RE: Gun Control And Tragedy

RE: Gun Control And Tragedy (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

caitlyn -> RE: Gun Control And Tragedy (4/19/2007 1:09:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cloudboy I'd be more persuaded if you could make the case of guns = a safer society and if you could effectively rank the Second Amendment ahead of either the First, Fourth, or Fifth Amendments. Let's hear it....... I'm not sure how to answer this, other than pointing out that I don't have to make a case for a law that already exists. I'm one citizen with one vote. I own a gun and have a carry permit. If I'm going to be out after dark, or out in the sticks, I carry. This one citizen, with one vote, feels more safe with it, than without it. If enough single citizens with one vote, feel the same, the laws will stay the same. If not, then it will change.

Real0ne -> RE: Gun Control And Tragedy (4/19/2007 1:10:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cloudboy Afghanistan is a good example of a country dominated by guns, and I'd say it hardly qualifies as a safe place. damn straight not for an american but they feel safe with each other.

Real0ne -> RE: Gun Control And Tragedy (4/19/2007 1:11:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: popeye1250 quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver You still haven't explained why gun control in other societies mean less deaths through guns and than less gun control in America does. According to your reasoning the result should be the other way round. It appears to me that American gun culture encouages criminals to carry guns rather than discourages them. Whatever it is, the widespread access to guns and its iconic status in American culture means more gun related deaths and crimes. Meatclever, without guns there wouldn't BE a "United States!" and few people realize that!

GrizzlyBear -> RE: Gun Control And Tragedy (4/19/2007 1:12:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MellowSir ...He had sent videos etc. to NBC before he did anything, who wants to bet that NBC sat on it because they knew how much more sensational the news would be if he did snap. ... Not even NBC news would be likely to stoop that low. He mailed the videos in the hours between the first and second group of shootings. The post office clerk remembers him, since he had to look up the Zip code for Rockefeller Center. A close up of the Express Mail envelope was shown. It wasn't delivered till the next day.

cyberdude611 -> RE: Gun Control And Tragedy (4/19/2007 1:18:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver quote: ORIGINAL: cloudboy The whole viglilante motif of justice and safety is a heavily ingrained American myth. In the American gun culture, its not what guns do but its how guns make people feel. Afghanistan is a good example of a country dominated by guns, and I'd say it hardly qualifies as a safe place. Good point. Perhaps you should add Iraq cloudboy, now there is a country full of guns, it should be one of the safest countries on the planet. The truth is the US is relatively safe despite so many guns being available not because of them and without them it would be safer. Where I live, there is currently a trial going on of a teen that beat his parents to death with a baseball bat. This got no press. Now had there been a gun in the house and kid used that instead...the story would be splashed all over the papers because there is this strange belief that gun crime is so much more violent and destructive. Like I have been saying, guns are not responsible for crime. You take the gun away and you still have a very violent and dangerous person who will kill if he is determined enough...with a gun or without.

meatcleaver -> RE: Gun Control And Tragedy (4/19/2007 1:19:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne quote: ORIGINAL: popeye1250 quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver You still haven't explained why gun control in other societies mean less deaths through guns and than less gun control in America does. According to your reasoning the result should be the other way round. It appears to me that American gun culture encouages criminals to carry guns rather than discourages them. Whatever it is, the widespread access to guns and its iconic status in American culture means more gun related deaths and crimes. Meatclever, without guns there wouldn't BE a "United States!" and few people realize that! You could actually say that of many countries who have gun control. You might think the US is unique but it isn't.

bda111 -> RE: Gun Control And Tragedy (4/19/2007 1:23:07 PM)
Hey cloudboy... You say that afghanistan is a gun controlled society and hence their problems? Odd, isn't it that another country where a military firearm is mandatory in every home has virtually zero problems... you may have heard of it... Switzerland. It is not the guns, it is the culture. The average U.S. citizen is so blind to differences in world wide cultures that we barely qualify as bipeds.

SeekingMatureSub -> RE: Gun Control And Tragedy (4/19/2007 1:43:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cloudboy ...if you could effectively rank the Second Amendment ahead of either the First, Fourth, or Fifth Amendments. Let's hear it....... cloudboy, Hello. In reference to your posting quoted herein, I wanted to weigh in and interject my perspective on the rankings of the Amendments to the Constitution in light of their respective importance or relevance. I am unclear why you chose the to compare the importance of the rights to freedom of speech, the gaurantee against illegal seach and siezure, and the right to due process and safegaurd against self-incrimination to that of the right to keep and bear arms. It is my educated understanding that the United States Constitution and the Bill of Rights are more than just documents... and more than "just the law". There is no one portion, or amendment which can be exalted as more important than the others. They are links in a chain, if you will, and depend upon the longevity of each other to insure the survival of The Constitution and Bill of Rights. When the Volstead act finally succeeded in the passing of the 18th amendment (prohibition) it brought forth a much more meaningful value than the mere forboding of liquor and beer in the United States. It served as a notice the importance of weighing carefully the ratification of a bill into legislation to be part of the Bill of Rights. The 18th was, as we all know, repealed by the passing of the 21st amendment in 1933. It stands singularly as the only time in our history when one amendment was deemed as more important than the others, and then only because it became apparant the passing of the 18th was a huge mistake. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights are, according to the Supreme Court in Trope v. Dulles 1958 a living intity, ever changing and adapting to fit the needs of the American Society they serve. They evolve. They have legislation passed to further define or regualte the freedoms they represent, such as gun registration, taxation of liquor, and such. As time passes the view of the public changes with respect to what is moral, just, and acceptable to society as a whole. It is for that reason these Documents evolve, but one Amendment can never be more important than the others.

SeekingMatureSub -> RE: Gun Control And Tragedy (4/19/2007 1:54:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bda111 Hey cloudboy... You say that afghanistan is a gun controlled society and hence their problems? Odd, isn't it that another country where a military firearm is mandatory in every home has virtually zero problems... you may have heard of it... Switzerland. It is not the guns, it is the culture. The average U.S. citizen is so blind to differences in world wide cultures that we barely qualify as bipeds. I see the point bda111 makes here in the comparison of Afghanistan to Switzerland. The issue it seems we are missing here is the real underlying cause of violence in this country... and many others globally. The differences between Afghanistan and Switzerland is not their respective types of government, nor their proximity to resources, and certainly not their views on firearms. The difference that accounts for the variation in levels of v iolence is the socio-economic spectrum between the two. The United States is just as industrialized and as modern and successful as Switzerland, yet we teem with violent incidients. The difference? A different socio-economic structure. It is generalized by the Strain Theory of Criminology and may be worth the googling to anyone who is interested. Basicly, it assumes anytime you have a situation where 95% of a nation's resourses are controlled by 5% of its populus, you will note social unrest and violence. As for Afghanistan being a "safe-feeling" atmosphere, I would invite anyone who subscribes to that belief to live there for a few years and then tell me the same thing is so. It simply isn't true. Just my opinion, of course....

meatcleaver -> RE: Gun Control And Tragedy (4/19/2007 2:08:39 PM)
Switerland and Finland both have weapons at home for military reasons and both have the largest number of deaths by firearms in Europe but a valid point has been made that their fire arm deaths are less per head than the US. I have a Swiss friend who decided to live outside Switzerland until he was forty so he wouldn't have to do military service because he said he didn't want to be killed or maimed by macho cowboys playing soldiers. Swiss fatalies are still high as well as severe injury through firearms. He doesn't have a gun at home because he didn't do military service and doesn't want one in the house to put his children in danger because domestic accidents amongst children with firearms is high too.

Rule -> RE: Gun Control And Tragedy (4/19/2007 2:27:55 PM)
SMS: the large size of font that you use does not invite a reading of your posts. I am considering blocking your posts for this reason.

cloudboy -> RE: Gun Control And Tragedy (4/19/2007 2:38:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: caitlyn I don't have to make a case for a law that already exists. Artfully evasivie. The Second Amemdment only comes into play when Rule of Law and civil society have already broken down. Hence, I'd say its importance ranks pretty far behind the other Amendments. Also, one can make a rather strong case for an unarmed socieity, whereas one can't make the same kind of case for a society without a free press, freedom of religion, or due process. (Hence gun regulation to me does not represent a "shredding of the Consititution.) Libertarians often talk of a greater society with more freedom and less gov't, but they cannot point to one single country in the world that has successfully implemented an unregulated market wherein the populace as a whole benefited from it. Where is the shining example of their ideas? Where exists this great libertarian state? In the same vein, where is a peaceful, advanced nation of today wherein being armed is the the norm? How would that nation compare to the multudinous other nations like IRAQ, Afganistan, Somalia, etc. where weaponry is nothing short of being violently destabilizing? A feeling of personal need for a gun is one thing, but to dress up that longing as a fundamental freedom upon which civil liberty is maintained is a real reach in logic. Claims that an armed populace checks gov't power are also spurious. Its the historical anomaly to find a band of armed people who successfully resist the reach of a militarized, centrally controlled state. If the conflict between Gov't and the people comes down to arms, to me the battle's already been lost, and history would strongly suggest what the outcome would be.

cloudboy -> RE: Gun Control And Tragedy (4/19/2007 2:42:43 PM)
Those countries are also pretty socialist with fairly homogenous populations. If there were greater ecomomic, racial, and class divides, those weapons might amount to a powderkeg of violence.

SeekingMatureSub -> RE: Gun Control And Tragedy (4/19/2007 2:48:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Rule SMS: the large size of font that you use does not invite a reading of your posts. I am considering blocking your posts for this reason. Point taken, and understood. As a new poster I was unaware of the disdain for larger fonts... Thank you for letting me know!

meatcleaver -> RE: Gun Control And Tragedy (4/19/2007 3:13:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cloudboy Those countries are also pretty socialist with fairly homogenous populations. If there were greater ecomomic, racial, and class divides, those weapons might amount to a powderkeg of violence. A good point. Both have very low levels of immigration, almost none existant in fact and 2% according to Wikipedia for Finland but that seems high as I'm not sure I saw one none white person when I visited Helsinki two years ago and both are very affluent and far more egalitarian than the US.

Archer -> RE: Gun Control And Tragedy (4/19/2007 3:46:27 PM)
The fundamental right is self defense from both government and crime. The right to self defense is long standing in Common Law. Courts have ruled many times that the State does not have an obligation to protect you or your property as an individual. That responsibility is your own. You are awaken in the night by a criminal in your home, they are comming down the hallway headed towards your childs room, police response time is 10 minutes. You want a gun at that moment? Or would you rather risk it unarmed?

Sinergy -> RE: Gun Control And Tragedy (4/19/2007 4:02:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Archer You want a gun at that moment? Or would you rather risk it unarmed? Since you asked, I will fight with the weapons I have trained for years with. Dont take this to mean I disagree with your choice, but you did ask the question. Sinergy

RopePrincess -> RE: Gun Control And Tragedy (4/19/2007 4:09:54 PM)
Just one insane college sudent period. Maybe with a nuclear device??? Gun control is for governments. RP

GrizzlyBear -> RE: Gun Control And Tragedy (4/19/2007 4:29:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: juliaoceania ...Guns are legal in the USA. People own them. They are not kept from them, but they are restricted in certain areas. States that have less restrictive gun laws do not necessarily have less violence. Texas is the national leader in murder rates if I am not mistaken, but they have some of the most lenient gun laws. ... You are mistaken. The most recent figures (2005) are here: http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/data/table_05.html The homicide rate (murder and non-negligent manslaughter are lumped together, and do not include suicides or justifiable homicides) in Texas is not particularly high, at 6.2/100K population. These rates were fairly consisten in preceeding years, at 6.1 and 6.3 for 2003 and 2004, respectively. Those numbers are here: http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_04/offenses_reported/offense_tabulations/table_04.html This is quite similar to Illinois (6.0) and Michigan (6.1). These are slightly above the national average which is 5.6 for that year, down from a recent peak of 9.8 in 1991. Many states are higher, including California (6.9), Maryland (9.9) Missouri (6.9) Alabama (8.2) Nevada (8.5) Louisiana (9.9). Some of these states have very restrictive gun laws, some have relatively lenient ones. The highest rates are in Puerto Rico, at 19.6, and Washington DC at 35.4. Washington DC has the most restrictive gun laws in the country. The states with the least restrictive gun laws actually tend to have the lowest homicide rates. Montana (1.9), New Hampshire (1.4), North Dakota (1.1), Vermont (1.3) where no permit at all is required to carry concealed, Maine (1.4) Looking at Metropolitan Areas (including suburbs) provides some interesting insights, as does the breakdown of homicides by type of weapon. The large cities in Texas are about on par with the large cities in most states, but are somewhat short of the worst ones in the US. Greater Houston comes in at 9.1/100K, D-FW at 6.8. Baltimore is 12.7, Philly is 11.2, Memphis is 13.9, New Orleans 25.5 (for 2004, no number avail. for 2005). LA/Long beach 10.7, Detroit/Wayne Co. 19.5, Miami-Dade surprisingly at 7.1. Blacksburg VA was at 1.3 for 2005, but its a relatively small town. It will probably lead the country in 2007, if it doesn't get beat out by New Orleans. Firearms were used about as often for homicides in Texas (66% of all homicides) as in the country as a whole (68%). Louisiana, Illinois, Maryland, and California led the pack with 77%, 76, 76, and 74% respectively. No number was given for DC. The states with the highest use of firearms were not necessarily the states with the least restrictive gun laws; quite the contrary, the states with the least restrictive gun laws often had the lowest rate of usage in homicides. These would also probably be the states with highest per-capita ownership of firearms. If you want to throw statistics around to back up your arguments, be sure to use real ones from real sources, like the FBI, not biased or made-up ones from gun control organizations. I read somewhere that 55% of statistics were made up on the spot. Seems higher around here.

Pulpsmack -> RE: Gun Control And Tragedy (4/19/2007 4:41:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GrizzlyBear quote: ORIGINAL: juliaoceania ...Guns are legal in the USA. People own them. They are not kept from them, but they are restricted in certain areas. States that have less restrictive gun laws do not necessarily have less violence. Texas is the national leader in murder rates if I am not mistaken, but they have some of the most lenient gun laws. ... You are mistaken. The most recent figures (2005) are here: http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/data/table_05.html The homicide rate (murder and non-negligent manslaughter are lumped together, and do not include suicides or justifiable homicides) in Texas is not particularly high, at 6.2/100K population. These rates were fairly consisten in preceeding years, at 6.1 and 6.3 for 2003 and 2004, respectively. Those numbers are here: http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_04/offenses_reported/offense_tabulations/table_04.html This is quite similar to Illinois (6.0) and Michigan (6.1). These are slightly above the national average which is 5.6 for that year, down from a recent peak of 9.8 in 1991. Many states are higher, including California (6.9), Maryland (9.9) Missouri (6.9) Alabama (8.2) Nevada (8.5) Louisiana (9.9). Some of these states have very restrictive gun laws, some have relatively lenient ones. The highest rates are in Puerto Rico, at 19.6, and Washington DC at 35.4. Washington DC has the most restrictive gun laws in the country. The states with the least restrictive gun laws actually tend to have the lowest homicide rates. Montana (1.9), New Hampshire (1.4), North Dakota (1.1), Vermont (1.3) where no permit at all is required to carry concealed, Maine (1.4) Looking at Metropolitan Areas (including suburbs) provides some interesting insights, as does the breakdown of homicides by type of weapon. The large cities in Texas are about on par with the large cities in most states, but are somewhat short of the worst ones in the US. Greater Houston comes in at 9.1/100K, D-FW at 6.8. Baltimore is 12.7, Philly is 11.2, Memphis is 13.9, New Orleans 25.5 (for 2004, no number avail. for 2005). LA/Long beach 10.7, Detroit/Wayne Co. 19.5, Miami-Dade surprisingly at 7.1. Blacksburg VA was at 1.3 for 2005, but its a relatively small town. It will probably lead the country in 2007, if it doesn't get beat out by New Orleans. Firearms were used about as often for homicides in Texas (66% of all homicides) as in the country as a whole (68%). Louisiana, Illinois, Maryland, and California led the pack with 77%, 76, 76, and 74% respectively. No number was given for DC. The states with the highest use of firearms were not necessarily the states with the least restrictive gun laws; quite the contrary, the states with the least restrictive gun laws often had the lowest rate of usage in homicides. These would also probably be the states with highest per-capita ownership of firearms. If you want to throw statistics around to back up your arguments, be sure to use real ones from real sources, like the FBI, not biased or made-up ones from gun control organizations. I read somewhere that 55% of statistics were made up on the spot. Seems higher around here. Great post, but it's just feeding the troll.

Page: << < prev 10 11 [12] 13 14 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875