The 2nd Amendment (Why we our Founders wrote it)

[ding]

Liberty and freedom huh? A murder rate 4 times the norm is what you get with less than that. You'd not get liberty and freedom, but fear and killing.

Ever wondered why the US has the highest murder rate in the first world? And why the Americas are much worse than other continents?

Gun violence and gun accidents are a cost of freedom and liberty. If you are truly concerned about the murder rate with guns, you would be more concerned with inner city violence which is why our murder rate is so high. I'll provide the numbers for you after I get back from work.

Are they? They are to a certain extent, but then again the Brits, the western Europeans, the Canadians, the Australians etc have the same freedom and yet have LESS gun violence and don't have tyrannical govts (well, not any more tyrannical than the US's, in some regardless less tyrannical).

List of freedom indices - Wikipedia

You can see the middle one, Australia is free but the US is "mostly free".

Hmm, and yet less gun violence.

Yes, I'm concerned with inner city violence, it happens in the UK, France and the US, but the rates in the US are higher across the board. In fact the US only have one city above 250,000 people with a murder rate that is lower than the UK's murder rate. ONE CITY.

But it appears you're trying to pass off the fact that the US has a high rate of murder, and you're unwilling to see that the only difference is guns.

Sorry, bruv, gun violence and gun accidents are the price of freedom and liberty.

That is, indeed, what the racists used to teach us during the civil rights struggle in the South, but that damned traitor, JFK, nationalized the national guard and crushed our freedom to lynch negros and kill Yankee civil rights workers. They also did the same thing at all the riots in 1967-1970. Didn't seem fair that they used tanks, and the freedom loving patriots only had rifles and handguns:

Still doing it now.

They go after those they feel they can go after, and the Native Americans are seen as weak.

You are proving my point.

 

[rightwinger]

No people do not need to be disarmed. Their ability to form an effective fighting force is limited. An army is more than a "bunch of guys with guns" It takes training, tactics, communications, command and control plus the all important logistics
Most importantly it takes a willingness to die for your cause.....something our gun nuts lack

The Founding Fathers disagree with you, amigo.

History has proven the Founding Fathers wrong

Even in the Revolutionary War where local militias were actually used, they were found to be minimally effective. It was not the local minuteman that won the war.......It was the Continental Army and the French Navy

The Founders disdained the idea of a standing Army....once again, history proved them wrong. Lack of a standing Army almost cost us the country in 1812. We also suffered for it during WWI and WWII

Armies are not a bunch of guys with guns running around and shooting at stuff.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Maybe you read every word, however a lot of people end up thinking from their preconceived ideas on the subject, rather than trying to understand what is actually there.

The militia isn't "light infantry" at all. The militia is a citizen army. You look at rebel groups, which is what the militia would become if it ever had to fight against the US armed forces, and you see that they use all sorts of weaponry. However in the modern era they'd need more than just guns. In the past it was merely the sort of guns that people had for normal use, and that would be handguns for the most part.

No, allowing one and banning another is NOT preventing you from having arms. It is preventing you from having specific arms. However no one has ever argued that individuals be allowed to have nuclear weaponry, SAM missiles, or other such things. There are clearly limits to what arms can be had.

Semi automatic rifles with high capacity magazine is all we need to maintain liberty and freedom. Plus a good semi-automatic sidearm and shottie. Gotta have the shottie.

Liberty and freedom huh? A murder rate 4 times the norm is what you get with less than that. You'd not get liberty and freedom, but fear and killing.

Ever wondered why the US has the highest murder rate in the first world? And why the Americas are much worse than other continents?

the norm?

What is the norm?

FYI our murder rate is the same as it was in 1950 and is still declining despite the liberal murder capital of Chicago and other high crime cities

and another FYI the murder rate of the UK is the same as ir was in 1950 despite the draconian gun control laws passed in the 60's

The norm is this:

List of countries by intentional homicide rate - Wikipedia

The UK murder rate 0.9
France 1.2
Germany 0.9
Austria 0.5
Belgium 1.8
Luxembourg 0.8
Netherlands 0.7
Switzerland 0.5
Australia 1.0
New Zealand 0.9
Italy 0.8
Spain 0.7
Japan 0.3
South Korea 0.7
Canada 1.4

Here is NORMAL for FIRST WORLD countries

The USA 3.9

Yeah, the US's murder rate is 2.1 higher than the next highest, and Belgium's rate was probably high for one year due to some unexpected attack or other, rather than a normal yearly rate. The US's rate is consistently higher than every other first world country, and by a long way. I mean, it's more than double Belgium's rate for this particular year, and is 4 times higher than most.

Yes, the US's murder rate is declining. FYI the murder rates of most countries are declining too. Why? Probably due to modern entertainment. Since the 1990s murder rates have been going down across the board. That doesn't stop the US having a disproportional murder rate, and the difference appears to be guns in society.

The UK's murder might be the same, or even slightly higher than it was in the 1950s. But that doesn't tell me much at all.

BBC - Mark Easton's UK: The history of homicide

"For England, the risk of homicide falls from 1.7 (in the 1840s) to 0.7 (mid-20th Century) and back up again as we approach the present day."

So, the murder rate fell into the modern era, and then has had fluctuations, most recently due to a surge in gun violence that has been tackled and the stats have dropped, the reports in the media have dropped, the crimes have dropped.

Homicide Rate (per 100,000), 1950–2014

Then again the US murder rate isn't much different.

In 1950 the US murder rate was 4.6, today it's like 3.9. That's a slight fall. US murder rates were more or less steady until the mid 1960s, then rose to a high in 1980 of 10.2 and then began to drop with the 1990s and new entertainment being more available.

What you're trying to claim isn't so. Most countries have seen a similar pattern, but we're still having the US with guns with a higher murder rate in the 1950s and the 1980s and the 2010s. Both saw a doubling in murder rates, both saw a drop. There's only one constant in the whole affair. GUNS.

guns don't cause murder

there are more guns in this country than ever before and the murder rate continues to drop

Wow, that's all you've got in response to my post.

Guns, in the hands of criminals, cause more murders than when criminals don't have guns. Like I said in my post, in all first world countries, murder rates have halved in the last 20-30 years. So, suggesting that because murder rates are dropping in the US means guns aren't a problem is just simply ridiculous.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Liberty and freedom huh? A murder rate 4 times the norm is what you get with less than that. You'd not get liberty and freedom, but fear and killing.

Ever wondered why the US has the highest murder rate in the first world? And why the Americas are much worse than other continents?

Gun violence and gun accidents are a cost of freedom and liberty. If you are truly concerned about the murder rate with guns, you would be more concerned with inner city violence which is why our murder rate is so high. I'll provide the numbers for you after I get back from work.

Are they? They are to a certain extent, but then again the Brits, the western Europeans, the Canadians, the Australians etc have the same freedom and yet have LESS gun violence and don't have tyrannical govts (well, not any more tyrannical than the US's, in some regardless less tyrannical).

List of freedom indices - Wikipedia

You can see the middle one, Australia is free but the US is "mostly free".

Hmm, and yet less gun violence.

Yes, I'm concerned with inner city violence, it happens in the UK, France and the US, but the rates in the US are higher across the board. In fact the US only have one city above 250,000 people with a murder rate that is lower than the UK's murder rate. ONE CITY.

But it appears you're trying to pass off the fact that the US has a high rate of murder, and you're unwilling to see that the only difference is guns.

Sorry, bruv, gun violence and gun accidents are the price of freedom and liberty.

No, like I've told you, Europe and all other first world countries have as much, if not MORE freedom than the US, yet don't have anywhere near that level of gun violence. It's simply not true what you're saying.

That's your opinion. I don't believe they have more freedom and liberty than we do at all.

Oh, you don't huh? And why is that? Or are you going to keep that a secret?

 

[frigidweirdo]

Gun violence and gun accidents are a cost of freedom and liberty. If you are truly concerned about the murder rate with guns, you would be more concerned with inner city violence which is why our murder rate is so high. I'll provide the numbers for you after I get back from work.

Are they? They are to a certain extent, but then again the Brits, the western Europeans, the Canadians, the Australians etc have the same freedom and yet have LESS gun violence and don't have tyrannical govts (well, not any more tyrannical than the US's, in some regardless less tyrannical).

List of freedom indices - Wikipedia

You can see the middle one, Australia is free but the US is "mostly free".

Hmm, and yet less gun violence.

Yes, I'm concerned with inner city violence, it happens in the UK, France and the US, but the rates in the US are higher across the board. In fact the US only have one city above 250,000 people with a murder rate that is lower than the UK's murder rate. ONE CITY.

But it appears you're trying to pass off the fact that the US has a high rate of murder, and you're unwilling to see that the only difference is guns.

Sorry, bruv, gun violence and gun accidents are the price of freedom and liberty.

That is, indeed, what the racists used to teach us during the civil rights struggle in the South, but that damned traitor, JFK, nationalized the national guard and crushed our freedom to lynch negros and kill Yankee civil rights workers. They also did the same thing at all the riots in 1967-1970. Didn't seem fair that they used tanks, and the freedom loving patriots only had rifles and handguns:

Still doing it now.

They go after those they feel they can go after, and the Native Americans are seen as weak.

You are proving my point.

And how is that?

Because with guns, these guys stand no fucking chance anyway against the US armed forces? You could give them the weaponry of a country like, oh, I don't know, let's say IRAQ, and they'd still get their asses kicked, wouldn't they?

So what is your point then?

 

[Skull Pilot]

Semi automatic rifles with high capacity magazine is all we need to maintain liberty and freedom. Plus a good semi-automatic sidearm and shottie. Gotta have the shottie.

Liberty and freedom huh? A murder rate 4 times the norm is what you get with less than that. You'd not get liberty and freedom, but fear and killing.

Ever wondered why the US has the highest murder rate in the first world? And why the Americas are much worse than other continents?

the norm?

What is the norm?

FYI our murder rate is the same as it was in 1950 and is still declining despite the liberal murder capital of Chicago and other high crime cities

and another FYI the murder rate of the UK is the same as ir was in 1950 despite the draconian gun control laws passed in the 60's

The norm is this:

List of countries by intentional homicide rate - Wikipedia

The UK murder rate 0.9
France 1.2
Germany 0.9
Austria 0.5
Belgium 1.8
Luxembourg 0.8
Netherlands 0.7
Switzerland 0.5
Australia 1.0
New Zealand 0.9
Italy 0.8
Spain 0.7
Japan 0.3
South Korea 0.7
Canada 1.4

Here is NORMAL for FIRST WORLD countries

The USA 3.9

Yeah, the US's murder rate is 2.1 higher than the next highest, and Belgium's rate was probably high for one year due to some unexpected attack or other, rather than a normal yearly rate. The US's rate is consistently higher than every other first world country, and by a long way. I mean, it's more than double Belgium's rate for this particular year, and is 4 times higher than most.

Yes, the US's murder rate is declining. FYI the murder rates of most countries are declining too. Why? Probably due to modern entertainment. Since the 1990s murder rates have been going down across the board. That doesn't stop the US having a disproportional murder rate, and the difference appears to be guns in society.

The UK's murder might be the same, or even slightly higher than it was in the 1950s. But that doesn't tell me much at all.

BBC - Mark Easton's UK: The history of homicide

"For England, the risk of homicide falls from 1.7 (in the 1840s) to 0.7 (mid-20th Century) and back up again as we approach the present day."

So, the murder rate fell into the modern era, and then has had fluctuations, most recently due to a surge in gun violence that has been tackled and the stats have dropped, the reports in the media have dropped, the crimes have dropped.

Homicide Rate (per 100,000), 1950–2014

Then again the US murder rate isn't much different.

In 1950 the US murder rate was 4.6, today it's like 3.9. That's a slight fall. US murder rates were more or less steady until the mid 1960s, then rose to a high in 1980 of 10.2 and then began to drop with the 1990s and new entertainment being more available.

What you're trying to claim isn't so. Most countries have seen a similar pattern, but we're still having the US with guns with a higher murder rate in the 1950s and the 1980s and the 2010s. Both saw a doubling in murder rates, both saw a drop. There's only one constant in the whole affair. GUNS.

guns don't cause murder

there are more guns in this country than ever before and the murder rate continues to drop

Wow, that's all you've got in response to my post.

Guns, in the hands of criminals, cause more murders than when criminals don't have guns. Like I said in my post, in all first world countries, murder rates have halved in the last 20-30 years. So, suggesting that because murder rates are dropping in the US means guns aren't a problem is just simply ridiculous.

They're not the problem
Our piss poor record of keeping criminals incarcerated is the problem

Any crime committed while in possession of a gun should receive an automatic 25 year sentence with no parole
Any murder committed with a gun should receive life in prison no parole

Let's see what that does to our gun crime rate

 

[rightwinger]

Liberty and freedom huh? A murder rate 4 times the norm is what you get with less than that. You'd not get liberty and freedom, but fear and killing.

Ever wondered why the US has the highest murder rate in the first world? And why the Americas are much worse than other continents?

the norm?

What is the norm?

FYI our murder rate is the same as it was in 1950 and is still declining despite the liberal murder capital of Chicago and other high crime cities

and another FYI the murder rate of the UK is the same as ir was in 1950 despite the draconian gun control laws passed in the 60's

The norm is this:

List of countries by intentional homicide rate - Wikipedia

The UK murder rate 0.9
France 1.2
Germany 0.9
Austria 0.5
Belgium 1.8
Luxembourg 0.8
Netherlands 0.7
Switzerland 0.5
Australia 1.0
New Zealand 0.9
Italy 0.8
Spain 0.7
Japan 0.3
South Korea 0.7
Canada 1.4

Here is NORMAL for FIRST WORLD countries

The USA 3.9

Yeah, the US's murder rate is 2.1 higher than the next highest, and Belgium's rate was probably high for one year due to some unexpected attack or other, rather than a normal yearly rate. The US's rate is consistently higher than every other first world country, and by a long way. I mean, it's more than double Belgium's rate for this particular year, and is 4 times higher than most.

Yes, the US's murder rate is declining. FYI the murder rates of most countries are declining too. Why? Probably due to modern entertainment. Since the 1990s murder rates have been going down across the board. That doesn't stop the US having a disproportional murder rate, and the difference appears to be guns in society.

The UK's murder might be the same, or even slightly higher than it was in the 1950s. But that doesn't tell me much at all.

BBC - Mark Easton's UK: The history of homicide

"For England, the risk of homicide falls from 1.7 (in the 1840s) to 0.7 (mid-20th Century) and back up again as we approach the present day."

So, the murder rate fell into the modern era, and then has had fluctuations, most recently due to a surge in gun violence that has been tackled and the stats have dropped, the reports in the media have dropped, the crimes have dropped.

Homicide Rate (per 100,000), 1950–2014

Then again the US murder rate isn't much different.

In 1950 the US murder rate was 4.6, today it's like 3.9. That's a slight fall. US murder rates were more or less steady until the mid 1960s, then rose to a high in 1980 of 10.2 and then began to drop with the 1990s and new entertainment being more available.

What you're trying to claim isn't so. Most countries have seen a similar pattern, but we're still having the US with guns with a higher murder rate in the 1950s and the 1980s and the 2010s. Both saw a doubling in murder rates, both saw a drop. There's only one constant in the whole affair. GUNS.

guns don't cause murder

there are more guns in this country than ever before and the murder rate continues to drop

Wow, that's all you've got in response to my post.

Guns, in the hands of criminals, cause more murders than when criminals don't have guns. Like I said in my post, in all first world countries, murder rates have halved in the last 20-30 years. So, suggesting that because murder rates are dropping in the US means guns aren't a problem is just simply ridiculous.

They're not the problem
Our piss poor record of keeping criminals incarcerated is the problem

Any crime committed while in possession of a gun should receive an automatic 25 year sentence with no parole
Any murder committed with a gun should receive life in prison no parole

Let's see what that does to our gun crime rate

Our numbers of incarcerations has increased from 500,000 to 2.5 million in the last 30 years. Locking up more people does not seem to be the answer

 

[Skull Pilot]

the norm?

What is the norm?

FYI our murder rate is the same as it was in 1950 and is still declining despite the liberal murder capital of Chicago and other high crime cities

and another FYI the murder rate of the UK is the same as ir was in 1950 despite the draconian gun control laws passed in the 60's

The norm is this:

List of countries by intentional homicide rate - Wikipedia

The UK murder rate 0.9
France 1.2
Germany 0.9
Austria 0.5
Belgium 1.8
Luxembourg 0.8
Netherlands 0.7
Switzerland 0.5
Australia 1.0
New Zealand 0.9
Italy 0.8
Spain 0.7
Japan 0.3
South Korea 0.7
Canada 1.4

Here is NORMAL for FIRST WORLD countries

The USA 3.9

Yeah, the US's murder rate is 2.1 higher than the next highest, and Belgium's rate was probably high for one year due to some unexpected attack or other, rather than a normal yearly rate. The US's rate is consistently higher than every other first world country, and by a long way. I mean, it's more than double Belgium's rate for this particular year, and is 4 times higher than most.

Yes, the US's murder rate is declining. FYI the murder rates of most countries are declining too. Why? Probably due to modern entertainment. Since the 1990s murder rates have been going down across the board. That doesn't stop the US having a disproportional murder rate, and the difference appears to be guns in society.

The UK's murder might be the same, or even slightly higher than it was in the 1950s. But that doesn't tell me much at all.

BBC - Mark Easton's UK: The history of homicide

"For England, the risk of homicide falls from 1.7 (in the 1840s) to 0.7 (mid-20th Century) and back up again as we approach the present day."

So, the murder rate fell into the modern era, and then has had fluctuations, most recently due to a surge in gun violence that has been tackled and the stats have dropped, the reports in the media have dropped, the crimes have dropped.

Homicide Rate (per 100,000), 1950–2014

Then again the US murder rate isn't much different.

In 1950 the US murder rate was 4.6, today it's like 3.9. That's a slight fall. US murder rates were more or less steady until the mid 1960s, then rose to a high in 1980 of 10.2 and then began to drop with the 1990s and new entertainment being more available.

What you're trying to claim isn't so. Most countries have seen a similar pattern, but we're still having the US with guns with a higher murder rate in the 1950s and the 1980s and the 2010s. Both saw a doubling in murder rates, both saw a drop. There's only one constant in the whole affair. GUNS.

guns don't cause murder

there are more guns in this country than ever before and the murder rate continues to drop

Wow, that's all you've got in response to my post.

Guns, in the hands of criminals, cause more murders than when criminals don't have guns. Like I said in my post, in all first world countries, murder rates have halved in the last 20-30 years. So, suggesting that because murder rates are dropping in the US means guns aren't a problem is just simply ridiculous.

They're not the problem
Our piss poor record of keeping criminals incarcerated is the problem

Any crime committed while in possession of a gun should receive an automatic 25 year sentence with no parole
Any murder committed with a gun should receive life in prison no parole

Let's see what that does to our gun crime rate

Our numbers of incarcerations has increased from 500,000 to 2.5 million in the last 30 years. Locking up more people does not seem to be the answer

Yeah and what is the average prison sentenced served for violent crimes?

Hint
less than 5 years
Not long enough

 

[rightwinger]

Are they? They are to a certain extent, but then again the Brits, the western Europeans, the Canadians, the Australians etc have the same freedom and yet have LESS gun violence and don't have tyrannical govts (well, not any more tyrannical than the US's, in some regardless less tyrannical).

List of freedom indices - Wikipedia

You can see the middle one, Australia is free but the US is "mostly free".

Hmm, and yet less gun violence.

Yes, I'm concerned with inner city violence, it happens in the UK, France and the US, but the rates in the US are higher across the board. In fact the US only have one city above 250,000 people with a murder rate that is lower than the UK's murder rate. ONE CITY.

But it appears you're trying to pass off the fact that the US has a high rate of murder, and you're unwilling to see that the only difference is guns.

Sorry, bruv, gun violence and gun accidents are the price of freedom and liberty.

That is, indeed, what the racists used to teach us during the civil rights struggle in the South, but that damned traitor, JFK, nationalized the national guard and crushed our freedom to lynch negros and kill Yankee civil rights workers. They also did the same thing at all the riots in 1967-1970. Didn't seem fair that they used tanks, and the freedom loving patriots only had rifles and handguns:

Still doing it now.

They go after those they feel they can go after, and the Native Americans are seen as weak.

You are proving my point.

And how is that?

Because with guns, these guys stand no fucking chance anyway against the US armed forces? You could give them the weaponry of a country like, oh, I don't know, let's say IRAQ, and they'd still get their asses kicked, wouldn't they?

So what is your point then?

The idea that random gun owners could somehow hold off a modern Army is an NRA fantasy

 

[there4eyeM]

[/QUOTE]History has proven the Founding Fathers wrong

Even in the Revolutionary War where local militias were actually used, they were found to be minimally effective. It was not the local minuteman that won the war.......It was the Continental Army and the French Navy

The Founders disdained the idea of a standing Army....once again, history proved them wrong. Lack of a standing Army almost cost us the country in 1812. We also suffered for it during WWI and WWII

Armies are not a bunch of guys with guns running around and shooting at stuff.[/QUOTE]

Of course, having a standing army is what allowed the Bush League to illegally invade Iraq.

 

[rightwinger]

History has proven the Founding Fathers wrong

Even in the Revolutionary War where local militias were actually used, they were found to be minimally effective. It was not the local minuteman that won the war.......It was the Continental Army and the French Navy

The Founders disdained the idea of a standing Army....once again, history proved them wrong. Lack of a standing Army almost cost us the country in 1812. We also suffered for it during WWI and WWII

Armies are not a bunch of guys with guns running around and shooting at stuff.[/QUOTE]

Of course, having a standing army is what allowed the Bush League to illegally invade Iraq.[/QUOTE]

Also allowed us to invade Normandy

Those were not Minutemen




.

 

[there4eyeM]

The U.S.Army that landed in Normandy was conscripted from a civilian population. It had not been there and, in normal circumstances in American history, would have disappeared after the war. Essentially, America never stood down after WWII.

 

[Vandalshandle]

The U.S.Army that landed in Normandy was conscripted from a civilian population. It had not been there and, in normal circumstances in American history, would have disappeared after the war. Essentially, America never stood down after WWII.

...and the poor suckers who fell into the trap of collecting a few extra bucks by joining the Army Reserve after WWII found their asses in Korea soon after.

But, the point remains that no "militia" is going to make a stand against the military might of the USA, no matter that American Keyboard Commando Man claims is his reason for sleeping with his guns.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Liberty and freedom huh? A murder rate 4 times the norm is what you get with less than that. You'd not get liberty and freedom, but fear and killing.

Ever wondered why the US has the highest murder rate in the first world? And why the Americas are much worse than other continents?

the norm?

What is the norm?

FYI our murder rate is the same as it was in 1950 and is still declining despite the liberal murder capital of Chicago and other high crime cities

and another FYI the murder rate of the UK is the same as ir was in 1950 despite the draconian gun control laws passed in the 60's

The norm is this:

List of countries by intentional homicide rate - Wikipedia

The UK murder rate 0.9
France 1.2
Germany 0.9
Austria 0.5
Belgium 1.8
Luxembourg 0.8
Netherlands 0.7
Switzerland 0.5
Australia 1.0
New Zealand 0.9
Italy 0.8
Spain 0.7
Japan 0.3
South Korea 0.7
Canada 1.4

Here is NORMAL for FIRST WORLD countries

The USA 3.9

Yeah, the US's murder rate is 2.1 higher than the next highest, and Belgium's rate was probably high for one year due to some unexpected attack or other, rather than a normal yearly rate. The US's rate is consistently higher than every other first world country, and by a long way. I mean, it's more than double Belgium's rate for this particular year, and is 4 times higher than most.

Yes, the US's murder rate is declining. FYI the murder rates of most countries are declining too. Why? Probably due to modern entertainment. Since the 1990s murder rates have been going down across the board. That doesn't stop the US having a disproportional murder rate, and the difference appears to be guns in society.

The UK's murder might be the same, or even slightly higher than it was in the 1950s. But that doesn't tell me much at all.

BBC - Mark Easton's UK: The history of homicide

"For England, the risk of homicide falls from 1.7 (in the 1840s) to 0.7 (mid-20th Century) and back up again as we approach the present day."

So, the murder rate fell into the modern era, and then has had fluctuations, most recently due to a surge in gun violence that has been tackled and the stats have dropped, the reports in the media have dropped, the crimes have dropped.

Homicide Rate (per 100,000), 1950–2014

Then again the US murder rate isn't much different.

In 1950 the US murder rate was 4.6, today it's like 3.9. That's a slight fall. US murder rates were more or less steady until the mid 1960s, then rose to a high in 1980 of 10.2 and then began to drop with the 1990s and new entertainment being more available.

What you're trying to claim isn't so. Most countries have seen a similar pattern, but we're still having the US with guns with a higher murder rate in the 1950s and the 1980s and the 2010s. Both saw a doubling in murder rates, both saw a drop. There's only one constant in the whole affair. GUNS.

guns don't cause murder

there are more guns in this country than ever before and the murder rate continues to drop

Wow, that's all you've got in response to my post.

Guns, in the hands of criminals, cause more murders than when criminals don't have guns. Like I said in my post, in all first world countries, murder rates have halved in the last 20-30 years. So, suggesting that because murder rates are dropping in the US means guns aren't a problem is just simply ridiculous.

They're not the problem
Our piss poor record of keeping criminals incarcerated is the problem

Any crime committed while in possession of a gun should receive an automatic 25 year sentence with no parole
Any murder committed with a gun should receive life in prison no parole

Let's see what that does to our gun crime rate

Again, if you look at other countries, you see the US has the HIGHEST incarceration rate, possibly in the world, definitely in the First World. Yet other countries manage to have less people incarcerated, less murders, and less guns. So your logic doesn't fit the reality.

Most people with guns don't seem to think they're going to get caught. The US has been introducing new rules on sentencing with guns in crime, and yet the crime rates have dropped at the same levels as every other first world country.

 

[Boss]

You know what... I wish we could pass a law that every time someone uses the "other countries" argument... we automatically ship those people off to that country and mandate they have to stay there for at least one year before returning. I bet you that would put a stop that crap.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Sorry, bruv, gun violence and gun accidents are the price of freedom and liberty.

That is, indeed, what the racists used to teach us during the civil rights struggle in the South, but that damned traitor, JFK, nationalized the national guard and crushed our freedom to lynch negros and kill Yankee civil rights workers. They also did the same thing at all the riots in 1967-1970. Didn't seem fair that they used tanks, and the freedom loving patriots only had rifles and handguns:

Still doing it now.

They go after those they feel they can go after, and the Native Americans are seen as weak.

You are proving my point.

And how is that?

Because with guns, these guys stand no fucking chance anyway against the US armed forces? You could give them the weaponry of a country like, oh, I don't know, let's say IRAQ, and they'd still get their asses kicked, wouldn't they?

So what is your point then?

The idea that random gun owners could somehow hold off a modern Army is an NRA fantasy

and funny how no one I know in the NRA says anything about taking on the government

I hate to burst your bubble but the vast majority of gun owners don't have fantasies of going to war with the US government

 

[Skull Pilot]

the norm?

What is the norm?

FYI our murder rate is the same as it was in 1950 and is still declining despite the liberal murder capital of Chicago and other high crime cities

and another FYI the murder rate of the UK is the same as ir was in 1950 despite the draconian gun control laws passed in the 60's

The norm is this:

List of countries by intentional homicide rate - Wikipedia

The UK murder rate 0.9
France 1.2
Germany 0.9
Austria 0.5
Belgium 1.8
Luxembourg 0.8
Netherlands 0.7
Switzerland 0.5
Australia 1.0
New Zealand 0.9
Italy 0.8
Spain 0.7
Japan 0.3
South Korea 0.7
Canada 1.4

Here is NORMAL for FIRST WORLD countries

The USA 3.9

Yeah, the US's murder rate is 2.1 higher than the next highest, and Belgium's rate was probably high for one year due to some unexpected attack or other, rather than a normal yearly rate. The US's rate is consistently higher than every other first world country, and by a long way. I mean, it's more than double Belgium's rate for this particular year, and is 4 times higher than most.

Yes, the US's murder rate is declining. FYI the murder rates of most countries are declining too. Why? Probably due to modern entertainment. Since the 1990s murder rates have been going down across the board. That doesn't stop the US having a disproportional murder rate, and the difference appears to be guns in society.

The UK's murder might be the same, or even slightly higher than it was in the 1950s. But that doesn't tell me much at all.

BBC - Mark Easton's UK: The history of homicide

"For England, the risk of homicide falls from 1.7 (in the 1840s) to 0.7 (mid-20th Century) and back up again as we approach the present day."

So, the murder rate fell into the modern era, and then has had fluctuations, most recently due to a surge in gun violence that has been tackled and the stats have dropped, the reports in the media have dropped, the crimes have dropped.

Homicide Rate (per 100,000), 1950–2014

Then again the US murder rate isn't much different.

In 1950 the US murder rate was 4.6, today it's like 3.9. That's a slight fall. US murder rates were more or less steady until the mid 1960s, then rose to a high in 1980 of 10.2 and then began to drop with the 1990s and new entertainment being more available.

What you're trying to claim isn't so. Most countries have seen a similar pattern, but we're still having the US with guns with a higher murder rate in the 1950s and the 1980s and the 2010s. Both saw a doubling in murder rates, both saw a drop. There's only one constant in the whole affair. GUNS.

guns don't cause murder

there are more guns in this country than ever before and the murder rate continues to drop

Wow, that's all you've got in response to my post.

Guns, in the hands of criminals, cause more murders than when criminals don't have guns. Like I said in my post, in all first world countries, murder rates have halved in the last 20-30 years. So, suggesting that because murder rates are dropping in the US means guns aren't a problem is just simply ridiculous.

They're not the problem
Our piss poor record of keeping criminals incarcerated is the problem

Any crime committed while in possession of a gun should receive an automatic 25 year sentence with no parole
Any murder committed with a gun should receive life in prison no parole

Let's see what that does to our gun crime rate

Again, if you look at other countries, you see the US has the HIGHEST incarceration rate, possibly in the world, definitely in the First World. Yet other countries manage to have less people incarcerated, less murders, and less guns. So your logic doesn't fit the reality.

Most people with guns don't seem to think they're going to get caught. The US has been introducing new rules on sentencing with guns in crime, and yet the crime rates have dropped at the same levels as every other first world country.

Don't confuse incarceration rate with length of sentences or actual time served.

The fact is that less than half of all incarcerations were for violent crimes the rest were for nonviolent crimes like drug offenses, property crimes and others like public disorder

Just because a person might have been incarcerated does not mean they spend much time in jail in fact violent offenders on average get 5 year sentences but are often out on probation in less than 4 years
Criminal Sentencing Statistics

So we revamp sentencing for nonviolent and property crimes and concentrate on incarcerating violent criminals especially those who commit a crime while in possession of a firearm.

Like I said for any crime less than murder 10 - 25 year minimum sentence no parole
Murder or grievous injury with a gun automatic life in prison no parole

If we concentrate on violent offenders and come up with alternate sentencing for nonviolent crimes not only will our incarceration rate decrease but the most dangerous assholes would be off the streets for a long time

 

[Yarddog]

Nowhere in the history, text, or case law of the Second Amendment will one find any reference to the Second Amendment 'trumping' the First Amendment, or authorizing the Second Amendment to abridge the First Amendment right of the people to petition the government for a redress of grievances through either the political process or the judicial process.

That a minority of citizens might subjectively and in error perceive government to have become 'tyrannical' in no manner 'justifies' that minority to 'take up arms' against a government lawfully sanctioned by a majority of the people, where government is indeed functioning in accordance with the Constitution and its case law.

There must first be consensus and agreement among the people through the political and democratic process as to what constitutes actual 'tyranny,' and that, consistent with that consensus, the government is in fact 'tyrannical' - then and only then might 'taking up arms' be warranted and lawful.

People don't need to take up arms against the government. They simply need to own them and they will never have that problem. I think that was what the founders had in mind. Noah Webster had it right.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Nowhere in the history, text, or case law of the Second Amendment will one find any reference to the Second Amendment 'trumping' the First Amendment, or authorizing the Second Amendment to abridge the First Amendment right of the people to petition the government for a redress of grievances through either the political process or the judicial process.

That a minority of citizens might subjectively and in error perceive government to have become 'tyrannical' in no manner 'justifies' that minority to 'take up arms' against a government lawfully sanctioned by a majority of the people, where government is indeed functioning in accordance with the Constitution and its case law.

There must first be consensus and agreement among the people through the political and democratic process as to what constitutes actual 'tyranny,' and that, consistent with that consensus, the government is in fact 'tyrannical' - then and only then might 'taking up arms' be warranted and lawful.

People don't need to take up arms against the government. They simply need to own them and they will never have that problem. I think that was what the founders had in mind. Noah Webster had it right.

So did Sam Colt

 

[frigidweirdo]

The norm is this:

List of countries by intentional homicide rate - Wikipedia

The UK murder rate 0.9
France 1.2
Germany 0.9
Austria 0.5
Belgium 1.8
Luxembourg 0.8
Netherlands 0.7
Switzerland 0.5
Australia 1.0
New Zealand 0.9
Italy 0.8
Spain 0.7
Japan 0.3
South Korea 0.7
Canada 1.4

Here is NORMAL for FIRST WORLD countries

The USA 3.9

Yeah, the US's murder rate is 2.1 higher than the next highest, and Belgium's rate was probably high for one year due to some unexpected attack or other, rather than a normal yearly rate. The US's rate is consistently higher than every other first world country, and by a long way. I mean, it's more than double Belgium's rate for this particular year, and is 4 times higher than most.

Yes, the US's murder rate is declining. FYI the murder rates of most countries are declining too. Why? Probably due to modern entertainment. Since the 1990s murder rates have been going down across the board. That doesn't stop the US having a disproportional murder rate, and the difference appears to be guns in society.

The UK's murder might be the same, or even slightly higher than it was in the 1950s. But that doesn't tell me much at all.

BBC - Mark Easton's UK: The history of homicide

"For England, the risk of homicide falls from 1.7 (in the 1840s) to 0.7 (mid-20th Century) and back up again as we approach the present day."

So, the murder rate fell into the modern era, and then has had fluctuations, most recently due to a surge in gun violence that has been tackled and the stats have dropped, the reports in the media have dropped, the crimes have dropped.

Homicide Rate (per 100,000), 1950–2014

Then again the US murder rate isn't much different.

In 1950 the US murder rate was 4.6, today it's like 3.9. That's a slight fall. US murder rates were more or less steady until the mid 1960s, then rose to a high in 1980 of 10.2 and then began to drop with the 1990s and new entertainment being more available.

What you're trying to claim isn't so. Most countries have seen a similar pattern, but we're still having the US with guns with a higher murder rate in the 1950s and the 1980s and the 2010s. Both saw a doubling in murder rates, both saw a drop. There's only one constant in the whole affair. GUNS.

guns don't cause murder

there are more guns in this country than ever before and the murder rate continues to drop

Wow, that's all you've got in response to my post.

Guns, in the hands of criminals, cause more murders than when criminals don't have guns. Like I said in my post, in all first world countries, murder rates have halved in the last 20-30 years. So, suggesting that because murder rates are dropping in the US means guns aren't a problem is just simply ridiculous.

They're not the problem
Our piss poor record of keeping criminals incarcerated is the problem

Any crime committed while in possession of a gun should receive an automatic 25 year sentence with no parole
Any murder committed with a gun should receive life in prison no parole

Let's see what that does to our gun crime rate

Again, if you look at other countries, you see the US has the HIGHEST incarceration rate, possibly in the world, definitely in the First World. Yet other countries manage to have less people incarcerated, less murders, and less guns. So your logic doesn't fit the reality.

Most people with guns don't seem to think they're going to get caught. The US has been introducing new rules on sentencing with guns in crime, and yet the crime rates have dropped at the same levels as every other first world country.

Don't confuse incarceration rate with length of sentences or actual time served.

The fact is that less than half of all incarcerations were for violent crimes the rest were for nonviolent crimes like drug offenses, property crimes and others like public disorder

Just because a person might have been incarcerated does not mean they spend much time in jail in fact violent offenders on average get 5 year sentences but are often out on probation in less than 4 years
Criminal Sentencing Statistics

So we revamp sentencing for nonviolent and property crimes and concentrate on incarcerating violent criminals especially those who commit a crime while in possession of a firearm.

Like I said for any crime less than murder 10 - 25 year minimum sentence no parole
Murder or grievous injury with a gun automatic life in prison no parole

If we concentrate on violent offenders and come up with alternate sentencing for nonviolent crimes not only will our incarceration rate decrease but the most dangerous assholes would be off the streets for a long time

I'm not. However if you put people away for longer, you'll have larger prison populations, won't you? Either way, the US is putting too many people away or putting them away for too long. There are some people who get put away for too long, others maybe not long enough, what remains a constant is that crime is a problem in the US, and nothing is being done to solve these problems, not the problems involving guns, and not the problems around other issues like education, family etc. Always the same rhetoric comes out that means nothing will ever get done.