CDZ Gun control laws what a joke

[M14 Shooter]

However, he did not live in our times, with terrorism and mass killing such an "everyday" occurance. I wonder what Ben would have to say on this topic in today's climate of global terrorism...

He did, however, live in a time where the British ran roughshod over the colonies, and Indians routinely attacked the frontiersmen.

Off point,

On point. Franklin was perfectly familiar with mass killings and terrorism.

1540 October 18
Mabila Massacre The Choctaw retaliated against Hernando de Soto's expedition,[4] killing 200 soldiers, as well as many of their horses and pigs, for their having burned down Mabila compound and killed c. 2,500 warriors who had hidden in houses of a fake village. [3][5][6]

1599 January 22–24 Acoma Massacre In retaliation for the killing of 11 Spanish soldiers, Juan de Oñate led a punitive expedition against the natives in a three-day battle at the Acoma Pueblo, killing approximately 800. King Philip III later punished Oñate for his excesses. [9][10]

1622 March 22 Jamestown Massacre
Powhatan (Pamunkey) killed 347 English men, women and children throughout the Virginia colony, almost one-third of the English population of the Jamestown colony, in an effort to push the English out of Virginia. [12]

1643 August Hutchinson Massacre
As part of Kieft's War in New Netherland, near the Split Rock (now northeastern Bronx in New York City), local Lenape (or Siwanoy) killed Anne Hutchinson, six of her children, a son-in-law, and as many as seven others (servants). Susanna, one of Hutchinson's daughters, was taken captive and lived with the natives for several years. [18]

1655 September 11–15 Peach Tree War
In retaliation for Director-General of New Netherland Peter Stuyvesant's attacks to their trading partners and allies at New Sweden, united bands of natives attacked Pavonia, Staten Island, Colen Donck and other areas of New Netherland. [20]

1676 March 26 Nine Men's Misery
During King Philip's War, warriors subjected nine captive soldiers to ritual torture and death. [23][24]

1680 August 10 Pueblo Revolt
Pueblo warriors killed 380 Spanish settlers, and drove other Spaniards from New Mexico. [27]

1689 August 5 Lachine massacre
1,500 Mohawk warriors attacked the small settlement of Lachine, New France and killed more than 90 of the village's 375 French residents, following widespread French attacks on Mohawk villages in present-day New York. [28]

1690 February 8 Schenectady Massacre
As part of the Beaver Wars, French and Algonquins destroyed Schenectady, New York, killing 60 Dutch and English settlers, including ten women and at least twelve children. [30]

1692 January 24 Candlemas Massacre
During King William's War, 200-300 Abenaki and Canadiens killed 75, took 100 prisoner and burned the town of York, Maine district of the Province of Massachusetts Bay [31]

1704 February 29 Deerfield Massacre
During Queen Anne's War, a force composed of Abenaki, Kanienkehaka, Wyandot and Pocumtuck, led by a small contingent of French-Canadian militia, sacked the town of Deerfield, Massachusetts, killing 56 civilians and taking more than 100 as captives. [33]

1715 April 15 Pocotaligo Massacre
Yamassee Indians killed 4 British traders and representatives of Carolina at Pocotaligo, near present-day Yemassee, South Carolina. 90 other traders were killed in the following weeks. [37]

1729 November 29 Natchez Massacre
Natchez Indians attacked French settlements near present-day Natchez, Mississippi, killing more than 200 French colonists. [39]

1755 Jul 8 Draper's Meadow massacre
5 settlers killed by Shawnee Indians at Draper's Meadow, Virginia [42]

1757 August 9 Battle of Fort William Henry
Following the fall of Fort William Henry during the Seven Years' War, Indians allied with the French killed between 70 and 180 British and colonial prisoners. [43]

1758 March 16 San Saba Mission Massacre
A large party of Comanche, Tonkawa and Hasinai Indians attacked the mission of San Saba, Texas, killing 8 people and burning down the mission. [44]

1764 July 26 Enoch Brown school massacre
Four Delaware killed a schoolmaster, 10 pupils and a pregnant woman. Two pupils were scalped but survived. [49]

1780 June 27 Westervelt Massacre
Seventeen Dutch settlers killed and two taken captive out of a caravan of 41. The settler caravan was traveling between Low Dutch Station, Kentucky and Harrod's Town, Kentucky. The victims were all scalped and sold to the British for a bounty. [58]

1781 September 1 Dietz Massacre During the Revolution,
Iroquois allied with the British attacked the home of Johannes Dietz, Berne, New York, killing and scalping Dietz, his wife, their daughter-in-law, four children of their son's family, and a servant girl. [59][60]

1781 September 1 Long Run Massacre
Thirty-two settlers killed by 50 Miami people while trying to move to safety, additionally approximately 15 settlers and 17 soldiers were killed attempting to bury the initial victims. [61][62]

1782 May 10 Corbly Family Massacre
During the Revolution, Indians allied with the British attacked the family of John Corbly, a Christian minister in Greene County, Pennsylvania. His wife and three of their children were killed; and two daughters were scalped, but survived. The Reverend Corbly escaped. [65]

1791 January 2 Big Bottom massacre
14 Settlers killed by Indian War Party in Stockport, Morgan County, Ohio

1812 September 3 Pigeon Roost Massacre
During the War of 1812, twenty four settlers, including fifteen children, were massacred by a war party of Native Americans (mostly Shawnee, but possibly including some Delawares and Potawatomis) in a surprise attack on a small village located in what is today Scott County, Indiana. [69]

1812 September 10 Zimmer Massacre
During the War of 1812, four settlers were killed in an attack believed to be by aggrieved Lenape, in Ashland County, Ohio. [70]

1812 September 15 Copus Massacre
During the War of 1812, Northwest Indians attacked the Ashland County, Ohio homestead of Rev. James Copus, killing three militiamen and one settler; and wounding two militiamen and a settler's daughter; settlers killed two Indians. [71]

1813 January 22 River Raisin Massacre
During the War of 1812, Indians allied with the British killed between 30 and 60 Kentucky militia after their surrender. [72]

1813 August 18 Dilbone Massacre
During the War of 1812, an Indian allegedly killed three settlers (David Garrard and Henry Dilbone and wife) in Miami County, Ohio. Settlers later killed the Indian they suspected of the murders. [73]

1813 August 30 Fort Mims Massacre
Aa band of Red Sticks sacked Fort Mims, Alabama, killing 400 civilians and taking 250 scalps. This action brought the US into the internal Creek War, at the same time as the War of 1812. [74]

Indian massacre - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Wry Catcher]

The same question if asked of Madison, et al, who supported the wording in the second amendment might have an interesting take on the proliferation of guns in America and the fire power available to a single suicidal person.

Madison, at al, in part, wanted to make sure the people had access to the weapons necessary for the militia to assist/resist the standing army as necessary.
With the foreknowledge of the modern day presupposed in your post, and the above in mind, what changes to you think they would make, and which of their writings supports your claim?

I suppose the obsessive compulsive, like you, and those who commit mass murder would not have been admitted to the Militia. And, if we are to read Art. I, Sec 8, Clause 16 carefully, Congress the power,

"To provide for organizing, arming and disciplining, the Militia ...reserving to the States respectfully, the Appointment of Officers (you don't have the right stuff), and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress"

Thus we can assume Madison has spelled out the the intent, giving both the Federal Government and the State Government proper authority, and Scalia made up as best as he could an excuse for allowing every person to own, possess and have in his or her custody a gun.

 

[Wry Catcher]

However, he did not live in our times, with terrorism and mass killing such an "everyday" occurance. I wonder what Ben would have to say on this topic in today's climate of global terrorism...

He did, however, live in a time where the British ran roughshod over the colonies, and Indians routinely attacked the frontiersmen.

Off point,

On point. Franklin was perfectly familiar with mass killings and terrorism.

1540 October 18
Mabila Massacre The Choctaw retaliated against Hernando de Soto's expedition,[4] killing 200 soldiers, as well as many of their horses and pigs, for their having burned down Mabila compound and killed c. 2,500 warriors who had hidden in houses of a fake village. [3][5][6]

1599 January 22–24 Acoma Massacre In retaliation for the killing of 11 Spanish soldiers, Juan de Oñate led a punitive expedition against the natives in a three-day battle at the Acoma Pueblo, killing approximately 800. King Philip III later punished Oñate for his excesses. [9][10]

1622 March 22 Jamestown Massacre
Powhatan (Pamunkey) killed 347 English men, women and children throughout the Virginia colony, almost one-third of the English population of the Jamestown colony, in an effort to push the English out of Virginia. [12]

1643 August Hutchinson Massacre
As part of Kieft's War in New Netherland, near the Split Rock (now northeastern Bronx in New York City), local Lenape (or Siwanoy) killed Anne Hutchinson, six of her children, a son-in-law, and as many as seven others (servants). Susanna, one of Hutchinson's daughters, was taken captive and lived with the natives for several years. [18]

1655 September 11–15 Peach Tree War
In retaliation for Director-General of New Netherland Peter Stuyvesant's attacks to their trading partners and allies at New Sweden, united bands of natives attacked Pavonia, Staten Island, Colen Donck and other areas of New Netherland. [20]

1676 March 26 Nine Men's Misery
During King Philip's War, warriors subjected nine captive soldiers to ritual torture and death. [23][24]

1680 August 10 Pueblo Revolt
Pueblo warriors killed 380 Spanish settlers, and drove other Spaniards from New Mexico. [27]

1689 August 5 Lachine massacre
1,500 Mohawk warriors attacked the small settlement of Lachine, New France and killed more than 90 of the village's 375 French residents, following widespread French attacks on Mohawk villages in present-day New York. [28]

1690 February 8 Schenectady Massacre
As part of the Beaver Wars, French and Algonquins destroyed Schenectady, New York, killing 60 Dutch and English settlers, including ten women and at least twelve children. [30]

1692 January 24 Candlemas Massacre
During King William's War, 200-300 Abenaki and Canadiens killed 75, took 100 prisoner and burned the town of York, Maine district of the Province of Massachusetts Bay [31]

1704 February 29 Deerfield Massacre
During Queen Anne's War, a force composed of Abenaki, Kanienkehaka, Wyandot and Pocumtuck, led by a small contingent of French-Canadian militia, sacked the town of Deerfield, Massachusetts, killing 56 civilians and taking more than 100 as captives. [33]

1715 April 15 Pocotaligo Massacre
Yamassee Indians killed 4 British traders and representatives of Carolina at Pocotaligo, near present-day Yemassee, South Carolina. 90 other traders were killed in the following weeks. [37]

1729 November 29 Natchez Massacre
Natchez Indians attacked French settlements near present-day Natchez, Mississippi, killing more than 200 French colonists. [39]

1755 Jul 8 Draper's Meadow massacre
5 settlers killed by Shawnee Indians at Draper's Meadow, Virginia [42]

1757 August 9 Battle of Fort William Henry
Following the fall of Fort William Henry during the Seven Years' War, Indians allied with the French killed between 70 and 180 British and colonial prisoners. [43]

1758 March 16 San Saba Mission Massacre
A large party of Comanche, Tonkawa and Hasinai Indians attacked the mission of San Saba, Texas, killing 8 people and burning down the mission. [44]

1764 July 26 Enoch Brown school massacre
Four Delaware killed a schoolmaster, 10 pupils and a pregnant woman. Two pupils were scalped but survived. [49]

1780 June 27 Westervelt Massacre
Seventeen Dutch settlers killed and two taken captive out of a caravan of 41. The settler caravan was traveling between Low Dutch Station, Kentucky and Harrod's Town, Kentucky. The victims were all scalped and sold to the British for a bounty. [58]

1781 September 1 Dietz Massacre During the Revolution,
Iroquois allied with the British attacked the home of Johannes Dietz, Berne, New York, killing and scalping Dietz, his wife, their daughter-in-law, four children of their son's family, and a servant girl. [59][60]

1781 September 1 Long Run Massacre
Thirty-two settlers killed by 50 Miami people while trying to move to safety, additionally approximately 15 settlers and 17 soldiers were killed attempting to bury the initial victims. [61][62]

1782 May 10 Corbly Family Massacre
During the Revolution, Indians allied with the British attacked the family of John Corbly, a Christian minister in Greene County, Pennsylvania. His wife and three of their children were killed; and two daughters were scalped, but survived. The Reverend Corbly escaped. [65]

1791 January 2 Big Bottom massacre
14 Settlers killed by Indian War Party in Stockport, Morgan County, Ohio

1812 September 3 Pigeon Roost Massacre
During the War of 1812, twenty four settlers, including fifteen children, were massacred by a war party of Native Americans (mostly Shawnee, but possibly including some Delawares and Potawatomis) in a surprise attack on a small village located in what is today Scott County, Indiana. [69]

1812 September 10 Zimmer Massacre
During the War of 1812, four settlers were killed in an attack believed to be by aggrieved Lenape, in Ashland County, Ohio. [70]

1812 September 15 Copus Massacre
During the War of 1812, Northwest Indians attacked the Ashland County, Ohio homestead of Rev. James Copus, killing three militiamen and one settler; and wounding two militiamen and a settler's daughter; settlers killed two Indians. [71]

1813 January 22 River Raisin Massacre
During the War of 1812, Indians allied with the British killed between 30 and 60 Kentucky militia after their surrender. [72]

1813 August 18 Dilbone Massacre
During the War of 1812, an Indian allegedly killed three settlers (David Garrard and Henry Dilbone and wife) in Miami County, Ohio. Settlers later killed the Indian they suspected of the murders. [73]

1813 August 30 Fort Mims Massacre
Aa band of Red Sticks sacked Fort Mims, Alabama, killing 400 civilians and taking 250 scalps. This action brought the US into the internal Creek War, at the same time as the War of 1812. [74]

Indian massacre - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

During war shit happens. Did any person in 1812 enter a school room, shoot and kill 20-five year old children in a couple of minutes?

No, then please respond rationally, and not pretend a pear is a polar bear.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The same question if asked of Madison, et al, who supported the wording in the second amendment might have an interesting take on the proliferation of guns in America and the fire power available to a single suicidal person.

Madison, at al, in part, wanted to make sure the people had access to the weapons necessary for the militia to assist/resist the standing army as necessary.
With the foreknowledge of the modern day presupposed in your post, and the above in mind, what changes to you think they would make, and which of their writings supports your claim?

...Thus we can assume Madison has spelled out the the intent, giving both the Federal Government and the State Government proper authority, and Scalia made up as best as he could an excuse for allowing every person to own, possess and have in his or her custody a gun.

In other words, you have no meaningful answer to the question.
As per the norm.

 

[M14 Shooter]

During war shit happens. Did any person in 1812 enter a school room, shoot and kill 20-five year old children in a couple of minutes?

Fact is, Franklin, at al, were indeed perfectly familiar with violence, mass killings and terrorism.
Your point, expressed weakly as a supposition as to what others would think, negated
As per the norm.

 

[320 Years of History]

How many have been committed in your life-time?

I don't know if it's off topic or not because I don't see what comments inspired yours above.

There were plenty of massacres or multiple/mass murders in the course of our history, including our early history.

• Indian Massacres
  
• New Milford historian unearths account of America's first mass murder
  
• http://www.napoleon-series.org/military/Warof1812/2013/Issue20/Eshlemen2.pdf
  
• List of massacres in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  
• The Shocking Savagery of America’s Early History | History | Smithsonian

About all that seems different to me is that prior to the 20th century they seemed to be called "massacres" rather than "mass murders."

 

[FA_Q2]

Is the NRA a supporter of terrorism, and are their supporters fellow travelers of mass murderers who slaughter innocents?

" Congressional Democrats are trying to build support for an effort to bar gun purchases by terror suspects, hoping to take advantage of the same public anxieties about security that gave Republicans a ringing House victory

"The Democratic push seems likely to fall victim to opposition from the National Rifle Association and congressional gun-rights backers, chiefly Republicans, who have smothered firearms curbs for years. If the Republicans who control Congress block votes on the proposal, Democrats hope to profit politically by winning sympathy from angry voters."

Democrats push to prevent gun sales to terror-list suspects

Hate and fear works for both sides, sometimes measures are rational, other times fixed in emotion or self interests.

IMO, this aticle brings up an interesting point that is worth exploring.

No matter what you may think of a particular freedom, the government does not get to remove it without actually going to court and proving that you have committed a crime

An interesting point. What is more important to our fellow citezentry, Freedoms, or Security? Benjamin Franklin once said: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." (pulled from NPR.org) However, he did not live in our times, with terrorism and mass killing such an "everyday" occurance. I wonder what Ben would have to say on this topic in today's climate of global terrorism...

He would not have had any different view IMHO considering that the past has seen FAR MORE death and killings.

In reality, the problem with selling freedom for safety is that the safety is simply an illusion. You will continue to exchange freedom for safety until the point that you have no freedom left and yet you will still not be safe. There are inherent dangers to simply being alive and crazy people are one of those dangers.

We live in a world where you are ten times more likely to die driving to work or because you will not stop eating McDonald burgers yet we want to restructure society because of terrorists out of pure fear. The very concept is really crazy.

 

[oldsoul]

Is the NRA a supporter of terrorism, and are their supporters fellow travelers of mass murderers who slaughter innocents?

" Congressional Democrats are trying to build support for an effort to bar gun purchases by terror suspects, hoping to take advantage of the same public anxieties about security that gave Republicans a ringing House victory

"The Democratic push seems likely to fall victim to opposition from the National Rifle Association and congressional gun-rights backers, chiefly Republicans, who have smothered firearms curbs for years. If the Republicans who control Congress block votes on the proposal, Democrats hope to profit politically by winning sympathy from angry voters."

Democrats push to prevent gun sales to terror-list suspects

Hate and fear works for both sides, sometimes measures are rational, other times fixed in emotion or self interests.

IMO, this aticle brings up an interesting point that is worth exploring.

No matter what you may think of a particular freedom, the government does not get to remove it without actually going to court and proving that you have committed a crime

An interesting point. What is more important to our fellow citezentry, Freedoms, or Security? Benjamin Franklin once said: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." (pulled from NPR.org) However, he did not live in our times, with terrorism and mass killing such an "everyday" occurance. I wonder what Ben would have to say on this topic in today's climate of global terrorism...

He would not have had any different view IMHO considering that the past has seen FAR MORE death and killings.

In reality, the problem with selling freedom for safety is that the safety is simply an illusion. You will continue to exchange freedom for safety until the point that you have no freedom left and yet you will still not be safe. There are inherent dangers to simply being alive and crazy people are one of those dangers.

We live in a world where you are ten times more likely to die driving to work or because you will not stop eating McDonald burgers yet we want to restructure society because of terrorists out of pure fear. The very concept is really crazy.

Oh, but the republicans are the one who are peddling, and governing from, fear, not the gun grabbers. LOL

 

[M14 Shooter]

Oh, but the republicans are the one who are peddling, and governing from, fear, not the gun grabbers. LOL

Every argument for gun control is, in some way, based on fear.

 

[oldsoul]

Oh, but the republicans are the one who are peddling, and governing from, fear, not the gun grabbers. LOL

Every argument for gun control is, in some way, based on fear.

You are right, sir.

 

[oldsoul]

Oh, but the republicans are the one who are peddling, and governing from, fear, not the gun grabbers. LOL

Every argument for gun control is, in some way, based on fear.

You are right, sir.

Also, arguments against gun-control are, in large part, based on fear. The only difference is the fear that motivates (ie. fear of oppression vs. fear of gun violence).

 

[FA_Q2]

Is the NRA a supporter of terrorism, and are their supporters fellow travelers of mass murderers who slaughter innocents?

" Congressional Democrats are trying to build support for an effort to bar gun purchases by terror suspects, hoping to take advantage of the same public anxieties about security that gave Republicans a ringing House victory

"The Democratic push seems likely to fall victim to opposition from the National Rifle Association and congressional gun-rights backers, chiefly Republicans, who have smothered firearms curbs for years. If the Republicans who control Congress block votes on the proposal, Democrats hope to profit politically by winning sympathy from angry voters."

Democrats push to prevent gun sales to terror-list suspects

Hate and fear works for both sides, sometimes measures are rational, other times fixed in emotion or self interests.

IMO, this aticle brings up an interesting point that is worth exploring.

No matter what you may think of a particular freedom, the government does not get to remove it without actually going to court and proving that you have committed a crime

An interesting point. What is more important to our fellow citezentry, Freedoms, or Security? Benjamin Franklin once said: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." (pulled from NPR.org) However, he did not live in our times, with terrorism and mass killing such an "everyday" occurance. I wonder what Ben would have to say on this topic in today's climate of global terrorism...

He would not have had any different view IMHO considering that the past has seen FAR MORE death and killings.

In reality, the problem with selling freedom for safety is that the safety is simply an illusion. You will continue to exchange freedom for safety until the point that you have no freedom left and yet you will still not be safe. There are inherent dangers to simply being alive and crazy people are one of those dangers.

We live in a world where you are ten times more likely to die driving to work or because you will not stop eating McDonald burgers yet we want to restructure society because of terrorists out of pure fear. The very concept is really crazy.

Oh, but the republicans are the one who are peddling, and governing from, fear, not the gun grabbers. LOL

So some would like to pass off.

 

[oldsoul]

Is the NRA a supporter of terrorism, and are their supporters fellow travelers of mass murderers who slaughter innocents?

" Congressional Democrats are trying to build support for an effort to bar gun purchases by terror suspects, hoping to take advantage of the same public anxieties about security that gave Republicans a ringing House victory

"The Democratic push seems likely to fall victim to opposition from the National Rifle Association and congressional gun-rights backers, chiefly Republicans, who have smothered firearms curbs for years. If the Republicans who control Congress block votes on the proposal, Democrats hope to profit politically by winning sympathy from angry voters."

Democrats push to prevent gun sales to terror-list suspects

Hate and fear works for both sides, sometimes measures are rational, other times fixed in emotion or self interests.

IMO, this aticle brings up an interesting point that is worth exploring.

No matter what you may think of a particular freedom, the government does not get to remove it without actually going to court and proving that you have committed a crime

An interesting point. What is more important to our fellow citezentry, Freedoms, or Security? Benjamin Franklin once said: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." (pulled from NPR.org) However, he did not live in our times, with terrorism and mass killing such an "everyday" occurance. I wonder what Ben would have to say on this topic in today's climate of global terrorism...

He would not have had any different view IMHO considering that the past has seen FAR MORE death and killings.

In reality, the problem with selling freedom for safety is that the safety is simply an illusion. You will continue to exchange freedom for safety until the point that you have no freedom left and yet you will still not be safe. There are inherent dangers to simply being alive and crazy people are one of those dangers.

We live in a world where you are ten times more likely to die driving to work or because you will not stop eating McDonald burgers yet we want to restructure society because of terrorists out of pure fear. The very concept is really crazy.

Oh, but the republicans are the one who are peddling, and governing from, fear, not the gun grabbers. LOL

So some would like to pass off.

I don't understand what you are trying to say here.

 

[FA_Q2]

Is the NRA a supporter of terrorism, and are their supporters fellow travelers of mass murderers who slaughter innocents?

" Congressional Democrats are trying to build support for an effort to bar gun purchases by terror suspects, hoping to take advantage of the same public anxieties about security that gave Republicans a ringing House victory

"The Democratic push seems likely to fall victim to opposition from the National Rifle Association and congressional gun-rights backers, chiefly Republicans, who have smothered firearms curbs for years. If the Republicans who control Congress block votes on the proposal, Democrats hope to profit politically by winning sympathy from angry voters."

Democrats push to prevent gun sales to terror-list suspects

Hate and fear works for both sides, sometimes measures are rational, other times fixed in emotion or self interests.

IMO, this aticle brings up an interesting point that is worth exploring.

No matter what you may think of a particular freedom, the government does not get to remove it without actually going to court and proving that you have committed a crime

An interesting point. What is more important to our fellow citezentry, Freedoms, or Security? Benjamin Franklin once said: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." (pulled from NPR.org) However, he did not live in our times, with terrorism and mass killing such an "everyday" occurance. I wonder what Ben would have to say on this topic in today's climate of global terrorism...

He would not have had any different view IMHO considering that the past has seen FAR MORE death and killings.

In reality, the problem with selling freedom for safety is that the safety is simply an illusion. You will continue to exchange freedom for safety until the point that you have no freedom left and yet you will still not be safe. There are inherent dangers to simply being alive and crazy people are one of those dangers.

We live in a world where you are ten times more likely to die driving to work or because you will not stop eating McDonald burgers yet we want to restructure society because of terrorists out of pure fear. The very concept is really crazy.

Oh, but the republicans are the one who are peddling, and governing from, fear, not the gun grabbers. LOL

So some would like to pass off.

I don't understand what you are trying to say here.

So some (the gun grabbers) would like to pass it off as though they are not peddling in fear.

 

[Wry Catcher]

IMO, this aticle brings up an interesting point that is worth exploring.
An interesting point. What is more important to our fellow citezentry, Freedoms, or Security? Benjamin Franklin once said: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." (pulled from NPR.org) However, he did not live in our times, with terrorism and mass killing such an "everyday" occurance. I wonder what Ben would have to say on this topic in today's climate of global terrorism...

He would not have had any different view IMHO considering that the past has seen FAR MORE death and killings.

In reality, the problem with selling freedom for safety is that the safety is simply an illusion. You will continue to exchange freedom for safety until the point that you have no freedom left and yet you will still not be safe. There are inherent dangers to simply being alive and crazy people are one of those dangers.

We live in a world where you are ten times more likely to die driving to work or because you will not stop eating McDonald burgers yet we want to restructure society because of terrorists out of pure fear. The very concept is really crazy.

Oh, but the republicans are the one who are peddling, and governing from, fear, not the gun grabbers. LOL

So some would like to pass off.

I don't understand what you are trying to say here.

So some (the gun grabbers) would like to pass it off as though they are not peddling in fear.

There is fear and irrational fear. The former being an unpleasant emotion caused by the belief that someone or something is dangerous, likely to cause pain, or a threat.

An irrational fear is where one feels the need to always have a gun or knife at hand since the world in general is a dangerous place and they experience anxiety whenever the issue of gun control is mentioned.

Fear is rational, but not debilitating. Irrational fear is unhealthy and can manifest itself as panic disorder or paranoia (as seen in the posts of those so obsessed with their 2nd A. Right that they believe anyone who wants to reduce gun violence in America is out to grab their guns).

 

[oldsoul]

I don't have the time right now to provide sources, so I make no claim. However, I challenge the assumption that "Gun-Control" laws have any real effect on the number of violent crimes involving a gun. I also challenge the assertion that defence of the 2nd is backed by an irrational fear.

 

[Wry Catcher]

I don't have the time right now to provide sources, so I make no claim. However, I challenge the assumption that "Gun-Control" laws have any real effect on the number of violent crimes involving a gun. I also challenge the assertion that defence of the 2nd is backed by an irrational fear.

I suppose we won't know if gun control, yet to be defined in practice here in the states, can have real effects until we try it. As for defending the Second A. I have no doubt that many of those who post obsessively on gun issues are paranoid.

 

[oldsoul]

I don't have the time right now to provide sources, so I make no claim. However, I challenge the assumption that "Gun-Control" laws have any real effect on the number of violent crimes involving a gun. I also challenge the assertion that defence of the 2nd is backed by an irrational fear.

I suppose we won't know if gun control, yet to be defined in practice here in the states, can have real effects until we try it. As for defending the Second A. I have no doubt that many of those who post obsessively on gun issues are paranoid.

Apparently our definitions of "gun-control" differ. As for the paranoia of those posting "obsessively" on gun issues, what makes you say that? I am curious.

 

[FA_Q2]

I don't have the time right now to provide sources, so I make no claim. However, I challenge the assumption that "Gun-Control" laws have any real effect on the number of violent crimes involving a gun. I also challenge the assertion that defence of the 2nd is backed by an irrational fear.

I suppose we won't know if gun control, yet to be defined in practice here in the states, can have real effects until we try it. As for defending the Second A. I have no doubt that many of those who post obsessively on gun issues are paranoid.

No gun control in the US.

You are a hoot. You can know that it has almost no effect because we have tried it and several other nations have tried it. News flash, there is MOUNTAINS of data out there and it shows gun control is completely ineffective.

From my post here:
Hillary Clinton Really Is Coming For Your Guns

And you totally ignored my statement regarding the black market. Or are you claiming they would run those checks, seeing as they are criminals themselves.

Do you think the black market will limit guns to whom they sell? Will they run criminal checks, mental health checks?

All gun whackos must have a combined IQ in single digits
Nobody is taking away guns, they are limiting guns. How many guns do you need?
Oh, I know the government is coming for your guns giving you no check on a tyrannical US government.
Do you really think owning guns will keep you safe from the government if they want to go after you. One drone and they would blow you and all of your guns away.
When someone has no quality to provide self esteem they turn to guns.
Guns provide the ultimate losers in our society a feeling they are somebody.
Those who want no gun controls are the biggest nobodies in our society.

Let's pass background check laws and see what happens. Changes can be made based on what actually happens as opposed to guessing what might happen.

And you totally ignored my statement regarding the black market. Or are you claiming they would run those checks, seeing as they are criminals themselves.

Do you think the black market will limit guns to whom they sell? Will they run criminal checks, mental health checks?

All gun whackos must have a combined IQ in single digits
Nobody is taking away guns, they are limiting guns. How many guns do you need?
Oh, I know the government is coming for your guns giving you no check on a tyrannical US government.
Do you really think owning guns will keep you safe from the government if they want to go after you. One drone and they would blow you and all of your guns away.
When someone has no quality to provide self esteem they turn to guns.
Guns provide the ultimate losers in our society a feeling they are somebody.
Those who want no gun controls are the biggest nobodies in our society.

Let's pass background check laws and see what happens. Changes can be made based on what actually happens as opposed to guessing what might happen.

Do you think the black market will limit guns to whom they sell? Will they run criminal checks, mental health checks?

All gun whackos must have a combined IQ in single digits
Nobody is taking away guns, they are limiting guns. How many guns do you need?
Oh, I know the government is coming for your guns giving you no check on a tyrannical US government.
Do you really think owning guns will keep you safe from the government if they want to go after you. One drone and they would blow you and all of your guns away.
When someone has no quality to provide self esteem they turn to guns.
Guns provide the ultimate losers in our society a feeling they are somebody.
Those who want no gun controls are the biggest nobodies in our society.

Let's pass background check laws and see what happens. Changes can be made based on what actually happens as opposed to guessing what might happen.

Sorry but you don't get to pull that bullshit. Gun control laws have been passed all over the nation and the entire planet. The data is already there. If you truly cared what effect those laws had on those specific areas you would study what has already happened.

The goal is to get legislation passed because undoing it is FAR more difficult than actually getting it passed. If you want to limit a RIGHT you need to show positive results and a clear need - not simply do it out of hand to 'see what happens.'

Assault by "firearm" is irrelevant. What matters is ASSAULT PERIOD or are you really trying to state that an increase in assaults is fine as long as the implement is different?

Then comparing one nation to another is idiotic and unscientific. Have you controlled for population diversity, cultural problems, border differences, population density ect, ect. Of course not - you use a statistic that is meaningless because you think it supports a position but it does not. What matters is the difference in crime in a single area BEFORE and AFTER such legislation has been passed as that controls for all the other variables. We find that nothing really changes. The simplest way to break down the data is to look at homicides - what we are really trying to address with gun control:

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:

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:

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):

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.

Americas problem with gun assaults is not guns - it is a cultural and diversity issue. You cannot solve those with gun control - it accomplishes nothing whatsoever.

 

[FA_Q2]

I don't have the time right now to provide sources, so I make no claim. However, I challenge the assumption that "Gun-Control" laws have any real effect on the number of violent crimes involving a gun. I also challenge the assertion that defence of the 2nd is backed by an irrational fear.

Well, you are slightly off. Gun control does effect the number of crimes committed with a gun. That is why you see every single gun control advocate cite the fallacious 'gun crime' level as though changing the tool used in the crime is the point of gun control. What you do not see is any real effect on overall homicides and the cursory looks I have taken in other stats suggest that other crimes may possibly increase but I have not seen anything to show that they decrease in any way. That part I am less sure on though so I do not like to make hard claims into the overall effect there.

The end goal of gun control must be the reduction of crime/homicides otherwise there is no point to reducing guns. There is almost no evidence that shows this is the case. Don't get caught up in the 'gun crime' trap - that is a filter applied to the data specifically to force it to fit an agenda. I don't care if there are 10 people shot to death or 10 thrown of a building - they are dead either way and the implement used is of little relevance.