| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/12/2007 07:15:26 PM · #26 |
Originally posted by genghis:
2006 statistics:
USA population- 300,000,000
total # of murders gun/knife or otherwise: 12,658
Japan population- 127,000,000
total # of murders gun/knife or otherwise: 637 |
Again with the "entirely different societal mindset"...
You're comparing apples and Martian buffalo here. It's not even as close as apples and oranges. At least those are both fruit. |
|
|
|
03/12/2007 08:02:00 PM · #27 |
Originally posted by chimericvisions:
Originally posted by genghis:
2006 statistics:
USA population- 300,000,000
total # of murders gun/knife or otherwise: 12,658
Japan population- 127,000,000
total # of murders gun/knife or otherwise: 637 |
Again with the "entirely different societal mindset"...
You're comparing apples and Martian buffalo here. It's not even as close as apples and oranges. At least those are both fruit. |
2006 statistics:
USA population- 300,000,000
Murders by firearm 8,259
Canada population- 33,000,000
Murders by firearm 165 |
|
|
|
03/12/2007 11:05:56 PM · #28 |
Originally posted by genghis:
Originally posted by theSaj:
[quote=genghis] 1997 statistics:
USA population- 270,000,0000
Deaths by gun violence- 32,436
Japan population- 125,000,000
Deaths by gun violence- 22 |
You're point? ???
Now, let's address the above statistics. Can you also provide the number of deaths in Japan by knifing versus the number of similar deaths in the U.S. (I'll wager that there is a similar ratio.)
|
Now, that we've defined the violence levels. Let's address the motivation. Can you give me the ethnic break-down of the Japanese population?
I have a feeling that it will mainly be Japanese (perhaps some other asian ethnicities and a few european). Essentially, a very homogenous society.
Now, let's compare that to the United States of America. Which has an exceedingly high diversity of ethnicities. Now, the vast majority of the immigrant stew get along reasonably well together. But for those who do not result in a higher conflict in tensions. (ie: the fact that most gangs in U.S. cities are divided along ethnic lines)
This just demonstrates how many factors affect violence, murder, etc. |
|
|
|
03/12/2007 11:06:39 PM · #29 |
Originally posted by theSaj:
Originally posted by "fir3bird":
They come from manufacturers. So if we do away with gun manufacturers, we do away with guns. Right? Hey! Maybe we could sue them into non-existence. |
Then gun manufacturers will just move out of the U.S. Many guns are manufactured in Russia, China, and elsewhere. Not much stops them. |
Didn't read the rest of the post huh?
|
|
|
|
03/12/2007 11:24:47 PM · #30 |
Originally posted by fir3bird:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Let's here it for all the Washington DC militias who have had their rights stomped by this unfair law! |
What do militias have to do with this discussion Doc? As far as I know, there are no "citizen" militias operational in DC. For those perpetrating crime in DC, gun laws have never had any real effect. Gun control laws are almost impossible to enforce on the people who commit violent crimes. |
Because the 2nd amendement is quite open to interpretation. I choose to view it as a right to form militias, not as a right to have a gun. Regardless of whether gun control laws are enforcable or not, the citizens of Washington DC voted to have such a law. I'm disappointed in the interpretation of the 2nd amendment that prevents them from deciding such a thing.
The original comment was quite tongue-in-cheek.
I don't really need to keep arguing. Just put me and my pediatric training in the staunchly "anti-gun nut" category.
|
|
|
|
03/13/2007 12:10:06 AM · #31 |
Originally posted by fir3bird:
Originally posted by theSaj:
Originally posted by "fir3bird":
They come from manufacturers. So if we do away with gun manufacturers, we do away with guns. Right? Hey! Maybe we could sue them into non-existence. |
Then gun manufacturers will just move out of the U.S. Many guns are manufactured in Russia, China, and elsewhere. Not much stops them. |
Didn't read the rest of the post huh? |
No, was just adding to it. Some people feel that if we banned gun manufacturing here in the U.S. it would make a difference. It won't. People who want to kill will get a hold of a gun or as you said; use some other means.. |
|
|
|
03/13/2007 12:15:35 AM · #32 |
Originally posted by "DrAchoo":
Because the 2nd amendement is quite open to interpretation. I choose to view it as a right to form militias, not as a right to have a gun. |
The fact that all of the historical information and commentary of the times was regards to the individual right of gun ownership. And there was even question at the time whether to mandate and require the ownership of a gun for defense.
The fact that it was written at a time when the individual population had to rise up both against the "army" and the "militia". Makes such a view very untenable.
So much so that the Supreme Court has stated that such is not a tenable interpretation. It's nice for go happy pacifists who dream of a perfect world that doesn't exist.
That said....
We cater to criminals and their use of violence often giving criminals more rights than victims.
Second, we have nigh destroyed the concept of responsibility in this nation. This does increase the danger of tools (be it a handgun or fire).
I grew up in a household with guns. My father wouldn't even let me point a water pistol at someone because of what it represented. The teaching of respect and responsibility would do more than any gun control law ever will. |
|
|
|
03/13/2007 12:33:35 AM · #33 |
God once i got the shirt beer went up my nose... okay i lied it was Smirnoff. |
|
|
|
03/13/2007 01:09:20 AM · #34 |
Originally posted by theSaj:
The fact that all of the historical information and commentary of the times was regards to the individual right of gun ownership. And there was even question at the time whether to mandate and require the ownership of a gun for defense. |
The fact is, Jason, there are very intelligent people out there who have the opposite opinion you do. Whenever I see smart people on both sides of the argument, I know the argument is "open to interpretation". So I could care less about your "facts". It's all spin. If there really was fact, then all the smart people would be on one side now, wouldn't they?
At the end of the day, constitution or not, I believe that having millions of guns in the country is a bad thing. Just personal opinion there. The constitution is not holy, inerrant scripture. Maybe it's wrong.
|
|
|
|
03/13/2007 01:13:16 AM · #35 |
Originally posted by theSaj:
So much so that the Supreme Court has stated that such is not a tenable interpretation. It's nice for go happy pacifists who dream of a perfect world that doesn't exist.
|
I was under the distinct impression from the article that the last time the Supreme Court ruled on the 2nd amendment they considered it to be dealing with militias.
Quoting the article...
"In upholding a federal law against transporting machine guns across state lines, the justices dismissed the 2nd Amendment as being concerned only with "the preservation of â€Â¦ a well regulated militia.""
|
|
|
|
03/13/2007 01:55:15 AM · #36 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by theSaj:
So much so that the Supreme Court has stated that such is not a tenable interpretation. It's nice for go happy pacifists who dream of a perfect world that doesn't exist.
|
I was under the distinct impression from the article that the last time the Supreme Court ruled on the 2nd amendment they considered it to be dealing with militias.
Quoting the article...
"In upholding a federal law against transporting machine guns across state lines, the justices dismissed the 2nd Amendment as being concerned only with "the preservation of â€Â¦ a well regulated militia."" |
What would stop someone from forming a militia "club" just to have the right to bear arms should the SCOTUS specifically rule that only militias may own guns?
|
|
|
|
03/13/2007 02:19:39 AM · #37 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
At the end of the day, constitution or not, I believe that having millions of guns in the country is a bad thing. Just personal opinion there. The constitution is not holy, inerrant scripture. Maybe it's wrong. |
THAT statement scares me worse than any gun issues. It may also be very hypocritical if I find any of your posts complaining about the Patriot act, free speech, etc.
My feelings are somewhat mixed on this - I believe the second ammendment was written to provide citizens the ability to be prepared to protect themselves from our own government as well as from other threats. The only issue I have with it is that technically, if it was written to allow us to protect ourselves against our government, our militias should be allowed to have equal firepower to that of our military - not likely gonna happen and probably a good thing - BUT - if something does happen and our government goes completely wacko or collapses altogether, I for one do not want to be left defenseless.
Like I said, naive statements about how unimportant the 2nd amendment is, is more dangerous than the guns themselves, IMO.
|
|
|
|
03/13/2007 02:48:57 AM · #38 |
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
if something does happen and our government goes completely wacko or collapses altogether, I for one do not want to be left defenseless. |
they'd still own our asses with their superior gears like tanks, rockets and bazookas, but a good point to ponder nonetheless, Ken. |
|
|
|
03/13/2007 03:18:50 AM · #39 |
Originally posted by crayon:
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
if something does happen and our government goes completely wacko or collapses altogether, I for one do not want to be left defenseless. |
they'd still own our asses with their superior gears like tanks, rockets and bazookas, but a good point to ponder nonetheless, Ken. |
I guess you haven't seen Art's new Torch Technology he's been working on?
|
|
|
|
03/13/2007 07:27:32 AM · #40 |
Originally posted by dickwilhelm:
I suggest that those who really think they have a right to guns unconditionally should have them. As the statistics show, they (and unfortunately some innocents) will, over time, be flushed from the gene pool. |
This makes as much sense as abortion and Liberals? But abortion kills more humans than guns. Kind of a pointless argument to me.
Message edited by author 2007-03-13 07:27:58. |
|
|
|
03/13/2007 09:45:52 AM · #41 |
consider this comparison
Doctors Cause Deaths |
|
|
|
03/13/2007 09:59:26 AM · #42 |
| my take on gun control: After you show me that you took the guns away from all the bad guys (AKA gun control) we can discuss taking my guns. |
|
|
|
03/13/2007 10:12:54 AM · #43 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by theSaj:
So much so that the Supreme Court has stated that such is not a tenable interpretation. It's nice for go happy pacifists who dream of a perfect world that doesn't exist.
|
I was under the distinct impression from the article that the last time the Supreme Court ruled on the 2nd amendment they considered it to be dealing with militias.
Quoting the article...
"In upholding a federal law against transporting machine guns across state lines, the justices dismissed the 2nd Amendment as being concerned only with "the preservation of â€Â¦ a well regulated militia."" |
What would stop someone from forming a militia "club" just to have the right to bear arms should the SCOTUS specifically rule that only militias may own guns? |
Four words: Michigan Militia, Oklahoma City |
|
|
|
03/13/2007 10:18:31 AM · #44 |
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
At the end of the day, constitution or not, I believe that having millions of guns in the country is a bad thing. Just personal opinion there. The constitution is not holy, inerrant scripture. Maybe it's wrong. |
THAT statement scares me worse than any gun issues. It may also be very hypocritical if I find any of your posts complaining about the Patriot act, free speech, etc.
My feelings are somewhat mixed on this - I believe the second ammendment was written to provide citizens the ability to be prepared to protect themselves from our own government as well as from other threats. The only issue I have with it is that technically, if it was written to allow us to protect ourselves against our government, our militias should be allowed to have equal firepower to that of our military - not likely gonna happen and probably a good thing - BUT - if something does happen and our government goes completely wacko or collapses altogether, I for one do not want to be left defenseless.
Like I said, naive statements about how unimportant the 2nd amendment is, is more dangerous than the guns themselves, IMO. |
If Dr. Achoo was wrong about the Constitution, then why are there amendments in the first place? If you would then presume that the amendments are themselves perfect, let me remind you of the 18th and 21st amendments, distinct evidence to the contrary. |
|
|
|
03/13/2007 10:23:37 AM · #45 |
Those that do not want to own personal firearms, should not own them - unlike some scandinavian countries that mandate ownership. Those that do want to own personal firearms, should be able to, unlike some european countries that prohibit it.
However, those that believe that their personal safety from crime is the responsibility of the government or its agencies (read local police), should become familiar with various court rulings that specifically state the opposite.
For anyone choosing to be armed, then all associated responsibilities go with that decision, including proper training and adequate storage. Familiarization with "use of force" law should be mandatory.
That simple fact that there are today hundreds of thousands of legally armed civilians without the "mayhem" predicted by the "sky is falling crowd" is testament to the understanding of one's responsibilities when choosing to be armed. The balance of society (meaning those choosing not to be armed) benefit from those who choose to be, as the criminals must "guess" who is and who is not. Body language speaks volumes to predators during their targeting and selection process. Awareness is the single most important key to maintaining one's personal security.
|
|
|
|
03/13/2007 10:52:55 AM · #46 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Those that do not want to own personal firearms, should not own them - unlike some scandinavian countries that mandate ownership. Those that do want to own personal firearms, should be able to, unlike some european countries that prohibit it.
However, those that believe that their personal safety from crime is the responsibility of the government or its agencies (read local police), should become familiar with various court rulings that specifically state the opposite.
For anyone choosing to be armed, then all associated responsibilities go with that decision, including proper training and adequate storage. Familiarization with "use of force" law should be mandatory.
That simple fact that there are today hundreds of thousands of legally armed civilians without the "mayhem" predicted by the "sky is falling crowd" is testament to the understanding of one's responsibilities when choosing to be armed. The balance of society (meaning those choosing not to be armed) benefit from those who choose to be, as the criminals must "guess" who is and who is not. Body language speaks volumes to predators during their targeting and selection process. Awareness is the single most important key to maintaining one's personal security. |
I agree.
I'd like to emphasize the training and understanding laws around self defense. If someone should choose to have a firearm for defense, it is essential that they are totally practiced in it's operation, specifically in terms of using it in self defense. Are they really prepared to arm themselves and kill another human being? If the answer is the slightest bit negative, then they really should reconsider.
They also need to understand that in many (most?) states, you must literally have no option to retreat before legally using lethal force in self-defense. In other words, you're legally obligated to run and hide first. If you shoot the guy breaking into your car out in the driveway, or possibly even if he's ransacking your house downstairs (assuming that you and your family are safe upstairs) and the police/DA are in a cranky mood, you could find yourself in court on manslaughter or murder charges. |
|
|
|
03/13/2007 10:58:51 AM · #47 |
Originally posted by Flash:
That simple fact that there are today hundreds of thousands of legally armed civilians without the "mayhem" predicted by the "sky is falling crowd" is testament to the understanding of one's responsibilities when choosing to be armed. |
Similarly, the fact that most of the world lives in a society where private gun ownership is prohibited or strictly limited without mayhem or a crime wave is testament to the fact that there are other ways of maintaining social order and controlling crime than arming the populace.
As has been said, most of the countries with high gun ownership in Europe do not suffer the issues that the US does - though not for the reasons that theSaj posits. There are a lot of immigrants throughout Europe - and it is hard to see how Mexicans in the US cause a higher gun-death toll in the US than occurs in Mexico. The reason is that most high-gun ownership countries have high gun ownership but low gun-criminality because they have compulsory military service for everyone and some keep their ex-soldiers armed as a territorial force (eg the Swiss). Soldiers are taught about what weapons ownership means - like Flash said, understanding your responsibilities if armed is key.
I don't know what the answer is for the US - guns are so freely available, it is hard to see what steps could convincingly be taken to limit gun culture. However, I think that a society with a more relaxed gun culture, where personal safety depended upon being armed, would be a fairly unpleasant place to live - I would find increased restriction of gun ownership very muh more attractive a proposition. It is up to Americans to decide whether they want to face the threat of gun violence, and be armed to oppose it, or to figure out some way so that the threat does not arise.
|
|
|
|
03/13/2007 11:44:36 AM · #48 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
If Dr. Achoo was wrong about the Constitution, then why are there amendments in the first place? If you would then presume that the amendments are themselves perfect, let me remind you of the 18th and 21st amendments, distinct evidence to the contrary. |
Notice, however, that all of the amendments excepting those two have been aimed at the clarification or expansion of existing clauses, or establishment of new rights, not using the constitution as the application of law to reduce them.
I will not go so far as to say the constitution is infallible, as it obviously contains omissions, but it is a holy document, of sorts, in that its entire purpose is to prevent the government from taking away rights that were considered by the "founding fathers" to be "god given".
My interpretation of the second amendment (like many) is that the literal wording is only part of it. The intent behind the amendment was that the people be able to protect themselves from each other and from the government as a whole. I believe that preventing private citizens from owning firearms is an infringement upon that amendment because it prevents both of those goals.
There are obviously issues with guns in the US, however those issues are not with the private citizen's ownership more than 99% of the time. They are with criminal organizations and individuals who flaunt the law to begin with. |
|
|
|
03/13/2007 11:59:54 AM · #49 |
| .....and futhermore, at no time did the founding farhers attempt to take the guns out of the hands of the citizens. It is obvious that was never their intent. |
|
|
|
03/13/2007 12:24:51 PM · #50 |
Originally posted by theSaj:
... I grew up in a household with guns. My father wouldn't even let me point a water pistol at someone because of what it represented. The teaching of respect and responsibility would do more than any gun control law ever will. |
Well said.
I'm curious, in some of the other places/countries mentioned, is violence in movies and computer games as popular as it is here in the U.S.? Are there tighter restrictions on distribution of violent materials (movies, games)? Just seems that the culture now is SO saturated with violence everywhere you look, and it's POPULAR. :/ |
|
