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 December 15 2012 21:40 tomatriedes wrote: People complain about the NRA because the NRA actively campaigns against having any kind of gun control at all and in several states of the US guns can be obtained at gun shows without any kind of background checks let alone 'proper pyschological testing'- you can literally walk in and buy a gun no questions asked no matter what kind of mental health issues or criminal background you may have. It's pretty mind-boggling and disgusting really:
What I think is disgusting is that these sorts of people are walking the streets anyway. If you are worried that a known violent or insane person is capable of buying a gun with no questions asked, doesn't it bother you that they are wandering around free in the first place?
That's a bit of a a strange argument. You can't stop people with a history of violence or mental illness from 'walking in the streets' unless you lock them up for life. if someone has finished their prison term for a violent crime (assuming it was commensurate to the crime they committed) or been deemed safe to be released from a psychiatric institute then they must be released, but I would prefer to live in a country where they cannot walk into a gun show and buy any amount of guns they want without any background check.
I can tell you that Croatia had a severe gun problem after the war.The problem was that when the war began there was a embargo on selling weapons to us so most that came in came from a "black market" and people had to get their hands on weapons any way they could.After the war ended you had so many unregistered firearms it was ridiculous,every year the police would hold a day where you could freely bring in such a weapon. Also a lot of people that defended the country winded up having PTSD and it was not uncommon to read the newspaper where someone like that would blow themselves up with a hand grenade or commit suicide with some other weapon,even injure another person in the process. So forgive me for having prejudice towards gun owners,I understand that the situation is not the same,but I guess growing up at such a time made me slightly weary towards people that own guns.
On December 15 2012 23:18 negon wrote: 200 pages already, I doubt I can really add anything, but anyway, if you believe in complete ban of weapons for regular people, you are an idiot. Criminals and crazy people will be able to obtain weapons anyway and the only thing you're doing is taking a normal person's method of defense away.
u see? this thought process is one of the problems. jesus, normal ppl DO NOT need weapons to defend themselves, cuz they DO NOT have to defend themselves at all ever (yes, exceptions prove the rule)
What the hell is wrong with you? Have you never heard of anyone getting murdered, robbed, raped? Most of them probably had the exact same mentality as you before it happened. If you believe you're safe, go ahead, but stop saying others need to feel the same way. I know a lot of normal people who have indeed had to defend themselves. Some used their fists, some used something else, however if they didn't, they'd be either dead or potentially crippled by now. Two of them are Germans as well, so your "they don't need it" statement is incredibly ignorant. Or maybe you're just too sheltered to realise that while the risks are almost non-existent, they still exist.
Negon you say the need to protect yourself gives you the need for owning a gun. What if you go crazy over the ex-boss that fired you, the girl that betrayed you or the guy that beat up your kid.. Is it better if you have a gun or don't?
If you don't have a gun maybe you will use a knife, maybe you will use your fists.. either way it's way better to not have a gun, once people loose their minds!
I don't see the need to own a gun in europe, maybe in the states because EVERYBODY has one.
I personally never saw a handgun in my life except by old people that have hunting shotguns/revolvers.. and it's almost a taboo, we don't talk about guns, we don't let other people see them.
But i just got into airsoft recently and bought a AK47(love it btw) so i use it, i like it and i have no problems in pointing it to any friend or let him shoot it.. because it's a toy
Guns are meant to kill not to protect yourself, for protection you use the police.
It's impossible to ban guns in the USA anyways, this has been brought up before and it always shot down here, a big majority of Americans are in favor of the 2nd Amendment, the only thing that might pass is banning people who have mental illnesses from owning guns, or people who are on psychiatric drugs are banned from owning guns.
Is it actually about the 2nd amendment? The wording is a bit ambiguous.
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.
The above is the 2nd amendment as written in 1788. It mentions a militia to keep the state free. My take is that is about the use of guns by a regulated group of citizens to protect their rights from the federal government. The fact that it mentions the well regulated militia makes me question whether it was intended to cover citizens keeping arms for self defence. Also consider that in 1788 the arms they were referring to were single shot rifles.
I think the modern gun culture is America is not due to the 2nd amendment, but rather due to the general concept that an American should be free to own whatever they can afford. Americans have already conceded some freedom by allowing certain items to be banned (drugs, etc), and now want to stand their ground and protect their remaining liberties.
Another foreigner who thinks he knows what our laws mean.
Your tone is incredibly disrespectful, and honestly just because you are from the USA doesn't mean you have any more idea about what the laws in your country mean than somebody from another country. He could quite easily have a much greater understanding of your own laws than you do.
Also, it doesn't just say. "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
For whatever reason, they felt the need to qualify it. "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 the precise interpretation of this statement is may be up for debate, but it's definitely an interesting and relevant point to explore.
Posting a youtube comedy clip and calling somebody a foreigner doesn't achieve much apart from making yourself look like a dick.
On December 16 2012 02:29 Esk23 wrote:
On December 16 2012 02:26 Djzapz wrote:
On December 16 2012 02:20 Esk23 wrote:
On December 16 2012 02:15 hzflank wrote:
On December 16 2012 02:06 Esk23 wrote:
It's impossible to ban guns in the USA anyways, this has been brought up before and it always shot down here, a big majority of Americans are in favor of the 2nd Amendment, the only thing that might pass is banning people who have mental illnesses from owning guns, or people who are on psychiatric drugs are banned from owning guns.
Is it actually about the 2nd amendment? The wording is a bit ambiguous.
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.
The above is the 2nd amendment as written in 1788. It mentions a militia to keep the state free. My take is that is about the use of guns by a regulated group of citizens to protect their rights from the federal government. The fact that it mentions the well regulated militia makes me question whether it was intended to cover citizens keeping arms for self defence. Also consider that in 1788 the arms they were referring to were single shot rifles.
I think the modern gun culture is America is not due to the 2nd amendment, but rather due to the general concept that an American should be free to own whatever they can afford. Americans have already conceded some freedom by allowing certain items to be banned (drugs, etc), and now want to stand their ground and protect their remaining liberties.
Another foreigner who thinks he knows what our laws mean.
Even though you're right, I think it's funny that you'd phrase it like that. As if foreigners couldn't possibly understand your laws.
No, I didn't mean it like that. But you guys are getting really frustrating, I've posted enough in this thread and there's enough info and posts that SMASH gun control or ban advocates so hard there isn't any point to keep going. New people jump in and the debate starts right at the beginning again.
Please, enlighten us on all this information you have that SMASHES any argument against tighter gun controls or an outright ban.
this is the sort of information esk posted earlier in the thread that thinks SMASHES your arguement
On December 15 2012 04:14 Esk23 wrote: Guns aren't even close to the leading causes of death in the United States, in fact they aren't even in the top 10. Why doesn't anyone ever hear about these in the media:
•Number of deaths: 2,437,163 •Death rate: 793.8 deaths per 100,000 population •Life expectancy: 78.5 years •Infant Mortality rate: 6.39 deaths per 1,000 live births
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
the real difference between the facts is that This second sources qualifys all violent crime in its statements and the graphs made about america being more gun violent then other countries is just because we have more guns. It makes the argument that america has less violent crime because there are more guns even if more crime proportionately is done with guns.
On December 16 2012 02:59 FakeDeath wrote: I find it funny only in Florida and Texas. That you are allowed to have unloaded guns in your car( but you can have bullets cartridge next to it).
My dad saw a car accident in Florida. Both guys came down from their car and had a heated argument.
One of the guy suddenly took out his gun and just shot the another guy and killed him. I thought that was supposed to be murder.
But the case turned out to be manslaughter. O.O
This happens a lot more then you might think. its not just with guns but people get away with murder all the time beacuse of plea deals then people might think. the guys Still going to jail for a while and he won't be allowed to own or use guns ever again. (that actually happens btw)
On December 16 2012 02:59 FakeDeath wrote: I find it funny only in Florida and Texas. That you are allowed to have unloaded guns in your car( but you can have bullets cartridge next to it).
My dad saw a car accident in Florida. Both guys came down from their car and had a heated argument.
One of the guy suddenly took out his gun and just shot the another guy and killed him. I thought that was supposed to be murder.
But the case turned out to be manslaughter. O.O
It's not so bad. Here in Quebec you can kill your children, cut them in pieces and you may be deemed "not criminally responsible", and be free in less than 4 years.
It's impossible to ban guns in the USA anyways, this has been brought up before and it always shot down here, a big majority of Americans are in favor of the 2nd Amendment, the only thing that might pass is banning people who have mental illnesses from owning guns, or people who are on psychiatric drugs are banned from owning guns.
Is it actually about the 2nd amendment? The wording is a bit ambiguous.
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.
The above is the 2nd amendment as written in 1788. It mentions a militia to keep the state free. My take is that is about the use of guns by a regulated group of citizens to protect their rights from the federal government. The fact that it mentions the well regulated militia makes me question whether it was intended to cover citizens keeping arms for self defence. Also consider that in 1788 the arms they were referring to were single shot rifles.
I think the modern gun culture is America is not due to the 2nd amendment, but rather due to the general concept that an American should be free to own whatever they can afford. Americans have already conceded some freedom by allowing certain items to be banned (drugs, etc), and now want to stand their ground and protect their remaining liberties.
Another foreigner who thinks he knows what our laws mean.
Your tone is incredibly disrespectful, and honestly just because you are from the USA doesn't mean you have any more idea about what the laws in your country mean than somebody from another country. He could quite easily have a much greater understanding of your own laws than you do.
Also, it doesn't just say. "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
For whatever reason, they felt the need to qualify it. "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 the precise interpretation of this statement is may be up for debate, but it's definitely an interesting and relevant point to explore.
Posting a youtube comedy clip and calling somebody a foreigner doesn't achieve much apart from making yourself look like a dick.
On December 16 2012 02:29 Esk23 wrote:
On December 16 2012 02:26 Djzapz wrote:
On December 16 2012 02:20 Esk23 wrote:
On December 16 2012 02:15 hzflank wrote:
On December 16 2012 02:06 Esk23 wrote:
It's impossible to ban guns in the USA anyways, this has been brought up before and it always shot down here, a big majority of Americans are in favor of the 2nd Amendment, the only thing that might pass is banning people who have mental illnesses from owning guns, or people who are on psychiatric drugs are banned from owning guns.
Is it actually about the 2nd amendment? The wording is a bit ambiguous.
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.
The above is the 2nd amendment as written in 1788. It mentions a militia to keep the state free. My take is that is about the use of guns by a regulated group of citizens to protect their rights from the federal government. The fact that it mentions the well regulated militia makes me question whether it was intended to cover citizens keeping arms for self defence. Also consider that in 1788 the arms they were referring to were single shot rifles.
I think the modern gun culture is America is not due to the 2nd amendment, but rather due to the general concept that an American should be free to own whatever they can afford. Americans have already conceded some freedom by allowing certain items to be banned (drugs, etc), and now want to stand their ground and protect their remaining liberties.
Another foreigner who thinks he knows what our laws mean.
Even though you're right, I think it's funny that you'd phrase it like that. As if foreigners couldn't possibly understand your laws.
No, I didn't mean it like that. But you guys are getting really frustrating, I've posted enough in this thread and there's enough info and posts that SMASH gun control or ban advocates so hard there isn't any point to keep going. New people jump in and the debate starts right at the beginning again.
Please, enlighten us on all this information you have that SMASHES any argument against tighter gun controls or an outright ban.
this is the sort of information esk posted earlier in the thread that thinks SMASHES your arguement
On December 15 2012 04:14 Esk23 wrote: Guns aren't even close to the leading causes of death in the United States, in fact they aren't even in the top 10. Why doesn't anyone ever hear about these in the media:
•Number of deaths: 2,437,163 •Death rate: 793.8 deaths per 100,000 population •Life expectancy: 78.5 years •Infant Mortality rate: 6.39 deaths per 1,000 live births
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
the real difference between the facts is that This second sources qualifys all violent crime in its statements and the graphs made about america being more gun violent then other countries is just because we have more guns. It makes the argument that america has less violent crime because there are more guns even if more crime proportionately is done with guns.
That pdf is the most horrible piece of document I have ever seen. Please, don't even refer to it.
It's impossible to ban guns in the USA anyways, this has been brought up before and it always shot down here, a big majority of Americans are in favor of the 2nd Amendment, the only thing that might pass is banning people who have mental illnesses from owning guns, or people who are on psychiatric drugs are banned from owning guns.
Is it actually about the 2nd amendment? The wording is a bit ambiguous.
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.
The above is the 2nd amendment as written in 1788. It mentions a militia to keep the state free. My take is that is about the use of guns by a regulated group of citizens to protect their rights from the federal government. The fact that it mentions the well regulated militia makes me question whether it was intended to cover citizens keeping arms for self defence. Also consider that in 1788 the arms they were referring to were single shot rifles.
I think the modern gun culture is America is not due to the 2nd amendment, but rather due to the general concept that an American should be free to own whatever they can afford. Americans have already conceded some freedom by allowing certain items to be banned (drugs, etc), and now want to stand their ground and protect their remaining liberties.
Another foreigner who thinks he knows what our laws mean.
Your tone is incredibly disrespectful, and honestly just because you are from the USA doesn't mean you have any more idea about what the laws in your country mean than somebody from another country. He could quite easily have a much greater understanding of your own laws than you do.
Also, it doesn't just say. "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
For whatever reason, they felt the need to qualify it. "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 the precise interpretation of this statement is may be up for debate, but it's definitely an interesting and relevant point to explore.
Posting a youtube comedy clip and calling somebody a foreigner doesn't achieve much apart from making yourself look like a dick.
On December 16 2012 02:29 Esk23 wrote:
On December 16 2012 02:26 Djzapz wrote:
On December 16 2012 02:20 Esk23 wrote:
On December 16 2012 02:15 hzflank wrote:
On December 16 2012 02:06 Esk23 wrote:
It's impossible to ban guns in the USA anyways, this has been brought up before and it always shot down here, a big majority of Americans are in favor of the 2nd Amendment, the only thing that might pass is banning people who have mental illnesses from owning guns, or people who are on psychiatric drugs are banned from owning guns.
Is it actually about the 2nd amendment? The wording is a bit ambiguous.
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.
The above is the 2nd amendment as written in 1788. It mentions a militia to keep the state free. My take is that is about the use of guns by a regulated group of citizens to protect their rights from the federal government. The fact that it mentions the well regulated militia makes me question whether it was intended to cover citizens keeping arms for self defence. Also consider that in 1788 the arms they were referring to were single shot rifles.
I think the modern gun culture is America is not due to the 2nd amendment, but rather due to the general concept that an American should be free to own whatever they can afford. Americans have already conceded some freedom by allowing certain items to be banned (drugs, etc), and now want to stand their ground and protect their remaining liberties.
Another foreigner who thinks he knows what our laws mean.
Even though you're right, I think it's funny that you'd phrase it like that. As if foreigners couldn't possibly understand your laws.
No, I didn't mean it like that. But you guys are getting really frustrating, I've posted enough in this thread and there's enough info and posts that SMASH gun control or ban advocates so hard there isn't any point to keep going. New people jump in and the debate starts right at the beginning again.
Please, enlighten us on all this information you have that SMASHES any argument against tighter gun controls or an outright ban.
this is the sort of information esk posted earlier in the thread that thinks SMASHES your arguement
On December 15 2012 04:14 Esk23 wrote: Guns aren't even close to the leading causes of death in the United States, in fact they aren't even in the top 10. Why doesn't anyone ever hear about these in the media:
•Number of deaths: 2,437,163 •Death rate: 793.8 deaths per 100,000 population •Life expectancy: 78.5 years •Infant Mortality rate: 6.39 deaths per 1,000 live births
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
the real difference between the facts is that This second sources qualifys all violent crime in its statements and the graphs made about america being more gun violent then other countries is just because we have more guns. It makes the argument that america has less violent crime because there are more guns even if more crime proportionately is done with guns.
That pdf is the most horrible piece of document I have ever seen. Please, don't even refer to it.
Whats wrong with it? Its documents its statements well and it has sources for all of them.
It's impossible to ban guns in the USA anyways, this has been brought up before and it always shot down here, a big majority of Americans are in favor of the 2nd Amendment, the only thing that might pass is banning people who have mental illnesses from owning guns, or people who are on psychiatric drugs are banned from owning guns.
Is it actually about the 2nd amendment? The wording is a bit ambiguous.
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.
The above is the 2nd amendment as written in 1788. It mentions a militia to keep the state free. My take is that is about the use of guns by a regulated group of citizens to protect their rights from the federal government. The fact that it mentions the well regulated militia makes me question whether it was intended to cover citizens keeping arms for self defence. Also consider that in 1788 the arms they were referring to were single shot rifles.
I think the modern gun culture is America is not due to the 2nd amendment, but rather due to the general concept that an American should be free to own whatever they can afford. Americans have already conceded some freedom by allowing certain items to be banned (drugs, etc), and now want to stand their ground and protect their remaining liberties.
Another foreigner who thinks he knows what our laws mean.
Your tone is incredibly disrespectful, and honestly just because you are from the USA doesn't mean you have any more idea about what the laws in your country mean than somebody from another country. He could quite easily have a much greater understanding of your own laws than you do.
Also, it doesn't just say. "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
For whatever reason, they felt the need to qualify it. "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 the precise interpretation of this statement is may be up for debate, but it's definitely an interesting and relevant point to explore.
Posting a youtube comedy clip and calling somebody a foreigner doesn't achieve much apart from making yourself look like a dick.
On December 16 2012 02:29 Esk23 wrote:
On December 16 2012 02:26 Djzapz wrote:
On December 16 2012 02:20 Esk23 wrote:
On December 16 2012 02:15 hzflank wrote:
On December 16 2012 02:06 Esk23 wrote:
It's impossible to ban guns in the USA anyways, this has been brought up before and it always shot down here, a big majority of Americans are in favor of the 2nd Amendment, the only thing that might pass is banning people who have mental illnesses from owning guns, or people who are on psychiatric drugs are banned from owning guns.
Is it actually about the 2nd amendment? The wording is a bit ambiguous.
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.
The above is the 2nd amendment as written in 1788. It mentions a militia to keep the state free. My take is that is about the use of guns by a regulated group of citizens to protect their rights from the federal government. The fact that it mentions the well regulated militia makes me question whether it was intended to cover citizens keeping arms for self defence. Also consider that in 1788 the arms they were referring to were single shot rifles.
I think the modern gun culture is America is not due to the 2nd amendment, but rather due to the general concept that an American should be free to own whatever they can afford. Americans have already conceded some freedom by allowing certain items to be banned (drugs, etc), and now want to stand their ground and protect their remaining liberties.
Another foreigner who thinks he knows what our laws mean.
Even though you're right, I think it's funny that you'd phrase it like that. As if foreigners couldn't possibly understand your laws.
No, I didn't mean it like that. But you guys are getting really frustrating, I've posted enough in this thread and there's enough info and posts that SMASH gun control or ban advocates so hard there isn't any point to keep going. New people jump in and the debate starts right at the beginning again.
Please, enlighten us on all this information you have that SMASHES any argument against tighter gun controls or an outright ban.
this is the sort of information esk posted earlier in the thread that thinks SMASHES your arguement
On December 15 2012 04:14 Esk23 wrote: Guns aren't even close to the leading causes of death in the United States, in fact they aren't even in the top 10. Why doesn't anyone ever hear about these in the media:
•Number of deaths: 2,437,163 •Death rate: 793.8 deaths per 100,000 population •Life expectancy: 78.5 years •Infant Mortality rate: 6.39 deaths per 1,000 live births
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
the real difference between the facts is that This second sources qualifys all violent crime in its statements and the graphs made about america being more gun violent then other countries is just because we have more guns. It makes the argument that america has less violent crime because there are more guns even if more crime proportionately is done with guns.
That pdf is the most horrible piece of document I have ever seen. Please, don't even refer to it.
Whats wrong with it? Its documents its statements well and it has sources for all of them.
Didn't you look at the first page? It's easy to make a biased "document"' call it a "document" and be incredibly selective about your sourcing. There certainly are good statistics in there but if you want a fair overview of the issue you won't find it in that POS.
It's impossible to ban guns in the USA anyways, this has been brought up before and it always shot down here, a big majority of Americans are in favor of the 2nd Amendment, the only thing that might pass is banning people who have mental illnesses from owning guns, or people who are on psychiatric drugs are banned from owning guns.
Is it actually about the 2nd amendment? The wording is a bit ambiguous.
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.
The above is the 2nd amendment as written in 1788. It mentions a militia to keep the state free. My take is that is about the use of guns by a regulated group of citizens to protect their rights from the federal government. The fact that it mentions the well regulated militia makes me question whether it was intended to cover citizens keeping arms for self defence. Also consider that in 1788 the arms they were referring to were single shot rifles.
I think the modern gun culture is America is not due to the 2nd amendment, but rather due to the general concept that an American should be free to own whatever they can afford. Americans have already conceded some freedom by allowing certain items to be banned (drugs, etc), and now want to stand their ground and protect their remaining liberties.
Another foreigner who thinks he knows what our laws mean.
Your tone is incredibly disrespectful, and honestly just because you are from the USA doesn't mean you have any more idea about what the laws in your country mean than somebody from another country. He could quite easily have a much greater understanding of your own laws than you do.
Also, it doesn't just say. "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
For whatever reason, they felt the need to qualify it. "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 the precise interpretation of this statement is may be up for debate, but it's definitely an interesting and relevant point to explore.
Posting a youtube comedy clip and calling somebody a foreigner doesn't achieve much apart from making yourself look like a dick.
On December 16 2012 02:29 Esk23 wrote:
On December 16 2012 02:26 Djzapz wrote:
On December 16 2012 02:20 Esk23 wrote:
On December 16 2012 02:15 hzflank wrote:
On December 16 2012 02:06 Esk23 wrote:
It's impossible to ban guns in the USA anyways, this has been brought up before and it always shot down here, a big majority of Americans are in favor of the 2nd Amendment, the only thing that might pass is banning people who have mental illnesses from owning guns, or people who are on psychiatric drugs are banned from owning guns.
Is it actually about the 2nd amendment? The wording is a bit ambiguous.
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.
The above is the 2nd amendment as written in 1788. It mentions a militia to keep the state free. My take is that is about the use of guns by a regulated group of citizens to protect their rights from the federal government. The fact that it mentions the well regulated militia makes me question whether it was intended to cover citizens keeping arms for self defence. Also consider that in 1788 the arms they were referring to were single shot rifles.
I think the modern gun culture is America is not due to the 2nd amendment, but rather due to the general concept that an American should be free to own whatever they can afford. Americans have already conceded some freedom by allowing certain items to be banned (drugs, etc), and now want to stand their ground and protect their remaining liberties.
Another foreigner who thinks he knows what our laws mean.
Even though you're right, I think it's funny that you'd phrase it like that. As if foreigners couldn't possibly understand your laws.
No, I didn't mean it like that. But you guys are getting really frustrating, I've posted enough in this thread and there's enough info and posts that SMASH gun control or ban advocates so hard there isn't any point to keep going. New people jump in and the debate starts right at the beginning again.
Please, enlighten us on all this information you have that SMASHES any argument against tighter gun controls or an outright ban.
this is the sort of information esk posted earlier in the thread that thinks SMASHES your arguement
On December 15 2012 04:14 Esk23 wrote: Guns aren't even close to the leading causes of death in the United States, in fact they aren't even in the top 10. Why doesn't anyone ever hear about these in the media:
•Number of deaths: 2,437,163 •Death rate: 793.8 deaths per 100,000 population •Life expectancy: 78.5 years •Infant Mortality rate: 6.39 deaths per 1,000 live births
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
the real difference between the facts is that This second sources qualifys all violent crime in its statements and the graphs made about america being more gun violent then other countries is just because we have more guns. It makes the argument that america has less violent crime because there are more guns even if more crime proportionately is done with guns.
That pdf is the most horrible piece of document I have ever seen. Please, don't even refer to it.
No more ridiculous than all the skewed manipulated data we get as "official statistics" that the other side is quoting from editable sites like wikipedia. Both sides are cherry-picking data and are so gung-ho about their own side that neither side is emotionally-detached enough to even have a conversation on the topic. At that point its no different than children squabbling with no end in sight.
No - unless if they serve in the police, the military or a company that specializes in protection (body-guards, bank-guards, you name it). And they should not be allowed to have a weapon for private use, ever.
It's impossible to ban guns in the USA anyways, this has been brought up before and it always shot down here, a big majority of Americans are in favor of the 2nd Amendment, the only thing that might pass is banning people who have mental illnesses from owning guns, or people who are on psychiatric drugs are banned from owning guns.
Is it actually about the 2nd amendment? The wording is a bit ambiguous.
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.
The above is the 2nd amendment as written in 1788. It mentions a militia to keep the state free. My take is that is about the use of guns by a regulated group of citizens to protect their rights from the federal government. The fact that it mentions the well regulated militia makes me question whether it was intended to cover citizens keeping arms for self defence. Also consider that in 1788 the arms they were referring to were single shot rifles.
I think the modern gun culture is America is not due to the 2nd amendment, but rather due to the general concept that an American should be free to own whatever they can afford. Americans have already conceded some freedom by allowing certain items to be banned (drugs, etc), and now want to stand their ground and protect their remaining liberties.
Another foreigner who thinks he knows what our laws mean.
Your tone is incredibly disrespectful, and honestly just because you are from the USA doesn't mean you have any more idea about what the laws in your country mean than somebody from another country. He could quite easily have a much greater understanding of your own laws than you do.
Also, it doesn't just say. "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
For whatever reason, they felt the need to qualify it. "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 the precise interpretation of this statement is may be up for debate, but it's definitely an interesting and relevant point to explore.
Posting a youtube comedy clip and calling somebody a foreigner doesn't achieve much apart from making yourself look like a dick.
On December 16 2012 02:29 Esk23 wrote:
On December 16 2012 02:26 Djzapz wrote:
On December 16 2012 02:20 Esk23 wrote:
On December 16 2012 02:15 hzflank wrote: [quote]
Is it actually about the 2nd amendment? The wording is a bit ambiguous.
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.
The above is the 2nd amendment as written in 1788. It mentions a militia to keep the state free. My take is that is about the use of guns by a regulated group of citizens to protect their rights from the federal government. The fact that it mentions the well regulated militia makes me question whether it was intended to cover citizens keeping arms for self defence. Also consider that in 1788 the arms they were referring to were single shot rifles.
I think the modern gun culture is America is not due to the 2nd amendment, but rather due to the general concept that an American should be free to own whatever they can afford. Americans have already conceded some freedom by allowing certain items to be banned (drugs, etc), and now want to stand their ground and protect their remaining liberties.
Another foreigner who thinks he knows what our laws mean.
Even though you're right, I think it's funny that you'd phrase it like that. As if foreigners couldn't possibly understand your laws.
No, I didn't mean it like that. But you guys are getting really frustrating, I've posted enough in this thread and there's enough info and posts that SMASH gun control or ban advocates so hard there isn't any point to keep going. New people jump in and the debate starts right at the beginning again.
Please, enlighten us on all this information you have that SMASHES any argument against tighter gun controls or an outright ban.
this is the sort of information esk posted earlier in the thread that thinks SMASHES your arguement
On December 15 2012 04:14 Esk23 wrote: Guns aren't even close to the leading causes of death in the United States, in fact they aren't even in the top 10. Why doesn't anyone ever hear about these in the media:
•Number of deaths: 2,437,163 •Death rate: 793.8 deaths per 100,000 population •Life expectancy: 78.5 years •Infant Mortality rate: 6.39 deaths per 1,000 live births
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
the real difference between the facts is that This second sources qualifys all violent crime in its statements and the graphs made about america being more gun violent then other countries is just because we have more guns. It makes the argument that america has less violent crime because there are more guns even if more crime proportionately is done with guns.
That pdf is the most horrible piece of document I have ever seen. Please, don't even refer to it.
Whats wrong with it? Its documents its statements well and it has sources for all of them.
Didn't you look at the first page? It's easy to make a biased "document"' call it a "document" and be incredibly selective about your sourcing. There certainly are good statistics in there but if you want a fair overview of the issue you won't find it in that POS.
But it use's actualy statistics and makes good arguments. You'd rather just cast it away as being shit then confront any of them? What standard of statistics should we be using for this argument? I haven't seen a statistic come from the pro gun control side that wasn't horribly misrepresented and biased.
If you have something you want to say about one of the things they source of one of their arguments then say it and refute them.
It's impossible to ban guns in the USA anyways, this has been brought up before and it always shot down here, a big majority of Americans are in favor of the 2nd Amendment, the only thing that might pass is banning people who have mental illnesses from owning guns, or people who are on psychiatric drugs are banned from owning guns.
Is it actually about the 2nd amendment? The wording is a bit ambiguous.
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.
The above is the 2nd amendment as written in 1788. It mentions a militia to keep the state free. My take is that is about the use of guns by a regulated group of citizens to protect their rights from the federal government. The fact that it mentions the well regulated militia makes me question whether it was intended to cover citizens keeping arms for self defence. Also consider that in 1788 the arms they were referring to were single shot rifles.
I think the modern gun culture is America is not due to the 2nd amendment, but rather due to the general concept that an American should be free to own whatever they can afford. Americans have already conceded some freedom by allowing certain items to be banned (drugs, etc), and now want to stand their ground and protect their remaining liberties.
Another foreigner who thinks he knows what our laws mean.
Your tone is incredibly disrespectful, and honestly just because you are from the USA doesn't mean you have any more idea about what the laws in your country mean than somebody from another country. He could quite easily have a much greater understanding of your own laws than you do.
Also, it doesn't just say. "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
For whatever reason, they felt the need to qualify it. "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 the precise interpretation of this statement is may be up for debate, but it's definitely an interesting and relevant point to explore.
Posting a youtube comedy clip and calling somebody a foreigner doesn't achieve much apart from making yourself look like a dick.
On December 16 2012 02:29 Esk23 wrote:
On December 16 2012 02:26 Djzapz wrote:
On December 16 2012 02:20 Esk23 wrote:
On December 16 2012 02:15 hzflank wrote:
On December 16 2012 02:06 Esk23 wrote:
It's impossible to ban guns in the USA anyways, this has been brought up before and it always shot down here, a big majority of Americans are in favor of the 2nd Amendment, the only thing that might pass is banning people who have mental illnesses from owning guns, or people who are on psychiatric drugs are banned from owning guns.
Is it actually about the 2nd amendment? The wording is a bit ambiguous.
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.
The above is the 2nd amendment as written in 1788. It mentions a militia to keep the state free. My take is that is about the use of guns by a regulated group of citizens to protect their rights from the federal government. The fact that it mentions the well regulated militia makes me question whether it was intended to cover citizens keeping arms for self defence. Also consider that in 1788 the arms they were referring to were single shot rifles.
I think the modern gun culture is America is not due to the 2nd amendment, but rather due to the general concept that an American should be free to own whatever they can afford. Americans have already conceded some freedom by allowing certain items to be banned (drugs, etc), and now want to stand their ground and protect their remaining liberties.
Another foreigner who thinks he knows what our laws mean.
Even though you're right, I think it's funny that you'd phrase it like that. As if foreigners couldn't possibly understand your laws.
No, I didn't mean it like that. But you guys are getting really frustrating, I've posted enough in this thread and there's enough info and posts that SMASH gun control or ban advocates so hard there isn't any point to keep going. New people jump in and the debate starts right at the beginning again.
Please, enlighten us on all this information you have that SMASHES any argument against tighter gun controls or an outright ban.
this is the sort of information esk posted earlier in the thread that thinks SMASHES your arguement
On December 15 2012 04:14 Esk23 wrote: Guns aren't even close to the leading causes of death in the United States, in fact they aren't even in the top 10. Why doesn't anyone ever hear about these in the media:
•Number of deaths: 2,437,163 •Death rate: 793.8 deaths per 100,000 population •Life expectancy: 78.5 years •Infant Mortality rate: 6.39 deaths per 1,000 live births
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
the real difference between the facts is that This second sources qualifys all violent crime in its statements and the graphs made about america being more gun violent then other countries is just because we have more guns. It makes the argument that america has less violent crime because there are more guns even if more crime proportionately is done with guns.
That pdf is the most horrible piece of document I have ever seen. Please, don't even refer to it.
No more ridiculous than all the skewed manipulated data we get as "official statistics" that the other side is quoting from editable sites like wikipedia. Both sides are cherry-picking data and are so gung-ho about their own side that neither side is emotionally-detached enough to even have a conversation on the topic. At that point its no different than children squabbling with no end in sight.
The difference is, that both sides agreed that the data from wiki are trash, whereas this document is almost treated as the holy grail.
The right to bear arms is a constitutional right. They placed it in the constitution for a reason. The centralized power of government and cooperate ties leads me to be wary of gun bans. Whether someone uses their right for selfish/hateful reasons, it is a right that should be protected. Also, the minute % of shootings compared to population is just sensationalist. If you want to prevent deaths, there are other areas to focus on that would yield much greater benefit to saving human life. I hope that people will not be so reactionary to atrocities that hit home or in the heart. There are also atrocities going on that may not be as easy to identify, but imo are just as heinous and yield death to the 10th, 100th, or 1000th power.
It's impossible to ban guns in the USA anyways, this has been brought up before and it always shot down here, a big majority of Americans are in favor of the 2nd Amendment, the only thing that might pass is banning people who have mental illnesses from owning guns, or people who are on psychiatric drugs are banned from owning guns.
Is it actually about the 2nd amendment? The wording is a bit ambiguous.
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.
The above is the 2nd amendment as written in 1788. It mentions a militia to keep the state free. My take is that is about the use of guns by a regulated group of citizens to protect their rights from the federal government. The fact that it mentions the well regulated militia makes me question whether it was intended to cover citizens keeping arms for self defence. Also consider that in 1788 the arms they were referring to were single shot rifles.
I think the modern gun culture is America is not due to the 2nd amendment, but rather due to the general concept that an American should be free to own whatever they can afford. Americans have already conceded some freedom by allowing certain items to be banned (drugs, etc), and now want to stand their ground and protect their remaining liberties.
Another foreigner who thinks he knows what our laws mean.
Your tone is incredibly disrespectful, and honestly just because you are from the USA doesn't mean you have any more idea about what the laws in your country mean than somebody from another country. He could quite easily have a much greater understanding of your own laws than you do.
Also, it doesn't just say. "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
For whatever reason, they felt the need to qualify it. "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 the precise interpretation of this statement is may be up for debate, but it's definitely an interesting and relevant point to explore.
Posting a youtube comedy clip and calling somebody a foreigner doesn't achieve much apart from making yourself look like a dick.
On December 16 2012 02:29 Esk23 wrote:
On December 16 2012 02:26 Djzapz wrote:
On December 16 2012 02:20 Esk23 wrote:
On December 16 2012 02:15 hzflank wrote: [quote]
Is it actually about the 2nd amendment? The wording is a bit ambiguous.
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.
The above is the 2nd amendment as written in 1788. It mentions a militia to keep the state free. My take is that is about the use of guns by a regulated group of citizens to protect their rights from the federal government. The fact that it mentions the well regulated militia makes me question whether it was intended to cover citizens keeping arms for self defence. Also consider that in 1788 the arms they were referring to were single shot rifles.
I think the modern gun culture is America is not due to the 2nd amendment, but rather due to the general concept that an American should be free to own whatever they can afford. Americans have already conceded some freedom by allowing certain items to be banned (drugs, etc), and now want to stand their ground and protect their remaining liberties.
Another foreigner who thinks he knows what our laws mean.
Even though you're right, I think it's funny that you'd phrase it like that. As if foreigners couldn't possibly understand your laws.
No, I didn't mean it like that. But you guys are getting really frustrating, I've posted enough in this thread and there's enough info and posts that SMASH gun control or ban advocates so hard there isn't any point to keep going. New people jump in and the debate starts right at the beginning again.
Please, enlighten us on all this information you have that SMASHES any argument against tighter gun controls or an outright ban.
this is the sort of information esk posted earlier in the thread that thinks SMASHES your arguement
On December 15 2012 04:14 Esk23 wrote: Guns aren't even close to the leading causes of death in the United States, in fact they aren't even in the top 10. Why doesn't anyone ever hear about these in the media:
•Number of deaths: 2,437,163 •Death rate: 793.8 deaths per 100,000 population •Life expectancy: 78.5 years •Infant Mortality rate: 6.39 deaths per 1,000 live births
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
the real difference between the facts is that This second sources qualifys all violent crime in its statements and the graphs made about america being more gun violent then other countries is just because we have more guns. It makes the argument that america has less violent crime because there are more guns even if more crime proportionately is done with guns.
That pdf is the most horrible piece of document I have ever seen. Please, don't even refer to it.
No more ridiculous than all the skewed manipulated data we get as "official statistics" that the other side is quoting from editable sites like wikipedia. Both sides are cherry-picking data and are so gung-ho about their own side that neither side is emotionally-detached enough to even have a conversation on the topic. At that point its no different than children squabbling with no end in sight.
The difference is, that both sides agreed that the data from wiki are trash, whereas this document is almost treated as the holy grail.
Well it shouldn't be. Just like any source, accumulation over time is how to gather data. Not just "OMGIHAZT3HANSWER". That seems like what everyone jumps to these days and its that very mentality that got things like the infamously-awful "Patriot Act" passed. I just wish people would have some damned patience. Any agenda being forced like this is almost always harmful because everything gets rushed and things aren't done right.
It's impossible to ban guns in the USA anyways, this has been brought up before and it always shot down here, a big majority of Americans are in favor of the 2nd Amendment, the only thing that might pass is banning people who have mental illnesses from owning guns, or people who are on psychiatric drugs are banned from owning guns.
Is it actually about the 2nd amendment? The wording is a bit ambiguous.
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.
The above is the 2nd amendment as written in 1788. It mentions a militia to keep the state free. My take is that is about the use of guns by a regulated group of citizens to protect their rights from the federal government. The fact that it mentions the well regulated militia makes me question whether it was intended to cover citizens keeping arms for self defence. Also consider that in 1788 the arms they were referring to were single shot rifles.
I think the modern gun culture is America is not due to the 2nd amendment, but rather due to the general concept that an American should be free to own whatever they can afford. Americans have already conceded some freedom by allowing certain items to be banned (drugs, etc), and now want to stand their ground and protect their remaining liberties.
Another foreigner who thinks he knows what our laws mean.
Your tone is incredibly disrespectful, and honestly just because you are from the USA doesn't mean you have any more idea about what the laws in your country mean than somebody from another country. He could quite easily have a much greater understanding of your own laws than you do.
Also, it doesn't just say. "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
For whatever reason, they felt the need to qualify it. "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 the precise interpretation of this statement is may be up for debate, but it's definitely an interesting and relevant point to explore.
Posting a youtube comedy clip and calling somebody a foreigner doesn't achieve much apart from making yourself look like a dick.
On December 16 2012 02:29 Esk23 wrote:
On December 16 2012 02:26 Djzapz wrote:
On December 16 2012 02:20 Esk23 wrote: [quote]
Another foreigner who thinks he knows what our laws mean.
Even though you're right, I think it's funny that you'd phrase it like that. As if foreigners couldn't possibly understand your laws.
No, I didn't mean it like that. But you guys are getting really frustrating, I've posted enough in this thread and there's enough info and posts that SMASH gun control or ban advocates so hard there isn't any point to keep going. New people jump in and the debate starts right at the beginning again.
Please, enlighten us on all this information you have that SMASHES any argument against tighter gun controls or an outright ban.
this is the sort of information esk posted earlier in the thread that thinks SMASHES your arguement
On December 15 2012 04:14 Esk23 wrote: Guns aren't even close to the leading causes of death in the United States, in fact they aren't even in the top 10. Why doesn't anyone ever hear about these in the media:
•Number of deaths: 2,437,163 •Death rate: 793.8 deaths per 100,000 population •Life expectancy: 78.5 years •Infant Mortality rate: 6.39 deaths per 1,000 live births
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
the real difference between the facts is that This second sources qualifys all violent crime in its statements and the graphs made about america being more gun violent then other countries is just because we have more guns. It makes the argument that america has less violent crime because there are more guns even if more crime proportionately is done with guns.
That pdf is the most horrible piece of document I have ever seen. Please, don't even refer to it.
Whats wrong with it? Its documents its statements well and it has sources for all of them.
Didn't you look at the first page? It's easy to make a biased "document"' call it a "document" and be incredibly selective about your sourcing. There certainly are good statistics in there but if you want a fair overview of the issue you won't find it in that POS.
But it use's actualy statistics and makes good arguments. You'd rather just cast it away as being shit then confront any of them? What standard of statistics should we be using for this argument? I haven't seen a statistic come from the pro gun control side that wasn't horribly misrepresented and biased.
If you have something you want to say about one of the things they source of one of their arguments then say it and refute them.
Refute the faulty parts of 107 pages of stuff in the weekend before my finals? No, I'm just saying if you're a bit simple minded and you look at a document that flaunts how awesome firearms are, you may be tempted not to look at the other side of the argument.
But for the sake of argument we'll look at page ONE (page 9 of the document) 1- The graph that's used is wrong. Anyone with understanding of statistics would frown upon this. You need a bar graph for this, not lines. This graph says that between Norway and the US, there's the homicide rate is 25 per 100k. Fine that's me being picky, but that's one of the things you look at when you want to see if a paper is scientific and rigorous. This isn't. 2- About the first "fact": Unsourced claim that in the US "we can demonstrate that private ownership of guns reduces crime". Not true. 3- About the second "fact": Unsupported by actual fact. Also, without a study in time, it's impossible to know for sure how much gun laws affect crime. Consider that heavily restrictive gun laws may result from high crime, and high crime isn't a result of gun laws. It's possible that crime -> strict gun laws and strict guns laws are, I believe, not effective. 4- About the third "fact": Apparently 3% is 3 times more than 1.2%. 5- About the fourth "fact": Where is that paper, and why should we believe Colin Greenwood's claim? He's an expert so we don't need his 20 years of stats?
That is one page. The first source is legitimate and in fact very interesting, but it's poor analysis to suggest what the paper says it does.
There are very, very few times when statistics lead to facts. This document tosses the word fact around like it's candy. Also statistics can be bent and used to suggest things that aren't true. This is even worse when those suggestions are called "facts" by the researcher or whatever the hell we should call that person.
It's impossible to ban guns in the USA anyways, this has been brought up before and it always shot down here, a big majority of Americans are in favor of the 2nd Amendment, the only thing that might pass is banning people who have mental illnesses from owning guns, or people who are on psychiatric drugs are banned from owning guns.
Is it actually about the 2nd amendment? The wording is a bit ambiguous.
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.
The above is the 2nd amendment as written in 1788. It mentions a militia to keep the state free. My take is that is about the use of guns by a regulated group of citizens to protect their rights from the federal government. The fact that it mentions the well regulated militia makes me question whether it was intended to cover citizens keeping arms for self defence. Also consider that in 1788 the arms they were referring to were single shot rifles.
I think the modern gun culture is America is not due to the 2nd amendment, but rather due to the general concept that an American should be free to own whatever they can afford. Americans have already conceded some freedom by allowing certain items to be banned (drugs, etc), and now want to stand their ground and protect their remaining liberties.
Another foreigner who thinks he knows what our laws mean.
Your tone is incredibly disrespectful, and honestly just because you are from the USA doesn't mean you have any more idea about what the laws in your country mean than somebody from another country. He could quite easily have a much greater understanding of your own laws than you do.
Also, it doesn't just say. "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
For whatever reason, they felt the need to qualify it. "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 the precise interpretation of this statement is may be up for debate, but it's definitely an interesting and relevant point to explore.
Posting a youtube comedy clip and calling somebody a foreigner doesn't achieve much apart from making yourself look like a dick.
On December 16 2012 02:29 Esk23 wrote:
On December 16 2012 02:26 Djzapz wrote:
On December 16 2012 02:20 Esk23 wrote:
On December 16 2012 02:15 hzflank wrote: [quote]
Is it actually about the 2nd amendment? The wording is a bit ambiguous.
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.
The above is the 2nd amendment as written in 1788. It mentions a militia to keep the state free. My take is that is about the use of guns by a regulated group of citizens to protect their rights from the federal government. The fact that it mentions the well regulated militia makes me question whether it was intended to cover citizens keeping arms for self defence. Also consider that in 1788 the arms they were referring to were single shot rifles.
I think the modern gun culture is America is not due to the 2nd amendment, but rather due to the general concept that an American should be free to own whatever they can afford. Americans have already conceded some freedom by allowing certain items to be banned (drugs, etc), and now want to stand their ground and protect their remaining liberties.
Another foreigner who thinks he knows what our laws mean.
Even though you're right, I think it's funny that you'd phrase it like that. As if foreigners couldn't possibly understand your laws.
No, I didn't mean it like that. But you guys are getting really frustrating, I've posted enough in this thread and there's enough info and posts that SMASH gun control or ban advocates so hard there isn't any point to keep going. New people jump in and the debate starts right at the beginning again.
Please, enlighten us on all this information you have that SMASHES any argument against tighter gun controls or an outright ban.
this is the sort of information esk posted earlier in the thread that thinks SMASHES your arguement
On December 15 2012 04:14 Esk23 wrote: Guns aren't even close to the leading causes of death in the United States, in fact they aren't even in the top 10. Why doesn't anyone ever hear about these in the media:
•Number of deaths: 2,437,163 •Death rate: 793.8 deaths per 100,000 population •Life expectancy: 78.5 years •Infant Mortality rate: 6.39 deaths per 1,000 live births
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
the real difference between the facts is that This second sources qualifys all violent crime in its statements and the graphs made about america being more gun violent then other countries is just because we have more guns. It makes the argument that america has less violent crime because there are more guns even if more crime proportionately is done with guns.
That pdf is the most horrible piece of document I have ever seen. Please, don't even refer to it.
No more ridiculous than all the skewed manipulated data we get as "official statistics" that the other side is quoting from editable sites like wikipedia. Both sides are cherry-picking data and are so gung-ho about their own side that neither side is emotionally-detached enough to even have a conversation on the topic. At that point its no different than children squabbling with no end in sight.
The difference is, that both sides agreed that the data from wiki are trash, whereas this document is almost treated as the holy grail.
But well sourced and well written documents are the holy grail compared to wiki data. Whats your point? Do you have a better document or at least one with collected facts like this? There really isn't a reason for your hatred.
On December 16 2012 03:21 Shocae wrote: The right to bear arms is a constitutional right. They placed it in the constitution for a reason. The centralized power of government and cooperate ties leads me to be wary of gun bans. Whether someone uses their right for selfish/hateful reasons, it is a right that should be protected. Also, the minute % of shootings compared to population is just sensationalist. If you want to prevent deaths, there are other areas to focus on that would yield much greater benefit to saving human life. I hope that people will not be so reactionary to atrocities that hit home or in the heart. There are also atrocities going on that may not be as easy to identify, but imo are just as heinous and yield death to the 10th, 100th, or 1000th power.
Just my 2 cents.
...the only thing is, this is one atrocity that can pretty much entirely be prevented, easily, you know how, you just got to do it. You'd prevent completely innocent people dying, while healthy, in the middle of their youth, etc. Sure more people die of cancer or heart failure, but that's mostly when they're 50+. Added benefit, you'll actually become a somewhat civilised nation with a monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force. How about them apples.
And really, basing your reasoning on the ramblings of these retards that wrote the constitution? How simplistic can one be. That document is on par with the damn Sharia in being completely outdated, if it ever was any use. Every single serious democracy has something along a gun ban or some serious, serious restrictions.
So yea, don't stop fighting other atrocities, but why on earth would you not fix this one, right now?
Ps. Sorry for my somewhat aggressive tone, I'm just can't believe my eyes when I see a comment like this, and have to try real hard not to stereotype the rest of America.
It's impossible to ban guns in the USA anyways, this has been brought up before and it always shot down here, a big majority of Americans are in favor of the 2nd Amendment, the only thing that might pass is banning people who have mental illnesses from owning guns, or people who are on psychiatric drugs are banned from owning guns.
Is it actually about the 2nd amendment? The wording is a bit ambiguous.
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.
The above is the 2nd amendment as written in 1788. It mentions a militia to keep the state free. My take is that is about the use of guns by a regulated group of citizens to protect their rights from the federal government. The fact that it mentions the well regulated militia makes me question whether it was intended to cover citizens keeping arms for self defence. Also consider that in 1788 the arms they were referring to were single shot rifles.
I think the modern gun culture is America is not due to the 2nd amendment, but rather due to the general concept that an American should be free to own whatever they can afford. Americans have already conceded some freedom by allowing certain items to be banned (drugs, etc), and now want to stand their ground and protect their remaining liberties.
Another foreigner who thinks he knows what our laws mean.
Your tone is incredibly disrespectful, and honestly just because you are from the USA doesn't mean you have any more idea about what the laws in your country mean than somebody from another country. He could quite easily have a much greater understanding of your own laws than you do.
Also, it doesn't just say. "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
For whatever reason, they felt the need to qualify it. "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 the precise interpretation of this statement is may be up for debate, but it's definitely an interesting and relevant point to explore.
Posting a youtube comedy clip and calling somebody a foreigner doesn't achieve much apart from making yourself look like a dick.
On December 16 2012 02:29 Esk23 wrote:
On December 16 2012 02:26 Djzapz wrote:
On December 16 2012 02:20 Esk23 wrote: [quote]
Another foreigner who thinks he knows what our laws mean.
Even though you're right, I think it's funny that you'd phrase it like that. As if foreigners couldn't possibly understand your laws.
No, I didn't mean it like that. But you guys are getting really frustrating, I've posted enough in this thread and there's enough info and posts that SMASH gun control or ban advocates so hard there isn't any point to keep going. New people jump in and the debate starts right at the beginning again.
Please, enlighten us on all this information you have that SMASHES any argument against tighter gun controls or an outright ban.
this is the sort of information esk posted earlier in the thread that thinks SMASHES your arguement
On December 15 2012 04:14 Esk23 wrote: Guns aren't even close to the leading causes of death in the United States, in fact they aren't even in the top 10. Why doesn't anyone ever hear about these in the media:
•Number of deaths: 2,437,163 •Death rate: 793.8 deaths per 100,000 population •Life expectancy: 78.5 years •Infant Mortality rate: 6.39 deaths per 1,000 live births
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
the real difference between the facts is that This second sources qualifys all violent crime in its statements and the graphs made about america being more gun violent then other countries is just because we have more guns. It makes the argument that america has less violent crime because there are more guns even if more crime proportionately is done with guns.
That pdf is the most horrible piece of document I have ever seen. Please, don't even refer to it.
No more ridiculous than all the skewed manipulated data we get as "official statistics" that the other side is quoting from editable sites like wikipedia. Both sides are cherry-picking data and are so gung-ho about their own side that neither side is emotionally-detached enough to even have a conversation on the topic. At that point its no different than children squabbling with no end in sight.
The difference is, that both sides agreed that the data from wiki are trash, whereas this document is almost treated as the holy grail.
But well sourced and well written documents are the holy grail compared to wiki data. Whats your point? Do you have a better document or at least one with collected facts like this? There really isn't a reason for your hatred.
It is not well written. Not even close. Ffs, it calls itself "facts". And has statistics. Those 2 words have nothing to do with each other. Correlation, trend probably, but not fatcs. It is a document written by gun supporters. That't it. It is not more relevant then random-ass data pulled from wikipedia.
Is it actually about the 2nd amendment? The wording is a bit ambiguous.
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.
The above is the 2nd amendment as written in 1788. It mentions a militia to keep the state free. My take is that is about the use of guns by a regulated group of citizens to protect their rights from the federal government. The fact that it mentions the well regulated militia makes me question whether it was intended to cover citizens keeping arms for self defence. Also consider that in 1788 the arms they were referring to were single shot rifles.
I think the modern gun culture is America is not due to the 2nd amendment, but rather due to the general concept that an American should be free to own whatever they can afford. Americans have already conceded some freedom by allowing certain items to be banned (drugs, etc), and now want to stand their ground and protect their remaining liberties.
Another foreigner who thinks he knows what our laws mean.
Your tone is incredibly disrespectful, and honestly just because you are from the USA doesn't mean you have any more idea about what the laws in your country mean than somebody from another country. He could quite easily have a much greater understanding of your own laws than you do.
Also, it doesn't just say. "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
For whatever reason, they felt the need to qualify it. "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 the precise interpretation of this statement is may be up for debate, but it's definitely an interesting and relevant point to explore.
Posting a youtube comedy clip and calling somebody a foreigner doesn't achieve much apart from making yourself look like a dick.
On December 16 2012 02:29 Esk23 wrote:
On December 16 2012 02:26 Djzapz wrote: [quote] Even though you're right, I think it's funny that you'd phrase it like that. As if foreigners couldn't possibly understand your laws.
No, I didn't mean it like that. But you guys are getting really frustrating, I've posted enough in this thread and there's enough info and posts that SMASH gun control or ban advocates so hard there isn't any point to keep going. New people jump in and the debate starts right at the beginning again.
Please, enlighten us on all this information you have that SMASHES any argument against tighter gun controls or an outright ban.
this is the sort of information esk posted earlier in the thread that thinks SMASHES your arguement
On December 15 2012 04:14 Esk23 wrote: Guns aren't even close to the leading causes of death in the United States, in fact they aren't even in the top 10. Why doesn't anyone ever hear about these in the media:
•Number of deaths: 2,437,163 •Death rate: 793.8 deaths per 100,000 population •Life expectancy: 78.5 years •Infant Mortality rate: 6.39 deaths per 1,000 live births
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
the real difference between the facts is that This second sources qualifys all violent crime in its statements and the graphs made about america being more gun violent then other countries is just because we have more guns. It makes the argument that america has less violent crime because there are more guns even if more crime proportionately is done with guns.
That pdf is the most horrible piece of document I have ever seen. Please, don't even refer to it.
Whats wrong with it? Its documents its statements well and it has sources for all of them.
Didn't you look at the first page? It's easy to make a biased "document"' call it a "document" and be incredibly selective about your sourcing. There certainly are good statistics in there but if you want a fair overview of the issue you won't find it in that POS.
But it use's actualy statistics and makes good arguments. You'd rather just cast it away as being shit then confront any of them? What standard of statistics should we be using for this argument? I haven't seen a statistic come from the pro gun control side that wasn't horribly misrepresented and biased.
If you have something you want to say about one of the things they source of one of their arguments then say it and refute them.
Refute the faulty parts of 107 pages of stuff in the weekend before my finals? No, I'm just saying if you're a bit simple minded and you look at a document that flaunts how awesome firearms are, you may be tempted not to look at the other side of the argument.
But for the sake of argument we'll look at page ONE (page 9 of the document) 1- The graph that's used is wrong. Anyone with understanding of statistics would frown upon this. You need a bar graph for this, not lines. This graph says that between Norway and the US, there's the homicide rate is 25 per 100k. Fine that's me being picky, but that's one of the things you look at when you want to see if a paper is scientific and rigorous. This isn't. 2: About the first "fact": Unsourced claim that in the US "we can demonstrate that private ownership of guns reduces crime". Not true. 3: About the second "fact": Unsupported by actual fact. Also, without a study in time, it's impossible to know for sure how much gun laws affect crime. Consider that heavily restrictive gun laws may result from high crime, and high crime isn't a result of gun laws. It's possible that crime -> strict gun laws and strict guns laws are, I believe, not effective. 4- About the third "fact": Apparently 3% is 3 times more than 1.2%. 5- About the fourth "fact": Where is that paper, and why should we believe Colin Greenwood's claim? He's an expert so we don't need his 20 years of stats?
That is one page. The first source is legitimate and in fact very interesting, but it's poor analysis to suggest what the paper says it does.
1. I'm not even going to touch "they're presenting the information in a wrong way I want shapes not lines. 2. That claim is what they prove though the whole document. You don't have to source your opening statement. 3. He has an actually fact that shows a direct correlation between stricter gun laws and high crime. This isn't inherently enough to prove causation but there isn't any major thing that changed to cause these higher crime rates (ie what you're suppose to refute). 4. Hes describing the data he doesn't have to be 100% accurate when he describes it only when presenting it. Stop taking literal statements for the facts being presented. 5. I have no idea how you could have possibly missed the clearest scourceing I've ever seen. that 3 next to the end of the sentence? that means you should refer to the bottom of the page for the footnotes on the paper. 3 Minutes of Evidence, Colin Greenwood, Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs, January 29, 2003 is the proper citation for the quote.
You haven't said anything against the claims made in the document (if you want to use the term pdf we can use that too) just silly attempts to discredit it.
Is it actually about the 2nd amendment? The wording is a bit ambiguous.
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.
The above is the 2nd amendment as written in 1788. It mentions a militia to keep the state free. My take is that is about the use of guns by a regulated group of citizens to protect their rights from the federal government. The fact that it mentions the well regulated militia makes me question whether it was intended to cover citizens keeping arms for self defence. Also consider that in 1788 the arms they were referring to were single shot rifles.
I think the modern gun culture is America is not due to the 2nd amendment, but rather due to the general concept that an American should be free to own whatever they can afford. Americans have already conceded some freedom by allowing certain items to be banned (drugs, etc), and now want to stand their ground and protect their remaining liberties.
Another foreigner who thinks he knows what our laws mean.
Your tone is incredibly disrespectful, and honestly just because you are from the USA doesn't mean you have any more idea about what the laws in your country mean than somebody from another country. He could quite easily have a much greater understanding of your own laws than you do.
Also, it doesn't just say. "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
For whatever reason, they felt the need to qualify it. "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 the precise interpretation of this statement is may be up for debate, but it's definitely an interesting and relevant point to explore.
Posting a youtube comedy clip and calling somebody a foreigner doesn't achieve much apart from making yourself look like a dick.
On December 16 2012 02:29 Esk23 wrote:
On December 16 2012 02:26 Djzapz wrote: [quote] Even though you're right, I think it's funny that you'd phrase it like that. As if foreigners couldn't possibly understand your laws.
No, I didn't mean it like that. But you guys are getting really frustrating, I've posted enough in this thread and there's enough info and posts that SMASH gun control or ban advocates so hard there isn't any point to keep going. New people jump in and the debate starts right at the beginning again.
Please, enlighten us on all this information you have that SMASHES any argument against tighter gun controls or an outright ban.
this is the sort of information esk posted earlier in the thread that thinks SMASHES your arguement
On December 15 2012 04:14 Esk23 wrote: Guns aren't even close to the leading causes of death in the United States, in fact they aren't even in the top 10. Why doesn't anyone ever hear about these in the media:
•Number of deaths: 2,437,163 •Death rate: 793.8 deaths per 100,000 population •Life expectancy: 78.5 years •Infant Mortality rate: 6.39 deaths per 1,000 live births
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
the real difference between the facts is that This second sources qualifys all violent crime in its statements and the graphs made about america being more gun violent then other countries is just because we have more guns. It makes the argument that america has less violent crime because there are more guns even if more crime proportionately is done with guns.
That pdf is the most horrible piece of document I have ever seen. Please, don't even refer to it.
No more ridiculous than all the skewed manipulated data we get as "official statistics" that the other side is quoting from editable sites like wikipedia. Both sides are cherry-picking data and are so gung-ho about their own side that neither side is emotionally-detached enough to even have a conversation on the topic. At that point its no different than children squabbling with no end in sight.
The difference is, that both sides agreed that the data from wiki are trash, whereas this document is almost treated as the holy grail.
But well sourced and well written documents are the holy grail compared to wiki data. Whats your point? Do you have a better document or at least one with collected facts like this? There really isn't a reason for your hatred.
It is not well written. Not even close. Ffs, it calls itself "facts". And has statistics. Those 2 words have nothing to do with each other. Correlation, trend probably, but not facts. It is a document written by gun supporters. That't it. It is not more relevant then random-ass data pulled from wikipedia.
So statistics aren't facts and because its written by gun supporters that makes it no better then wiki links? What are you trying to argue? We're not allowed to use statistics (which aren't facts to you) to prove our points then what are we allowed to use? What argument for or against gun control is in any way credible without using statistics? Do you want us to start fighting over Ideology semantics and opinions instead?
EPT
