Gun and gun control

[Winter wind]

This is a continuation from the "Medford Newspaper Sues To Get Names Of Gun Owners" topic where I basically hijacked the topic.

My stance is basically

For diverting crime.
Populations of Great Briton, France, Germany, Switzerland, Sweden, Denmark and Australia. is about equal to the population of the United States.
In one year the US had 32000 gun deaths
They had 112 in total for that year.
The US has less strict gun control
The countries above have very strict gun control (like a civilian cant have one)
Banning guns does not mean that the criminal can get it through back channels.

responce

All of those nations differ greatly in social makeup, cultural makeup, history, as well as intent and promises made by government. It is like comparing an apple to an orange.

my responce

ya but the American people are more homicidal to the tune of 31888 more? There could have been 10 times more deaths in these countries and the United States would still be larger by 30000. It also gets rid of the argument that people will get the guns no matter what cause don't tell me Great Briton and Australia doesn't have crime.

My objective facts are
legally, in the second amendment, the words "regulated" and "militia" are used, and they didn't enumerate farther meaning the federal government is entitled to regulate it as far as the want.

Here is the actual amendment. Quote: Amendment II A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. What part of "shall not be infringed" aren't your grasping?

my response

Well regulated and militia are in the first sentence! Which has to be used in the next sentence because I could translate arms to be WMD, which we both agree should be restricted.

Against the government
All the events above where the fed government encroached on citizen's rights were refuted, and I haven't heard retaliation.

The patriot act, i don't know if you've notice, is extremely unpopular, and has effectively killed Bush's presidency along with other maneuvers that have given the federal government too much power (with the war on terror as an excuse.) Quote: Federal Reserve Act The Federal Reserve Act created the Federal Reserve in 1913 to make a central banking system in the United States. Now, I'm crap at economics, but I think this was done to avoid the kind of thing that destroyed Mexico in the 1970s when a small group of foreign investors could hold the Mexican government in a headlock. Quote: War and Emergency Powers Act I'm not sure, but this was the act that declared a state of emergency in WWII. During war, the government has to centralize otherwise it's like trying to fight with a broken sword that has been duck-taped back together. Quote:

responce:

As far as your "opinions" on the Federal Reserve Act, The War and Emergency Powers Act, and the Patriot Act... I have seen no facts, only your obviously uneducated opinion on the topics. How do YOU think I should respond to such opinions? Should I for some reason respect these opinions, even though they are obviously opinions with little understanding? I think not.

I think that about sums up the importent parts. If I missed something, please add it.

[HelioPrime]

Facts don't deny. People kill people but the facts to show there are less deaths when you restrict guns.

A victim who survived a knife stab would prefer that they were stabbed rather than shot dead.

Keep the guns where they belong, in the hands of the police or active military. To keep it official bring on the new amendment banning the sale, advertising, and possession of firearms by any citizens other than those actively serving in the police or military.

[Kamehameha34]

ya but the American people are more homicidal to the tune of 31888 more? There could have been 10 times more deaths in these countries and the United States would still be larger by 30000. It also gets rid of the argument that people will get the guns no matter what cause don't tell me Great Briton and Australia doesn't have crime.

WTF?

That doesn't even come close to responding to the point..?

You just repeated the numbers.. Repeating the same thing ad nauseum doesn't make it true or supportive of your point. You were told that the cultures are different. You responded with "omg but look at all the murders!"

That doesn't prove anything. It's an appeal to emotion, which is a logical fallacy.

Correlation doesn't necessitate causation. If you want the actual facts, and not your own amateur misinterpretation of them, read through these links:

GOA Fact Sheet-- 2001 Gun Control Facts
AOU - Gun Control Facts



Also, if you'll look at this graph:

StateMaster - Firearms Death Rate per 100,000 (most recent) by state

You'll see that DC has the highest homicide rate. Why would the only city on the graph with a gunban have the highest homicide rate if if banishment is the end-all of violent crime?

My objective facts are legally, in the second amendment, the words "regulated" and "militia" are used, and they didn't enumerate farther meaning the federal government is entitled to regulate it as far as the want.

Bullsh*t.

The founding fathers said that because of the need for a militia, the individual right to own firearms is not to be infringed upon. I have no idea what childish notion gave you the impression that any interpretation of the second amendment gives the government power to "regulate it as far as the[sic] want."

[Kamehameha34]

A victim who survived a knife stab would prefer that they were stabbed rather than shot dead in a free gun rights society.

Then why the f*ck would they be living in a free gun rights society?

[HelioPrime]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 Then why the f*ck would they be living in a free gun rights society?

Edited that out.

And on DC thats easy to answer. The district of Columbia is a tiny region. With regions that sell guns close by its easy to see where black market guns can come across.

The problem with allowing individual states to pass laws on guns is that you have many areas where guns are legal and can enter the black or grey market.

The European counties mostly have total bans on firearms.

[Kamehameha34]

Edited that out.

Great. My question still applies.

And on DC thats easy to answer. The district of Columbia is a tiny region. With regions that sell guns close by its easy to see where black market guns can come across. The European counties mostly have total bans on firearms.

What's stopping the guns from being imported?

Don't give me that. I can fly to New Zealand - a boat ride of several months to a year 300 years ago - in 22 hours. There is no trouble in shipping any illegal contraband to the border of any country.

[HelioPrime]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 Great. My question still applies.

Because they were born here. And as a people they can vote to decide if they wish to allows sales of firearms.

What's stopping the guns from being imported? Don't give me that. I can fly to New Zealand - a boat ride of several months to a year 300 years ago - in 22 hours. There is no trouble in shipping any illegal contraband to the border of any country.

Well something clearly is hindering with gun crime in Europe. Perhaps once its illegal across the board the offenders get quickly weeded out and that sale of guns because to expensive for common thugs to afford.

Unless you'd like to suggest the individualism of the US makes us the violent bastard types compared to our collective society brothers across the ocean.

[Osborn F Enready]

Winterwind said: For diverting crime. Populations of Great Briton, France, Germany, Switzerland, Sweden, Denmark and Australia. is about equal to the population of the United States. In one year the US had 32000 gun deaths They had 112 in total for that year.

Source that information please.

This is one of my sources, and it may benefit you to see an example of a source link:
Bureau of Justice Statistics Crime Characteristics
(notice the number of "violent crimes" involving police officers on the job.)

Winterwind said: The US has less strict gun control The countries above have very strict gun control (like a civilian cant have one)

We have cities and states with varying levels of gun control regulation. We are a nation of limited government, with individual rights.

Winterwind said: Banning guns does not mean that the criminal can get it through back channels.

Banning guns is a fallacy.

Do you deny the existence of the worlds black market?

There are already laws regulating the "legal market", which is a Constitutional Rights question in and of itself.

Winterwind said: My objective facts are legally, in the second amendment, the words "regulated" and "militia" are used, and they didn't enumerate farther meaning the federal government is entitled to regulate it as far as the want.

You are clearly mistaken when you say "they didn't enumerate farther meaning".

They enumerated further by saying " the RIGHT of the PEOPLE to KEEP AND BEAR ARMS shall not be infringed". They also enumerated further in:

Amendment IX The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

The forefathers of the Constitution and Bill of Rights also had personal papers, correspondence, and several had books of their own speaking on this issue, as well as the other issues of individual rights.

I suggest you check into that.

Helio said: Facts don't deny. People kill people but the facts to show there are less deaths when you restrict guns.

Explain that to D.C. They don't have guns....yet lead the nation in violent crime......

Helio said: A victim who survived a knife stab would prefer that they were stabbed rather than shot dead in a free gun rights society.

Point?

Helio said: Keep the guns where they belong, in the hands of the police or active military.

Explain. What would the point of that be?

[Kamehameha34]

Because they were born here. And as a people they can vote to decide if they wish to allows sales of firearms.

Clearly you don't understand how "rights" work. They belong to anyone who can defend them, and just think for a second of the people whose rights you are trying to violate. Your "gun ban" ideal is intrinsically flawed.

Well something clearly is hindering with gun crime in Europe. Perhaps once its illegal across the board the offenders get quickly weeded out and that sale of guns because to expensive for common thugs to afford.

Perhaps magical space gnomes cast warm fuzzy spells of amiability on any large collection of people committed to banning firearms, and we just haven't hit that threshhold yet.

"Perhaps" isn't an argument.

Unless you'd like to suggest the individualism of the US makes us the violent bastard types compared to our collective society brothers across the ocean.

I don't have to "suggest" a thing to make you substantiate your argument. Put up or shut up.

[Winter wind]

The above is all emotional nonsense, so I won't dignify it with a further reply.

Fine, then I'll shoot down your apples to oranges argument.

social makeup, cultural makeup, history, as well as intent and promises made by government.

The rest I'll do as I pull info off the net, but off the top of my head i do know that their gdp per capita is about the same (32000ish) and in all their histories, there is violence. (Nazi Germany, French revolution, British colonies and WWII, and Australia was originally a prison.) And what the hell do you mean by intent and promises by the government?

I have seen no facts, only your obviously uneducated opinion on the topics

Facts
Patriot Act infringes on right to privacy and due process.
As a result, the group that introduced the bill (the Bush administration) has an approval rating of something closing in on the 30s.

Federal reserve act makes a central banking system. This is done to keep complete power of the economic system from the privet companies. Most modern governments have a federal bank.

War and Emergency power's act
There are several acts with similar names, but i think you mean the one that got the united states into WWI. Right?

[Osborn F Enready]

Helio said: And on DC thats easy to answer. The district of Columbia is a tiny region. With regions that sell guns close by its easy to see where black market guns can come across.

I would like to see you support that statement please. Some of us need a little more than "divine inspiration" to see the answer. Perhaps some data, facts, some type of objective evidence?

Helio said: The problem with allowing individual states to pass laws on guns is that you have many areas where guns are legal and can enter the black or grey market.

Is that the only way guns enter the black market?
Is it impossible to make a gun from household items? Ammunition?

Helio said: The European counties mostly have total bans on firearms.

Yes, quite shameful.

Someday the citizens will regret going along with that. Especially if we aren't as friendly, or don't have access to them in the U.S., as we did the last time jolly old anti-gun England needed them.

[Winter wind]

[QUOTE]Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Overall Firearm Deaths and Rates, December 1999[/QUOTE

where i got the stat from, got to dash.

oh and i didn't mean to sound illogical. Its just that it is preposterous to dismiss the difference as culture when there is that degree of difference in death rates. I'm a speech writer, I appeal to emotions naturally. I'll try not to.

You'll see that DC has the highest homicide rate. Why would the only city on the graph with a gunban have the highest homicide rate if if banishment is the end-all of violent crime?

Yah cause the security check between states is so strict.

[Kamehameha34]

oh and i didn't mean to sound illogical. Its just that it is preposterous to dismiss the difference as culture when there is that degree of difference in death rates.

Is not.



See what bringing no substantiation to the table brings you? You're the one making the positive claim. You have the burden of proof.

[HelioPrime]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready I would like to see you support that statement please. Some of us need a little more than "divine inspiration" to see the answer. Perhaps some data, facts, some type of objective evidence?

US Gun Control Laws

Maryland - Individuals can carry concealed weapons under permit for reasons of defense or transport of cash. Guns legal to sell.

Delaware - Allows concealed weapons with permit. Gun sales legal.

-check other states within 100 miles. Legal gun sales. Not hard to fathom a guess where black market guns come from. They don't need to import from across the globe.

Is that the only way guns enter the black market? Is it impossible to make a gun from household items? Ammunition?

Well I guess you could make a gun at home. In that case if you use it you still go to jail for murder.

Someday the citizens will regret going along with that. Especially if we aren't as friendly, or don't have access to them in the U.S., as we did the last time jolly old anti-gun England needed them.

Oh yes, because Europe is so heading for another world war instead of slowly melding borders into a one European unity state.

Biased and subjective not even relating to thread. Care to provide links to why Europeans will be unhappy with their gun choices?

[HelioPrime]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 C I don't have to "suggest" a thing to make you substantiate your argument. Put up or shut up.

The murder rates speak for themselves. The US has higher gun related death rates than Europe.

If you feel the need to protect yourself buy a knife and training in its use.

[Kamehameha34]

US Gun Control Laws

What do US Gun Control Laws have to do with the fact that the EU has a low gun related homicide rate?

Before you think of answering without properly supporting your point, your next post should contain proof for the proposition that the gun ban in Europe is what caused it's decline in gun related crime.
Nothing to do with the US.

Well I guess you could make a gun at home. In that case if you use it you still go to jail for murder.

Explain to me why it's not enough to subscribe to this system without outlawing guns altogether.

[Kamehameha34]

The murder rates speak for themselves.

Wrong.

You have nothing here until you prove that the lower gun related crime rate in Europe is directly correlational and resulting from the ban.

Do a google search and you'll mostly find graphs looking like this:


Guns

[HelioPrime]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 Explain to me why it's not enough to subscribe to this system without outlawing guns altogether.

So your saying because I could make a gun at home then outlawing possession is pointless?

A gun that shoots an object or force at a target is a gun. If it is outlawed to posses lethal firearms then homemade ones apply.

[Winter wind]

The founding fathers said that because of the need for a militia, the individual right to own firearms is not to be infringed upon. I have no idea what childish notion gave you the impression that any interpretation of the second amendment gives the government power to "regulate it as far as the[sic] want."

And thats not subjective?
They said arms. Which, as I've said many times, is a broad statement. Did they include RPGs in that statement? Grenade launchers? ICBMs? Modified AK-47s? Where do you draw the line?
Where it is defensive? or Where it only kills one person at a time, and if thats the case, does that include submachine guns. The amendment is vague at best.

[HelioPrime]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 Wrong. You have nothing here until you prove that the lower gun related crime rate in Europe is directly correlational and resulting from the ban.

So in other words until someone does a study seeing a decrease in gun related deaths after a gun ban is just two separate and totally random events?

So we need an official study to show anything. I guess If I was serving sushi and all my guests dropped dead you'd say I shouldn't stop serving until I can scientifically prove my sushi killed them?