Dont blame guns!

[The Bacon Guy]

9. Such a law assumes guilty until proven innocent. The law ultimately takes the view that anyone owning a gun is dangerous, regardless of whether that person has proven so.

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: the Bacon Guy Because it's a logical fallacy, Sonart.

Deduction by comparison is only a fallacy if you never consider other factors, but the U.S. compares poorly by almost all factors.

The U.S. compares poorly with ALL nations, and even more poorly with just the wealthy ones and poorly when you factor in GDP and population densities. We compare poorly with per capita homicide rates and even more poorly with firearm related homicides. We compare poorly to western European democracies and we compare poorly to those nations with whom we share similar size, age, language, history and cultural backgrounds. With GDP and population densities factored in, western European nations with lax gun control compare poorly to those with more, and in the United States, again with population density factored in, those states with lax gun control compare poorly to those with more.

At some point you simply have to conclude that, even with other social and cultural factors, it's our gun culture combined with the easy availability that's the most common difference.

Quote by: the Bacon Guy I simply said gun control doesn't necessarily work and that it would involve putting harmless people in jail.

Based on what... either point? "Putting harmless people in jail" is a presumption... a false dilemma.

Quote by: the Bacon Guy Fine. That (our gun culture) has nothing to do with gun control though.

The heck it doesn't. An alcoholic is harmless unless they have easy access to alcohol.

We either cure the alcoholism or remove the easy access to alcohol. Take your pick.

Quote by: the Bacon Guy But you've failed to demonstrate that this works.

It apparently worked in both Australia and Canada, and it seems to work in those U.S. states that have it compared to those states that don't.

Quote by: tinybear The US Supreme Court has held that it is a constitutional right for Americans to own guns. So private gun ownership is legal. I don't agree with this legal ruling, but there it is.

Indeed. But if the Bush Court can overturn U.S. v Miller, hopefully another Court will overturn D.C. v Miller and return it to the previous precedent. After all, recall that the Supreme Court ruled capital punishment unconstitutional in 1972, but overturned that ruling only 7 years later.

Quote by: Disinformant Your interpretation of the constitution is juvenile, uninformed, unresearched, and incorrect.

And yet for the last 70 years many the most informed legal scholars in the U.S., including the Supreme Court and the Justices of the vast majority of Federal Circuit Courts, all agreed with me.

Go figure. But it's certainly reassuring that you know so much more about constitutional law than them, or that they were all juvenile, uninformed, unresearched and incorrect.

Here, some research for you... see the following posts...

.

.

[Sonart]

.

From U.S. v Miller ...

In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense. Aymette v. State of Tennessee, 2 Humph., Tenn., 154, 158.

The Constitution as originally adopted granted to the Congress power- 'To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.' U.S.C.A.Const. art. 1, 8. With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view.

The Militia which the States were expected to maintain and train is set in contrast with Troops which they were forbidden to keep without the consent of Congress. The sentiment of the time strongly disfavored standing armies; the common view was that adequate defense of country and laws could be secured through the Militia- civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion.

The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. 'A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.' And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.

Blackstone's Commentaries, Vol. 2, Ch. 13, p. 409 points out 'that king Alfred first settled a national militia in this kingdom' and traces the subsequent development and use of such forces.

Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations, Book V. Ch. 1, contains an extended account of the Militia. It is there said: 'Men of republican principles have been jealous of a standing army as dangerous to liberty.' 'In a militia, the character of the labourer, artificer, or tradesman, predominates over that of the soldier: in a standing army, that of the soldier predominates over every other character; and in this distinction seems to consist the essential difference between those two different species of military force.'

'The American Colonies In The 17th Century', Osgood, Vol. 1, ch. XIII, affirms in reference to the early system of defense in New England-

'In all the colonies, as in England, the militia system was based on the principle of the assize of arms. This implied the general obligation of all adult male inhabitants to possess arms, and, with certain exceptions, to cooperate in the work of defence.' 'The possession of arms also implied the possession of ammunition, and the authorities paid quite as much attention to the latter as to the former.' 'A year later (1632) it was ordered that any single man who had not furnished himself with arms might be put out to service, and this became a permanent part of the legislation of the colony (Massachusetts).'

Also 'Clauses intended to insure the possession of arms and ammunition by all who were subject to military service appear in all the important enactments concerning military affairs. Fines were the penalty for delinquency, whether of towns or individuals. According to the usage of the times, the infantry of Massachusetts consisted of pikemen and musketeers. The law, as enacted in 1649 and thereafter, provided that each of the former should be armed with a pike, corselet, head-piece, sword, and knapsack. The musketeer should carry a 'good fixed musket,' not under bastard musket bore, not less than three feet, nine inches, nor more than four feet three inches in length, a priming wire, scourer, and mould, a sword, rest, bandoleers, one pound of powder, twenty bullets, and two fathoms of match. The law also required that two-thirds of each company should be musketeers.'

The General Court of Massachusetts, January Session 1784 (Laws and Resolves 1784, c. 55, pp. 140, 142), provided for the organization and government of the Militia. It directed that the Train Band should 'contain all able bodied men, from sixteen to forty years of age, and the Alarm List, all other men under sixty years of age, ....' Also, 'That every non-commissioned officer and private soldier of the said militia not under the controul of parents, masters or guardians, and being of sufficient ability therefor in the judgment of the Selectmen of the town in which he shall dwell, shall equip himself, and be constantly provided with a good fire arm, &c.'

By an Act passed April 4, 1786 (Laws 1786, c. 25), the New York Legislature directed: 'That every able-bodied Male Person, being a Citizen of this State, or of any of the United States, and residing in this State, (except such Persons as are herein after excepted) and who are of the Age of Sixteen, and under the Age of Forty-five Years, shall, by the Captain or commanding Officer of the Beat in which such Citizens shall reside, within four Months after the passing of this Act, be enrolled in the Company of such Beat. ... That every Citizen so enrolled and notified, shall, within three Months thereafter, provide himself, at his own Expense, with a good Musket or Firelock, a sufficient Bayonet and Belt, a Pouch with a Box therein to contain not less than Twenty-four Cartridges suited to the Bore of his Musket or Firelock, each Cartridge containing a proper Quantity of Powder and Ball, two spare Flints, a Blanket and Knapsack; ....'

The General Assembly of Virginia, October, 1785 (12 Hening's Statutes c. 1, p. 9 et seq.), declared: 'The defense and safety of the commonwealth depend upon having its citizens properly armed and taught the knowledge of military duty.'

It further provided for organization and control of the Militia and directed that 'All free male persons between the ages of eighteen and fifty years,' with certain exceptions, 'shall be inrolled or formed into companies.' 'There shall be a private muster of every company once in two months.'

Also that 'Every officer and soldier shall appear at his respective muster-field on the day appointed, by eleven o'clock in the forenoon, armed, equipped, and accoutred, as follows: ... every non-commissioned officer and private with a good, clean musket carrying an ounce ball, and three feet eight inches long in the barrel, with a good bayonet and iron ramrod well fitted thereto, a cartridge box properly made, to contain and secure twenty cartridges fitted to his musket, a good knapsack and canteen, and moreover, each non-commissioned officer and private shall have at every muster one pound of good powder, and four pounds of lead, including twenty blind cartridges; and each serjeant shall have a pair of moulds fit to cast balls for their respective companies, to be purchased by the commanding officer out of the monies arising on delinquencies. Provided, That the militia of the counties westward of the Blue Ridge, and the counties below adjoining thereto, shall not be obliged to be armed with muskets, but may have good rifles with proper accoutrements, in lieu thereof. And every of the said officers, non-commissioned officers, and privates, shall constantly keep the aforesaid arms, accoutrements, and ammunition, ready to be produced whenever called for by his commanding officer. If any private shall make it appear to the satisfaction of the court hereafter to be appointed for trying delinquencies under this act that he is so poor that he cannot purchase the arms herein required, such court shall cause them to be purchased out of the money arising from delinquents.'

[Sonart]

.

From Silveira v. Lockyer...

1. The Text and Structure of the Second Amendment Demonstrate that the Amendment's Purpose is to Preserve Effective State Militias; That Purpose Helps Shape the Content of the Amendment.

The Second Amendment states in its entirety: "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." U.S. CONST. amend. II. As commentators on all sides of the debate regarding the amendment's meaning have acknowledged, the language of the amendment alone does not conclusively resolve the question of its scope. . . . What renders the language and structure of the amendment particularly striking is the existence of a prefatory clause, a syntactical device that is absent from all other provisions of the Constitution, including the nine other provisions of the Bill of Rights. Our analysis thus must address not only the meaning of each of the two clauses of the amendment but the unique relationship that exists between them.

a. The Meaning of the Amendment's First Clause: "A Well-Regulated Militia Being Necessary to the Security of A Free State."

The first or prefatory clause of the Second Amendment sets forth the amendment's purpose and intent. An important aspect of ascertaining that purpose and intent is determining the import of the term "militia." Many advocates of the traditional individual rights model, including the Fifth Circuit, [*36] have taken the position that the term "militia" was meant to refer to all citizens, and, therefore, that the first clause simply restates the second in more specific terms. . . . We agree with the Fifth Circuit in a very limited respect. We agree that the interpretation of the first clause and the extent to which that clause shapes the content of the second depends in large part on the meaning of the term "militia." If militia refers, as the Fifth Circuit suggests, to all persons in a state, rather than to the state military entity, the first clause would have one meaning -- a meaning that would support the concept of traditional individual rights. If the term refers instead, as we believe, to the entity [*37] ordinarily identified by that designation, the state-created and -organized military force, it would likely be necessary to attribute a considerably different meaning to the first clause of the Second Amendment and ultimately to the amendment as a whole.

We believe the answer to the definitional question is the one that most persons would expect: "militia" refers to a state military force. We reach our conclusion not only because that is the ordinary meaning of the word, but because contemporaneously enacted provisions of the Constitution that contain the word "militia" consistently use the term to refer to a state military entity, not to the people of the state as a whole. We look to such contemporaneously enacted provisions for an understanding of words used in the Second Amendment in part because this is an interpretive principle recently explicated by the Supreme Court in a case involving another word that appears in that amendment -- the word "people." That same interpretive principle is unquestionably applicable when we construe the word "militia."

"Militia" appears repeatedly in the first and second Articles of the Constitution. From its use in those sections, it is apparent that the drafters were referring in the Constitution to the second of two government-established and -controlled military forces. Those forces were, first, the national army and navy, which were subject to civilian control shared by the president and Congress, and, second, the state militias, which were to be "essentially organized and under control of the states, but subject to regulation by Congress and to 'federalization' at the command of the president." Paul Finkelman, "A Well Regulated Militia": The Second Amendment in Historical Perspective, 76 CHI.-KENT L. REV. 195, 204 (2000).

[. . .]


After examining each of the significant words or phrases in the Second Amendment's first clause, we conclude that the clause declares the importance of state militias to the security of the various free states within the confines of their newly structured constitutional relationship. With that understanding, the reason for and purpose of the Second Amendment becomes clearer.

b. The Meaning of the Amendment's Second Clause: "The Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms, Shall Not Be Infringed."

Having determined that the [*46] first clause of the Second Amendment declares the importance of state militias to the proper functioning of the new constitutional system, we now turn to the meaning of the second clause, the effect the first clause has on the second, and the meaning of the amendment as a whole. The second clause -- "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" -- is not free from ambiguity. We consider it highly significant, however, that the second clause does not purport to protect the right to "possess" or "own" arms, but rather to "keep and bear" arms. This choice of words is important because the phrase "bear arms" is a phrase that customarily relates to a military function.

Historical research shows that the use of the term "bear arms" generally referred to the carrying of arms in military service -- not the private use of arms for personal purposes. For instance, Professor Dorf, after canvassing documents from the founding era, concluded that "overwhelmingly, the term had a military connotation." Dorf, supra, at 314. Our own review of historical documents confirms the professor's report. . . .


c. The Relationship Between the Two Clauses.

Our next step is to consider the relationship between the two clauses, and the meaning of the amendment as a whole. As we have noted, and as is evident from the structure of the Second Amendment, the first clause explains the purpose of the more substantive clause that follows, or, to put it differently, it explains the reason necessitating or warranting the enactment of the substantive provision. Moreover, in this case, the first clause does more than simply state the amendment's purpose or justification: it also helps shape and define the meaning of the substantive provision contained in the second clause, and thus of the amendment itself. . . .


When the second clause is read in light of the first, so as to implement the policy set [*55] forth in the preamble, we believe that the most plausible construction of the Second Amendment is that it seeks to ensure the existence of effective state militias in which the people may exercise their right to bear arms, and forbids the federal government to interfere with such exercise. This conclusion is based in part on the premise, explicitly set forth in the text of the amendment, that the maintenance of effective state militias is essential to the preservation of a free State, and in part on the historical meaning of the right that the operative clause protects -- the right to bear arms. In contrast, it seems reasonably clear that any fair reading of the "bear Arms" clause with the end in view of "assuring . . . the effectiveness of" the state militias cannot lead to the conclusion that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to own or possess weapons for personal and other purposes. . . .


Is this sufficiently "juvenile, uninformed, unresearched, and incorrect" for you?

.

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: The Bacon Guy 9. Such a law assumes guilty until proven innocent. The law ultimately takes the view that anyone owning a gun is dangerous, regardless of whether that person has proven so.

Interesting... don't laws requiring us to register automobiles and be licensed to operate them do exactly the same thing?

And it's not necessarily the owner of a gun that's dangerous, but the gun itself, BY DEFINITION.

.

[Nono]

The Second Amendment was written for another era --- obviously.
Today it's only a pretext for BandBang Bozos to get their rocks off.

As I've pointed out before, the province of Ontario apparently still has a law on the books requiring all motor vehicles travelling at night to be preceded by a man holding a lantern.

Well, let me tell you, I'm sick of seeing people ignore that fine piece of legislation. That's where it's got to with the permissive society...

[The Bacon Guy]

Quote by: Sonart Deduction by comparison is only a fallacy if you never consider other factors, but the U.S. compares poorly by almost all factors.

Yes, and the point of a controlled study is that it only differs in one factor.

Quote by: Sonart At some point you simply have to conclude that, even with other social and cultural factors, it's our gun culture combined with the easy availability that's the most common difference.

Gun culture, yes. Lack of gun control, no. If there is more than one relevant difference in a comparison, you can't say which is responsible.

Quote by: Sonart Based on what...

Based on your lack of causal evidence.

Quote by: Sonart "Putting harmless people in jail" is a presumption... a false dilemma.

No it's not. If I break your gun control laws, I go to jail, regardless of whether I've actually harmed anyone with the gun.

Quote by: Sonart The heck it doesn't. An alcoholic is harmless unless they have easy access to alcohol. We either cure the alcoholism or remove the easy access to alcohol. Take your pick.

But you have no evidence that the latter is possible. You have yet to prove that gun control = significant difficulty in obtaining a gun.

Quote by: Sonart It apparently worked in both Australia and Canada, and it seems to work in those U.S. states that have it compared to those states that don't.

Even though we've already established very relevant differences in culture for these states. If causality is to be proved, this difference would need to be eliminated.

[WindWip]

Quote by: Disinformant I assume you mean remain "legal" 1. Prohibition always leads to more violence and gangs

For alcohol, or any type of prohibition?

2. Gun laws would only disarm lawful citizens

Not true - it disarms unlawful people as well.

3. In order to take people's guns, there would have to be MASSIVE raids on people's homes across the country: this is called terrorism.

How about we don't have massive raids on people. How about we increase the requirements and background checks to get a new gun. Are you OK with that?

4. US Citizens, like the Chinese, would be unable to defend themselves were their government to become too oppressive

Interesting theory. The WTO riots and the March on Washington come readily to mind. I'm from Seattle and I can tell you that the population was most definitely able to rise up against against what it thought was wrong - and they didn't use guns.

5. You can't effectively disarm Americans, too many of us know how to make guns already. We make more guns here than anywhere in the world, and we've been doing it for longer. For more reasons why this black market would be a bad idea, see #1

And people know how to kill others also. It doesn't mean we shouldn't outlaw murder. So what if people can make them, it doesn't change the position the government should take.

6. The Federal Government does not have the authority to do what they're proposing

What is it they are proposing?

7. It may insight hostile protesting across America

So what? Does that make your point right? No.

8. Since we have an illegal alien problem, nothing would stop them from remaining armed and continuing to kill more cops than any other demographic.

Do we have stats on illegal's murder rates? I didn't know that. Where are your statistics on that?

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: The Bacon Guy Yes, and the point of a controlled study is that it only differs in one factor.

That's nice... since when did they limit evidence here only to controlled studies?

Quote by: The Bacon Guy Gun culture, yes. Lack of gun control, no. If there is more than one relevant difference in a comparison, you can't say which is responsible.

Also nice... care to explain how our gun culture, without the easy access to guns, would by itself be responsible for our death by gunfire rates?

Quote by: The Bacon Guy If I break your gun control laws, I go to jail, regardless of whether I've actually harmed anyone with the gun.

Break a...

prostitution law
gambling law
drug law
impaired driving law
environmental law
tax law
etc. etc.

...you go to jail, regardless of whether you've harmed anyone. Don't break the law, you don't go to jail. I thought that was rule one on the 'Conservative Guide to Don't Do the Crime if you Can't Do the Time'.

Quote by: The Bacon Guy But you have no evidence that the latter is possible. You have yet to prove that gun control = significant difficulty in obtaining a gun.

Well, for one, we have the examples of Canada and Australia. Beyond that, how does anyone prove anything for sure? By trying it. Note that Australia had a sharp upswing in violent crime following their 1996 gun control legislation... accompanied by the expected cries of "We told you so" at the "failure".

Australia shoots back at NRA Government says crime hasn't increased since gun ban



Eventually the guns possessed by criminals will work their way out of the system, either by being captured with the criminals or because guns used in crimes need to be disposable, lest they be traced. Plus we reverse Bush/NRA policy by getting tough on guns dealers who sell to criminals, strawman bulk purchasers, gun show loopholes and make liable to municipalities and victims those dealers and manufacturers who sell guns with a "reasonable expectation" that they're being sold to criminals.

Quote by: The Bacon Guy Even though we've already established very relevant differences in culture for these states.

We have? What were those? A 'traditional value' of gun ownership? 2+2=More gun deaths.

Slavery used to be a 'Traditional Value'. Legalized racial discrimination was a 'Traditional Value' until 50 years ago. Legalized discrimination against women was a 'Traditional Value' until 35 years ago. 'Traditional Values' don't always serve us well in the evolution to modern society, but you often have to change laws in order to change outmoded values.

.

[Deadeye]

Quote by: The Bacon Guy 9. Such a law assumes guilty until proven innocent. The law ultimately takes the view that anyone owning a gun is dangerous, regardless of whether that person has proven so.

Oh, Obama and his fellow Demorats probably agree with you, but few others.

There are hundreds of millions of guns owners in the US, and very few of then commit crimes with their guns. Many protect themselves from attack.

For some off the wall reasoning, Liberals believe the citizens are better protected by being unarmed. Just as beautiful women are better prepared to ward off rape by walking in the park at mid-night unarmed and naked.

[Rog]

9th Circuit Incorporates 2nd Amendment as part of the 14th Amendment » Right Pundits
9th Circuit Incorporates 2nd Amendment as part of the 14th Amendment.

[The Bacon Guy]

Quote by: Sonart That's nice... since when did they limit evidence here only to controlled studies?

Since you started trying to prove a causal link.

Quote by: Sonart Also nice... care to explain how our gun culture, without the easy access to guns, would by itself be responsible for our death by gunfire rates?

Never said it would. I said gun control laws don't necessarily lead fo less availability of guns.

Quote by: Sonart Break a... prostitution law gambling law drug law impaired driving law environmental law tax law etc. etc. ...you go to jail, regardless of whether you've harmed anyone. Don't break the law, you don't go to jail. I thought that was rule one on the 'Conservative Guide to Don't Do the Crime if you Can't Do the Time'.

Shame I'm not a conservative. I wasn't aware that you were either.

Quote by: Sonart Well, for one, we have the examples of Canada and Australia.

Which conflict with the example of the UK.

Furthermore, Canada merely continued an already existing downward trend (in fact from the looks of the graph, this seems to have slowed slightly since 1995). Australia's murder rates have fluctuated around the 300 mark for years and have in fact spent most of the time after 1996 above the levels prior to the gun ban. A small downwards fluctuation recently proves nothing.

Quote by: Sonart Beyond that, how does anyone prove anything for sure? By trying it.

Rights aren't restricted on a "why not?" basis. You need proof and if you can't find it, that's your own problem.

Quote by: Sonart We have? What were those?

In your own words "a love of traditional gun culture".

[Disinformant]

Quote by: WindWip For alcohol, or any type of prohibition?

Think about the Drug War, entirely inspired by the prohibition of narcotics.

Quote by: WindWip Not true - it disarms unlawful people as well.

Yes, but less so.

Quote by: WindWip How about we don't have massive raids on people. How about we increase the requirements and background checks to get a new gun. Are you OK with that?

Well, the background check doesn't need to be increased, and I don't think it accomplishes anything. If you want to end violence, end the War on Drugs, gangs will begin to disappear and violence will go down tremendously. If the US government isn't willing to look at their own roll in encouraging this violence, I especially don't want those incompetent pirates taking my guns, while gangs run rampant. I mean, I've lived in a gang community, having a gun helps keep you safe, no doubt about it.

Quote by: WindWip Interesting theory. The WTO riots and the March on Washington come readily to mind. I'm from Seattle and I can tell you that the population was most definitely able to rise up against against what it thought was wrong - and they didn't use guns.

First of all, over 10,000 were detained or arrested in Washington and the WTO riots, secondly, its become a very common fact that the anarchists who instigated the riots were all police (something which has happened all over the world; search for provocateurs in Seattle, Greece and Canada). Additionally, they failed, Seattle instituted no-first-amendment-zones throughout the rest of the WTO meeting.

Quote by: WindWip And people know how to kill others also. It doesn't mean we shouldn't outlaw murder. So what if people can make them, it doesn't change the position the government should take.

If making it a law makes the problem worse, why make it a law? Just because "it feels wrong?" I mean, lets try and be pragmatic about this.

Quote by: WindWip What is it they are proposing?

Well, there are a few variant on gun banning bills right now, one giving the AG the power to ban any gun he wants at will, another to prevent people on the notoriously faulty 3 Million person No Fly List from owning guns.

Quote by: WindWip So what? Does that make your point right? No.

I don't know, I'm not a preacher or a rabbi; I can only tell you what solution reduces violence. I'm a pragmatist, I don't care if its the right thing to do to make it illegal, for whatever ill conceaved reason. My goal is a solution to a problem (gun violence) that works, your goal is to be good?

Quote by: WindWip Do we have stats on illegal's murder rates? I didn't know that. Where are your statistics on that?

Its hard to find because the government doesn't collect stats on illegal immigrants, however:
Illegal aliens murder 12 Americans daily

[Disinformant]

Quote by: Sonart Is this sufficiently "juvenile, uninformed, unresearched, and incorrect" for you?

Of course it still is, just because you post two pages of useless garbage doesn't prove your argument. You quote judges from Tennessee? lmfao... dude get a damn grip on yourself. You ignore my points STILL, mentioned useless irrelevant information. I know some judges are idiots, I've met em, and I know that people in Washington want our guns. This didn't prove a single point, except that you still don't understand our constitution. I explained why, this is like the third or fourth time you've ignored my two points to blather on inanely. You're not being as profound as you think you are.

[Deadeye]

Quote by: Disinformant Think about the Drug War, entirely inspired by the prohibition of narcotics.

I'm sure you'd like drugs made legal and cheap. That's just what we need; more stoned/intoxicated young people.

Good thinking.

[Disinformant]

We are at threshold, I doubt legalization will increase use. I would like pot to be cheaper though, hell yeah.

[WindWip]

Quote by: Disinformant Think about the Drug War, entirely inspired by the prohibition of narcotics.

I just wanted to clarify your statement. So drugs will always lead to more violence and gangs as well. So can I imply this from you? "Prohibition of drugs will always leads to more violence and gangs". It seems to be a tough statement to defend.

Well, the background check doesn't need to be increased, and I don't think it accomplishes anything. If you want to end violence, end the War on Drugs, gangs will begin to disappear and violence will go down tremendously. If the US government isn't willing to look at their own roll in encouraging this violence, I especially don't want those incompetent pirates taking my guns, while gangs run rampant. I mean, I've lived in a gang community, having a gun helps keep you safe, no doubt about it.

I don't pretend to be an expert on guns or background checks so I won't argue that point much. Have you had a background check on you before? What do they do for them?

I think that handguns are more adaptable for illegal activities than something like a shotgun. I would much prefer handguns to have tougher regulations and requirements. A shotgun is a better defense for your home since you don't need to aim as well and it is less lethal weapon yet it will still stop an intruder.

I agree about the War on Drugs somewhat. Keeping weed outlawed is an expensive choice, however I do not want to see a repeat of China's opium addiction.

First of all, over 10,000 were detained or arrested in Washington and the WTO riots, secondly, its become a very common fact that the anarchists who instigated the riots were all police (something which has happened all over the world; search for provocateurs in Seattle, Greece and Canada). Additionally, they failed, Seattle instituted no-first-amendment-zones throughout the rest of the WTO meeting.

Heh, it wasn't the police I promise you - I was there, not protesting though. The 'anarchists' were simply a bunch of teens using the protests as an excuse to cause havoc, not actual anarchists.
They made their voice heard - I can promise you that the politicians were talking about the huge mobs around the building. Seattle did break the first amendment, but they weren't anywhere near the first to do so. There have been countless infractions of the first amendment. The juries actually ruled in favor of the protesters in Seattle.

If making it a law makes the problem worse, why make it a law? Just because "it feels wrong?" I mean, lets try and be pragmatic about this.

I don't see why it would make the problem worse. Making production illegal (I don't really support this, just using it as an example) would stop large scale production in factories and slow the production of guns. It would increase the price of guns and lower the number of people willing to buy them.

I don't know, I'm not a preacher or a rabbi; I can only tell you what solution reduces violence. I'm a pragmatist, I don't care if its the right thing to do to make it illegal, for whatever ill conceaved reason. My goal is a solution to a problem (gun violence) that works, your goal is to be good?

In many cases the end does justify the means, yet in other cases in the short run it will have more benefits, but in the long run it will cause problems. Paying terrorists for example. Terrorists threaten a 1 billion dollar building, US pays a 1 million ransom - it would seem to be a good exchange, but then more terrorists will sprout up.

Its hard to find because the government doesn't collect stats on illegal immigrants, however: Illegal aliens murder 12 Americans daily

Seems fishy. 16,400 murders in the US in 2007. The site says illegals are responsible for 4,380 of them. I'll assume there are around 10 million illegals in the US. That means that 1 of every 25,000 Americans is a murderer, while 1 of every 2,300 illegals is a murderer. Do you really think illegals are 10 times more likely to murder? I have my doubts.
Anyways, I tried to get the data they used, but the links didn't go anywhere. Another thing to note - I did a bit of background checking on WND, and it seems they are a bit biased towards conservatives. It may be why they are backing unfounded statistics.

It would not surprise me at all if illegals were responsible for a larger portion of crime though - simply because they are generally poorer than average. The poor tend to enter the world of crime more readily than those who are well off.

[Rog]

Quote by: WindWip I just wanted to clarify your statement. So drugs will always lead to more violence and gangs as well. So can I imply this from you? "Prohibition of drugs will always leads to more violence and gangs". It seems to be a tough statement to defend.

I can see that.

I don't pretend to be an expert on guns or background checks so I won't argue that point much. Have you had a background check on you before? What do they do for them?

Yes, once to work for an airline and last time for my gun purchases.
They finger print you and run a FBI background check back to 10 years.
Also everytime you purchase a handgun, you have to wait 3-5 days after you apply to purchase before you can pick it up. and you can only purchase after you pass a police background check.

I think that handguns are more adaptable for illegal activities than something like a shotgun. I would much prefer handguns to have tougher regulations and requirements. A shotgun is a better defense for your home since you don't need to aim as well and it is less lethal weapon yet it will still stop an intruder.

Do you own a shotgun? sounds like you do not, you do have to aim, and the velocity of the projectile is usually twice as fast as a handgun, a shotgun is way more powerful than a handgun.

I agree about the War on Drugs somewhat. Keeping weed outlawed is an expensive choice, however I do not want to see a repeat of China's opium addiction.

That is insane, people that want to smoke weed already smoke it.
I dont see one waiting to become legalized so they can try it.

I don't see why it would make the problem worse. Making production illegal (I don't really support this, just using it as an example) would stop large scale production in factories and slow the production of guns. It would increase the price of guns and lower the number of people willing to buy them.

stopping production will increase price of gun manufactured here, how do you sold the gray and black market? gangs and criminal that have money will still be able to buy them.

[Disinformant]

Quote by: WindWip I just wanted to clarify your statement. So drugs will always lead to more violence and gangs as well. So can I imply this from you? "Prohibition of drugs will always leads to more violence and gangs". It seems to be a tough statement to defend.

Well, in American history I can think of two periods of time where prohibition lead to violence, the first was boot-legging, which lead to the invention of the tommy-gun, the race car, etc. They even used bombs. Then we have the massive War on Drugs today, directly responsible for creating a valuable black market being contended over by thousands of gangs.

Quote by: WindWip I don't pretend to be an expert on guns or background checks so I won't argue that point much. Have you had a background check on you before? What do they do for them?

I have had a few, but I couldn't say exactly what they looked at. I assume my criminal record, medical maybe, etc. I think I might be on the No Fly List, so if they use that as a checker I'm screwed. I know that to get onto the No Fly List someone criminal sharing your name will alnd you on it, or if you fly to many countries a year.

Quote by: WindWip I think that handguns are more adaptable for illegal activities than something like a shotgun. I would much prefer handguns to have tougher regulations and requirements. A shotgun is a better defense for your home since you don't need to aim as well and it is less lethal weapon yet it will still stop an intruder.

Quick lesson: mix equal parts bleach and ammonium (found under your counter somewhere) and you have the chemical toxin Mustard Gas. Using fertilizer and blast caps you can theoretically make a nitrogen bomb (nitrogen gets extracted from the fertilizer). With sulfer, coal, and urine you can make gun powder. And with a metal tube and a AA battery you can make it into a gun.
Frankly, I'd rather gangsters have guns than drive by explosives.

Quote by: WindWip I agree about the War on Drugs somewhat. Keeping weed outlawed is an expensive choice, however I do not want to see a repeat of China's opium addiction.

Indeed, I think we should make it illegal to grow and import heroin. Of course, most of the world's heroin is being grown by the US Government in Afghanistan.

Quote by: WindWip I don't see why it would make the problem worse. Making production illegal (I don't really support this, just using it as an example) would stop large scale production in factories and slow the production of guns. It would increase the price of guns and lower the number of people willing to buy them.

The increase in the price of guns will make them MORE attractive as a business. Think about it: suddenly something that cost you 20$ to make and was once with $150 is now worth $1,000. That's going to make people do a lot of crazy things for that money.

Quote by: WindWip In many cases the end does justify the means, yet in other cases in the short run it will have more benefits, but in the long run it will cause problems. Paying terrorists for example. Terrorists threaten a 1 billion dollar building, US pays a 1 million ransom - it would seem to be a good exchange, but then more terrorists will sprout up.

Exactly, we need to be pragmatic when dealing with this issue, no room for moralizing it.

Quote by: WindWip Seems fishy. 16,400 murders in the US in 2007. The site says illegals are responsible for 4,380 of them. I'll assume there are around 10 million illegals in the US. That means that 1 of every 25,000 Americans is a murderer, while 1 of every 2,300 illegals is a murderer. Do you really think illegals are 10 times more likely to murder? I have my doubts.

A lot of illegals come here as a part of the drug trade and are already gang members. For example, since 9/11 Mexican drug cartels have been sneaking in people who then grow the pot inside the US for sale instead of back in Mexico like they used to.

Quote by: WindWip Anyways, I tried to get the data they used, but the links didn't go anywhere. Another thing to note - I did a bit of background checking on WND, and it seems they are a bit biased towards conservatives. It may be why they are backing unfounded statistics. It would not surprise me at all if illegals were responsible for a larger portion of crime though - simply because they are generally poorer than average. The poor tend to enter the world of crime more readily than those who are well off.

I'll admit, not my favorite source, I could stand to research this aspect better.

[Rog]

Comcast.net: Police: NY man killed family, self in Md. hotel
When people are ready to kill, they will kill, there is no need for guns.