Guns

[ledhed]

The US Supreme court has decided that the " individual right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed " is Primary and militia is a secondary consideration.
So its settled as far as legal interpretations are concerned. Of course your free to argue otherwise. But your wrong.

The US Supreme Court on Monday extended the constitutional protection of the Second Amendment’s right to keep and bear arms to every jurisdiction in the nation.

• 
  In Pictures The debate over gun rights

Chicago, and sets the stage for more legal challenges to an array of tough gun-control laws across the United States.

The 5-to-4 decision means that in addition to the federal government, state and local governments must comply with the high court’s 2008 landmark ruling recognizing an individual right to possess handguns in the home for self defense.


http://www.loc.gov/law/help/second-amendment.php

In the majority opinion authored by Justice Antonin Scalia, the Court first conducted a textual analysis of the operative clause, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." The Court found that this language guarantees an individual right to possess and carry weapons. The Court examined historical evidence that it found consistent with its textual analysis. The Court then considered the Second Amendment’s prefatory clause, "[a] well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," and determined that while this clause announces a purpose for recognizing an individual right to keep and bear arms, it does not limit the operative clause. The Court found that analogous contemporaneous provisions in state constitutions, the Second Amendment’s drafting history, and post-ratification interpretations were consistent with its interpretation of the amendment. The Court asserted that its prior precedent was not inconsistent with its interpretation.

The Court stated that the right to keep and bear arms is subject to regulation, such as concealed weapons prohibitions, limits on the rights of felons and the mentally ill, laws forbidding the carrying of weapons in certain locations, laws imposing conditions on commercial sales, and prohibitions on the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. It stated that this was not an exhaustive list of the regulatory measures that would be presumptively permissible under the Second Amendment.

The Court found that the D.C. ban on handgun possession violated the Second Amendment right because it prohibited an entire class of arms favored for the lawful purpose of self-defense in the home. It similarly found that the requirement that lawful firearms be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock made it impossible for citizens to effectively use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense, and therefore violated the Second Amendment right. The Court said it was unnecessary to address the constitutionality of the D.C. licensing requirement.

In the USA it is a Right and not a privilege to keep and bear arms .
So the argument is not about regulate or ban .
Its. " when does the regulation infringe " and is it reasonable?
You can't by law restrict the ability to purchase a firearm here.
Ownership is a right . So we start with this and somehow must use logic and reason to regulate firearms without infringing on lawful use and ownership.

I had linked many times the findings on the law by SCOTUS so didn't think I needed to do it again when I made the above factual post.

 

[Danoff]

The US Supreme court has decided that the " individual right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed " is Primary and militia is a secondary consideration.

Can you cite the ruling? Technically, as you mention, this bit was already decided in 2008.

 

[ledhed]

In the majority opinion authored by Justice Antonin Scalia, the Court first conducted a textual analysis of the operative clause, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." The Court found that this language guarantees an individual right to possess and carry weapons. The Court examined historical evidence that it found consistent with its textual analysis. The Court then considered the Second Amendment’s prefatory clause, "[a] well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," and determined that while this clause announces a purpose for recognizing an individual right to keep and bear arms, it does not limit the operative clause. The Court found that analogous contemporaneous provisions in state constitutions, the Second Amendment’s drafting history, and post-ratification interpretations were consistent with its interpretation of the amendment. The Court asserted that its prior precedent was not inconsistent with its interpretation.

The Court stated that the right to keep and bear arms is subject to regulation, such as concealed weapons prohibitions, limits on the rights of felons and the mentally ill, laws forbidding the carrying of weapons in certain locations, laws imposing conditions on commercial sales, and prohibitions on the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. It stated that this was not an exhaustive list of the regulatory measures that would be presumptively permissible under the Second Amendment.

The Court found that the D.C. ban on handgun possession violated the Second Amendment right because it prohibited an entire class of arms favored for the lawful purpose of self-defense in the home. It similarly found that the requirement that lawful firearms be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock made it impossible for citizens to effectively use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense, and therefore violated the Second Amendment right. The Court said it was unnecessary to address the constitutionality of the D.C. licensing requirement.

I added the text in the decision to my post . I must have been editing while you posted .

 

[Danoff]

I added the text in the decision to my post . I must have been editing while you posted .

Ah, it's from 2010. That makes more sense.

 

[Roger the Horse]

Wimbledon gentleman's tennis grand slam champion Andy Murray's mother Judy Murray has recalled in an interview for the first time her experience of when her sons survived the Dunblane massacre.

The Cullen Inquiry into the massacre recommended that the government introduce tighter controls on handgun ownership[11] and consider whether an outright ban on private ownership would be in the public interest in the alternative (though club ownership would be maintained).[12] The report also recommended changes in school security[13] and vetting of people working with children under 18.[14] The Home Affairs Select Committee agreed with the need for restrictions on gun ownership but stated that a handgun ban was not appropriate.

A small group, known as the Gun Control Network was founded in the aftermath of the shootings and was supported by some parents of victims at Dunblane and of the Hungerford Massacre.[15] Bereaved families and their friends also initiated a campaign to ban private gun ownership, named the Snowdrop Petition (because March is snowdrop time in Scotland), which gained 705,000 signatures in support and was supported by some newspapers, including the Sunday Mail, a Scottish newspaper whose own petition to ban handguns had raised 428,279 signatures within five weeks of the massacre.

In response to this public debate, the then-current Conservative government of John Major introduced a ban on all cartridge ammunition handguns with the exception of .22 calibre single-shot weapons in England, Scotland and Wales. Following the 1997 General Election, the Labour government of Tony Blair introduced the Firearms (Amendment) (No. 2) Act 1997, banning the remaining .22 cartridge handguns in England, Scotland and Wales, and leaving only muzzle-loading and historic handguns legal, as well as certain sporting handguns (e.g. "Long-Arms") that fall outside the Home Office Definition of a "handgun" due to their dimensions. The ban does not affect Northern Ireland, the Isle of Man, or theChannel Islands.

Security in schools, particularly primary schools, was improved in response to the Dunblane massacre and two other violent incidents which occurred at around the same time: themurder of Philip Lawrence, a head teacher in London, and the wounding of six children and Lisa Potts, a nursery teacher, at a Wolverhampton nursery school. Many schools put up high perimeter fences and door entry systems which exist to this day.

 

[zzz_pt]

I voted for the first option because the second is always thrown at people's faces when disasters happen.

Guns shown't even be manufactured let alone be aquired by civilians. It's my opinion. We, human society, already have the knowledge and the capability to live without guns or wars.

ps: When I say shouldn't be manufactured I'm talking about guns that shoot bullets. I think that authority (police) should have a kind of "gun" or instrument to protect people. But not some weapon that could kill another human being.

 

[Sanji Himura]

I voted for the first option because the second is always thrown at people's faces when disasters happen.

Guns shown't even be manufactured let alone be aquired by civilians. It's my opinion. We, human society, already have the knowledge and the capability to live without guns or wars.

ps: When I say shouldn't be manufactured I'm talking about guns that shoot bullets. I think that authority (police) should have a kind of "gun" or instrument to protect people. But not some weapon that could kill another human being.

Can we please stop this brain dead argument? It is like Al Sharpton pointed out either on Hardball or his own program, "as soon as guns are banned, then we will go after knives..."

The reason why we Americans enjoy our 2nd Amendment right to keep guns is because of idiots like Sharpton. Every shooting that we had over the last 7 months was stopped because a good guy with a gun pulled his out to shoot the bad guy before he even had a chance to reload. In other words, we had a minimal loss of life at these shootings.

Considering the fact that the revolutionary war started over gun confiscation, would you hand over your weapon if you have an idiot that decides to ban all weapons tomorrow?

 

[zzz_pt]

Can we please stop this brain dead argument? It is like Al Sharpton pointed out either on Hardball or his own program, "as soon as guns are banned, then we will go after knives..."

The reason why we Americans enjoy our 2nd Amendment right to keep guns is because of idiots like Sharpton. Every shooting that we had over the last 7 months was stopped because a good guy with a gun pulled his out to shoot the bad guy before he even had a chance to reload. In other words, we had a minimal loss of life at these shootings.

Considering the fact that the revolutionary war started over gun confiscation, would you hand over your weapon if you have an idiot that decides to ban all weapons tomorrow?

This is the thing. I defend that the police should have a kind of tool or weapon to do the same thing but without the possibility of killing the person. A kind of tranquilizer or something like that. Guns like we have nowadays shouldn't exist. Every shoting wouldn't have so many innocent victims because killing with an automatic gun is too easy and fast.

I guess I didn't make myself clear before.

 

[Sanji Himura]

This is the thing. I defend that the police should have a kind of tool or weapon to do the same thing but without the possibility of killing the person. A kind of tranquilizer or something like that. Guns like we have nowadays shouldn't exist. Every shoting wouldn't have so many innocent victims because killing with an automatic gun is too easy and fast.

I guess I didn't make myself clear before.

I would agree with that as I don't own a gun myself, but the first murder weapon was a rock. In other words, guns exist today for two reasons, one is to protect yourself, and the other is to feed your family. So even if guns don't exist today, how would you be able to feed your family if you are in the woods?

 

[zzz_pt]

I would agree with that as I don't own a gun myself, but the first murder weapon was a rock. In other words, guns exist today for two reasons, one is to protect yourself, and the other is to feed your family. So even if guns don't exist today, how would you be able to feed your family if you are in the woods?

I think we're talking about fire weapons here. Magnums, semi-automatic, rifles, etc. We're not talking about stones or sticks. Anyone will agreed that killing a person with a fire weapon is too easy. In 1 minute a person can enter a room and kill dozens of people. With a stone you probably would harm/kill 1 person if the others didn't jump on your back.

To me, de border line is that it's too easy to kill with a gun. And if you can legally carry one with you, the chances of something go wrong is much higher than if you carry a stone, a knife or a stick.

I don't want to look like an extemist in this subject.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

I voted for the first option because the second is always thrown at people's faces when disasters happen.

Guns shown't even be manufactured let alone be aquired by civilians. It's my opinion. We, human society, already have the knowledge and the capability to live without guns or wars.

ps: When I say shouldn't be manufactured I'm talking about guns that shoot bullets. I think that authority (police) should have a kind of "gun" or instrument to protect people. But not some weapon that could kill another human being.

So in other words this is a whimsical attempt at "make peace, man" rather than read the actual content of this thread? Because you've decided right?

This is the thing. I defend that the police should have a kind of tool or weapon to do the same thing but without the possibility of killing the person. A kind of tranquilizer or something like that. Guns like we have nowadays shouldn't exist. Every shoting wouldn't have so many innocent victims because killing with an automatic gun is too easy and fast.

I guess I didn't make myself clear before.

Automatic guns don't exist in the general public spectrum, unless it's the police that are doing the killing and even then that is only a certain group. Once again you didn't read the content did you?

I think we're talking about fire weapons here. Magnums, semi-automatic, rifles, etc. We're not talking about stones or sticks. Anyone will agreed that killing a person with a fire weapon is too easy. In 1 minute a person can enter a room and kill dozens of people. With a stone you probably would harm/kill 1 person if the others didn't jump on your back.

To me, de border line is that it's too easy to kill with a gun. And if you can legally carry one with you, the chances of something go wrong is much higher than if you carry a stone, a knife or a stick.

I don't want to look like an extemist in this subject.

But sadly you do look like an extremist. I've carried a gun for a few years now, nothing has ever gone wrong, I've carried a knife even longer and nothings ever gone wrong. My father carried a gun for 25 years, nothing ever went wrong...

Also let's put it in to a broader scope, do you have any evidence that shows this influx of having a gun on your person intensifying the risk of harming yourself or others?

 

[zzz_pt]

So in other words this is a whimsical attempt at "make peace, man" rather than read the actual content of this thread? Because you've decided right?



Automatic guns don't exist in the general public spectrum, unless it's the police that are doing the killing and even then that is only a certain group. Once again you didn't read the content did you?

No I didn't read 103 pages of posts. I have an opinion and I don't have to read the entire thread to post it.

Make peace is a good idea but I know it's not easy and probably is utopic. But the closest we get to that utopia the better. I don't think it will be with guns. But then again, I just shared my opinion. And it's similar to 45% of the people who voted.

Another thing. Automatic guns are spread by a lot of countries in the hands of kids. Black Market you know?.. If those weapons didn't exist, millions of people wouldn't be killed unmercifully every year.

We have other problems that are related to this issue. I'm just adressing this one in a simple and rough manner. I'm not even american and my first language is portuguese. So I wouldn't be able to go much depper with my limited english. I just wanted to state my point of view and I did it. You can disagreed

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

No I didn't read 103 pages of posts. I have an opinion and I don't have to read the entire thread to post it.

You had an opinion then traveled into the area of stating it with claims that were wrong.

Make peace is a good idea but I know it's not easy and probably is utopic. But the closest we get to that utopia the better. I don't think it will be with guns. But then again, I just shared my opinion. And it's similar to 45% of the people who voted.

That is the idea of a utopia...

Sorry maybe it was my last eye exam but where do you get 45% from?

Another thing. Automatic guns are spread by a lot of countries in the hands of kids. Black Market you know?.. If those weapons didn't exist, millions of people wouldn't be killed unmercifully every year.

Well sure I know, if you tried to read the thread rather than just post and act as if it wouldn't be subject to question or criticism you wouldn't have to ask a rhetorical question. One where I even specify the issues of the black market like many others on here did before you decided to post with out reading. Also I can easily see the page number, it didn't stop me from reading through the thread before I joined a few years back...

Common courtesy you know, to those who are actually trying to take on an intellectual endeavor and not be some one that just want to interject on a whim.

Also on the topic of killings can you show us how you derived the millions who are killed by specifically automatic weapons. For instance in the U.S, for example or Western Euro nations, hell even Middle America and South America...

The fact is automatic weapons don't exist in the general public in nations that have laws that have banned them from purchase, that was what I was getting at before you tried to make a sweeping assumption that what may happen in a small periphery nation happens as well in the core nations.

We have other problems that are related to this issue. I'm just adressing this one in a simple and rough manner. I'm not even american and my first language is portuguese. So I wouldn't be able to go much depper with my limited english. I just wanted to state my point of view and I did it. You can disagreed

Yes well we have many who state their opinion, and then get asked to go further and you've just been asked. Why you have the notion that due to your language barrier or placing an opinion that will go untouched in here, protects you from scrutiny, is beyond me. Also we have many people who give their opinion, it's called clicking one of the choices on the poll and then that's it. No words, no exchange like this, no worry of having their opinion judged.

 

[zzz_pt]

You had an opinion then traveled into the area of stating it with claims that were wrong.



That is the idea of a utopia...

Sorry maybe it was my last eye exam but where do you get 45% from?



Well sure I know, if you tried to read the thread rather than just post and act as if it wouldn't be subject to question or criticism you wouldn't have to ask a rhetorical question. One where I even specify the issues of the black market like many others on here did before you decided to post with out reading. Also I can easily see the page number, it didn't stop me from reading through the thread before I joined a few years back...

Common courtesy you know, to those who are actually trying to take on an intellectual endeavor and not be some one that just want to interject on a whim.

Also on the topic of killings can you show us how you derived the millions who are killed by specifically automatic weapons. For instance in the U.S, for example or Western Euro nations, hell even Middle America and South America...

The fact is automatic weapons don't exist in the general public in nations that have laws that have banned them from purchase, that was what I was getting at before you tried to make a sweeping assumption that what may happen in a small periphery nation happens as well in the core nations.



Yes well we have many who state their opinion, and then get asked to go further and you've just been asked. Why you have the notion that due to your language barrier or placing an opinion that will go untouched in here, protects you from scrutiny, is beyond me. Also we have many people who give their opinion, it's called clicking one of the choices on the poll and then that's it. No words, no exchange like this, no worry of having their opinion judged.

45% Because I've consider to vote in the 2 option as well. If weapons weren't deadly as they are. But even 15% is quite a large number.

When I post I know that people can critic and disagreed. If you read the entire thread you'll see a lot of pointless posts. I opened the 1st page and +80% of the posts are irrelevant. Why would I read all of the other 102? I don't have the time nor the interest. I've thought about this but I'm a layman in the subject. If you had the time and interest to read the entire thread it's OK. But you can't demand everyone to do it before posting an opinion. If you've already read similar opinions to mine I can comprehend that it can be boring but this happens a lot. This is public forum where people post and behave in a more informal and relaxed way. If I had to make a thesis about this I would read more about it. I'm open to critique and I like to learn.

I don't know specifically how many people are killed by "specifically" automatic weapons. My point was that those weapons reach people that have no legal authorization/permission to carry them. The fact is that if people that carry them wouldn't be able to have them, they wouldn't have the same power to kill other people. At least is what I think. If the rebels in african and asian counties for example didn't have the black market (I think they are not leagally aquired) to buy weapons from those countries and their inhabitants would be safer.

Comparing european countries with the USA for example, we see that the number of people killed by fire weapons is huge in USA and low in europe. And I assume that the owtlawing the possibility of civilians carrying a weapon is the major factor.

I don't have the idea that my limitations with the english language will let me go untouched. I've said that I CAN NOT ENGAGE myself in a more deeper discussion because I have to spend 3x time than I would have if I was writting in portuguese. If you carry on with the discussion, I will try to reply and engage as much as I can with the time and the knowledge I have. If you were writing in a language that is unfamiliar to you maybe you would understand what I'm trying to say.

On the subject of you and your father carryng a gun. I haven't said that if a person has a gun the probability of something go wrong is higher. That was in the context of the comparision with guns vs stones or sticks or knives. A gun can make a huge damage if something go wrong comparing it to a stone or a knife. That was my point. I know that the great moajoraty of people that carries a gun has no problem with it.

I hope I've made myself undestood. I know that usually is my fault when there are misunderstandings becaus I'm the one lacking in english.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

45% Because I've consider to vote in the 2 option as well. If weapons weren't deadly as they are. But even 15% is quite a large number.

Yes, well the two aren't the same, it would be like me combining moderate control and loose control, which are ironically closer in similarity than the two you've suggested. If weapons weren't deadly as they are what?

15% is a large number how exactly? It's certainly not a majority and considering the stark opposite of it is nearly 18% that must be a behemoth in comparison to the large 15...

When I post I know that people can critic and disagreed. If you read the entire thread you'll see a lot of pointless posts. I opened the 1st page and +80% of the posts are irrelevant. Why would I read all of the other 102? I don't have the time nor the interest. I've thought about this but I'm a layman in the subject. If you had the time and interest to read the entire thread it's OK. But you can't demand everyone to do it before posting an opinion. If you've already read similar opinions to mine I can comprehend that it can be boring but this happens a lot. This is public forum where people post and behave in a more informal and relaxed way. If I had to make a thesis about this I would read more about it. I'm open to critique and I like to learn.

They're irrelevant to you because the thread started somewhere else and then transitioned with only what seems to be part of the posts, hence why there seems to be a inner conversation in the first couple pages. It always seems funny when people say they don't have the time or interest yet, they have enough time to spew what they "Believe" and then spend even more of that time after defending or elsewhere in the forum. It's a bit hard to believe that you didn't have at least 10-20 minutes prior or after the last post to read a few previous pages. Actually I can demand people to do it because once again it's the respectful thing to do, so you're informed and actually contributing and many people do this and so do admin (asking people to read the thread that is). It's a bit of a counter statement to say "hey I shouldn't have to read all of this or even a quarter of this, but I do like to learn!" if that was the case you would have taken the time to learn by reading the prior pages.

I don't know specifically how many people are killed by "specifically" automatic weapons. My point was that those weapons reach people that have no legal authorization/permission to carry them. The fact is that if people that carry them wouldn't be able to have them, they wouldn't have the same power to kill other people. At least is what I think. If the rebels in african and asian counties for example didn't have the black market (I think they are not leagally aquired) to buy weapons from those countries and their inhabitants would be safer.

Yes that's a obvious almost redundant point to make because it's common knowledge that illegal things make it illegally into hands that don't have the legal right to have them...

The point I'm making is if you're going to say "million of people die" then you need to show and expect people to ask for facts proving this. As for rebels and politics, of the black market and what not in periphery nations it works both ways, yes the enable bad groups to do bad things, and they enable good groups under bad gov'ts to try and gain freedom. Now unless you have some ground breaking method in how to stop illegal arms, I'm sure all of us would love to know.

Comparing european countries with the USA for example, we see that the number of people killed by fire weapons is huge in USA and low in europe. And I assume that the owtlawing the possibility of civilians carrying a weapon is the major factor.

Well you'd be wrong, because if you actually looked at the stats, and guns owner per capita you'd see there are plenty of Euro nations that are allowed gun ownership and have low gun crime rates. Also you have done what others on here in that past few pages did and cherry picked the stats by limiting gun crimes, when there are more deaths by blunt objects and knives, than the combined number of deaths by Rifle and Shotgun. Two types of gun that the media personally creates a fear around.

I don't have the idea that my limitations with the english language will let me go untouched. I've said that I CAN NOT ENGAGE myself in a more deeper discussion because I have to spend 3x time than I would have if I was writting in portuguese. If you carry on with the discussion, I will try to reply and engage as much as I can with the time and the knowledge I have. If you were writing in a language that is unfamiliar to you maybe you would understand what I'm trying to say.

If you don't then why state it in that manner? Rather then saying well I'll explain but my English is a bit rough, you at first made it sound you'd refrain from going any further due to difficulty and thus I (nor anyone reading this) should as well because you cant respond. However, you seem to be doing just fine despite that.

Ah this has happened before, the whole, "you don't know what it's like to have a second language barrier". I have learned Spanish and French as second languages since one is native to my mother, I've have written and spoke in both due to having to, so yes I know the difficulty.

On the subject of you and your father carryng a gun. I haven't said that if a person has a gun the probability of something go wrong is higher. That was in the context of the comparision with guns vs stones or sticks or knives. A gun can make a huge damage if something go wrong comparing it to a stone or a knife. That was my point. I know that the great moajoraty of people that carries a gun has no problem with it.

So you saying that you don't know if there is more risk, but what you do know is if something does happen it will be bad...

I don't get the whole idea of the obvious statements being made, I'm sorry maybe it's me and being concise but it's a bit obvious.

I hope I've made myself undestood. I know that usually is my fault when there are misunderstandings becaus I'm the one lacking in english.

Hey, you don't see me complaining about it and obviously I'm respecting your attempts and not saying you cant write or speak. So clearly it isn't enough of an issue to do so, and even if it was I'd send a private message rather than mock you on an open thread.

In other words you're fine.

 

[BobK]

Anyone will agreed that killing a person with a fire weapon is too easy. In 1 minute a person can enter a room and kill dozens of people.

So tell me, how many firearms have you fired to arrive at that conclusion?

And when the safety of my family is at stake, yes, I'd take "easy".

 

[Michael88]

My car is far deadlier than any gun. If I wanted to kill as many people as possible I wouldn't get any of my guns but my car which I can drive into a group of people killing dozens in the blink of an eye.
Cars are far more dangerous than guns, also tens of thousands of people die each year in car accidents around the world. Thats more than Ebola kills, or the war in the middle east.

 

[Joel]

Why don't we just ban murder and get it over with?

 

[zzz_pt]

So tell me, how many firearms have you fired to arrive at that conclusion?

And when the safety of my family is at stake, yes, I'd take "easy".

None. No one needs to fire a gun to know that.

I guess it's a cultural thing. 97 in 100 people have a gun in the USA. Everyone carries a gun. In the majoraty of european countries people can legallu carry a gun but they don't feel the need for it. i think people feel more secure without guns (yes is my opinion).

I understand the fact that one would kill another person if a family member or friend were in danger. I would do it to. But if deadly fireweapons didn't exist, that senario would be less probable i guess.

Maybe it's my cultural background. I just can't grassp the american position on this subject. If I was american probably I would think differently though.

I don't think people buy guns because they want to kill people. I think that if they had the otion of buying something defensive rather than harmfull, they would. Like a confortable "bulletproof" suit that you could wear in any situation. But that wasn't invented yet... guns are so much more effective... :/

@Michael88 those pepole that die in car accidents aren't assassinated intentionaly. People die everyday but if you give people objects that the only function is to harm others, that can't be good. We have cars because we need them or we like them. I never heard of a person buying a car to kill people. :/


---

@LMSCorvetteGT2 You can't demand it because this is not the only source of information. What tells you that I didn't already listen or read something on this subject? I didn't research it intensively but I'm not spewing things and inventing thoughts from scratch. And if I have time to spend elsewhere it's because there are other parts of the forum and other subjects that I'm more interested in.

Do you want facts for prooving that millions of people are killed by illegal weapons? I don't know the exact number of course (no one knows) and I used the word millions as a hyperbole. I don't know if it is millions or tens of thousands. I know the number is high. And if you demand facts and evidence for every singe thing that people say, the discussion is pointless. There are some things that are said in context and not with the intent of being scientificaly accurate.

I feel like you're mocking me... I never said I have a solution to end illegal guns. I just think that maybe stoping producing it wouldn't be a bad idea. Or replacing it with not deadly weapons (as I've said earlier).

I'd be wrong because I see the wrong statistics, news and websites? Ok. So you think that the world would be better if almost every single person had at least 1 gun (like in USA). I don't agreed but I respect your opinion.

I never said that my limitations should stop anyone to discuss or criticize my post. You're wrong. I've said that I wouldn't be able to go much further in a discussion. I'm trying to be "courteous" and spending a little bit of the time I have to reply. I spend 4 or 5x the time I would spend if I was writting in portuguese and I know that my points aren't as developed as I want because I can't find the right words. :/

The obvious statement was made because you failed to undestand it in the first place. You took my sentence out of the context so I had to made it obvious.

You're respecting my attempts and not saying I can't write or speak. It's true. But I feel more like you're not respecting my opinion and saying that I can't think or be coherent. Being ironic doesn't help.

I left my opinion. I'm not arguing this any further. At least for now.

 

[Danoff]

None. No one needs to fire a gun to know that.

I guess it's a cultural thing. 97 in 100 people have a gun in the USA. Everyone carries a gun.

Woah Woah Waoh! You're way off the reservation only 5 seconds into this post.

This website says 89 guns per 100 residents:

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/201...ica-and-is-gun-ownership-actually-declining/#

But most of those guns are owned by a small number of residents. So you cannot say 97 in 100 people have a gun in the USA. That's about as wrong as it gets. I would say the majority of people I have met in the US do not own guns, a large percentage have never fired one.

Second, you make the jump from gun ownership to gun carrying without batting an eye. My wife and I own 7 guns between the two of us, and neither of us carry. I stopped reading after this.

Also you need to fire a gun to know just how hard it is to hit your target. You can't just go kill dozens of people in a matter of seconds. They'll run, duck, cover - it's not like a Bond movie.

 

[zzz_pt]

Woah Woah Waoh! You're way off the reservation only 5 seconds into this post.

This website says 89 guns per 100 residents:

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/201...ica-and-is-gun-ownership-actually-declining/#

But most of those guns are owned by a small number of residents. So you cannot say 97 in 100 people have a gun in the USA. That's about as wrong as it gets. I would say the majority of people I have met in the US do not own guns, a large percentage have never fired one.

Second, you make the jump from gun ownership to gun carrying without batting an eye. My wife and I own 7 guns between the two of us, and neither of us carry. I stopped reading after this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country

I guess Wiki was a bad source. But even 89% is almost twice as much as the second country in the list.
That is the type of reaction that can make me go away and not listen to anything you have to say. I don't invent numbers from thin air. You could ask for the source instead couldn't you?

By owning, you can carry it. I don't know if you carry them or don't. I wouldn't show it to everyone every place I go either. Why do you have 7 guns? Any special reason? Thank you.

That last sentence is pointless. The fact is: if a guy is in an open place with lots of other people (like in many major cities) with the intent to kill and a gun in his hands, he will kill more people than if he had a knife or a rock.

 

[Danoff]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country

I guess Wiki was a bad source. But even 89% is almost twice as much as the second country in the list.
That is the type of reaction that can make me go away and not listen to anything you have to say. I don't invent numbers from thin air. You could ask for the source instead couldn't you?

89, 97, doesn't matter. You still used the number inappropriately. This statement: "97 in 100 people have a gun in the USA" is not supported by anything and I can tell you with 100% confidence that it is fiction. It would require that everyone in the US who owned a gun only had one. I for one, own more than one, so it's an incorrect statement even if I'm the only one.

By owning, you can carry it. I don't know if you carry them or don't.

Nope! Carrying a gun means having it on your person in public. Owning a gun means, at a minimum, storing it somewhere on your property. Veeeery different terms. Carrying a gun often requires a license. In some places in the US, a license that's almost impossible to get.

Why do you have 7 guns? Any special reason? Thank you.

I'm actually looking to acquire 1 or 2 more, as I don't have enough guns to serve all of the purposes I'd like guns for.

I have:
3x WWII rifles - Antiques that I have no ammunition for and never intend to fire
1x Black Powder Musket - I have no black powder or musket balls
1x Double barrel shotgun, approx 120 years old - I have no ammo for it and it would be dangerous to fire at this point
1x Revolver .38 special - This is a highly portable, lightweight handgun with a heavy trigger and no hammer. Excellent for carrying, firing is a very deliberate action.
1x 9mm handgun - This is mostly for target practice. Way more fun than the revolver to shoot, much more accurate.

I'd like a newer handgun for target practice and defense and a 12-guage shotgun with recoil-reducing stock, and pistol grip. The shotgun would be for home defense. The handgun just replaces the 9mm which is old. An alternative would be to yank the springs in the 9mm and recondition it, but you can never have too many guns right?

So that would put me at.. 9 guns.

That last sentence is pointless. The fact is: if a guy is in an open place with lots of other people (like in many major cities) with the intent to kill and a gun in his hands, he will kill more people than if he had a knife or a rock.

Dunno about that actually. Guns make loud noises and scare people. Stabbing is much more covert. You can get away with it in a crowd and keep stabbing.

 

[Michael88]

People die everyday but if you give people objects that the only function is to harm others, that can't be good. We have cars because we need them or we like them. I never heard of a person buying a car to kill people. :/

I have guns to defend myself, and I also like them. Is self defense less necessary or important than a car? I have friends that were assaulted and beaten into coma, also people I know were robbed on the middle of the day in their house and almost beaten to death with blunt weapons. A neighbor was killed during such robbery.

Also what an object was made for doesn't matter, the person using it matters. Shooting bows for example is an extremely popular sport for people in every age class. VERY few people have a problem with this activity, its widely accepted as fun leisure activity. Only couple of hundred years ago bows were used to inflict horrible damage to each other and were used to kill hundreds of thousands of people. This object was designed to harm and kill, yet kids and adults have fun with them and nobody cares. Because its not a gun. This tool is still perfectly capable to kill and harm very efficiently.

Also if guns were designed to kill people then I should return mine immediately because they don't work right, they only shoot paper targets.

 

[zzz_pt]

89, 97, doesn't matter. You still used the number inappropriately. This statement: "97 in 100 people have a gun in the USA" is not supported by anything and I can tell you with 100% confidence that it is fiction. It would require that everyone in the US who owned a gun only had one. I for one, own more than one, so it's an incorrect statement even if I'm the only one.



Nope! Carrying a gun means having it on your person in public. Owning a gun means, at a minimum, storing it somewhere on your property. Veeeery different terms. Carrying a gun often requires a license. In some places in the US, a license that's almost impossible to get.



I'm actually looking to acquire 1 or 2 more, as I don't have enough guns to serve all of the purposes I'd like guns for.

I have:
3x WWII rifles - Antiques that I have no ammunition for and never intend to fire
1x Black Powder Musket - I have no black powder or musket balls
1x Double barrel shotgun, approx 120 years old - I have no ammo for it and it would be dangerous to fire at this point
1x Revolver .38 special - This is a highly portable, lightweight handgun with a heavy trigger and no hammer. Excellent for carrying, firing is a very deliberate action.
1x 9mm handgun - This is mostly for target practice. Way more fun than the revolver to shoot, much more accurate.

I'd like a newer handgun for target practice and defense and a 12-guage shotgun with recoil-reducing stock, and pistol grip. The shotgun would be for home defense. The handgun just replaces the 9mm which is old. An alternative would be to yank the springs in the 9mm and recondition it, but you can never have too many guns right?

So that would put me at.. 9 guns.



Dunno about that actually. Guns make loud noises and scare people. Stabbing is much more covert. You can get away with it in a crowd and keep stabbing.

Thank you for that correction. It was a basic error from my part. But I still find 89% (per capita) an incomprehensible number number for a nation as the USA. And I don't know if this numbers include the illegal guns as well. US is part of the most advanced countries but still have some things that, in my opinion, are archaic (being this one of those things... the other major thing is death penalty).

I didn't say that carrying is the same as owning. I said that if you own you can carry it. And yes, they are diferent things but the first doesn't exclude the second.

On the last sentence I would tell you to play less Hitman Yes it was a joke. I undestand the point but people being stabbed also scream and guns can also have silencers

I have guns to defend myself, and I also like them. Is self defense less necessary or important than a car? I have friends that were assaulted and beaten into coma, also people I know were robbed on the middle of the day in their house and almost beaten to death with blunt weapons. A neighbor was killed during such robbery.

Also what an object was made for doesn't matter, the person using it matters. Shooting bows for example is an extremely popular sport for people in every age class. VERY few people have a problem with this activity, its widely accepted as fun leisure activity. Only couple of hundred years ago bows were used to inflict horrible damage to each other and were used to kill hundreds of thousands of people. This object was designed to harm and kill, yet kids and adults have fun with them and nobody cares. Because its not a gun. This tool is still perfectly capable to kill and harm very efficiently.

Also if guns were designed to kill people then I should return mine immediately because they don't work right, they only shoot paper targets.

Self defense is more important. I'm not arguing against it. If you had a not deadly weapon to use against that type of objects like baseball bats, katanas, etc, you could use it effectively without the possibility of killing the attacker. Like a gun that could fire an electric shock or an instantaneous paralysing substance.

Shotting bows don't bring any problems because no one uses them to kill other people.

For example, I'm not in favor of legal hunting of animals for sport. But that's a completely difrerent issue.

So ironic... Are you saying that fire guns weren't invented for the purpuse of wars and to kill people? Ok. They weren't invented to hunt mamoths that I'm sure off

 

[Danoff]

Thank you for that correction. It was a basic error from my part. But I still find 89% (per capita) an incomprehensible number number for a nation as the USA.

Ok, that's fine. You can dislike the number if you want, but you should be aware that a huge percentage of the US population does not own a gun.

And I don't know if this numbers include the illegal guns as well.

Probably some but not all. Some illegal guns are stolen legal ones. Most illegal guns were probably imported/created completely unregistered. Those wouldn't be traceable and reported in statistics. So I'd wager that almost all of the guns reported in that statistic are legally obtained.

US is part of the most advanced countries but still have some things that, in my opinion, are archaic (being this one of those things... the other major thing is death penalty).

I don't see self defense or the death penalty as anything but principles.

I didn't say that carrying is the same as owning. I said that if you own you can carry it. And yes, they are diferent things but the first doesn't exclude the second.

It's true, you can own a gun that you carry, but it's not always true that you can carry (legally) a gun that you own. As I explained to do so is effectively illegal in parts of the US.

On the last sentence I would tell you to play less Hitman Yes it was a joke. I undestand the point but people being stabbed also scream and guns can also have silencers

Now who needs to play less Hitman? Silencers are crazy noisy.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

@LMSCorvetteGT2 You can't demand it because this is not the only source of information. What tells you that I didn't already listen or read something on this subject? I didn't research it intensively but I'm not spewing things and inventing thoughts from scratch. And if I have time to spend elsewhere it's because there are other parts of the forum and other subjects that I'm more interested in.

What tells me this is the fact that you are using general assumption that are as bad as those who did the same thing on previous pages before you, actually I'd say they are nearly the worst yet. Then you go on to basically tell me you didn't research it. Also if you wish to partake in the current events area in any degree, you're basically telling other users that you have some knowledge, if not then why bother and basically contribute trite?

Do you want facts for prooving that millions of people are killed by illegal weapons? I don't know the exact number of course (no one knows) and I used the word millions as a hyperbole. I don't know if it is millions or tens of thousands. I know the number is high. And if you demand facts and evidence for every singe thing that people say, the discussion is pointless. There are some things that are said in context and not with the intent of being scientificaly accurate.

What do you mean no one knows? There are plenty of areas to get numbers from WHO/U.N. and such along with the national groups themselves that take this info into account such as the FBI and so on.

How is the discussion pointless if people ask in a intellectual debate for facts? And if you plan to use context like that in such a manner that doesn't show opinion then you might want to review AUP on this subject.

I feel like you're mocking me... I never said I have a solution to end illegal guns. I just think that maybe stoping producing it wouldn't be a bad idea. Or replacing it with not deadly weapons (as I've said earlier).

How am I mocking you? Because I asked you to make a solution other than saying "if we didn't make guns or have them we wouldn't have problems", okay that's great so what do you suggest, and the replacing thing doesn't do a thing so yeah...

I'd be wrong because I see the wrong statistics, news and websites? Ok. So you think that the world would be better if almost every single person had at least 1 gun (like in USA). I don't agreed but I respect your opinion.

I never said that, but funny thing is...if you read the thread you can easily find my opinion on this subject.

Also not almost every single person owns a gun this is hyperbole formulated on fear mongering and general assumption, also you not know how to read statistics.

I never said that my limitations should stop anyone to discuss or criticize my post. You're wrong. I've said that I wouldn't be able to go much further in a discussion. I'm trying to be "courteous" and spending a little bit of the time I have to reply. I spend 4 or 5x the time I would spend if I was writting in portuguese and I know that my points aren't as developed as I want because I can't find the right words. :/

You implied it, and I found nothing wrong before you mentioning it so not sure why you'd need to because the context didn't seem to be one of warning or a heads up.

The obvious statement was made because you failed to undestand it in the first place. You took my sentence out of the context so I had to made it obvious.

I didn't fail to understand you wrote a certain statement that implied something you didn't want it to imply, thus you needed to clarify. This isn't a failure on my part because I was mislead, nor is asking you to reassess failure on your part. However, stating the obvious isn't going to progress this much.

You're respecting my attempts and not saying I can't write or speak. It's true. But I feel more like you're not respecting my opinion and saying that I can't think or be coherent. Being ironic doesn't help.

How am I being ironic? Because you're conveying a tone that isn't there? Or because I'm asking you to contribute to the thread, rather than treat this as a blog or chat room where you say something and then just go? I mean this is what a forum is for, discussion and debate and what not. No where do I say you can't think or be coherent, rather I'm asking you to make a real attempt (which you are at this point) at proving your point.

I left my opinion. I'm not arguing this any further. At least for now.

So you want to leave an opinion, but not have to face the consequences of doing so, which is having to defend it...

Now who needs to play less Hitman? Silencers are crazy noisy.

And the fact that you have to have register it with the ATF and just can't go out and buy it as well.

 

[JulesJackson]

America 3 biggest enemies
1. Obama
2. Liberals
3. Israel's needs
Guns are the least of our worries.

 

[Danoff]

America 3 biggest enemies
1. Obama
2. Liberals
3. Israel's needs

 

[JulesJackson]

What are you on bout? "Guns are the least of our worries "

 

[Danoff]

What are you on bout? "Guns are the least of our worries "

You are aware that this is the "guns" thread right?