.

to be fair, there's really no such thing as an "assault weapon". what we should do is limit the number of shots in a clip. that seems a no brainer.

As in it takes a person with no brain to come to that conclusion, while intelligent people shun that idea, because it would accomplish absolutely nothing.