Gun ownership rights are under attack.

[logical4u]

52nd street -

And yet we can look at any of a hundred acts of genocide that have taken place in extremely highly armed societies - Cambodia, Rwanda, even the Cultural Revolution all took place in societies where people had a lot of weapons in their homes. Massacres were conducted by Rios Montte, Cristiani, Pinochet...and yet all countries were well armed.

In no case that I am aware of has gun ownership prevented the use of force by a government against its own people.

By all means prove me wrong - name one.

Did any of those countries have the second amendment: the right to protect yourself, your family and your property, by force if necessary?

 

[Full-Auto]

Full-Auto -

you have a great handle and avatar for this thread!!

I agree that there is no mention of safety in most legal statutes - but there are many references to safety in international treaties such as those upon which organisations such as UNICEF are based, particularly in relation to children. In many cases the US is a signatory to those treaties.

That said, the greater issue with safety as a right is less one of law than of basic human rights. Let's assume we all believe no child should ever die by violence - current US gun laws do not adequately protect children, and we know this when we look at the numbers of children who die each year. I agree guns are not the only cause of death - but they are one big enough that to refuse to discuss the issue seems disingenuous.

My other point here is that statistics tell us that homes which contain weapons are more likely to be the scene of a homicide than other homes - and by a factor of three (Kellerman & Harvard School of Public Health both confirm this).

Hence, anyone entering your home is entering an area of increased risk of homicide, statistically speaking.

Heres a trivia question that the answer shocks many.

WHICH WEAPON IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE MOST DEATHS OF MANKIND?

 

[Sodafin]

Logical4u -

Because something makes us feel safer, does not mean it IS safer.

I know people who feel safer travelling by car than plane - statistics tell us the opposite is true.

Of course there may be extreme instances where a person might feel a gun would be useful, such as those you mention, but one also needs to consider whether carrying a weapon in a car the other 364 days a year might increase, for instance, the chances of a child causing an accident with the gun.

 

[logical4u]

No one is talking about "making" anyone do anything. We are talking about allowing them to exercise their rights.
Germany has the toughest gun laws around. And they just had a teenager commit a bunch of murders with a handgun. England has tough gun laws, and the crime rate there is skyrocketing.
Gun control is about control, not about guns.

Hilarious stuff!

Firstly - 194 people died of gun violence in Germany last year. More than 10,000 in the US.

So who has better laws?

Secondly, you are NOT about rights. Every time a teenager takes a gun to school or a worker takes a gun to work or a man leaves a gun laying around his home - they are actively denying the rights of the people around them - the people who want to be safe.

This is like saying anyone that leaves drugs unlocked in their homes is violating the rights of the person that sees the drugs, knows the drugs can be dangerous, but takes them anyway. Ignorance is no the denial of rights, it is a choice.

 

[logical4u]

Rabbi -

You may have heard this example used before - but I'd be happy to demonstrate again that if we take the Top 20 western nations in terms of gun ownership, and then the Top 20 western nations in terms of deaths by gun shot wound, they correlate in 18 or 19 out of 20 positions.

That is beyond reasonable doubt, obviously.

Forget ranting about what various NRA blogs have 'debunked' - these are fairly clear and simple facts that you can confirm yourself with 5 minutes online.

Freedom, like free will allows people to make their own choices. If there is no freedom, there is no choice: put on your yoke and go to work for your master.

 

[Full-Auto]

No one is talking about "making" anyone do anything. We are talking about allowing them to exercise their rights.
Germany has the toughest gun laws around. And they just had a teenager commit a bunch of murders with a handgun. England has tough gun laws, and the crime rate there is skyrocketing.
Gun control is about control, not about guns.

Hilarious stuff!

Firstly - 194 people died of gun violence in Germany last year. More than 10,000 in the US.

So who has better laws?

Secondly, you are NOT about rights. Every time a teenager takes a gun to school or a worker takes a gun to work or a man leaves a gun laying around his home - they are actively denying the rights of the people around them - the people who want to be safe.

This is like saying anyone that leaves drugs unlocked in their homes is violating the rights of the person that sees the drugs, knows the drugs can be dangerous, but takes them anyway. Ignorance is no the denial of rights, it is a choice.

There is no right to unreasonable fear. If I were to use numbers, autos anually kill far more.

 

[logical4u]

Rabbi -

I think most sensible people would prefer to compare western countries with other western countries - not with virtual war zones.

I understand that your argument only holds water if you compare the US with active war zones, but you're not likely to fool many people with that I think.

hjmick -

Please explain to me how having a gun in my home denies anyone their rights.

Because it exposes other people entering your home to a greater chance of death by gun shot wound. Hence, their rights are compromised.

Fact.

Just treat every home like it has a gun, then you choose whether you expose yourself to guns (or not). Live like a hermit, it is safer.

 

[logical4u]

We are comparing different cultures. France and Germany really dont have very different cultures. Both are western socialist states.

Actually, both France and Germany have CONSERVATIVE governments, genius!!!

When we compare developed countries -

- those with high levels of gun ownership have high levels of homicide.
- those with low levels of gun ownership have low homicide rates.

And this fact is true in 19 out of 20 countries ranked.

Until you can explain that, you do not have a case.

Yes, unfortunetly, the rest of their 'culture' is not attractive enough to lure US citizens to move there, wonder why that is?

 

[Sodafin]

There is no right to unreasonable fear. If I were to use numbers, autos anually kill far more.

Yes, cars kill more - but we also have laws to limit speed, drinking driving, drivers licences, seatbelts and even parking, do we not?

The fact is, guns killed 196 people in Germany in 2006 - but 30,986 people in the USA.

http://webapp.cdc.gov/cgi-bin/broker.exe

So far today, 130 Americans were shot, which is more than 4,600 this year.

The German statistic proves that the US could reduce its number of gun-related deaths and injuries by perhaps 90% if more sensible laws were enacted and applied.

 

[Sodafin]

This is like saying anyone that leaves drugs unlocked in their homes is violating the rights of the person that sees the drugs, knows the drugs can be dangerous, but takes them anyway. Ignorance is no the denial of rights, it is a choice.

Yes, exactly.

Any adult who leaves drugs laying around the house where kids could find them is violating those childrens basic ights, IMO.

 

[logical4u]

Logical4u -

Because something makes us feel safer, does not mean it IS safer.

I know people who feel safer travelling by car than plane - statistics tell us the opposite is true.

Of course there may be extreme instances where a person might feel a gun would be useful, such as those you mention, but one also needs to consider whether carrying a weapon in a car the other 364 days a year might increase, for instance, the chances of a child causing an accident with the gun.

We don't need a fire extinguisher for years and years, but when we do, aren't we glad we have one?

 

[logical4u]

This is like saying anyone that leaves drugs unlocked in their homes is violating the rights of the person that sees the drugs, knows the drugs can be dangerous, but takes them anyway. Ignorance is no the denial of rights, it is a choice.

Yes, exactly.

Any adult who leaves drugs laying around the house where kids could find them is violating those childrens basic ights, IMO.

you misunderstood, I said unlocked (otherwise, someone delibertly took something that belonged to someone else with full knowledge of what they were doing). In other words, take some responsibility for yourself.

 

[Full-Auto]

There is no right to unreasonable fear. If I were to use numbers, autos anually kill far more.

Yes, cars kill more - but we also have laws to limit speed, drinking driving, drivers licences, seatbelts and even parking, do we not?

The fact is, guns killed 196 people in Germany in 2006 - but 30,986 people in the USA.

Broker Version 8.1 (Build 1366)

So far today, 130 Americans were shot, which is more than 4,600 this year.

The German statistic proves that the US could reduce its number of gun-related deaths and injuries by perhaps 90% if more sensible laws were enacted and applied.

Using fear as the criteria. What should I fear most? A larger amount of deaths from a priveledge or a smaller number where people have abused their right, Knowing the number is not entirely contributed to abuse.


The answer to the trivia question IS..................................................................

The Machete

 

[Sodafin]

We don't need a fire extinguisher for years and years, but when we do, aren't we glad we have one?

Yes, absolutely, but fire extinguishers do not increase the likelihood that you will be killed when they are not being used.

 

[logical4u]

Logical4u -

Because something makes us feel safer, does not mean it IS safer.

I know people who feel safer travelling by car than plane - statistics tell us the opposite is true.

Of course there may be extreme instances where a person might feel a gun would be useful, such as those you mention, but one also needs to consider whether carrying a weapon in a car the other 364 days a year might increase, for instance, the chances of a child causing an accident with the gun.

Isn't that what a fire arm ban is all about, making "you" "feel" safe?

 

[Sodafin]

Isn't that what a fire arm ban is all about, making "you" "feel" safe?

No, it is about lowering the statistical probability that innocent people will be killed.

When the rate of death by gun shot wound in the USA is more than ten times what it is in most other western countries, any move to reduce the number of guns will also reduce the number of deaths.

In simple terms - a kid can't pick up an unlocked gun and shoot his little brother if there is no gun in the house to begin with.

 

[Full-Auto]

Isn't that what a fire arm ban is all about, making "you" "feel" safe?

No, it is about lowering the statistical probability that innocent people will be killed.

When the rate of death by gun shot wound in the USA is more than ten times what it is in most other western countries, any move to reduce the number of guns will also reduce the number of deaths.

In simple terms - a kid can't pick up an unlocked gun and shoot his little brother if there is no gun in the house to begin with.

Will you go to court with an attorney and publically declare you give up the right to keep and bare arms?

How do you intend to uninvent the firearm?

Instead of throwing unconstitutional laws at us, why hasnt the movement attempted to do this within the context of the constitution.

I know you have heard the argument about keeping the government in check. Given the actions of the holder justice dept. How long will you allow a blantant flaunting of the law to continue?

 

[Sodafin]

I don't think there need be a conflict between the constitution and the interests of different groups on this one. Like so many issues, if all sides sat down at a table ready to find a deal, they'd probably find one.

Here in Finland we are currently looking at a massive redrafting of our gun laws in a bid to reduce the number of mass shootings we are having, and yet we also have a very big hunting community.

So what we are looking at is targeting hand guns and automatic weapons - but allowing hunters and farmers to keep their shot guns and hunting rifles.

We're also targeting young guys as the major problem. For instance, the new law will now state that the first gun you but can not be a hand gun. There will also be compulsory membership of a gun or hunting club, and compulsory training at that club until you can show you know how to use the damn thing. I think this is a good start.

The US IS different, because of the constitution and the culture of keeping weapons, but even so, I really would have thought most people could figure the difference between a farmer keeping a shot gun, and a troubled 16 year old kid trying to get his hands on a handgun.

 

[Full-Auto]

I don't think there need be a conflict between the constitution and the interests of different groups on this one. Like so many issues, if all sides sat down at a table ready to find a deal, they'd probably find one.

Here in Finland we are currently looking at a massive redrafting of our gun laws in a bid to reduce the number of mass shootings we are having, and yet we also have a very big hunting community.

So what we are looking at is targeting hand guns and automatic weapons - but allowing hunters and farmers to keep their shot guns and hunting rifles.

We're also targeting young guys as the major problem. For instance, the new law will now state that the first gun you but can not be a hand gun. There will also be compulsory membership of a gun or hunting club, and compulsory training at that club until you can show you know how to use the damn thing. I think this is a good start.

The US IS different, because of the constitution and the culture of keeping weapons, but even so, I really would have thought most people could figure the difference between a farmer keeping a shot gun, and a troubled 16 year old kid trying to get his hands on a handgun.

I think we may have found some argreement.

Education.

I have raised four, all with guns in the house Locked behind a single pane of glass. Each child was differnt in the decision of when to give them the proper instruction. I always started with the infamous BB gun. It was treated like any other firearm, locked away until we went to the range or country side. Actually exposing them to firearms reduced the curiosity and gave them a excellent understanding of the type of damage that could be caused.

Education would be far more effective then restriction IMHO.

 

[Sodafin]

It's great to find some common ground!

I agree that education should be the cornerstone of any policy which is looking to reduces deaths and accidents. Any good parents are always going to lock guns away, supervise the usage of guns, and ensure young people know what they are handling. Hence the weapon is much, much less of a problem to anyone else.

The only problem is, of course, is that not all parents are good parents.