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.
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 fatcs. It is a document written by gun supporters. That't it. It is not more relevant then random-ass data pulled from wikipedia.
Exactly. Statistics are extremely hard to interpret properly, especially when so many so-called experts will look at a bunch of numbers and draw specific conclusions even though. Everyone knows that correlation doesn't imply causation but they fail to truly realize it when they look at statistics. Notably, people look at stats as if they were in a vacuum - when two variables are compared, they seem to think that the comparison is fair, but they don't realize that without all the other variables that affect everything, really you don't have that much to go off of.
Too often, apples and oranges are compared and nobody says anything.
The problem lies in that fact that either with gun laws preventing people from owning guns or allowing people to have them will in effect only matter to a small degree. The fact of the matter is people who are pro-gun argue they want the right to prevent such tragedies such as this most recent shooting. Conversely people who are anti-gun argue if it was harder for people to obtain guns then they would be less likelihood in the event ever happening in the first place.
HOWEVER, both to I believe a large degree only matter in very specific situations.
How often it is reported that a person carrying a gun has stopped a shooter from killing more people that WASN'T a cop? On the flip side how many people a year get busted trying to obtain an illegal gun?
The people who are going to anti-gun laws are hoping for the latter. It's like putting more cops on the road people would be less likely to speed.
The problem here is people who want to go out and commit these terrible crimes are going to find ways to get guns. You'd just have to hope for the off chance they get busted trying to buy a gun. What I'm trying to say here is the situations that both extreme sides argue are very rare and there is no way to predict either happening more than the other.
Guns aren't the sole problem here. American culture is. Bad people are.
This isn't just some black and white problem that will simply be fixed by going to either extreme. The people, are the problem here. Though personally I think these people aren't right in the head perhaps the chance of them getting caught up for buying an illegal gun are higher.
Both extremes black OR white won't help. The answer lies somewhere in the grey.
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: [quote]
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.
1: Ok just allow anyone to put things in your brain. 2: It's not an opening statement. It's a "fact" that follows their introduction. 3: Ceteris paribus. You can compare different countries in 1 areas and all you have is a comparison of apples and oranges. There are other factors that play a role. For instance inequality. And like I said, countries with strict gun laws may (and essentially do) have those gun laws in response to high crime. It's essentially a faulty and useless response to crime, when in reality they should work on social inequalities and not restrict firearms. Ex: South Africa has very few guns but a lot of crime due to social inequality. Increasing gun laws is useless but it doesn't increase crime. And even if it reduces crime, it certainly isn't drastically, but people will still say gun laws -> crime because they're idiots and can't read stats. 4- Wow really? You think like that and you think someone should be allowed to preface their bullshit based on incomplete data with the word "Fact"? Have some semblance of intellectual rigor. 5- I know, but where is that paper (I haven't found it too quickly so I'd have to dig maybe) - but more importantly (I have no idea how you missed that) my point was that, why should we take that quote as truth? Because it was written somewhere else? Is Colin Greenwood God? Can I write random crap in a paper and people will cite me and because I'm being cited, clearly it's true? Where did Colin Greenwood take his info to make such a bold statement?
This is the problem. That gun fact thing only takes 2 years after the gun ban, when naturally the gun crime rate increases, due to the fact that people are less likely to have firearms. But since then, it has decreased by 27 percent. How is that "fact" even close to be true?
I don't feel like searching through the Internet to prove how untrue at least some of those "facts" are. Guess proving this about the almost first and most important one should be enough.
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.
This is why I tend to stray away from posting or even talking to people about sensitive issues. Leave your emotion out of it if you can, and try to see both sides. I respect your beliefs, but I don't respect the way you argue. You use fallacy, emotion, and personally attack and belittle. You mistook most of what I said, but I don't really think we'll see eye to eye, and I didn't want to keep posting. I just wanted to put my 2 cents out there in case someone like minded or even on the fence didn't think about it in all possible avenues. But your post is kind of ridiculous, so I thought I should say so for the masses. The point is not to win, but to find truth. Invest in divergent thinking, not reactionary.
PS. This is all my opinion, I don't hate you, and I don't think what I say is the end all be all. Just a line of thought.
So here is my stance on this, I don't own a gun so either way it goes doesn't affect me, but I believe hunting tools should be allowed... As far as hand guns go... If getting rid of them for average citizens prevented 1 more death a year, just 1, wouldn't it be worth it? Yea yea self defense stance and what not, I have found people with concealed weapons for self defense put themselves in situations more and more likely to end in a fight.
I live in Florida and I own a small revolver that I keep on myself and a shotgun that I keep in my bedroom for personal protection. I went through training and even got a CCW for the revolver. I didn't live in the best neighborhood 5-6 years ago. Saying that, revolvers/shotguns/bolt action rifles are the only thing that I believe civilians should have. Revolvers for personal protection, shotgun for home protection, and bolt action rifles for hunting/sport. I do believe in the right to protect myself but, I do not believe in the guns that technology has created with faster firing rates/bigger clips and put in civilian hands.
Civilians were never meant to fire as many rounds that are capable to be fired now with absolutely no training. That is the problem and of course the culture in the US that sees the gun as this "godly" thing. You aren't going to entirely ban guns in the US, we can always limit the type though and hopefully over time they will be removed from circulation. Not going to be easy and it'll take a long time but it needs to be done.
On December 16 2012 04:13 Hrrrrm wrote: Civilians were never meant to fire as many rounds that are capable to be fired now with absolutely no training.
On December 16 2012 04:13 Hrrrrm wrote: Civilians were never meant to fire as many rounds that are capable to be fired now with absolutely no training.
I think that they were...
Yeah? The fine folks who wrote the constitution including clauses for slavery probably knew about the upcoming automatic weapons...?
On December 16 2012 04:13 Hrrrrm wrote: Civilians were never meant to fire as many rounds that are capable to be fired now with absolutely no training.
On December 16 2012 04:13 Hrrrrm wrote: Civilians were never meant to fire as many rounds that are capable to be fired now with absolutely no training.
I think that they were...
Yeah? The fine folks who wrote the constitution including clauses for slavery probably knew about the upcoming automatic weapons...?
are you making the assumption that they would have been categorically against the possession of automatic weapons by civilians if they had known about them?
I believe that assumption is as completely baseless as my own, which is that they would have been for the possession of automatic weapons. it's impossible to say either way, because they didn't live long enough to tell us.
On December 16 2012 04:13 Hrrrrm wrote: Civilians were never meant to fire as many rounds that are capable to be fired now with absolutely no training.
I think that they were...
Yeah those muskets sure fired quickly.
so you know for a fact that the founding fathers didn't realize that guns were getting better and more accurate? why didn't they say: "muskets" instead of "arms" then?
Just out of curiousity sc2superfan101, if you take the second amendment to mean all arms rather than just muskets etc then would you be in favour of local militia groups clubbing together to get some serious military hardware or do you draw the line somewhere?
On December 16 2012 04:13 Hrrrrm wrote: Civilians were never meant to fire as many rounds that are capable to be fired now with absolutely no training.
I think that they were...
Yeah? The fine folks who wrote the constitution including clauses for slavery probably knew about the upcoming automatic weapons...?
are you making the assumption that they would have been categorically against the possession of automatic weapons by civilians if they had known about them?
I believe that assumption is as completely baseless as my own, which is that they would have been for the possession of automatic weapons. it's impossible to say either way, because they didn't live long enough to tell us.
I don't assume anything. You said that you think they meant (suggests activity) to allow automatic weapons. So clearly you don't assume either but you have knowledge that we don't. How did you acquire this knowledge, sire?
I'm curious as to why what the founding fathers thought is that important. Surely we update our views as times move along, based on current situations, and don't cling to interpretations of the beliefs of ancient dead people?
On December 16 2012 04:13 Hrrrrm wrote: Civilians were never meant to fire as many rounds that are capable to be fired now with absolutely no training.
I think that they were...
Yeah? The fine folks who wrote the constitution including clauses for slavery probably knew about the upcoming automatic weapons...?
are you making the assumption that they would have been categorically against the possession of automatic weapons by civilians if they had known about them?
I believe that assumption is as completely baseless as my own, which is that they would have been for the possession of automatic weapons. it's impossible to say either way, because they didn't live long enough to tell us.
On December 16 2012 04:13 Hrrrrm wrote: Civilians were never meant to fire as many rounds that are capable to be fired now with absolutely no training.
I think that they were...
Yeah those muskets sure fired quickly.
so you know for a fact that the founding fathers didn't realize that guns were getting better and more accurate? why didn't they say: "muskets" instead of "arms" then?
Better and more accurate of course. High rates of fire? Clips with 10+ rounds in them and reloading in less than a second? They had no fucking clue.
Edit: I believe our founding fathers knew as much about gun technology as our current lawmakers know about internet technology. Fuck all.
On December 16 2012 04:28 KwarK wrote: Just out of curiousity sc2superfan101, if you take the second amendment to mean all arms rather than just muskets etc then would you be in favour of local militia groups clubbing together to get some serious military hardware or do you draw the line somewhere?
it's tough to say. I think any weapon which causes mass, indiscriminate damage (grenades, explosives, gasses, etc) should be outright banned. other than that, I think it should largely be left up to the states to determine which they will allow and which not (though I think all states must respect the second amendment).
personally, I would allow anyone (who passes muster) to own automatic rifles, combat shotguns, handguns, etc. possession should be limited to a semi-auto handgun, with a shall issue conceal permit policy and a strictly limited open-carry policy. (as in: conceal is fine for everyone, you need a good reason to open carry).
as for militias, they can make do with MGs and ARs. it sounds a bit Rambo-ish and kinda weird when I say it, and I definitely think there is room here for discussion, but I do think that legitimate militias should be allowed to arm themselves according to their positions.
On December 16 2012 04:32 Dfgj wrote: I'm curious as to why what the founding fathers thought is that important. Surely we update our views as times move along, based on current situations, and don't cling to interpretations of the beliefs of ancient dead people?
America is a young country, it's their foundation myth. Unfortunately the legendary all knowing fathers actually wrote some things down in America which means that rather than simply praising their memory they instead get their views endlessly quoted, perverted and then quoted and bestowed with a strange moral authority when they really weren't that much different from millions of other dead rich white guys. King Arthur is much better, he probably wasn't even real but he does the trick.
On December 16 2012 04:13 Hrrrrm wrote: Civilians were never meant to fire as many rounds that are capable to be fired now with absolutely no training.
I think that they were...
Yeah? The fine folks who wrote the constitution including clauses for slavery probably knew about the upcoming automatic weapons...?
are you making the assumption that they would have been categorically against the possession of automatic weapons by civilians if they had known about them?
I believe that assumption is as completely baseless as my own, which is that they would have been for the possession of automatic weapons. it's impossible to say either way, because they didn't live long enough to tell us.
I don't assume anything. You said that you think they meant (suggests activity) to allow automatic weapons. So clearly you don't assume either but you have knowledge that we don't. How did you acquire this knowledge, sire?
I have no knowledge as to what they meant. (as far as I know, no one living does) but I think it's a reasonable assumption to say that at least some of them, if not most, would have supported owning automatic weapons. probably much like today, where some people support it and some don't.
EPT
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/aQV1Y.png)
