Guns

[Dotini]

Odd... one would think that the amendments to the Constintution are just the ratification of those inalienable rights and priviledges already bestowed on each of us by nature and that really we would not be changing as we know them by nature to be correct.

Right?

Not really. We fought for and made the Constitution. It is a man-made document. We wrangled over it and changed it many times in the past, and will again in the future. It is what we made to define us (not every person on the globe) as a people. We should honor it and use it every day.

Respectfully yours,
Dotini

 

[RC45]

blank post

 

[PzR Slim]

No really - more toddlers are killed every year by swimming pools than firearms. This is statistical fact. WHy are swimming pools not banned? ANy sane person can see that swimming pools are a real danger to toddlers.

Unless you are to have everyone believe you do not care that toddlers get killed by swimming pools.

Ok the 172 children under the age of 10 killed by guns in 1998 in the US is I agree a lot less than the 742 children under the age of 10 killed in swimming pool related accidents in 1997 in the US. However, both those numbers pale into insignificance next to the 29,569 people who died as a result of guns in 2004 in the US. Banning swimming pools has the potential to save the lives of 742 children in the US, whereas banning guns has the potential to save the lives of nearly 30,000 people in the US.

 

[RC45]

blank post

 

[PzR Slim]

Really? I note that not one of your statistic shows the lives saved by firearms everyday.

Robberies thwarted, assaults twarted, murders thwarted. I would post the dozens of videos of news reports on YouTube of citizens using guns for self defense against criminals illegally armed, but you can just search for them on YouTube yourself - you might learn a little along the way.

You do understand there are 300 million people residing in this country - the real incidences of violence are really limited to the innercities, much youth on youth gang violence by people who are already in illegal possession of weapons and would neither heed nor adhere to your gun ban.

They already live in cities where guns ARE banned yet they still kill each other by the dozen by the day

What your stats also dont show is how the majority if those deaths are young black men killing other young black men by gun fire (vs every other demographic) with illegal weapons. You seem to be zeroing in a social problem not a gun problem - but I won't let facts and reality get in the way of your little gun-hate fest.

Where did I say I hate guns. I own a number of shotguns that I use recreationally. I was merely providing evidence to answer a question. You then jumped all over it banging on about swimming pools. The fact still remains that the number of guns owned directly relates to the number of peoe killed by them.

 

[FoolKiller]

Ok the 172 children under the age of 10 killed by guns in 1998 in the US is I agree a lot less than the 742 children under the age of 10 killed in swimming pool related accidents in 1997 in the US. However, both those numbers pale into insignificance next to the 29,569 people who died as a result of guns in 2004 in the US. Banning swimming pools has the potential to save the lives of 742 children in the US, whereas banning guns has the potential to save the lives of nearly 30,000 people in the US.

You realy want to use that argument to justify what should and shouldn't be banned? Guns are far from the top of the list, they just cause an emotional response that makes us feel they are a huge threat.

http://drugwarfacts.org/cms/?q=node/30

(annual causes of death by cause)
Tobacco 435,000
Poor Diet and Physical Inactivity 365,000
Alcohol 85,000
Microbial Agents 75,000
Toxic Agents 55,000
Motor Vehicle Crashes 26,347
Adverse Reactions to Prescription Drugs 32,000
Suicide 30,622
Incidents Involving Firearms 29,000
Homicide 20,308
Sexual Behaviors 20,000
All Illicit Drug Use, Direct and Indirect 17,000
Non-Steroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drugs Such As Aspirin 7,600
Marijuana 0

Out of the top five, three are impossible to ban and one was attempted once, only to create a bigger problem. And one they think they can ban.

 

[Dotini]

I take it then you havent given much attention to the preamble to the Constitution or the Constintution itself.

Thanks for clarifying that

But just so as I understand, you are saying then that the only reason white people dont own black people as slaves is because the Constitution says not to... it has nothing to do with what is right or about mans freedoms.. it is ONLY because the Constitution says not to - right?

I would politely ask you not to put words in my mouth, especially inflammatory ones. It is an offense punishable by an infraction at GTP.

My intent was to address the post of PzR Slim, who posted regarding, "International Correlation between gun ownership and rates of homicide and suicide.' Professor Martin Killias, May 1993."

My response should have been phrased,

Okay, let us presume, by any rational or humane standard, guns would not be permitted, except as necessary tools for hunting and authorized law enforcement.

The best and only reason to permit guns in the US is the 2nd Amendment. We should say what we do, and do what we say.

If you don't like guns, amend the Constitution. What could be simpler?

Respectfully submitted, eager for correction,
Dotini

 

[RC45]

blank post

 

[RC45]

blank post

 

[PzR Slim]

Oohh - getting awefully defensive aren't we?

If you are such an avid gun enthusiast then youwoul dknwo that there is not evidence that banning guns saves lives.

So why provide that "evidence" unless youhad an agenda to begin with?

As far as shotguns go, yeah - I have a couple of those as well, great recreational toys.

Not defensive at all. Once again, I provided asked for evidence to show that the number of guns in circulation directly relates to the number of people killed by them. I at no point stated my opinion on whether or not they should be banned. You invented all that stuff for yourself

 

[Dotini]

We are all adults debating here - correct?

No. There are many children here. And since you have claimed your shotgun is a toy, I'll have to proceed on the basis that you are a child -or the equivalent. It would entirely unfair and beneath me to debate you. You don't even have the time or ability to spell correctly. I'm finished with you. Goodbye.

 

[RC45]

blank post

 

[RC45]

blank post

 

[PzR Slim]

Why provide flawed evidence if not to fit your POV? And decades old 'evidence' at that.

Flawed evidence? I would have thought it was common sense that the number of guns in circulation was directly linked to the number of people killed by them. Nothing flawed in that. I was providing the evidence not to help my pov but to ensure that the debate had the necessary facts so that a fair debate could be had.

 

[RC45]

blank post

 

[PzR Slim]

So you do not support any type of firearms ban then?

I would support extremely strict controls on the use and sale of firearms.

 

[RC45]

blank post

 

[PzR Slim]

See how much easier it is with full disclosure?.

You would like to effectively ban firearms by way of overtly oppressive legislation. See Chicago, New York and Washington DC for evidence of how well that works in reality.

Not co-incidentally the cities with some of the highest gun violence stats.

Funny how it works out that way, isn't it?

Putting words in peoples mouths again. Point out where I used the word ban.

 

[Vautwin]

Hmm i wonder why i typed such a big text last time? But ok everyman is free?? By nature? Really?
First u are a child, sure u have less to care about, but are u free? No there keep beein people telin you what to and not to do.
Then u grow up, now come bills taxes.... Are u free hmm dont think so.
But ok let us go back a little further. Where the caveman free? No they had a lot of fear of million things they couldnt understand, therefore chose a leader or one imposed himself. Add to that a god they needed to get over their ignorance and most very hard lives. Then ok there is a God. Result of that? Cool let us go slay the others because they worship the wrong god..... Were it the weapons kill the others?? No it was the leaders of any nature demanding of it's people to do that.
Now we talk of the abolition of Slawery. When did that been proposed by lincoln to the congress? Right after the south practically lost already, abolishing slawery never was the primary goal of the civil war.
But what did weapons, do? In some cases it helped the people that revolted to become free.
So every freedom has been fought for. Always been always will. But that again is not due to weapons but because it is human nature to impose his own will to others because you think it is the better way or simply you have a benefit from it. And you will do that until someone says stop, no further or no more.

 

[RC45]

blank post

 

[PzR Slim]

extremely strict controls on the use and sale of firearms is effectively ban.

Note how I said "effectively ban".

I also note the classic misdirection you employ in your debate style. The most oft resorted to tactic of the gun hater in retreat

Almost used as often as the "but I have a few guns so that makes me a gun lover" justification.

You either believe people are free and empowered to own and use firearms, or you don't.

There are all the laws, rules and controls needed in place to "manage the carnage" of gun ownership.

These are the same rules that make it illegal to kill people with cars, bats, chains, knives, spoons, large tree limbs, fishing rods and even rat poison.

And collectively all these other items are used to kill far more people than guns - so why the obsession with controlling guns?

Surely you really mean to control behaviour of a few - and if this is the case, why oppress the many to simply control the few?

If strict controls are an 'effective ban' how comes I have two shotguns in the gun safe at my fathers house when I live in a country that has strict gun controls? And point out the misdirecting. To begin with and throughout my time in this debate I have pointed out one thing and stuck to it, the fact that if you have more guns in circulation more people will die as a result of guns.

 

[RC45]

blank post

 

[Sam48]

To begin with and throughout my time in this debate I have pointed out one thing and stuck to it, the fact that if you have more guns in circulation more people will die as a result of guns.

That is actually incorrect. More guns in circulation means more people will likely carry a gun along with them. This then gives criminals a dis-advantage as the last thing a criminal wants is more good guys with guns around.

 

[PzR Slim]

Are your shotguns semi-automatic or single shot manual break?
Are your shotguns in your house or stored away in a vault on a special category pf property in a special location?
Can you keep them in your car?
Can you freely travel from one property to another with your shotguns in the car loaded?
Can you buy/sell your shutguns freely between other private citizens?
If so, can you do so without having to comply with arbitrary legislation?
May you use those shotguns to defend yourself?
May you use those shotguns to defend others?
May you freely purchase. store, transport and sell ammunition for your shotguns?

Or, for all intents and purposes are most people effectively banned from purchasing, owning and using shotguns by overtly oppresive legislation?

If one just cast an eye at your system only a privildged wealthy few have access to shotguns - hardly free access.



We can cover the topic of handguns at another time.

My shotguns are double shot manual break.
They are stored in my fathers house in a locked gun cabinet.
Why would I need a loaded gun in the car?
Shotguns can be bought/sold between people who own a shotgun licence.
You could use anything to defend yourself but must prove in a court of law that your actions where proportionate.
See above.
You can purchase, store and transport ammunition if you hold a shotgun licence.

Anyone can own a shotgun if they can afford it, qualify for a shotgun licence and prove they can keep it in a safe place. Hardly 'effectively banned through overtly oppressive legislation'. People in this country don't feel the need to carry a gun, it's not part of our culture. Whereas in the US you have this notion that if you are free to carry a gun you are somehow safer. The statistics do not point towards that. In fact back in 2002, forgive my outdated statistics, in the US there were 3.8 deaths attributed to guns per 100,000 people whereas in the UK there were only 0.15 deaths per 100,000 people.

 

[jswilli1]

That is actually incorrect. More guns in circulation means more people will likely carry a gun along with them. This then gives criminals a dis-advantage as the last thing a criminal wants is more good guys with guns around.

Well said! I just came from my local gun dealer and checked out the Springfield XD-40 Sub Compact. Since spring is just around the corner this little jewel should be easier to conceal than my 1911. Oh Yeah and I'm a good guy

 

[PzR Slim]

That is actually incorrect. More guns in circulation means more people will likely carry a gun along with them. This then gives criminals a dis-advantage as the last thing a criminal wants is more good guys with guns around.

Then why are there over 20 times more people killed with guns per 100,000 people in the US when compared to the UK?

 

[RC45]

blank post

 

[Azuremen]

No. There are many children here. And since you have claimed your shotgun is a toy, I'll have to proceed on the basis that you are a child -or the equivalent. It would entirely unfair and beneath me to debate you. You don't even have the time or ability to spell correctly. I'm finished with you. Goodbye.

A shotgun is a toy. I've had fun numerous times doing target shooting with one. Is is on par with calling a car a toy. Huge 3000 pound piece of metal that travels at considerable speed is just as deadly (Actually, more so) than a shotgun.

Please, Dotini, I behoove you to think a bit more before you continue with your generally inane and insulting behavior.

 

[PzR Slim]

You need to stop long enough to ask WHO is killing WHO and HOW in your stat. Context is everything. Your stat has none and is there misleading you

Really it matters who is killing who. Murder is murder surely?

Why don't you store them at your house? They are after all, your guns right? Is there a restriction on where they may be stored?

They are not stored at my house because the shoot I am a member of is a 5 minute drive from his house.

This is an example of misdirection. The question was can you - the reason is immaterial, either you may or you may not.

Yes I can, but I never would as it is dangerous.

Do you need to justify to your government all your actions/inactions and behaviours? Why would you want that?

I don't ring up the Pm when I need to go for a crap if that's what you mean. However, where potentially dangerous activities are concerned I'm happy the state likes to know what is going on.

SO you need special dispensation form the state to trade freely between individuals. Hardly free trade is it. OS the trade is oppressed by the state then.

The trade is only oppressed if they feel you are not a suitable person to own a gun.

Really? So in the UK (I assume you are in the UK) you have the legally protected ability to kill someone who invades your home? Do you not have an obligation to retreat?

Yes, if you can prove your response with any weapon was proportionate.

When last did a home owner successfully defend his life and property by killing the intruder and get off scott free?

No idea

So there is a special class of people then who may trade in this object then - only the licensed few. That is hardly "free access".

Anyone can get a licence if they can prove they have good cause.

And these qualifications can be met by anyone then? Even the poorest person in the UK? Or is this privilege reserved for the wealthy/ You know, those who can meet the arbitrary and draconian requirements.

Anyone who can afford the gun, the cabinet to keep it in and anyone who can prove to the police they have good casue.

This is by definition overtly oppressive legislation effectively banning the free ownership of shotguns.

No this is, by definition, a state ensuring that the only people who can have a gun are fit and proper and have somewhere safe to keep it. A huge leap away from oppressive.

You just proved it


I carry because I can. I am free to. In fact, I immigrated to the USA so that I could live under the protection of a Constitution that guarantees my freedoms without question. The United States exists to serve th people, not th other way round.

Do you pay tax?


So you see, the carrying of a firearm is not really about fear, but about freedom.

You think your free because you get to carry a gun. Think about all the things your prohibited from doing and then tell me your free. You guys can't even drink until your 21.



And finally we come full circle. You get to work your gun deaths number into the debate

And the number of people killed by guns in our respective countries is not suitable to a debate about guns exactly how? Oh wait, your going to start banging on about context aren't you. I would assume that most murders committed using guns are done so with illegally held guns. However, surely a criminal has a better chance of getting his hands on a gun in a country where they are freely available, than in a country where there are very strict controls.


Your stats fail to show WHO is killing WHO, WHERE they are and the legal status of the weapons used.

Inner-city gangs are killing each other with illegal weapons and these numbers are skewing the total. These people are already prevented by law from owning, possessing, discharging or using firearms, yet they still do.

So - we see yet again that those of criminal intent will do what ever they want when they want - and that the only thing gun control does is control the LAW abiding and not the criminal.

We have plenty of criminals in this country and the vast majority of those do not carry out their criminal activities using guns. Just maybe that's because guns are not so readily available in this country, whereas in yours they are two a penny.


I would love to stay and chat, but Jim Pruetts Guns and Ammo is having a bit of a post holiday sale and I would hate to miss out a chance to fill a few empty spots in the safe so i am off to enjoy my Friday afternoon.

http://houstongundealer.com/



And I'll sit back and relax safe in the knowledge that your over 20 times more likely to be **** and killed as I am

 

[ExigeEvan]

You need to stop long enough to ask WHO is killing WHO and HOW in your stat. Context is everything. Your stat has none and is there misleading you

Really it matters who is killing who. Murder is murder surely?

Murder is murder. But gun laws will not affect criminals killing criminals because these criminals won't hand in their guns just because you've made them illegal. Many of them illegally own the guns originally so why would they then comply with a new law?


I understand your view as a Britain looking into America. I've done the same for years. But the simple fact is a gun "ban" in America wouldn't work. The gun is to deep in the Amiercan culture and psyche. Unlike here in the UK where the gun was unseen by many and the right to own was thrown away like an empty crisp packet.