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 19 2012 23:14 ninini wrote: One of the most well respected swedish criminologists, Leif GW Persson was asked about the school shooting yesterday on a TV show, and I thought it would be great to share some insight from a person who have studied these things for years, and who have reached a level of respect that everybody here could only dream about. He is a person who is well known for his detached way to look at crime, and how he always uses statistics to form his views.
Here's a direct translation: Q: What is required in order to prevent new massacres? A: Well, to prevent is one thing, and to decrease them, that's something else. You can find very strong and direct links between access to weapons, especially certain types of weapons, like half-automatic weapons that tend to be used in these situations, and how often these events occur. When the amounts of weapons increases, this type of crime increases.
He also said that it's possible that something similar would happen in Sweden, but because of our major restrictions, it would require very special circumstances, such as having a parent who likes to hunt game as a hobby, but typically it's very hard for them to get weapons as deadly as this.
So basically his point was that if you restrict the access to weapons, there will be less opportunities. It's pretty simple math really. I don't expect everybody to accept his views as the truth, but I would value his opinion over all the posts in this thread.
Sorry, but coming from Swedish "authority", I don't find it very meaningful. There is absolutely NO correlation between the number or type of weapons to crime or mass shootings, absolutely no correlation.
In fact there was just an event that proves this where a man in China slaughtered over 20 children in a school with a knife. What is next, ban knifes?
But just for the sake of it, you do got more chance of dying from bee sting, lightning strike, accidental strangulation and even allergies from flowers than you have from mass shooting. This is true in the USA, as well as most other countries as well.
#1 So you write a respected criminologist off because they're Swedish and then somehow Zergofobic has the authority to say there's absolutely no correlation? #2 There were 0 casualties in that knife attack, stop spouting nonsense. Glad the guy had a knife and not a military grade firearm. #3 So we shouldn't try to reduce mass shootings?
An example from my home country:
"Violent crime and gun-related deaths did not come to an end in Australia, of course. But as the Washington Post pointed out in August, homicides by firearm plunged 59 percent between 1995 and 2006, with no corresponding increase in non-firearm-related homicides. The drop in suicides by gun was even steeper: 65 percent. Studies found a close correlation between the sharp declines and the gun buybacks.
Robberies involving a firearm also dropped significantly. Meanwhile, home invasions did not increase, contrary to fears that firearm ownership is needed to deter such crimes. But here's the most stunning statistic. In the decade before the Port Arthur massacre, there had been 11 mass shootings in the country. There hasn't been a single one in Australia since." from http://www.sacbee.com/2012/12/18/5060929/mass-shooting-in-australia-provides.html
So there, I prove that you are lying and distorting the truth to promote victim disarmament zones so that the criminals can have guns and law abiding citizens can't and so you have to think of the state as your god so they pretend to protect you, when they only come after the crime has been committed.
As far as Australia is concerned there is still big gun ownership there with the people that didn't disarm and if you look at a 30 year period, mass shootings have been flat. So there is no correlation between less guns and more gun control.
Look at Andres Breivik, he wasn't supposed to have guns, but did he care?
"There is a total ban on automatic weapons for civilians, unless they fall into the collector category. Modification of semi-automatic guns into fully automatic without the consent of the police is a felony crime." - Ups, oh gee guess he didn't read the law the he wasn't supposed to have automatic weapons. Of, these gun laws protected all those dead children really good.
I bet if everyone was packing that day, they'd killed him before he could have aimed.
all typical arguments are made from both sides in this video. the typical liberal who does not recognize any arguments and simply goes for the emotional train. it obviously ends in shouting match, as expected.
Wow, this video is amazing. A perfect microcosm of the entire gun control debate.
People who advocate disarmament are so incredibly irrational. Trying to explain to them why they are wrong is like trying to teach a dog long division.
Yes because every other developed nation that has less guns and less homicides is doing it wrong. It's a shame the interviewer lost his cool but any rational person would have trouble staying calm with the bullshit Pratt was spouting.
As pointed out in the video, areas of the USA without gun restrictions have far lower murder rates and rates of violent crime than completely disarmed European countries.
The problem in America happens in places like cities or schools where law abiding citizens have been disarmed.
That's because crime in general occurs in the big cities, regardless of what country it is.
Anyway, I don't see the logic in liberal -> gun restriction, but it's a USA thing I guess, to call left wings liberals. The absolute left, communism is as far from liberalism as you can get. Liberalism is about freedom, about letting the ppl do what they want without inteference from the government, so the 2nd ammendment is very liberal, too liberal imo for this day and age.
The problem isn't really the second amendment, it existed for a long time without anyone being confused about it. It's all about the interpretation of it. There was a new "individual rights" interpretation of it that started in 1960, using sources like "American Rifleman". Originally it was a "collective rights" interpretation that was held up in three supreme court decisions in 1876, 1886, and most recently in 1939.
Collective rights, as opposed to individual rights, meant that the people have a right to posses arms when serving in the militia. Which is clearly what the 2nd amendment says. "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 first part of the sentence is often ignored since 1960.
A lot of people find these facts inconvenient and ignore them anyways because of personal agendas.
Here is a source, It's by Dennis Baron and it's called Guns and Grammar, it goes over the history and goes into linguistics and all that stuff to show
1. That the Second Amendment was intended to be read in its entirety; 2. That the first part of the amendment is both syntactically and semantically tied to the second; 3. That the first part of the amendment specifies the reason for the second, that the right to keep and bear arms is tied directly to the need for a well-regulated militia; 4. That the ordinary and customary meaning of the phrase "bear arms" in the 18th century is tied to military contexts, not to contexts involving hunting or self defense; 5. And that the word "militia" refers in the federal period to an organized and trained body of citizen-soldiers, or to those eligible to serve in such a body, not to any and all Americans, most of whom were actually barred from militia service.
On December 19 2012 23:14 ninini wrote: One of the most well respected swedish criminologists, Leif GW Persson was asked about the school shooting yesterday on a TV show, and I thought it would be great to share some insight from a person who have studied these things for years, and who have reached a level of respect that everybody here could only dream about. He is a person who is well known for his detached way to look at crime, and how he always uses statistics to form his views.
Here's a direct translation: Q: What is required in order to prevent new massacres? A: Well, to prevent is one thing, and to decrease them, that's something else. You can find very strong and direct links between access to weapons, especially certain types of weapons, like half-automatic weapons that tend to be used in these situations, and how often these events occur. When the amounts of weapons increases, this type of crime increases.
He also said that it's possible that something similar would happen in Sweden, but because of our major restrictions, it would require very special circumstances, such as having a parent who likes to hunt game as a hobby, but typically it's very hard for them to get weapons as deadly as this.
So basically his point was that if you restrict the access to weapons, there will be less opportunities. It's pretty simple math really. I don't expect everybody to accept his views as the truth, but I would value his opinion over all the posts in this thread.
Sorry, but coming from Swedish "authority", I don't find it very meaningful. There is absolutely NO correlation between the number or type of weapons to crime or mass shootings, absolutely no correlation.
In fact there was just an event that proves this where a man in China slaughtered over 20 children in a school with a knife. What is next, ban knifes?
But just for the sake of it, you do got more chance of dying from bee sting, lightning strike, accidental strangulation and even allergies from flowers than you have from mass shooting. This is true in the USA, as well as most other countries as well.
#1 So you write a respected criminologist off because they're Swedish and then somehow Zergofobic has the authority to say there's absolutely no correlation? #2 There were 0 casualties in that knife attack, stop spouting nonsense. Glad the guy had a knife and not a military grade firearm. #3 So we shouldn't try to reduce mass shootings?
An example from my home country:
"Violent crime and gun-related deaths did not come to an end in Australia, of course. But as the Washington Post pointed out in August, homicides by firearm plunged 59 percent between 1995 and 2006, with no corresponding increase in non-firearm-related homicides. The drop in suicides by gun was even steeper: 65 percent. Studies found a close correlation between the sharp declines and the gun buybacks.
Robberies involving a firearm also dropped significantly. Meanwhile, home invasions did not increase, contrary to fears that firearm ownership is needed to deter such crimes. But here's the most stunning statistic. In the decade before the Port Arthur massacre, there had been 11 mass shootings in the country. There hasn't been a single one in Australia since." from http://www.sacbee.com/2012/12/18/5060929/mass-shooting-in-australia-provides.html
So there, I prove that you are lying and distorting the truth to promote victim disarmament zones so that the criminals can have guns and law abiding citizens can't and so you have to think of the state as your god so they pretend to protect you, when they only come after the crime has been committed.
As far as Australia is concerned there is still big gun ownership there with the people that didn't disarm and if you look at a 30 year period, mass shootings have been flat. So there is no correlation between less guns and more gun control.
Look at Andres Breivik, he wasn't supposed to have guns, but did he care?
"There is a total ban on automatic weapons for civilians, unless they fall into the collector category. Modification of semi-automatic guns into fully automatic without the consent of the police is a felony crime." - Ups, oh gee guess he didn't read the law the he wasn't supposed to have automatic weapons. Of, these gun laws protected all those dead children really good.
I bet if everyone was packing that day, they'd killed him before he could have aimed.
Don't be a forum nazi, it's obvious for everyone that less guns = less gun murder! It's math.. less guns = less shootings = less dead people!
It's way harder to kill someone with a knife then with a gun! Especially for a country like the USA where you can have big and nasty guns easily and where you can practice them legally.
Why would the most powerfull country in the world have a third world violence problem and the biggest inmate population! Something is obviously wrong or is it just me?
We know most of USA think any rule = comunism but don't you guys want to have a safer enviornment for your kids? Do you think it's better for them if all their neighbours have a m16 in their house? If everybody only had knifes with a few krav maga lessons you could survive one of those.. if everybody has AMG and SMG you are in a battle field..
On December 19 2012 17:00 biology]major wrote: let concealed carry be allowed inside schools, and have the people with permits (staff and teachers) receive basic training from local law enforcement. Do background checks or psych evals if necessary. Right now, schools are just exposed territory with 0 protection, and shit like newtown can happen anytime. Combine that with assault rifle ban, and you are empowering civilians while weakening the sociopaths.
an other option is to make all guns illegal for everyone, and then the sociopaths get them --> civilians don't ---> cops late for party and many people dead
Suppose that the principal and vice principal were both trained and armed. Suppose that the shooter was able to kill both of them in a gun battle. Then the school would be helpless. So now what. Arm the custodians? I guess we should arm every individual teacher too right? In fact, why not train all the children how to shoot a gun in case the teacher is killed? Where does it end? A classroom with a loaded gun is completely obnoxious and inappropriate. I swear the NRA and gun supporters have their heads screwed on backwards. What the fuck kind of logic is that.
By your logic, we should have armed staff everywhere, including the movie theater (where there was a shooting), public street corners (where there was a shooting)...so have armed staff in every public venue? Because we are afraid of a shooter? That's a society living in fear. Thats not how a society should operate. That tells me something is wrong with our society. We should be talking about how to prevent the wrong people from getting guns and making sure the right people are sufficiently trained and educated with their guns. Not this wild west bullshit.
Statistically confrontations between two shooters usually ends up in no one shooting due to the fact that neither side wants to engage in an armed conflict (mainly due to lack of experience). The armed shooter at the Oregon Clackmas mall is a perfect example of this.
On December 19 2012 17:00 biology]major wrote: let concealed carry be allowed inside schools, and have the people with permits (staff and teachers) receive basic training from local law enforcement. Do background checks or psych evals if necessary. Right now, schools are just exposed territory with 0 protection, and shit like newtown can happen anytime. Combine that with assault rifle ban, and you are empowering civilians while weakening the sociopaths.
an other option is to make all guns illegal for everyone, and then the sociopaths get them --> civilians don't ---> cops late for party and many people dead
Suppose that the principal and vice principal were both trained and armed. Suppose that the shooter was able to kill both of them in a gun battle. Then the school would be helpless. So now what. Arm the custodians? I guess we should arm every individual teacher too right? In fact, why not train all the children how to shoot a gun in case the teacher is killed? Where does it end? A classroom with a loaded gun is completely obnoxious and inappropriate. I swear the NRA and gun supporters have their heads screwed on backwards. What the fuck kind of logic is that.
By your logic, we should have armed staff everywhere, including the movie theater (where there was a shooting), public street corners (where there was a shooting)...so have armed staff in every public venue? Because we are afraid of a shooter? That's a society living in fear. Thats not how a society should operate. That tells me something is wrong with our society. We should be talking about how to prevent the wrong people from getting guns and making sure the right people are sufficiently trained and educated with their guns. Not this wild west bullshit.
Statistically confrontations between two shooters usually ends up in no one shooting due to the fact that neither side wants to engage in an armed conflict (mainly due to lack of experience). The armed shooter at the Oregon Clackmas mall is a perfect example of this.
And that leaves society where? Individuals regard and interact with as other as the Soviet Union and USA did during the cold war?
On December 19 2012 17:00 biology]major wrote: let concealed carry be allowed inside schools, and have the people with permits (staff and teachers) receive basic training from local law enforcement. Do background checks or psych evals if necessary. Right now, schools are just exposed territory with 0 protection, and shit like newtown can happen anytime. Combine that with assault rifle ban, and you are empowering civilians while weakening the sociopaths.
an other option is to make all guns illegal for everyone, and then the sociopaths get them --> civilians don't ---> cops late for party and many people dead
Suppose that the principal and vice principal were both trained and armed. Suppose that the shooter was able to kill both of them in a gun battle. Then the school would be helpless. So now what. Arm the custodians? I guess we should arm every individual teacher too right? In fact, why not train all the children how to shoot a gun in case the teacher is killed? Where does it end? A classroom with a loaded gun is completely obnoxious and inappropriate. I swear the NRA and gun supporters have their heads screwed on backwards. What the fuck kind of logic is that.
By your logic, we should have armed staff everywhere, including the movie theater (where there was a shooting), public street corners (where there was a shooting)...so have armed staff in every public venue? Because we are afraid of a shooter? That's a society living in fear. Thats not how a society should operate. That tells me something is wrong with our society. We should be talking about how to prevent the wrong people from getting guns and making sure the right people are sufficiently trained and educated with their guns. Not this wild west bullshit.
Statistically confrontations between two shooters usually ends up in no one shooting due to the fact that neither side wants to engage in an armed conflict (mainly due to lack of experience). The armed shooter at the Oregon Clackmas mall is a perfect example of this.
And that leaves society where? Individuals regard and interact with as other as the Soviet Union and USA did during the cold war?
The point is that when both individuals are armed, it is more than likely the confrontation does not escalate due to lack of experience in a true firefight. Despite the fact that the Clackmas shooter had the legal gun owner completely outgunned (AR-15 vs a Glock), the shooter still stopped because he immediately knew that he was no longer attacking targets that were unarmed.
On December 20 2012 00:31 Stol wrote: So while all this might be a complicated matter due to many various circumstances, there is still no excuse for leaving assault rifles and fitting ammunition easily accessible to a broad population. And that alone is at least a good start.
Theres' not good starting place....and here's why.
Pretty much every deer rifle sold in the USA shoots a cartridge that is either larger or hotter than .223 (AR-15 cartridge).
Here in Virginia.. it is black letter law illegal to take a deer with .223. You basically have to use .243 Winchester or larger, or a shotgun.
With most going .30 caliber like .308 / .300 Win / .30-06. An AK-47 shoots a short .30 cal round that weaker than the ones I just listed.
The largest animal you will take with .223 is something the size of a coyote.
So unless you want to ban all centerfire ammunition & rifles.. you need to define calibers and powder. Or maybe just ban all box magazine rifles.
Ok that's fine. Ban all box mag rifles.
We'll Cho at Va Tech used two pistols. Not a rifle. A 9mm Glock and a .22 Walther.
So now you are in the position to ban all centerfire pistol cartridges... and all rimfire cartridges as well. So now you have everything banned except for bolt action rifles.
It's not my purpose to start a constitutional debate but from what I gather the right to bear arms according to the american constitution was intended so as the citizen would be able to resist and fight an oppresive state. (Given the how the U.S was born from resisting the oppressive brittish government, this is not at all a far fetched interpretation.)
I would, however, argue that such a situation is not present this day and age and as such the right to bear arms should be subject to reevaluation.
all typical arguments are made from both sides in this video. the typical liberal who does not recognize any arguments and simply goes for the emotional train. it obviously ends in shouting match, as expected.
Wow, this video is amazing. A perfect microcosm of the entire gun control debate.
People who advocate disarmament are so incredibly irrational. Trying to explain to them why they are wrong is like trying to teach a dog long division.
Yes because every other developed nation that has less guns and less homicides is doing it wrong. It's a shame the interviewer lost his cool but any rational person would have trouble staying calm with the bullshit Pratt was spouting.
As pointed out in the video, areas of the USA without gun restrictions have far lower murder rates and rates of violent crime than completely disarmed European countries.
The problem in America happens in places like cities or schools where law abiding citizens have been disarmed.
That's because crime in general occurs in the big cities, regardless of what country it is.
Anyway, I don't see the logic in liberal -> gun restriction, but it's a USA thing I guess, to call left wings liberals. The absolute left, communism is as far from liberalism as you can get. Liberalism is about freedom, about letting the ppl do what they want without inteference from the government, so the 2nd ammendment is very liberal, too liberal imo for this day and age.
The problem isn't really the second amendment, it existed for a long time without anyone being confused about it. It's all about the interpretation of it. There was a new "individual rights" interpretation of it that started in 1960, using sources like "American Rifleman". Originally it was a "collective rights" interpretation that was held up in three supreme court decisions in 1876, 1886, and most recently in 1939.
Collective rights, as opposed to individual rights, meant that the people have a right to posses arms when serving in the militia. Which is clearly what the 2nd amendment says. "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 first part of the sentence is often ignored since 1960.
A lot of people find these facts inconvenient and ignore them anyways because of personal agendas.
Here is a source, It's by Dennis Baron and it's called Guns and Grammar, it goes over the history and goes into linguistics and all that stuff to show
1. That the Second Amendment was intended to be read in its entirety; 2. That the first part of the amendment is both syntactically and semantically tied to the second; 3. That the first part of the amendment specifies the reason for the second, that the right to keep and bear arms is tied directly to the need for a well-regulated militia; 4. That the ordinary and customary meaning of the phrase "bear arms" in the 18th century is tied to military contexts, not to contexts involving hunting or self defense; 5. And that the word "militia" refers in the federal period to an organized and trained body of citizen-soldiers, or to those eligible to serve in such a body, not to any and all Americans, most of whom were actually barred from militia service.
Ban everything except true hunting rifles and only allow them for trained hunters?
Too easy? I have no idea about guns but i can't imagine that being a problem to define, an auto/semi-auto by nature should not count as a "hunting" weapon?
On December 19 2012 23:14 ninini wrote: One of the most well respected swedish criminologists, Leif GW Persson was asked about the school shooting yesterday on a TV show, and I thought it would be great to share some insight from a person who have studied these things for years, and who have reached a level of respect that everybody here could only dream about. He is a person who is well known for his detached way to look at crime, and how he always uses statistics to form his views.
Here's a direct translation: Q: What is required in order to prevent new massacres? A: Well, to prevent is one thing, and to decrease them, that's something else. You can find very strong and direct links between access to weapons, especially certain types of weapons, like half-automatic weapons that tend to be used in these situations, and how often these events occur. When the amounts of weapons increases, this type of crime increases.
He also said that it's possible that something similar would happen in Sweden, but because of our major restrictions, it would require very special circumstances, such as having a parent who likes to hunt game as a hobby, but typically it's very hard for them to get weapons as deadly as this.
So basically his point was that if you restrict the access to weapons, there will be less opportunities. It's pretty simple math really. I don't expect everybody to accept his views as the truth, but I would value his opinion over all the posts in this thread.
Sorry, but coming from Swedish "authority", I don't find it very meaningful. There is absolutely NO correlation between the number or type of weapons to crime or mass shootings, absolutely no correlation.
In fact there was just an event that proves this where a man in China slaughtered over 20 children in a school with a knife. What is next, ban knifes?
But just for the sake of it, you do got more chance of dying from bee sting, lightning strike, accidental strangulation and even allergies from flowers than you have from mass shooting. This is true in the USA, as well as most other countries as well.
#1 So you write a respected criminologist off because they're Swedish and then somehow Zergofobic has the authority to say there's absolutely no correlation? #2 There were 0 casualties in that knife attack, stop spouting nonsense. Glad the guy had a knife and not a military grade firearm. #3 So we shouldn't try to reduce mass shootings?
An example from my home country:
"Violent crime and gun-related deaths did not come to an end in Australia, of course. But as the Washington Post pointed out in August, homicides by firearm plunged 59 percent between 1995 and 2006, with no corresponding increase in non-firearm-related homicides. The drop in suicides by gun was even steeper: 65 percent. Studies found a close correlation between the sharp declines and the gun buybacks.
Robberies involving a firearm also dropped significantly. Meanwhile, home invasions did not increase, contrary to fears that firearm ownership is needed to deter such crimes. But here's the most stunning statistic. In the decade before the Port Arthur massacre, there had been 11 mass shootings in the country. There hasn't been a single one in Australia since." from http://www.sacbee.com/2012/12/18/5060929/mass-shooting-in-australia-provides.html
So there, I prove that you are lying and distorting the truth to promote victim disarmament zones so that the criminals can have guns and law abiding citizens can't and so you have to think of the state as your god so they pretend to protect you, when they only come after the crime has been committed.
As far as Australia is concerned there is still big gun ownership there with the people that didn't disarm and if you look at a 30 year period, mass shootings have been flat. So there is no correlation between less guns and more gun control.
Look at Andres Breivik, he wasn't supposed to have guns, but did he care?
"There is a total ban on automatic weapons for civilians, unless they fall into the collector category. Modification of semi-automatic guns into fully automatic without the consent of the police is a felony crime." - Ups, oh gee guess he didn't read the law the he wasn't supposed to have automatic weapons. Of, these gun laws protected all those dead children really good.
I bet if everyone was packing that day, they'd killed him before he could have aimed.
Breivik spent almost a decade planning and preparing for the attack. Not really comparable, he wasn't just a crazy dude that had access to a gun, and one day decided to walk to a nearby school and start shooting. I would say the gun laws were very successful. If there are persons with a almost fanatical drive, lots of money and a decade of time...they are going to get something done.
On December 20 2012 00:31 Stol wrote: So while all this might be a complicated matter due to many various circumstances, there is still no excuse for leaving assault rifles and fitting ammunition easily accessible to a broad population. And that alone is at least a good start.
Theres' not good starting place....and here's why.
Pretty much every deer rifle sold in the USA shoots a cartridge that is either larger or hotter than .223 (AR-15 cartridge).
Here in Virginia.. it is black letter law illegal to take a deer with .223. You basically have to use .243 Winchester or larger, or a shotgun.
With most going .30 caliber like .308 / .300 Win / .30-06. An AK-47 shoots a short .30 cal round that weaker than the ones I just listed.
The largest animal you will take with .223 is something the size of a coyote.
So unless you want to ban all centerfire ammunition & rifles.. you need to define calibers and powder. Or maybe just ban all box magazine rifles.
Ok that's fine. Ban all box mag rifles.
We'll Cho at Va Tech used two pistols. Not a rifle. A 9mm Glock and a .22 Walther.
So now you are in the position to ban all centerfire pistol cartridges... and all rimfire cartridges as well. So now you have everything banned except for bolt action rifles.
There is nothing crazy about having to define calibers, powder, automatic and semi automatic rifles. While it does happen to be my personal opinion that perhaps only hunting rifles should be allowed, I made no such comments in my finishing argument.
In my book thats an assault rifle, non of the weapons in your walmart list is commonly used in mass killings, you got so locked in on the point that ammunition can be shared by many different weapons that you entirely missed my point. In fact I didnt even mention the word "ban".
Edit: I also didnt say that there wouldnt be any more killings ever again, I said its a start. One thing many people overlook as there's rarely any good statistics on the matter is also the amount of accidental shootings that arent reported as actual crimes, or gun related homicides which is the general term used to compare countries and areas. Every death counts, just not the ones we read about in the newspapers.
On December 20 2012 01:10 Civilkurage wrote: It's not my purpose to start a constitutional debate but from what I gather the right to bear arms according to the american constitution was intended so as the citizen would be able to resist and fight an oppresive state. (Given the how the U.S was born from resisting the oppressive brittish government, this is not at all a far fetched interpretation.)
I would, however, argue that such a situation is not present this day and age and as such the right to bear arms should be subject to reevaluation.
all typical arguments are made from both sides in this video. the typical liberal who does not recognize any arguments and simply goes for the emotional train. it obviously ends in shouting match, as expected.
Wow, this video is amazing. A perfect microcosm of the entire gun control debate.
People who advocate disarmament are so incredibly irrational. Trying to explain to them why they are wrong is like trying to teach a dog long division.
Yes because every other developed nation that has less guns and less homicides is doing it wrong. It's a shame the interviewer lost his cool but any rational person would have trouble staying calm with the bullshit Pratt was spouting.
As pointed out in the video, areas of the USA without gun restrictions have far lower murder rates and rates of violent crime than completely disarmed European countries.
The problem in America happens in places like cities or schools where law abiding citizens have been disarmed.
That's because crime in general occurs in the big cities, regardless of what country it is.
Anyway, I don't see the logic in liberal -> gun restriction, but it's a USA thing I guess, to call left wings liberals. The absolute left, communism is as far from liberalism as you can get. Liberalism is about freedom, about letting the ppl do what they want without inteference from the government, so the 2nd ammendment is very liberal, too liberal imo for this day and age.
The problem isn't really the second amendment, it existed for a long time without anyone being confused about it. It's all about the interpretation of it. There was a new "individual rights" interpretation of it that started in 1960, using sources like "American Rifleman". Originally it was a "collective rights" interpretation that was held up in three supreme court decisions in 1876, 1886, and most recently in 1939.
Collective rights, as opposed to individual rights, meant that the people have a right to posses arms when serving in the militia. Which is clearly what the 2nd amendment says. "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 first part of the sentence is often ignored since 1960.
A lot of people find these facts inconvenient and ignore them anyways because of personal agendas.
Here is a source, It's by Dennis Baron and it's called Guns and Grammar, it goes over the history and goes into linguistics and all that stuff to show
1. That the Second Amendment was intended to be read in its entirety; 2. That the first part of the amendment is both syntactically and semantically tied to the second; 3. That the first part of the amendment specifies the reason for the second, that the right to keep and bear arms is tied directly to the need for a well-regulated militia; 4. That the ordinary and customary meaning of the phrase "bear arms" in the 18th century is tied to military contexts, not to contexts involving hunting or self defense; 5. And that the word "militia" refers in the federal period to an organized and trained body of citizen-soldiers, or to those eligible to serve in such a body, not to any and all Americans, most of whom were actually barred from militia service.
There's no need to debate the 2nd amendment. The Supreme court has said time and time again "The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home." So really anyone who is of the opinion that the 2nd amendment doesn't apply today is literally saying they know constitutional law better than the supreme court.
District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), was a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects an individual's right to possess a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home, in federal enclaves. The decision did not address the question of whether the Second Amendment extends beyond federal enclaves to the states,[1] which was addressed later by McDonald v. Chicago (2010). It was the first Supreme Court case in United States history to decide whether the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear
On December 19 2012 23:14 ninini wrote: One of the most well respected swedish criminologists, Leif GW Persson was asked about the school shooting yesterday on a TV show, and I thought it would be great to share some insight from a person who have studied these things for years, and who have reached a level of respect that everybody here could only dream about. He is a person who is well known for his detached way to look at crime, and how he always uses statistics to form his views.
Here's a direct translation: Q: What is required in order to prevent new massacres? A: Well, to prevent is one thing, and to decrease them, that's something else. You can find very strong and direct links between access to weapons, especially certain types of weapons, like half-automatic weapons that tend to be used in these situations, and how often these events occur. When the amounts of weapons increases, this type of crime increases.
He also said that it's possible that something similar would happen in Sweden, but because of our major restrictions, it would require very special circumstances, such as having a parent who likes to hunt game as a hobby, but typically it's very hard for them to get weapons as deadly as this.
So basically his point was that if you restrict the access to weapons, there will be less opportunities. It's pretty simple math really. I don't expect everybody to accept his views as the truth, but I would value his opinion over all the posts in this thread.
Sorry, but coming from Swedish "authority", I don't find it very meaningful. There is absolutely NO correlation between the number or type of weapons to crime or mass shootings, absolutely no correlation.
In fact there was just an event that proves this where a man in China slaughtered over 20 children in a school with a knife. What is next, ban knifes?
But just for the sake of it, you do got more chance of dying from bee sting, lightning strike, accidental strangulation and even allergies from flowers than you have from mass shooting. This is true in the USA, as well as most other countries as well.
#1 So you write a respected criminologist off because they're Swedish and then somehow Zergofobic has the authority to say there's absolutely no correlation? #2 There were 0 casualties in that knife attack, stop spouting nonsense. Glad the guy had a knife and not a military grade firearm. #3 So we shouldn't try to reduce mass shootings?
An example from my home country:
"Violent crime and gun-related deaths did not come to an end in Australia, of course. But as the Washington Post pointed out in August, homicides by firearm plunged 59 percent between 1995 and 2006, with no corresponding increase in non-firearm-related homicides. The drop in suicides by gun was even steeper: 65 percent. Studies found a close correlation between the sharp declines and the gun buybacks.
Robberies involving a firearm also dropped significantly. Meanwhile, home invasions did not increase, contrary to fears that firearm ownership is needed to deter such crimes. But here's the most stunning statistic. In the decade before the Port Arthur massacre, there had been 11 mass shootings in the country. There hasn't been a single one in Australia since." from http://www.sacbee.com/2012/12/18/5060929/mass-shooting-in-australia-provides.html
So there, I prove that you are lying and distorting the truth to promote victim disarmament zones so that the criminals can have guns and law abiding citizens can't and so you have to think of the state as your god so they pretend to protect you, when they only come after the crime has been committed.
As far as Australia is concerned there is still big gun ownership there with the people that didn't disarm and if you look at a 30 year period, mass shootings have been flat. So there is no correlation between less guns and more gun control.
Look at Andres Breivik, he wasn't supposed to have guns, but did he care?
"There is a total ban on automatic weapons for civilians, unless they fall into the collector category. Modification of semi-automatic guns into fully automatic without the consent of the police is a felony crime." - Ups, oh gee guess he didn't read the law the he wasn't supposed to have automatic weapons. Of, these gun laws protected all those dead children really good.
I bet if everyone was packing that day, they'd killed him before he could have aimed.
Don't be a forum nazi, it's obvious for everyone that less guns = less gun murder! It's math.. less guns = less shootings = less dead people!
It's way harder to kill someone with a knife then with a gun! Especially for a country like the USA where you can have big and nasty guns easily and where you can practice them legally.
Why would the most powerfull country in the world have a third world violence problem and the biggest inmate population! Something is obviously wrong or is it just me?
We know most of USA think any rule = comunism but don't you guys want to have a safer enviornment for your kids? Do you think it's better for them if all their neighbours have a m16 in their house? If everybody only had knifes with a few krav maga lessons you could survive one of those.. if everybody has AMG and SMG you are in a battle field..
That is just the most ignorant and ridiculous thing I've ever heard.
all typical arguments are made from both sides in this video. the typical liberal who does not recognize any arguments and simply goes for the emotional train. it obviously ends in shouting match, as expected.
Wow, this video is amazing. A perfect microcosm of the entire gun control debate.
People who advocate disarmament are so incredibly irrational. Trying to explain to them why they are wrong is like trying to teach a dog long division.
Yes because every other developed nation that has less guns and less homicides is doing it wrong. It's a shame the interviewer lost his cool but any rational person would have trouble staying calm with the bullshit Pratt was spouting.
As pointed out in the video, areas of the USA without gun restrictions have far lower murder rates and rates of violent crime than completely disarmed European countries.
The problem in America happens in places like cities or schools where law abiding citizens have been disarmed.
That's because crime in general occurs in the big cities, regardless of what country it is.
Anyway, I don't see the logic in liberal -> gun restriction, but it's a USA thing I guess, to call left wings liberals. The absolute left, communism is as far from liberalism as you can get. Liberalism is about freedom, about letting the ppl do what they want without inteference from the government, so the 2nd ammendment is very liberal, too liberal imo for this day and age.
The problem isn't really the second amendment, it existed for a long time without anyone being confused about it. It's all about the interpretation of it. There was a new "individual rights" interpretation of it that started in 1960, using sources like "American Rifleman". Originally it was a "collective rights" interpretation that was held up in three supreme court decisions in 1876, 1886, and most recently in 1939.
Collective rights, as opposed to individual rights, meant that the people have a right to posses arms when serving in the militia. Which is clearly what the 2nd amendment says. "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 first part of the sentence is often ignored since 1960.
A lot of people find these facts inconvenient and ignore them anyways because of personal agendas.
Here is a source, It's by Dennis Baron and it's called Guns and Grammar, it goes over the history and goes into linguistics and all that stuff to show
1. That the Second Amendment was intended to be read in its entirety; 2. That the first part of the amendment is both syntactically and semantically tied to the second; 3. That the first part of the amendment specifies the reason for the second, that the right to keep and bear arms is tied directly to the need for a well-regulated militia; 4. That the ordinary and customary meaning of the phrase "bear arms" in the 18th century is tied to military contexts, not to contexts involving hunting or self defense; 5. And that the word "militia" refers in the federal period to an organized and trained body of citizen-soldiers, or to those eligible to serve in such a body, not to any and all Americans, most of whom were actually barred from militia service.
On December 20 2012 00:42 shell wrote: Why would the most powerfull country in the world have a third world violence problem and the biggest inmate population! Something is obviously wrong or is it just me?
Demographics. Yes, I am aware the recent spree shooting was not committed by a minority. The inmate population and murder rate isn't primarily from spree shootings.
On December 20 2012 00:42 shell wrote: don't you guys want to have a safer enviornment for your kids?
20 children got killed recently because they were sent to a zone where guns were forbidden. The question is do you want a safer environment for them?
If you want to protect someone, you don't accomplish that by disarming them and anyone who could possibly come to their defense.
On December 20 2012 00:42 shell wrote: Do you think it's better for them if all their neighbours have a m16 in their house? If everybody only had knifes with a few krav maga lessons you could survive one of those.. if everybody has AMG and SMG you are in a battle field..
Do you really think women, children, and elderly would be so great at protecting themselves from young males who are the worst violent criminals, using "knifes with a few krav maga lessons"?
Or do you just not care about anyone other than yourself?
On December 20 2012 01:10 Civilkurage wrote: It's not my purpose to start a constitutional debate but from what I gather the right to bear arms according to the american constitution was intended so as the citizen would be able to resist and fight an oppresive state. (Given the how the U.S was born from resisting the oppressive brittish government, this is not at all a far fetched interpretation.)
I would, however, argue that such a situation is not present this day and age and as such the right to bear arms should be subject to reevaluation.
all typical arguments are made from both sides in this video. the typical liberal who does not recognize any arguments and simply goes for the emotional train. it obviously ends in shouting match, as expected.
Wow, this video is amazing. A perfect microcosm of the entire gun control debate.
People who advocate disarmament are so incredibly irrational. Trying to explain to them why they are wrong is like trying to teach a dog long division.
Yes because every other developed nation that has less guns and less homicides is doing it wrong. It's a shame the interviewer lost his cool but any rational person would have trouble staying calm with the bullshit Pratt was spouting.
As pointed out in the video, areas of the USA without gun restrictions have far lower murder rates and rates of violent crime than completely disarmed European countries.
The problem in America happens in places like cities or schools where law abiding citizens have been disarmed.
That's because crime in general occurs in the big cities, regardless of what country it is.
Anyway, I don't see the logic in liberal -> gun restriction, but it's a USA thing I guess, to call left wings liberals. The absolute left, communism is as far from liberalism as you can get. Liberalism is about freedom, about letting the ppl do what they want without inteference from the government, so the 2nd ammendment is very liberal, too liberal imo for this day and age.
The problem isn't really the second amendment, it existed for a long time without anyone being confused about it. It's all about the interpretation of it. There was a new "individual rights" interpretation of it that started in 1960, using sources like "American Rifleman". Originally it was a "collective rights" interpretation that was held up in three supreme court decisions in 1876, 1886, and most recently in 1939.
Collective rights, as opposed to individual rights, meant that the people have a right to posses arms when serving in the militia. Which is clearly what the 2nd amendment says. "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 first part of the sentence is often ignored since 1960.
A lot of people find these facts inconvenient and ignore them anyways because of personal agendas.
Here is a source, It's by Dennis Baron and it's called Guns and Grammar, it goes over the history and goes into linguistics and all that stuff to show
1. That the Second Amendment was intended to be read in its entirety; 2. That the first part of the amendment is both syntactically and semantically tied to the second; 3. That the first part of the amendment specifies the reason for the second, that the right to keep and bear arms is tied directly to the need for a well-regulated militia; 4. That the ordinary and customary meaning of the phrase "bear arms" in the 18th century is tied to military contexts, not to contexts involving hunting or self defense; 5. And that the word "militia" refers in the federal period to an organized and trained body of citizen-soldiers, or to those eligible to serve in such a body, not to any and all Americans, most of whom were actually barred from militia service.
There's no need to debate the 2nd amendment. The Supreme court has said time and time again "The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home." So really anyone who is of the opinion that the 2nd amendment doesn't apply today is literally saying they know constitutional law better than the supreme court.
District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), was a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects an individual's right to possess a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home, in federal enclaves. The decision did not address the question of whether the Second Amendment extends beyond federal enclaves to the states,[1] which was addressed later by McDonald v. Chicago (2010). It was the first Supreme Court case in United States history to decide whether the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear
Well if you had read it you would understand they are misinterpreting it and taking it out of its historical context. In short, they are ignoring half of it, when in fact everything in the constitution is supposed to be taken as a whole, not in part.
On December 19 2012 23:14 ninini wrote: One of the most well respected swedish criminologists, Leif GW Persson was asked about the school shooting yesterday on a TV show, and I thought it would be great to share some insight from a person who have studied these things for years, and who have reached a level of respect that everybody here could only dream about. He is a person who is well known for his detached way to look at crime, and how he always uses statistics to form his views.
Here's a direct translation: Q: What is required in order to prevent new massacres? A: Well, to prevent is one thing, and to decrease them, that's something else. You can find very strong and direct links between access to weapons, especially certain types of weapons, like half-automatic weapons that tend to be used in these situations, and how often these events occur. When the amounts of weapons increases, this type of crime increases.
He also said that it's possible that something similar would happen in Sweden, but because of our major restrictions, it would require very special circumstances, such as having a parent who likes to hunt game as a hobby, but typically it's very hard for them to get weapons as deadly as this.
So basically his point was that if you restrict the access to weapons, there will be less opportunities. It's pretty simple math really. I don't expect everybody to accept his views as the truth, but I would value his opinion over all the posts in this thread.
Sorry, but coming from Swedish "authority", I don't find it very meaningful. There is absolutely NO correlation between the number or type of weapons to crime or mass shootings, absolutely no correlation.
In fact there was just an event that proves this where a man in China slaughtered over 20 children in a school with a knife. What is next, ban knifes?
But just for the sake of it, you do got more chance of dying from bee sting, lightning strike, accidental strangulation and even allergies from flowers than you have from mass shooting. This is true in the USA, as well as most other countries as well.
#1 So you write a respected criminologist off because they're Swedish and then somehow Zergofobic has the authority to say there's absolutely no correlation? #2 There were 0 casualties in that knife attack, stop spouting nonsense. Glad the guy had a knife and not a military grade firearm. #3 So we shouldn't try to reduce mass shootings?
An example from my home country:
"Violent crime and gun-related deaths did not come to an end in Australia, of course. But as the Washington Post pointed out in August, homicides by firearm plunged 59 percent between 1995 and 2006, with no corresponding increase in non-firearm-related homicides. The drop in suicides by gun was even steeper: 65 percent. Studies found a close correlation between the sharp declines and the gun buybacks.
Robberies involving a firearm also dropped significantly. Meanwhile, home invasions did not increase, contrary to fears that firearm ownership is needed to deter such crimes. But here's the most stunning statistic. In the decade before the Port Arthur massacre, there had been 11 mass shootings in the country. There hasn't been a single one in Australia since." from http://www.sacbee.com/2012/12/18/5060929/mass-shooting-in-australia-provides.html
So there, I prove that you are lying and distorting the truth to promote victim disarmament zones so that the criminals can have guns and law abiding citizens can't and so you have to think of the state as your god so they pretend to protect you, when they only come after the crime has been committed.
As far as Australia is concerned there is still big gun ownership there with the people that didn't disarm and if you look at a 30 year period, mass shootings have been flat. So there is no correlation between less guns and more gun control.
Look at Andres Breivik, he wasn't supposed to have guns, but did he care?
"There is a total ban on automatic weapons for civilians, unless they fall into the collector category. Modification of semi-automatic guns into fully automatic without the consent of the police is a felony crime." - Ups, oh gee guess he didn't read the law the he wasn't supposed to have automatic weapons. Of, these gun laws protected all those dead children really good.
I bet if everyone was packing that day, they'd killed him before he could have aimed.
Don't be a forum nazi, it's obvious for everyone that less guns = less gun murder! It's math.. less guns = less shootings = less dead people!
It's way harder to kill someone with a knife then with a gun! Especially for a country like the USA where you can have big and nasty guns easily and where you can practice them legally.
Why would the most powerfull country in the world have a third world violence problem and the biggest inmate population! Something is obviously wrong or is it just me?
We know most of USA think any rule = comunism but don't you guys want to have a safer enviornment for your kids? Do you think it's better for them if all their neighbours have a m16 in their house? If everybody only had knifes with a few krav maga lessons you could survive one of those.. if everybody has AMG and SMG you are in a battle field..
That is just the most ignorant and ridiculous thing I've ever heard.
all typical arguments are made from both sides in this video. the typical liberal who does not recognize any arguments and simply goes for the emotional train. it obviously ends in shouting match, as expected.
Wow, this video is amazing. A perfect microcosm of the entire gun control debate.
People who advocate disarmament are so incredibly irrational. Trying to explain to them why they are wrong is like trying to teach a dog long division.
Yes because every other developed nation that has less guns and less homicides is doing it wrong. It's a shame the interviewer lost his cool but any rational person would have trouble staying calm with the bullshit Pratt was spouting.
As pointed out in the video, areas of the USA without gun restrictions have far lower murder rates and rates of violent crime than completely disarmed European countries.
The problem in America happens in places like cities or schools where law abiding citizens have been disarmed.
That's because crime in general occurs in the big cities, regardless of what country it is.
Anyway, I don't see the logic in liberal -> gun restriction, but it's a USA thing I guess, to call left wings liberals. The absolute left, communism is as far from liberalism as you can get. Liberalism is about freedom, about letting the ppl do what they want without inteference from the government, so the 2nd ammendment is very liberal, too liberal imo for this day and age.
The problem isn't really the second amendment, it existed for a long time without anyone being confused about it. It's all about the interpretation of it. There was a new "individual rights" interpretation of it that started in 1960, using sources like "American Rifleman". Originally it was a "collective rights" interpretation that was held up in three supreme court decisions in 1876, 1886, and most recently in 1939.
Collective rights, as opposed to individual rights, meant that the people have a right to posses arms when serving in the militia. Which is clearly what the 2nd amendment says. "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 first part of the sentence is often ignored since 1960.
A lot of people find these facts inconvenient and ignore them anyways because of personal agendas.
Here is a source, It's by Dennis Baron and it's called Guns and Grammar, it goes over the history and goes into linguistics and all that stuff to show
1. That the Second Amendment was intended to be read in its entirety; 2. That the first part of the amendment is both syntactically and semantically tied to the second; 3. That the first part of the amendment specifies the reason for the second, that the right to keep and bear arms is tied directly to the need for a well-regulated militia; 4. That the ordinary and customary meaning of the phrase "bear arms" in the 18th century is tied to military contexts, not to contexts involving hunting or self defense; 5. And that the word "militia" refers in the federal period to an organized and trained body of citizen-soldiers, or to those eligible to serve in such a body, not to any and all Americans, most of whom were actually barred from militia service.
ahem. notice how I cited work that is heavily sourced and written by a professor of english and linguistics whose research focuses on the technologies of communication; language legislation and linguistic rights; language reform; gender issues in language; language standards and minority languages and dialects; English usage; and the history and present state of the English language, and you cited me a couple libertarian magicians?
EPT
