|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
On July 28 2012 09:41 stevarius wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2012 09:31 visual77 wrote:On July 28 2012 09:26 stevarius wrote:On July 28 2012 09:06 Arghmyliver wrote:On July 28 2012 08:55 stevarius wrote:On July 28 2012 08:52 Arghmyliver wrote:On July 28 2012 08:50 stevarius wrote:On July 28 2012 08:26 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Guns don't kill people, people kill people. But I don't think anyone on either side of the isle would have anything against background checks, or raising red flags for someone who starts buying mass amounts of ammo in bulk.
Also find it interesting that instead of police or authorities not being suspicious of his purchases or ramblings, a gun club the shooter tried to join was and prevented his joining. Define "mass amount of ammo". Many gun enthusiasts will disagree on what this amount is and whether it should even raise a red flag. The guy who went on the shooting rampage didn't even use a fraction of what he bought to do the damage he did. http://www.cracked.com/blog/the-4-most-meaningless-arguments-against-gun-control/Read! Everyone READ! NOW! READ IT! I dare you! I triple dare you! Use literateness now! Read! I will bug everyone till they read! I read it. It's a dumb article that discredits valid points by distorting the logic or ignoring the reasoning behind why people repeatedly state these reasons against gun control. Actually it's a smart article (Read - backs up it's info with sources) that addresses a lot of problems with the arguments against gun control without discrediting the argument as a whole. The guy is saying - if you want to have a conversation about gun control make some good arguments, not some bad ones that don't make sense. If you had read the part referring to the second amendment and calling it a bad argument because court cases have sided with gun owners on their right to bear arms, you might agree with me. The second amendment has been interpreted to allow for us to own firearms outside the narrow scope of being in an organized militia. The author of the article is naive enough to believe this judicial decision on the language in the amendment will change as opposed to it being precedent for the future cases involving the second amendment. I, and many others, foresee more rights for gun owners as opposed to more gun control legislation even having a chance at passing to try and antagonize these major court decisions. It's a dumb article. The article isn't hoping that the judicial decision will change. He points out that the constitution has been amended 27 times in the past and that at least one prominent figure in the drafting of the constitution was in favor of frequently reviewing and revising laws. Combined with that, he points out the drastic technological changes in firearms in the past 200+ years. His argument is that 'because the 2nd amendment says so' is not a good *moral* argument in favor of guns. It says that they are currently allowed, but the conversation on "should they be?" is a completely separate issue that should not be confused with "are they?". Why should a moral debate be introduced, or even the possibility of another Constitutional amendment be discussed when the last part of the second amendment states: "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
And herein lies the problem - we are having different conversations. You are talking about "is it legal?" and the answer is overwhelming yes. As you quoted right there, the second amendment makes it legal. The other side of the debate is asking "should it be legal?".
Until we are talking about the same subject, this conversation is dead.
|
This is madness, but yet again what do you expect from people who "support their troops" even if those troops are a bunch of corporate mercenaries, are religious, and are jailing people for a longer time if they have sex with a minor than if they kill him.
|
On July 28 2012 09:41 stevarius wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2012 09:31 visual77 wrote:On July 28 2012 09:26 stevarius wrote:On July 28 2012 09:06 Arghmyliver wrote:On July 28 2012 08:55 stevarius wrote:On July 28 2012 08:52 Arghmyliver wrote:On July 28 2012 08:50 stevarius wrote:On July 28 2012 08:26 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Guns don't kill people, people kill people. But I don't think anyone on either side of the isle would have anything against background checks, or raising red flags for someone who starts buying mass amounts of ammo in bulk.
Also find it interesting that instead of police or authorities not being suspicious of his purchases or ramblings, a gun club the shooter tried to join was and prevented his joining. Define "mass amount of ammo". Many gun enthusiasts will disagree on what this amount is and whether it should even raise a red flag. The guy who went on the shooting rampage didn't even use a fraction of what he bought to do the damage he did. http://www.cracked.com/blog/the-4-most-meaningless-arguments-against-gun-control/Read! Everyone READ! NOW! READ IT! I dare you! I triple dare you! Use literateness now! Read! I will bug everyone till they read! I read it. It's a dumb article that discredits valid points by distorting the logic or ignoring the reasoning behind why people repeatedly state these reasons against gun control. Actually it's a smart article (Read - backs up it's info with sources) that addresses a lot of problems with the arguments against gun control without discrediting the argument as a whole. The guy is saying - if you want to have a conversation about gun control make some good arguments, not some bad ones that don't make sense. If you had read the part referring to the second amendment and calling it a bad argument because court cases have sided with gun owners on their right to bear arms, you might agree with me. The second amendment has been interpreted to allow for us to own firearms outside the narrow scope of being in an organized militia. The author of the article is naive enough to believe this judicial decision on the language in the amendment will change as opposed to it being precedent for the future cases involving the second amendment. I, and many others, foresee more rights for gun owners as opposed to more gun control legislation even having a chance at passing to try and antagonize these major court decisions. It's a dumb article. The article isn't hoping that the judicial decision will change. He points out that the constitution has been amended 27 times in the past and that at least one prominent figure in the drafting of the constitution was in favor of frequently reviewing and revising laws. Combined with that, he points out the drastic technological changes in firearms in the past 200+ years. His argument is that 'because the 2nd amendment says so' is not a good *moral* argument in favor of guns. It says that they are currently allowed, but the conversation on "should they be?" is a completely separate issue that should not be confused with "are they?". Why should a moral debate be introduced, or even the possibility of another Constitutional amendment be discussed when the last part of the second amendment states: "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
Because it's an amendment to the constitution. Its not saying "this amendment is invulnerable" its saying "this amendment says the right to bear arms is invulnerable" i.e. "you have a right to bear arms." You can change any part of the constitution with the right legislation and a majority vote or two. Like the Bill of Rights in the first place - some states weren't satisfied with the constitution and wanted a bill of rights - so they made one and it was amended into the constitution.
|
Of all the fascinating things you could spend your money on and own. What about a collection of antique firearms - why must people own assault rifles.
|
On July 28 2012 08:58 stevarius wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2012 08:55 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
By bulk I mean seveal thousand(granted different rounds per box is different in # sometimes by huge variants). But 6000 rounds of ammo is what(boxes)?
Unless the US Navy is putting in an order I would think a red flag should be raised when that much is being ordered by a single person. But why? The only hope someone has to actually be able to use that amount of ammo for the purpose of killing others is with multiple fully-automatic firearms and more ammo than a single person could carry on their persona with an exorbitant amount of magazines or a belt-fed machine gun which still would only hold a few hundred at a time. I really don't see the problem or why someone buying even 10k should be flagged for any reason. It's unreasonable to assume anyone could even come close to using a fraction of that in a mass shooting. To the post above: The gun is used as self-defense as a LETHAL tool. You're supposed to exhaust every other option through a mental checklist of sorts to determine that you absolutely HAVE to deploy the use of the gun. You aren't shooting to maim or injure when you fire the trigger. It is to neutralize the threat with deadly force and will result in the serious bodily harm or death to the aggressor. In the case of home defense, less-lethal ammunition isn't viable as few are even capable of properly deploying it. The most reliable thing you can use to defend yourself is a firearm and it's proper use as deadly force in a defense scenario is based on legislation describing when you are legally allowed to use it. Lowering the lethality of a firearm intended for deadly force is the worst possible option when people are relying on it's intended purpose for defense of themselves or others.
But - if you had a gun that wasn't lethal you wouldn't have exhausted all your other options. If you have no other options besides your fists and your gun - you aren't really trying are you?
|
On July 28 2012 10:22 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2012 10:16 stevarius wrote:On July 28 2012 09:59 Defacer wrote:On July 28 2012 09:51 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
In every state I know the firearm laws for, you do not need a license to have a gun in your house, even if it's on you. It varies. Most states you do not need a licence or permit to purchase or own a gun. Some more relaxed states allow 'open carry'. Some issue licences that allow for concealed carry, but some don't. Some states in addition have 'Castle' Laws (your allowed to use deadly force on your property, regardless if an intruder is armed or not) and 'Stand your Ground' Laws (allowed to kill if you believe if your in imminent danger). On top of federal and state laws, cities have their own by-laws. In short, it's a mess. Which is why there needs to be a federal law concerning open/conceal carry to allow for all law-abiding citizens to be able to do it and carry national reciprocity. States doing it is just a huge mess. I don't agree really. The way it is now, the States can all choose what's right for themselves. What works for Maine might not work for Oklahoma. The more local government is, the better it represents each individual under it. Edit: But I'd be up for Federally-mandated background checks for purchasing a firearm.
I think a federally mandated-background check is a good start. The 'gun-show' loophole is absolutely ludicrous.
The standards for legally purchasing a gun are already low, at the very least people should have to prove they aren't felons, have a warrant for their arrest or aren't flat-out insane.
|
|
|
On July 28 2012 10:46 Defacer wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2012 10:22 Millitron wrote:On July 28 2012 10:16 stevarius wrote:On July 28 2012 09:59 Defacer wrote:On July 28 2012 09:51 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
In every state I know the firearm laws for, you do not need a license to have a gun in your house, even if it's on you. It varies. Most states you do not need a licence or permit to purchase or own a gun. Some more relaxed states allow 'open carry'. Some issue licences that allow for concealed carry, but some don't. Some states in addition have 'Castle' Laws (your allowed to use deadly force on your property, regardless if an intruder is armed or not) and 'Stand your Ground' Laws (allowed to kill if you believe if your in imminent danger). On top of federal and state laws, cities have their own by-laws. In short, it's a mess. Which is why there needs to be a federal law concerning open/conceal carry to allow for all law-abiding citizens to be able to do it and carry national reciprocity. States doing it is just a huge mess. I don't agree really. The way it is now, the States can all choose what's right for themselves. What works for Maine might not work for Oklahoma. The more local government is, the better it represents each individual under it. Edit: But I'd be up for Federally-mandated background checks for purchasing a firearm. I think a federally mandated-background check is a good start. The 'gun-show' loophole is absolutely ludicrous. The standards for legally purchasing a gun are already low, at the very least people should have to prove they aren't felons, have a warrant for their arrest or aren't flat-out insane.
The Feds need to offer background checks for private sales, that way the gun show loop hole can be closed, but people can still buy and sell there.
|
On July 28 2012 10:37 Arghmyliver wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2012 09:41 stevarius wrote:On July 28 2012 09:31 visual77 wrote:On July 28 2012 09:26 stevarius wrote:On July 28 2012 09:06 Arghmyliver wrote:On July 28 2012 08:55 stevarius wrote:On July 28 2012 08:52 Arghmyliver wrote:On July 28 2012 08:50 stevarius wrote:On July 28 2012 08:26 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Guns don't kill people, people kill people. But I don't think anyone on either side of the isle would have anything against background checks, or raising red flags for someone who starts buying mass amounts of ammo in bulk.
Also find it interesting that instead of police or authorities not being suspicious of his purchases or ramblings, a gun club the shooter tried to join was and prevented his joining. Define "mass amount of ammo". Many gun enthusiasts will disagree on what this amount is and whether it should even raise a red flag. The guy who went on the shooting rampage didn't even use a fraction of what he bought to do the damage he did. http://www.cracked.com/blog/the-4-most-meaningless-arguments-against-gun-control/Read! Everyone READ! NOW! READ IT! I dare you! I triple dare you! Use literateness now! Read! I will bug everyone till they read! I read it. It's a dumb article that discredits valid points by distorting the logic or ignoring the reasoning behind why people repeatedly state these reasons against gun control. Actually it's a smart article (Read - backs up it's info with sources) that addresses a lot of problems with the arguments against gun control without discrediting the argument as a whole. The guy is saying - if you want to have a conversation about gun control make some good arguments, not some bad ones that don't make sense. If you had read the part referring to the second amendment and calling it a bad argument because court cases have sided with gun owners on their right to bear arms, you might agree with me. The second amendment has been interpreted to allow for us to own firearms outside the narrow scope of being in an organized militia. The author of the article is naive enough to believe this judicial decision on the language in the amendment will change as opposed to it being precedent for the future cases involving the second amendment. I, and many others, foresee more rights for gun owners as opposed to more gun control legislation even having a chance at passing to try and antagonize these major court decisions. It's a dumb article. The article isn't hoping that the judicial decision will change. He points out that the constitution has been amended 27 times in the past and that at least one prominent figure in the drafting of the constitution was in favor of frequently reviewing and revising laws. Combined with that, he points out the drastic technological changes in firearms in the past 200+ years. His argument is that 'because the 2nd amendment says so' is not a good *moral* argument in favor of guns. It says that they are currently allowed, but the conversation on "should they be?" is a completely separate issue that should not be confused with "are they?". Why should a moral debate be introduced, or even the possibility of another Constitutional amendment be discussed when the last part of the second amendment states: "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." Because it's an amendment to the constitution. Its not saying "this amendment is invulnerable" its saying "this amendment says the right to bear arms is invulnerable" i.e. "you have a right to bear arms." You can change any part of the constitution with the right legislation and a majority vote or two. Like the Bill of Rights in the first place - some states weren't satisfied with the constitution and wanted a bill of rights - so they made one and it was amended into the constitution.
To even discuss the possibility of amending the Constitution to change part of the bill of rights is just silly.
But - if you had a gun that wasn't lethal you wouldn't have exhausted all your other options. If you have no other options besides your fists and your gun - you aren't really trying are you?
/Facepalm
Less than lethal applications of force are not very practical in terms of self-defense, especially if the aggressor has a knife or a firearm of his own. In many cases of legally justified self defense shootings, there are no other options other than to deploy the firearm in the attempt to prevent bodily harm or death to the victim. Let's not even discuss the costs and ability to conceal these less than lethal options in addition to a firearm.
|
On July 28 2012 11:00 stevarius wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2012 10:37 Arghmyliver wrote:On July 28 2012 09:41 stevarius wrote:On July 28 2012 09:31 visual77 wrote:On July 28 2012 09:26 stevarius wrote:On July 28 2012 09:06 Arghmyliver wrote:On July 28 2012 08:55 stevarius wrote:On July 28 2012 08:52 Arghmyliver wrote:On July 28 2012 08:50 stevarius wrote:On July 28 2012 08:26 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Guns don't kill people, people kill people. But I don't think anyone on either side of the isle would have anything against background checks, or raising red flags for someone who starts buying mass amounts of ammo in bulk.
Also find it interesting that instead of police or authorities not being suspicious of his purchases or ramblings, a gun club the shooter tried to join was and prevented his joining. Define "mass amount of ammo". Many gun enthusiasts will disagree on what this amount is and whether it should even raise a red flag. The guy who went on the shooting rampage didn't even use a fraction of what he bought to do the damage he did. http://www.cracked.com/blog/the-4-most-meaningless-arguments-against-gun-control/Read! Everyone READ! NOW! READ IT! I dare you! I triple dare you! Use literateness now! Read! I will bug everyone till they read! I read it. It's a dumb article that discredits valid points by distorting the logic or ignoring the reasoning behind why people repeatedly state these reasons against gun control. Actually it's a smart article (Read - backs up it's info with sources) that addresses a lot of problems with the arguments against gun control without discrediting the argument as a whole. The guy is saying - if you want to have a conversation about gun control make some good arguments, not some bad ones that don't make sense. If you had read the part referring to the second amendment and calling it a bad argument because court cases have sided with gun owners on their right to bear arms, you might agree with me. The second amendment has been interpreted to allow for us to own firearms outside the narrow scope of being in an organized militia. The author of the article is naive enough to believe this judicial decision on the language in the amendment will change as opposed to it being precedent for the future cases involving the second amendment. I, and many others, foresee more rights for gun owners as opposed to more gun control legislation even having a chance at passing to try and antagonize these major court decisions. It's a dumb article. The article isn't hoping that the judicial decision will change. He points out that the constitution has been amended 27 times in the past and that at least one prominent figure in the drafting of the constitution was in favor of frequently reviewing and revising laws. Combined with that, he points out the drastic technological changes in firearms in the past 200+ years. His argument is that 'because the 2nd amendment says so' is not a good *moral* argument in favor of guns. It says that they are currently allowed, but the conversation on "should they be?" is a completely separate issue that should not be confused with "are they?". Why should a moral debate be introduced, or even the possibility of another Constitutional amendment be discussed when the last part of the second amendment states: "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." Because it's an amendment to the constitution. Its not saying "this amendment is invulnerable" its saying "this amendment says the right to bear arms is invulnerable" i.e. "you have a right to bear arms." You can change any part of the constitution with the right legislation and a majority vote or two. Like the Bill of Rights in the first place - some states weren't satisfied with the constitution and wanted a bill of rights - so they made one and it was amended into the constitution. To even discuss the possibility of amending the Constitution to change part of the bill of rights is just silly. Show nested quote +But - if you had a gun that wasn't lethal you wouldn't have exhausted all your other options. If you have no other options besides your fists and your gun - you aren't really trying are you? /Facepalm Less than lethal applications of force are not very practical in terms of self-defense, especially if the aggressor has a knife or a firearm of his own. In many cases of legally justified self defense shootings, there are no other options other than to deploy the firearm in the attempt to prevent bodily harm or death to the victim. Let's not even discuss the costs and ability to conceal these less than lethal options in addition to a firearm.
Why is it silly? Laws are not immutable. They must be questioned and revalidated.
Can you give me objective reasons why the bill of rights should be exempt? And things like "It's always been that way" or "It is the fundamentals of our laws" or "It defines our rights." don't answer the question of what makes those laws special.
|
On July 28 2012 09:41 stevarius wrote:
Why should a moral debate be introduced, or even the possibility of another Constitutional amendment be discussed when the last part of the second amendment states: "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
Because that last part is what's ultimately wrong?
You accused the article's author of distorting the arguments, yet you are the one who's distorting it yourself. It's not about whether it says so in the second amendment, it's about whether that amendment can be morally justified at this day and age. Are you saying one should never question parts of a constitution? It's not like these things are set in stone forever. It's not like the people who wrote it had enough foresight/intelligence to know that it might become a very dumb law one day.
The author raises valid points and refutes dumb arguments that happen to emerge every so often in the debates about gun control.
And here are the arguments he refutes from my point of view:
"Guns Don't Kill People, People Kill People":
Are you serious? Here's my take on it: Guns don't kill people, people with guns kill people. After all, that's what guns are for. Killing stuff. Let's give everyone a fucking nuclear weapon, because hey, nuclear weapons don't kill people, people kill people. I mean come on, let's be serious.
"Fire and Drugs Kill People, Too. You Wanna Outlaw Matches and Drugs?":
No, we don't want to outlaw things that are not meant for killing in the first place. We want to outlaw things that's only purpose is to kill. Guns for example. If you want to hunt, fine. Pay an annual hunting fee or whatever, prove that you are able to handle and stash it away properly and outlaw the carrying of a gun while not hunting or travelling to your hunting place. And when you or another person is in acute danger of death and you want to pull a superhero act, go ahead. But you better be able to prove that you actually were in acute danger of death, otherwise your ass should be busted.
"Guns Save Lives.":
Yes, they do. If my neighbor is able to toss a grenade over at my house, owning a grenade might save my life, too. Now, if I wasn't allowed to own a grenade, I'd be fucked, sure. But what are your chances of having a neighbor THAT shady? Let's give everyone the right to possess grenades because hell, there's a tiny chance that my neighbor is a maniac. Yup, sounds about right, doesn't it?
"Well, the Second Amendment Says ...":
Change it. That's how outdated laws should be treated after all. How did women get the right to vote again?
Sorry if my tone is a bit aggressive but I'm not overly fond of the idea of sitting in a bus with the idea in mind that every passenger might carry a gun because, after all, it's his damn right (and english is only my fourth language, so that might add to it as well).
|
The government just needs to start acting upon red flags sooner than later. The uncertainty is what the proper action would be with dealing with them. Because there are millions of legal gun owners that have 0 incidents everyday.
|
On July 28 2012 14:06 ApoNow wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2012 09:41 stevarius wrote:
Why should a moral debate be introduced, or even the possibility of another Constitutional amendment be discussed when the last part of the second amendment states: "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." Because that last part is what's ultimately wrong? You accused the article's author of distorting the arguments, yet you are the one who's distorting it yourself. It's not about whether it says so in the second amendment, it's about whether that amendment can be morally justified at this day and age. Are you saying one should never question parts of a constitution? It's not like these things are set in stone forever. It's not like the people who wrote it had enough foresight/intelligence to know that it might become a very dumb law one day. The author raises valid points and refutes dumb arguments that happen to emerge every so often in the debates about gun control. And here are the arguments he refutes from my point of view: "Guns Don't Kill People, People Kill People": Are you serious? Here's my take on it: Guns don't kill people, people with guns kill people. After all, that's what guns are for. Killing stuff. Let's give everyone a fucking nuclear weapon, because hey, nuclear weapons don't kill people, people kill people. I mean come on, let's be serious. "Fire and Drugs Kill People, Too. You Wanna Outlaw Matches and Drugs?": No, we don't want to outlaw things that are not meant for killing in the first place. We want to outlaw things that's only purpose is to kill. Guns for example. If you want to hunt, fine. Pay an annual hunting fee or whatever, prove that you are able to handle and stash it away properly and outlaw the carrying of a gun while not hunting or travelling to your hunting place. And when you or another person is in acute danger of death and you want to pull a superhero act, go ahead. But you better be able to prove that you actually were in acute danger of death, otherwise your ass should be busted. "Guns Save Lives.": Yes, they do. If my neighbor is able to toss a grenade over at my house, owning a grenade might save my life, too. Now, if I wasn't allowed to own a grenade, I'd be fucked, sure. But what are your chances of having a neighbor THAT shady? Let's give everyone the right to possess grenades because hell, there's a tiny chance that my neighbor is a maniac. Yup, sounds about right, doesn't it? "Well, the Second Amendment Says ...": Change it. That's how outdated laws should be treated after all. How did women get the right to vote again? Sorry if my tone is a bit aggressive but I'm not overly fond of the idea of sitting in a bus with the idea in mind that every passenger might carry a gun because, after all, it's his damn right (and english is only my fourth language, so that might add to it as well).
In the USA, banning laws would make everyone a lot less safe. Perhaps it's different in Europe, but over here, we have a wide open and unprotected border being the Mexican border. Guns, drugs, illegal immigrants pass through there very easily everyday. Banning guns here would just mean law abiding, good people lose their guns while criminals keep theirs. That would just lead to more crime, robbery, etc with criminals knowing shop owners and citizens would likely not be carrying guns since they'd be illegal. In the USA, owning guns is PROTECTED because we believe in the freedom of the individual to be able to defend themselves and their families. And to do that you need a gun, simple as that. This silly logic that we need new laws or we need to change laws based on what the few criminal psychos do that affect everyone including good people who follow the law is just against everything this country stands for. "Land of the free, home of the brave." Going along with this knee-jerk politic method of thinking is just the opposite of that.
Look at Chicago. It's the most crime ridden city with the most gun deaths and shootings. But the funny thing is guns are illegal in Chicago, they are banned yet the crime is the highest in the country. "People kill people, not guns" is in every way true. You have people killing other people with many other different methods excluding guns. It's the people you have to fix, not the guns. As long as you live in this crazy world where a psycho can just easily rob your house and stab you to death, you should be able to have firearms for self defense. There are other facets to the 2nd amendment than just "firearms for self defense." It was also put in place for the people's protection against corrupt GOVERNMENT. The Founding Fathers knew a country that is disarmed can not fight a government that is corrupt and has enslaved them.
|
Guns aren't even a top 10 cause of death in the United States:
Number of deaths for leading causes of death
Heart disease: 599,413
Cancer: 567,628
Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 137,353
Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases): 128,842
Accidents (unintentional injuries): 118,021
Alzheimer's disease: 79,003
Diabetes: 68,705
Influenza and Pneumonia: 53,692
Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis: 48,935
Intentional self-harm (suicide): 36,909
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/lcod.htm/
"Motor vehicle crashes are the leading cause of death among those age 5-34 in the U.S. More than 2.3 million adult drivers and passengers were treated in emergency departments as the result of being injured in motor vehicle crashes in 2009. The economic impact is also notable: the lifetime costs of crash-related deaths and injuries among drivers and passengers were $70 billion in 2005."
http://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/
You have more people who commit SUICIDE in the United States than people who die from shootings.
|
On July 28 2012 15:03 Esk23 wrote:Guns aren't even a top 10 cause of death in the United States: Number of deaths for leading causes of death Heart disease: 599,413 Cancer: 567,628 Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 137,353 Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases): 128,842 Accidents (unintentional injuries): 118,021 Alzheimer's disease: 79,003 Diabetes: 68,705 Influenza and Pneumonia: 53,692 Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis: 48,935 Intentional self-harm (suicide): 36,909 http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/lcod.htm/"Motor vehicle crashes are the leading cause of death among those age 5-34 in the U.S. More than 2.3 million adult drivers and passengers were treated in emergency departments as the result of being injured in motor vehicle crashes in 2009. The economic impact is also notable: the lifetime costs of crash-related deaths and injuries among drivers and passengers were $70 billion in 2005." http://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/You have more people who commit SUICIDE in the United States than people who die from shootings.
But you dont deny the fact that thousands die each year to firearms?
edit: I can see that people dont want to have their guns taken away, but I still dont understand how some people are againt harsh gun control. In the meaning that you have to
1) register your gun
2) prove that you are capable of using it
3) prove that you are aware of the responsibilities
Also, do people really only read the 2nd part of the 2nd amendment? because I'm sure theres the words "well-regulated militia" in there...
|
Oh man this topic has been reopened haha. Bottom line is that people need to look at the facts and statistics.
|
On July 28 2012 15:06 schaf wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2012 15:03 Esk23 wrote:Guns aren't even a top 10 cause of death in the United States: Number of deaths for leading causes of death Heart disease: 599,413 Cancer: 567,628 Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 137,353 Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases): 128,842 Accidents (unintentional injuries): 118,021 Alzheimer's disease: 79,003 Diabetes: 68,705 Influenza and Pneumonia: 53,692 Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis: 48,935 Intentional self-harm (suicide): 36,909 http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/lcod.htm/"Motor vehicle crashes are the leading cause of death among those age 5-34 in the U.S. More than 2.3 million adult drivers and passengers were treated in emergency departments as the result of being injured in motor vehicle crashes in 2009. The economic impact is also notable: the lifetime costs of crash-related deaths and injuries among drivers and passengers were $70 billion in 2005." http://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/You have more people who commit SUICIDE in the United States than people who die from shootings. But you dont deny the fact that thousands die each year to firearms?
Of course people die to firearms. Unless you can cure every single person on earth of their insanity and get every single gun out of every military, citizen, whoever then go ahead and ban guns. Until then, it's not a good idea. The reason people in the US have guns is because of the 2nd amendment. The reason is 2nd amendment exists is because it makes sense for people to be able to defend themselves. It also exists because without it, what protection does a country as a whole have against a government turned evil? Every government eventually goes bad before it's either overthrown or replaced by the people. It's clear the Founding Fathers knew this and after all, Americans won their freedom by defeating the British and with guns by the way.
|
On July 28 2012 15:06 schaf wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2012 15:03 Esk23 wrote:Guns aren't even a top 10 cause of death in the United States: Number of deaths for leading causes of death Heart disease: 599,413 Cancer: 567,628 Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 137,353 Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases): 128,842 Accidents (unintentional injuries): 118,021 Alzheimer's disease: 79,003 Diabetes: 68,705 Influenza and Pneumonia: 53,692 Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis: 48,935 Intentional self-harm (suicide): 36,909 http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/lcod.htm/"Motor vehicle crashes are the leading cause of death among those age 5-34 in the U.S. More than 2.3 million adult drivers and passengers were treated in emergency departments as the result of being injured in motor vehicle crashes in 2009. The economic impact is also notable: the lifetime costs of crash-related deaths and injuries among drivers and passengers were $70 billion in 2005." http://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/You have more people who commit SUICIDE in the United States than people who die from shootings. But you dont deny the fact that thousands die each year to firearms? edit: I can see that people dont want to have their guns taken away, but I still dont understand how some people are againt harsh gun control. In the meaning that you have to 1) register your gun 2) prove that you are capable of using it 3) prove that you are aware of the responsibilities Also, do people really only read the 2nd part of the 2nd amendment? because I'm sure theres the words "well-regulated militia" in there...
There are militia groups in certain parts of the country that train with firearms. It's for the protection of the people as a whole. What's wrong with people being able to form groups that's purpose is to defend a country or other people? It's dangerous to depend on a government to do everything for you. People do most things better than a government does.
The only real protection you have in this world is your ability to defend yourself if you have to. If everyone wants everything regulated and controlled by government what protection do you have from a government that becomes corrupt and tyrannical? The answer you don't have any.
|
Dipshit thread.
Anyway, there is little point in arguing over something without any real statistical evidence of one being better than the other. And due to cultural differences and just the general volatile ways of people, it would be very very hard to get accurate stats on whether gun control laws inc. or dec. deaths. Also, you cannot really compare different countries very well because America is full of shitheads and is different culturally.
But for the fun of it, I think any automatic weapon is absolutely not necessary for any single person to have. What the hell would you do with an automatic weapon? A pistol is a bit reasonable, but hell, if I saw someone with a gun of any kind in their coat, I'd be pretty freaked out.
Also at Esk23, I'm lazy and won't quote, but if you need to "fight back" against your government, you're pretty much fucked anyway. A war between people and the government is retarded. It basically means that any enforcing person (on the government side) which would be military or police I guess is a total tool and is worthless. Best just move to another country. Go to Scandinavia. Everything is nice there.
|
On July 28 2012 15:45 Blargh wrote:
Dipshit thread.
Anyway, there is little point in arguing over something without any real statistical evidence of one being better than the other. And due to cultural differences and just the general volatile ways of people, it would be very very hard to get accurate stats on whether gun control laws inc. or dec. deaths. Also, you cannot really compare different countries very well because America is full of shitheads and is different culturally.
But for the fun of it, I think any automatic weapon is absolutely not necessary for any single person to have. What the hell would you do with an automatic weapon? A pistol is a bit reasonable, but hell, if I saw someone with a gun of any kind in their coat, I'd be pretty freaked out.
Also at Esk23, I'm lazy and won't quote, but if you need to "fight back" against your government, you're pretty much fucked anyway. A war between people and the government is retarded. It basically means that any enforcing person (on the government side) which would be military or police I guess is a total tool and is worthless. Best just move to another country. Go to Scandinavia. Everything is nice there.
What the... I am honestly at a lost for words at such a comment.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
