|
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 May 10 2013 11:29 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2013 11:24 Millitron wrote:On May 10 2013 11:18 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 10 2013 10:55 Millitron wrote:On May 10 2013 10:46 FallDownMarigold wrote:On May 10 2013 10:44 kmillz wrote:
If 5 less people get shot to death and 5 more get stabbed to death, what is accomplished? Are you saying that for every potential gun death avoided via more responsible gun control, there will necessarily be another death created by other means as a direct result? I'd like to see the source for this, thanks  On May 10 2013 10:45 Millitron wrote:
In any case, "need" shouldn't matter. You don't NEED freedom of speech, you don't NEED the right to a trial, you don't NEED the right to privacy. You have got to be joking. You need freedom of speech and access to due process of the law in order to maintain your civil rights. How on Earth do you compare these needs with the need to own an automatic firearm? Absurd! I don't need freedom of speech, I won't die without it. I'll be pretty pissed off, but I won't die. Need shouldn't matter when it comes to what someone can and cannot own. You don't NEED your car. You don't NEED your house. But we live in a free society and a major part of a free society is property rights. The onus is on you to prove why I can't have an automatic weapon.
Referencing isolated incidents is meaningless unfortunately. The issue is the overall numbers, not specific incidents which may be used to paint any number of pictures based on which incident is selected.
The right to bear arms is a civil right. Hah! I KNEW you were going to pounce on that. That's why I tried to be careful to include AUTOMATIC arms, which are not part of the second amendment. That part is up for debate.
If isolated incidents don't matter, why don't all gun-control proponents stop bringing up Newtown and Aurora? You can't have it both ways. You don't get to say that isolated incidents on my side don't matter, while yours do. Militias were meant to stand up to militaries, ergo any weapon the military uses is protected. Note this doesn't cover nukes or anthrax or whatever because no military actually uses these things. They have them, but don't use them. Well... If we want to get technical... 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 militia is what is needed for the protection of the state, not the arms. Hence, having your logic of "any weapon the military uses is protected" does not fall in line with a strict reading of the amendment. Now you could say that we shouldn't be so strict with the amendment and do what Scalia did wherein he ignores militia, ignores regulated, and place the emphasis on Infringe thereby allowing Heller to have as much ammo in his guns as he'd like in the 2008 case--but that is not a strict reading of the amendment but is instead a recent interpretation of it. Just to keep things in perspective. A Militia without modern weapons can't do much protecting now can it? Further, in 1787, the English language was quite a bit different than it is now. "Well-regulated" meant well-trained and equipped; it didn't have anything to do with government regulations. That was up for contention in the beginning--mostly they realized that they couldn't figure out how much government support was allowed in regulating and specifically arming people. At some point they pretended militia didn't exist, and then they eventually thought self defense was the thing, then back to tyrrany, now its back to self defense. It really matters who the supreme court justices are and what is happening in the country at the time. At first Well Regulated meant that the government was providing the arms. That was eventually dropped. @Gold Yeah, my bad, I was just mildly annoyed at people saying doctors are not legitimate sources of research.
The government never, to my knowledge, armed the militias. Certainly not at first anyways, considering the militias existed BEFORE the government. The Continental Army was practically entirely privately armed. Almost every soldier brought his own musket, and any that had to be replaced were bought privately by one of the founding father's. Washington spent a great deal of his own money buying muskets and powder.
|
gun laws aren't changing anytime soon. like it or not the NRA is way too entrenched in the upper echelons of this country to get pushed aside anytime soon. They have sooooooo much money.
People also point to the horrible gun death rates in the U.S over recent years as a reason why we need bans but then fail to mention that 2/3'rds of those are suicides with handguns which have nothing to do with why they want to ban guns/assault rifles.
|
On May 10 2013 11:40 LuckyFool wrote:
gun laws aren't changing anytime soon. like it or not the NRA is way too entrenched in the upper echelons of this country to get pushed aside anytime soon. They have sooooooo much money.
People also point to the horrible gun death rates in the U.S over recent years as a reason why we need bans but then fail to mention that 2/3'rds of those are suicides with handguns which have nothing to do with why they want to ban guns/assault rifles.
They also fail to mention that the "horrible" rate is at a record 20 year low.
|
On May 10 2013 11:37 FallDownMarigold wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2013 11:35 Thieving Magpie wrote:
I'm a property rights guy. Taking away of guns is not on the table for me unless its proven a detriment to society. I am up for gun laws up the wazoo but mostly because I don't like guns. That's fine. "Taking away guns" would be taking the idea all the to the absurd extreme. Many, many, many ideas are out there for implementation of more responsible measures that do not require moving door to door grabbing everyone's guns. Show nested quote +On May 10 2013 11:37 kmillz wrote:Just because you disagree doesn't mean they aren't there Nice. Would you mind providing one? And just to clarify I'm not interested in personal opinions from anonymous members of the Internet, I'm interested in a real, preferably peer reviewed overview of a position favoring no steps toward better gun control.
Hold on a game of League just started  I'll get back to you when it's over.
|
On May 10 2013 11:41 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2013 11:40 LuckyFool wrote:
gun laws aren't changing anytime soon. like it or not the NRA is way too entrenched in the upper echelons of this country to get pushed aside anytime soon. They have sooooooo much money.
People also point to the horrible gun death rates in the U.S over recent years as a reason why we need bans but then fail to mention that 2/3'rds of those are suicides with handguns which have nothing to do with why they want to ban guns/assault rifles. They also fail to mention that the "horrible" rate is at a record 20 year low.
That's just word play. Here's what the deal is:
Overall violent crime rates have dropped significantly from the 80s/90s. Gun crimes are included. However, the fact remains that some 30,000 people still die per year in the US to guns. Many more are injured -- by crime or by accident. For the past decade or more this number has not been going down. Your statement is very deceiving.
@Luckyfool
Absolutely! Suicides account for 2/3 of gun deaths in the US. Gun prevalence is associated with higher suicide rate based on past research (this research was shut down by the NRA, in fact). Gun suicide is one of the reasons a public health approach makes a lot of sense -- criminals aren't the only cause of gun deaths. Suicides and accidents happen frequently too. Getting a better grip on guns in the US will reduce all of these numbers, suicides definitely included. Focus on assault rifle bans is just one example raised in gun control. A lot of other measures related to gun control could very well impact suicide numbers too.
|
On May 10 2013 11:39 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2013 11:29 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 10 2013 11:24 Millitron wrote:On May 10 2013 11:18 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 10 2013 10:55 Millitron wrote:On May 10 2013 10:46 FallDownMarigold wrote:On May 10 2013 10:44 kmillz wrote:
If 5 less people get shot to death and 5 more get stabbed to death, what is accomplished? Are you saying that for every potential gun death avoided via more responsible gun control, there will necessarily be another death created by other means as a direct result? I'd like to see the source for this, thanks On May 10 2013 10:45 Millitron wrote:
In any case, "need" shouldn't matter. You don't NEED freedom of speech, you don't NEED the right to a trial, you don't NEED the right to privacy. You have got to be joking. You need freedom of speech and access to due process of the law in order to maintain your civil rights. How on Earth do you compare these needs with the need to own an automatic firearm? Absurd! I don't need freedom of speech, I won't die without it. I'll be pretty pissed off, but I won't die. Need shouldn't matter when it comes to what someone can and cannot own. You don't NEED your car. You don't NEED your house. But we live in a free society and a major part of a free society is property rights. The onus is on you to prove why I can't have an automatic weapon.
Referencing isolated incidents is meaningless unfortunately. The issue is the overall numbers, not specific incidents which may be used to paint any number of pictures based on which incident is selected.
The right to bear arms is a civil right. Hah! I KNEW you were going to pounce on that. That's why I tried to be careful to include AUTOMATIC arms, which are not part of the second amendment. That part is up for debate.
If isolated incidents don't matter, why don't all gun-control proponents stop bringing up Newtown and Aurora? You can't have it both ways. You don't get to say that isolated incidents on my side don't matter, while yours do. Militias were meant to stand up to militaries, ergo any weapon the military uses is protected. Note this doesn't cover nukes or anthrax or whatever because no military actually uses these things. They have them, but don't use them. Well... If we want to get technical... 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 militia is what is needed for the protection of the state, not the arms. Hence, having your logic of "any weapon the military uses is protected" does not fall in line with a strict reading of the amendment. Now you could say that we shouldn't be so strict with the amendment and do what Scalia did wherein he ignores militia, ignores regulated, and place the emphasis on Infringe thereby allowing Heller to have as much ammo in his guns as he'd like in the 2008 case--but that is not a strict reading of the amendment but is instead a recent interpretation of it. Just to keep things in perspective. A Militia without modern weapons can't do much protecting now can it? Further, in 1787, the English language was quite a bit different than it is now. "Well-regulated" meant well-trained and equipped; it didn't have anything to do with government regulations. That was up for contention in the beginning--mostly they realized that they couldn't figure out how much government support was allowed in regulating and specifically arming people. At some point they pretended militia didn't exist, and then they eventually thought self defense was the thing, then back to tyrrany, now its back to self defense. It really matters who the supreme court justices are and what is happening in the country at the time. At first Well Regulated meant that the government was providing the arms. That was eventually dropped. @Gold Yeah, my bad, I was just mildly annoyed at people saying doctors are not legitimate sources of research. The government never, to my knowledge, armed the militias. Certainly not at first anyways, considering the militias existed BEFORE the government. The Continental Army was practically entirely privately armed. Almost every soldier brought his own musket, and any that had to be replaced were bought privately by one of the founding father's. Washington spent a great deal of his own money buying muskets and powder.
They actually got gun supplies from the french and (germany??) specifically newer musket designs that were easier to reload. So yes, they actually did pass around "government" for the same reason that Washington had to spend his money on weapons, and then became the President who still owned those weapons he had passed around to his men.
And not "every guy" brought his gun because families were both larger back then and only had a few guns at most--and one had to be left behind just so people could still hunt. Then there's the loyalist who were supporting the British having their guns revoked etc...
Anyway--yes, they did have to figure things out. Which is why they made the mistake of having such a vague amendment. What happens if a family doesn't have a gun--should they still be regulated? What if they don't want to be in the militia--are they not allowed to be armed? Etc...
|
On May 10 2013 11:47 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2013 11:39 Millitron wrote:On May 10 2013 11:29 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 10 2013 11:24 Millitron wrote:On May 10 2013 11:18 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 10 2013 10:55 Millitron wrote:On May 10 2013 10:46 FallDownMarigold wrote:On May 10 2013 10:44 kmillz wrote:
If 5 less people get shot to death and 5 more get stabbed to death, what is accomplished? Are you saying that for every potential gun death avoided via more responsible gun control, there will necessarily be another death created by other means as a direct result? I'd like to see the source for this, thanks On May 10 2013 10:45 Millitron wrote:
In any case, "need" shouldn't matter. You don't NEED freedom of speech, you don't NEED the right to a trial, you don't NEED the right to privacy. You have got to be joking. You need freedom of speech and access to due process of the law in order to maintain your civil rights. How on Earth do you compare these needs with the need to own an automatic firearm? Absurd! I don't need freedom of speech, I won't die without it. I'll be pretty pissed off, but I won't die. Need shouldn't matter when it comes to what someone can and cannot own. You don't NEED your car. You don't NEED your house. But we live in a free society and a major part of a free society is property rights. The onus is on you to prove why I can't have an automatic weapon.
Referencing isolated incidents is meaningless unfortunately. The issue is the overall numbers, not specific incidents which may be used to paint any number of pictures based on which incident is selected.
The right to bear arms is a civil right. Hah! I KNEW you were going to pounce on that. That's why I tried to be careful to include AUTOMATIC arms, which are not part of the second amendment. That part is up for debate.
If isolated incidents don't matter, why don't all gun-control proponents stop bringing up Newtown and Aurora? You can't have it both ways. You don't get to say that isolated incidents on my side don't matter, while yours do. Militias were meant to stand up to militaries, ergo any weapon the military uses is protected. Note this doesn't cover nukes or anthrax or whatever because no military actually uses these things. They have them, but don't use them. Well... If we want to get technical... 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 militia is what is needed for the protection of the state, not the arms. Hence, having your logic of "any weapon the military uses is protected" does not fall in line with a strict reading of the amendment. Now you could say that we shouldn't be so strict with the amendment and do what Scalia did wherein he ignores militia, ignores regulated, and place the emphasis on Infringe thereby allowing Heller to have as much ammo in his guns as he'd like in the 2008 case--but that is not a strict reading of the amendment but is instead a recent interpretation of it. Just to keep things in perspective. A Militia without modern weapons can't do much protecting now can it? Further, in 1787, the English language was quite a bit different than it is now. "Well-regulated" meant well-trained and equipped; it didn't have anything to do with government regulations. That was up for contention in the beginning--mostly they realized that they couldn't figure out how much government support was allowed in regulating and specifically arming people. At some point they pretended militia didn't exist, and then they eventually thought self defense was the thing, then back to tyrrany, now its back to self defense. It really matters who the supreme court justices are and what is happening in the country at the time. At first Well Regulated meant that the government was providing the arms. That was eventually dropped. @Gold Yeah, my bad, I was just mildly annoyed at people saying doctors are not legitimate sources of research. The government never, to my knowledge, armed the militias. Certainly not at first anyways, considering the militias existed BEFORE the government. The Continental Army was practically entirely privately armed. Almost every soldier brought his own musket, and any that had to be replaced were bought privately by one of the founding father's. Washington spent a great deal of his own money buying muskets and powder. They actually got gun supplies from the french and (germany??) specifically newer musket designs that were easier to reload. So yes, they actually did pass around "government" for the same reason that Washington had to spend his money on weapons, and then became the President who still owned those weapons he had passed around to his men. And not "every guy" brought his gun because families were both larger back then and only had a few guns at most--and one had to be left behind just so people could still hunt. Then there's the loyalist who were supporting the British having their guns revoked etc... Anyway--yes, they did have to figure things out. Which is why they made the mistake of having such a vague amendment. What happens if a family doesn't have a gun--should they still be regulated? What if they don't want to be in the militia--are they not allowed to be armed? Etc...
The revolution didn't get foreign support until after the Battle of Saratoga.
I'd say everyone able to be in the militia should be allowed to have guns, in the hopes that they would choose to, and so would need less training should they need to take action.
Given the positions put forth in the Federalist papers, I'd say this is in line with what the drafter's meant.
|
On May 10 2013 12:01 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2013 11:47 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 10 2013 11:39 Millitron wrote:On May 10 2013 11:29 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 10 2013 11:24 Millitron wrote:On May 10 2013 11:18 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 10 2013 10:55 Millitron wrote:On May 10 2013 10:46 FallDownMarigold wrote:On May 10 2013 10:44 kmillz wrote:
If 5 less people get shot to death and 5 more get stabbed to death, what is accomplished? Are you saying that for every potential gun death avoided via more responsible gun control, there will necessarily be another death created by other means as a direct result? I'd like to see the source for this, thanks On May 10 2013 10:45 Millitron wrote:
In any case, "need" shouldn't matter. You don't NEED freedom of speech, you don't NEED the right to a trial, you don't NEED the right to privacy. You have got to be joking. You need freedom of speech and access to due process of the law in order to maintain your civil rights. How on Earth do you compare these needs with the need to own an automatic firearm? Absurd! I don't need freedom of speech, I won't die without it. I'll be pretty pissed off, but I won't die. Need shouldn't matter when it comes to what someone can and cannot own. You don't NEED your car. You don't NEED your house. But we live in a free society and a major part of a free society is property rights. The onus is on you to prove why I can't have an automatic weapon.
Referencing isolated incidents is meaningless unfortunately. The issue is the overall numbers, not specific incidents which may be used to paint any number of pictures based on which incident is selected.
The right to bear arms is a civil right. Hah! I KNEW you were going to pounce on that. That's why I tried to be careful to include AUTOMATIC arms, which are not part of the second amendment. That part is up for debate.
If isolated incidents don't matter, why don't all gun-control proponents stop bringing up Newtown and Aurora? You can't have it both ways. You don't get to say that isolated incidents on my side don't matter, while yours do. Militias were meant to stand up to militaries, ergo any weapon the military uses is protected. Note this doesn't cover nukes or anthrax or whatever because no military actually uses these things. They have them, but don't use them. Well... If we want to get technical... 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 militia is what is needed for the protection of the state, not the arms. Hence, having your logic of "any weapon the military uses is protected" does not fall in line with a strict reading of the amendment. Now you could say that we shouldn't be so strict with the amendment and do what Scalia did wherein he ignores militia, ignores regulated, and place the emphasis on Infringe thereby allowing Heller to have as much ammo in his guns as he'd like in the 2008 case--but that is not a strict reading of the amendment but is instead a recent interpretation of it. Just to keep things in perspective. A Militia without modern weapons can't do much protecting now can it? Further, in 1787, the English language was quite a bit different than it is now. "Well-regulated" meant well-trained and equipped; it didn't have anything to do with government regulations. That was up for contention in the beginning--mostly they realized that they couldn't figure out how much government support was allowed in regulating and specifically arming people. At some point they pretended militia didn't exist, and then they eventually thought self defense was the thing, then back to tyrrany, now its back to self defense. It really matters who the supreme court justices are and what is happening in the country at the time. At first Well Regulated meant that the government was providing the arms. That was eventually dropped. @Gold Yeah, my bad, I was just mildly annoyed at people saying doctors are not legitimate sources of research. The government never, to my knowledge, armed the militias. Certainly not at first anyways, considering the militias existed BEFORE the government. The Continental Army was practically entirely privately armed. Almost every soldier brought his own musket, and any that had to be replaced were bought privately by one of the founding father's. Washington spent a great deal of his own money buying muskets and powder. They actually got gun supplies from the french and (germany??) specifically newer musket designs that were easier to reload. So yes, they actually did pass around "government" for the same reason that Washington had to spend his money on weapons, and then became the President who still owned those weapons he had passed around to his men. And not "every guy" brought his gun because families were both larger back then and only had a few guns at most--and one had to be left behind just so people could still hunt. Then there's the loyalist who were supporting the British having their guns revoked etc... Anyway--yes, they did have to figure things out. Which is why they made the mistake of having such a vague amendment. What happens if a family doesn't have a gun--should they still be regulated? What if they don't want to be in the militia--are they not allowed to be armed? Etc... The revolution didn't get foreign support until after the Battle of Saratoga. I'd say everyone able to be in the militia should be allowed to have guns, in the hopes that they would choose to, and so would need less training should they need to take action. Given the positions put forth in the Federalist papers, I'd say this is in line with what the drafter's meant.
Well, what the drafters "meant" is weird because everyone did have a gun. It wasn't until we started having people who didn't need guns and hence didn't have them (or were too poor, etc...) that it started becoming a thing to care about the nitty gritty of gun control. In the world where everyone in essence had guns, they kind of just wrote it saying we can't take guns away. Arguments started happening when we got more civilized and there discrepancies on who had guns and who didn't have guns and how to handle that power dynamic without stepping on the amendment. The drafters were smart--but they weren't psychics. They wrote what culturally made sense at the time and adapted as they went.
|
You are so disgustingly insulting that I really don't even know what to say. It's almost as if you are blaming ME for the deaths of all the people who are being shot.
You haven't even addressed my point of it not mattering how somebody is murdered and that if gun related deaths go down but overall violent crimes do not then the gun control was in vain.
Here's an argument, don't fix what isn't broken. As that pew poll has pointed out, gun violence is at a record low since 93. No change is needed, at least not stricter gun-control, because things are better than ever.
This was said several pages back and that was what I was directly responding to. Learn to read.
Oh, and I directly addressed your point twice and you made a bullshit point about how Australia and the U.S. are somehow so different (with no reasoning behind this) that the comparison is meaningless.
|
On May 10 2013 12:29 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2013 12:01 Millitron wrote:On May 10 2013 11:47 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 10 2013 11:39 Millitron wrote:On May 10 2013 11:29 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 10 2013 11:24 Millitron wrote:On May 10 2013 11:18 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 10 2013 10:55 Millitron wrote:On May 10 2013 10:46 FallDownMarigold wrote:On May 10 2013 10:44 kmillz wrote:
If 5 less people get shot to death and 5 more get stabbed to death, what is accomplished? Are you saying that for every potential gun death avoided via more responsible gun control, there will necessarily be another death created by other means as a direct result? I'd like to see the source for this, thanks On May 10 2013 10:45 Millitron wrote:
In any case, "need" shouldn't matter. You don't NEED freedom of speech, you don't NEED the right to a trial, you don't NEED the right to privacy. You have got to be joking. You need freedom of speech and access to due process of the law in order to maintain your civil rights. How on Earth do you compare these needs with the need to own an automatic firearm? Absurd! I don't need freedom of speech, I won't die without it. I'll be pretty pissed off, but I won't die. Need shouldn't matter when it comes to what someone can and cannot own. You don't NEED your car. You don't NEED your house. But we live in a free society and a major part of a free society is property rights. The onus is on you to prove why I can't have an automatic weapon.
Referencing isolated incidents is meaningless unfortunately. The issue is the overall numbers, not specific incidents which may be used to paint any number of pictures based on which incident is selected.
The right to bear arms is a civil right. Hah! I KNEW you were going to pounce on that. That's why I tried to be careful to include AUTOMATIC arms, which are not part of the second amendment. That part is up for debate.
If isolated incidents don't matter, why don't all gun-control proponents stop bringing up Newtown and Aurora? You can't have it both ways. You don't get to say that isolated incidents on my side don't matter, while yours do. Militias were meant to stand up to militaries, ergo any weapon the military uses is protected. Note this doesn't cover nukes or anthrax or whatever because no military actually uses these things. They have them, but don't use them. Well... If we want to get technical... 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 militia is what is needed for the protection of the state, not the arms. Hence, having your logic of "any weapon the military uses is protected" does not fall in line with a strict reading of the amendment. Now you could say that we shouldn't be so strict with the amendment and do what Scalia did wherein he ignores militia, ignores regulated, and place the emphasis on Infringe thereby allowing Heller to have as much ammo in his guns as he'd like in the 2008 case--but that is not a strict reading of the amendment but is instead a recent interpretation of it. Just to keep things in perspective. A Militia without modern weapons can't do much protecting now can it? Further, in 1787, the English language was quite a bit different than it is now. "Well-regulated" meant well-trained and equipped; it didn't have anything to do with government regulations. That was up for contention in the beginning--mostly they realized that they couldn't figure out how much government support was allowed in regulating and specifically arming people. At some point they pretended militia didn't exist, and then they eventually thought self defense was the thing, then back to tyrrany, now its back to self defense. It really matters who the supreme court justices are and what is happening in the country at the time. At first Well Regulated meant that the government was providing the arms. That was eventually dropped. @Gold Yeah, my bad, I was just mildly annoyed at people saying doctors are not legitimate sources of research. The government never, to my knowledge, armed the militias. Certainly not at first anyways, considering the militias existed BEFORE the government. The Continental Army was practically entirely privately armed. Almost every soldier brought his own musket, and any that had to be replaced were bought privately by one of the founding father's. Washington spent a great deal of his own money buying muskets and powder. They actually got gun supplies from the french and (germany??) specifically newer musket designs that were easier to reload. So yes, they actually did pass around "government" for the same reason that Washington had to spend his money on weapons, and then became the President who still owned those weapons he had passed around to his men. And not "every guy" brought his gun because families were both larger back then and only had a few guns at most--and one had to be left behind just so people could still hunt. Then there's the loyalist who were supporting the British having their guns revoked etc... Anyway--yes, they did have to figure things out. Which is why they made the mistake of having such a vague amendment. What happens if a family doesn't have a gun--should they still be regulated? What if they don't want to be in the militia--are they not allowed to be armed? Etc... The revolution didn't get foreign support until after the Battle of Saratoga. I'd say everyone able to be in the militia should be allowed to have guns, in the hopes that they would choose to, and so would need less training should they need to take action. Given the positions put forth in the Federalist papers, I'd say this is in line with what the drafter's meant. Well, what the drafters "meant" is weird because everyone did have a gun. It wasn't until we started having people who didn't need guns and hence didn't have them (or were too poor, etc...) that it started becoming a thing to care about the nitty gritty of gun control. In the world where everyone in essence had guns, they kind of just wrote it saying we can't take guns away. Arguments started happening when we got more civilized and there discrepancies on who had guns and who didn't have guns and how to handle that power dynamic without stepping on the amendment. The drafters were smart--but they weren't psychics. They wrote what culturally made sense at the time and adapted as they went.
No it's because the freed slaves were entitled to own guns. And white folk didn't want guns getting into the hands of black folk.
Hell.. look at California. The Black Panthers march into their capital with shotguns and Regan (YES Governor Ronald Regan) signs their bill banning loaded rifles in public in 1967.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mulford_Act
Nearly every law restricting firearms from the 1840's to the 1960's has to do with race.
|
On May 10 2013 11:40 LuckyFool wrote:
gun laws aren't changing anytime soon. like it or not the NRA is way too entrenched in the upper echelons of this country to get pushed aside anytime soon. They have sooooooo much money.
People also point to the horrible gun death rates in the U.S over recent years as a reason why we need bans but then fail to mention that 2/3'rds of those are suicides with handguns which have nothing to do with why they want to ban guns/assault rifles.
There have been 62 mass shootings in the U.S. (minimum of 4 deaths) since 1982. That's almost 3/year. Our homicide rate is also extremely high compared to other countries, as is our violent crime rate with guns. There's a statistic for suicide rates, and that still doesn't change the facts.
|
On May 10 2013 13:21 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2013 11:40 LuckyFool wrote:
gun laws aren't changing anytime soon. like it or not the NRA is way too entrenched in the upper echelons of this country to get pushed aside anytime soon. They have sooooooo much money.
People also point to the horrible gun death rates in the U.S over recent years as a reason why we need bans but then fail to mention that 2/3'rds of those are suicides with handguns which have nothing to do with why they want to ban guns/assault rifles. There have been 62 mass shootings in the U.S. (minimum of 4 deaths) since 1982. That's almost 3/year. Our homicide rate is also extremely high compared to other countries, as is our violent crime rate with guns. There's a statistic for suicide rates, and that still doesn't change the facts.
You look at the glass half empty, I look at it half full. Violent crimes are in the decline, not on the rise.
The number of violent crimes in the United States dropped significantly last year, to what appeared to be the lowest rate in nearly 40 years, a development that was considered puzzling partly because it ran counter to the prevailing expectation that crime would increase during a recession.
In all regions, the country appears to be safer. The odds of being murdered or robbed are now less than half of what they were in the early 1990s, when violent crime peaked in the United States. Small towns, especially, are seeing far fewer murders: In cities with populations under 10,000, the number plunged by more than 25 percent last year.
The news was not as positive in New York City, however. After leading a long decline in crime rates, the city saw increases in all four types of violent lawbreaking — murder, rape, robbery and aggravated assault — including a nearly 14 percent rise in murders. But data from the past few months suggest the city’s upward trend may have slowed or stopped.
Criminology experts said they were surprised and impressed by the national numbers, issued on Monday by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and based on data from more than 13,000 law-enforcement agencies. They said the decline nationally in the number of violent crimes, by 5.5 percent, raised the question, at least in some places, of to what extent crime could continue to fall — or at least fall at the same pace as the past two years. Violent crimes fell nearly the same amount in 2009.
“Remarkable,” said James Alan Fox, a criminologist at Northeastern University. “Given the fact that we have had some healthy declines in recent years, I fully expected that the improvement would slow. There is only so much air you can squeeze out of a balloon.”
There was no immediate consensus to explain the drop. But some experts said the figures collided with theories about correlations between crime, unemployment and the number of people in prison.
Take robbery: The nation has endured a devastating economic crisis, but robberies fell 9.5 percent last year, after dropping 8 percent the year before.
“Striking,” said Alfred Blumstein, a professor and a criminologist at the Heinz College at Carnegie Mellon University, because it came “at a time when everyone anticipated it could be going up because of the recession.”
Nationally, murder fell 4.4 percent last year. Forcible rape — which excludes statutory rape and other sex offenses — fell 4.2 percent. Aggravated assault fell 3.6 percent. Property crimes — including burglary, larceny, motor vehicle theft and arson — fell 2.8 percent, after a 4.6 percent drop the year before.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/24/us/24crime.html?_r=0
|
On May 10 2013 11:40 LuckyFool wrote:
gun laws aren't changing anytime soon. like it or not the NRA is way too entrenched in the upper echelons of this country to get pushed aside anytime soon. They have sooooooo much money.
People also point to the horrible gun death rates in the U.S over recent years as a reason why we need bans but then fail to mention that 2/3'rds of those are suicides with handguns which have nothing to do with why they want to ban guns/assault rifles.
Can I get a link to those stats? I'm genuinely curious and want to see who performed the study,
|
On May 10 2013 14:16 RebirthOfLeGenD wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2013 11:40 LuckyFool wrote:
gun laws aren't changing anytime soon. like it or not the NRA is way too entrenched in the upper echelons of this country to get pushed aside anytime soon. They have sooooooo much money.
People also point to the horrible gun death rates in the U.S over recent years as a reason why we need bans but then fail to mention that 2/3'rds of those are suicides with handguns which have nothing to do with why they want to ban guns/assault rifles. Can I get a link to those stats? I'm genuinely curious and want to see who performed the study,
I believe it came from research done by the National Center for Health Statistics. I read it off wikipedia though after I heard some pro gun guys talking about it in an interview a while ago.
"In 2009, according to the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, 66.9% of all homicides in the United States were perpetrated using a firearm. There were 52,447 deliberate and 23,237 accidental non-fatal gunshot injuries in the United States during the year 2000. Two-thirds of all gun-related deaths in the United States are suicides. In 2010, there were 19,392 firearm-related suicide deaths, and 14,078 firearm-related homicide deaths in the United States."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States
|
Related to guns and suicide:
Although few people attempt suicide with a gun, more than half of all suicide deaths in the United States are gun suicides. Some 2 dozen US studies have found that access to a firearm is a strong risk factor for suicide. Firearm owners are not more suicidal than other people; rather, their suicide attempts are more likely to be completed.4
Suicide attempts often occur with little planning during a period of short-term crisis. If highly lethal means are made less available to people who attempt suicide impulsively, their odds of surviving an attempt increase. Over 90% of people who survive a suicide attempt do not go on to die by suicide. Studies show that when access to a highly lethal and leading suicide method is reduced, the overall suicide rate drops—driven by a drop in the restricted method.
The Harvard Injury Control Research Center, which I direct, created a Means Matter campaign to help mental health providers discuss guns with suicidal patients.5 Since most people who die do so on their first suicide attempt and many have never sought treatment, the campaign also provides information to all health professionals who may come into contact with people who may attempt suicide because of other issues (eg, marriage counselors, physicians, and others who provide substance-abuse treatment).
http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1680142
|
On May 10 2013 14:39 FallDownMarigold wrote:Related to guns and suicide: Show nested quote +
Although few people attempt suicide with a gun, more than half of all suicide deaths in the United States are gun suicides. Some 2 dozen US studies have found that access to a firearm is a strong risk factor for suicide. Firearm owners are not more suicidal than other people; rather, their suicide attempts are more likely to be completed.4
Suicide attempts often occur with little planning during a period of short-term crisis. If highly lethal means are made less available to people who attempt suicide impulsively, their odds of surviving an attempt increase. Over 90% of people who survive a suicide attempt do not go on to die by suicide. Studies show that when access to a highly lethal and leading suicide method is reduced, the overall suicide rate drops—driven by a drop in the restricted method.
The Harvard Injury Control Research Center, which I direct, created a Means Matter campaign to help mental health providers discuss guns with suicidal patients.5 Since most people who die do so on their first suicide attempt and many have never sought treatment, the campaign also provides information to all health professionals who may come into contact with people who may attempt suicide because of other issues (eg, marriage counselors, physicians, and others who provide substance-abuse treatment).
http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1680142
So are you suggesting that stricter laws on guns will prevent suicides?
|
No I'm sharing part of a paper related to the ongoing discussion
|
|
|
Is a gun ban to improve the suicide rate even the right way to try and improve the suicide rate.
I view gun bans like sweeping dust under the rug- it might make things look better but you haven't really resolved the root cause of the issues. There's hundreds of millions of firearms floating around in this country, banning them won't make them all go away. Bad guys and guys who really want them will still find ways. Drugs are illegal in most states and a hell of alot of users carry on. I don't view guns much different, and unlike a random crackhead who illegally pots it up next door, now there's a criminal next door who could be a threat because the only real way to defend myself from him is illegal.
Suicide rates by guns would go down, mass shootings would probably go down, but can anyone really predict what new problems could arise if guns were banned and if we would actually be any better off really. 3 mass shootings a year avoided at the cost of 3,000 additional home invasions per year? Who knows.
I have pretty libertarian views on gun control in general. The reason gun control is such a hot topic is it's one of the few tangible things a citizen has a right to that they can use to defend themselves against even unthinkable things like an oppressive government. It might not happen in our lifetimes or even in 3 or 4 generations from now but I feel that removing guns is the first step down a path of a potential monopoly where only one side has all the power, that has rarely done good things in the past and throughout history. Today we could be banning assault rifles, tomorrow it's all the rest of the firearms and who knows where it stops from there...Guns are different than most other things for those reasons I think and which is why people care about this so much.
It's really quite a heavy decision that lots of people don't really think through fully I feel. We can't even know exactly what it would do, either in the short term or the long. Or if it would really even help. Take Chicago for example, one of the harder areas of the country to buy a gun and yet their gun crime is among the highest in the nation.
|
On May 10 2013 14:55 FallDownMarigold wrote:
No I'm sharing part of a paper related to the ongoing discussion
What is it's relevance to the discussion? If you aren't suggesting that we need to change something with guns to prevent suicide, then I don't get why you posted that paper.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
