GUN banned no more.

[Dominus_Noctis]

posted on June 29th, 2008, 4:31 pm

Last edited by Dominus_Noctis on June 29th, 2008, 5:02 pm, edited 1 time in total.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Sorry, that is hardly clear. We DO NOT HAVE a militia. We have a standing army, which we did not have when the document was written. The founders made sure that their words could be interpreted in a myriad of ways, so that progress could be made. In fact, if you carefully read the explanations that our so-called "fore-fathers" wrote about the freedom to carry weapons; it was to protect against the tyranny of the government... and no one ever mentioned defense against other people.

The "arms race", as you put it, is already occuring. Police units in the US are commonly equipped with assault rifles and the ilk, to deal with the bigger calibre weapons the crooks carry. I find it hard to believe that civilians aren't doing the same, as seems likely given the amount of recent rulings on buying assault rifles in the states. What I was saying earlier with weapons and cost, is the fact that the bigger the calibre/gun/damage-to-be-inflicted, the greater the price. If you can agree with that, than you realize their must be a hierachy in what weapons people can buy, and thus who has access to "greater" protection value. That was my point from that other post. PD himself states that he has an AK-47 for self defense. Why on earth do you need a military-grade weapon to protect yourself?

"Granted, the bigger gun is more likely to inflict a fatal wound with each hit, but if someone points any gun at you, even if its a rinky dink derringer, you're going to do what they say unless you're phenomenally stupid. I really don't understand your alarmist stance as there's no reason it can't happen right now and its very clearly not. Plus, nobody except a few radicals argues seriously for no regulation of guns. Very clearly, there has to be some reasonable, common sense regulation."

Hear in lies the problem Tiberius. You yourself acknowledge that the bigger gun causes more damage and that a larger calibre more likely causes a fatal wound. Why do you need to kill for self protection; isn't it enough to wound? Why do you need an AK-47 that shoots through people and the walls behind them when a small pistol will do just fine to stop your intruder? This is the type of escalation I am talking about. If it was just about self protection, I would expect you to buy a taser or a pellet gun that just wound, not a shotgun aimed at the head to blast their brains on the floor. That is just merely brutality. We aren't talking about self defense when we discuss buying high-calibre weapons, we are discussing revenge; making the other guy pay for entering your castle. Likewise you argue that you are going to do what someone says if they point a gun at you. So if you get pissed off at me, you are going to point your gun at me and tell me what to do? Hardly sounds like your self-protection... more like tyranny. I am not sure though what you mean when you say "it can't happen right now" ; do you mean people doing the above example or...? Sorry for the misunderstanding  Even though people will not necessarily point guns at eachother when they are mad, the possibility exists, which is why I am an alarmist. The United States is the most civilian heavily armed out of any nation in the world:    U.S. most armed country with 90 guns per 100 people
| Reuters
...and I know I cannot link the two, because that would be a causality issue... but we are also "In terms of number of murders worldwide, India is followed by Russia (28,904), Colombia (26,539), South Africa (21,995), Mexico (13,829) and the United States (12,658)" I know that we aren't the murder capital of the world... and now, even though we cannot link the two explicity, wouldn't you expect much less violence if guns helped as you say they do? (rediff.com: India is the murder capital of the world)

The other issue lies with what is considered "common sense" regulation. What regulations would you personally agree with Tiberius? I am actually interested in seeing other viewpoints, for mine is constantly changing based on the evidence.

posted on June 29th, 2008, 4:48 pm

Well we can do some thing about the "common sense" Because common sense is so rare people how have it can do big things in life whirr people how don't have it run around telling the people with common sense what to do.

Landmark education is the key to being able make your family, for work place you nabber hood, the work work.. If you take this your view of what is will not not be the same. The work that Landmark Education dose is about empowering people. With the training from the Landmark forum you will never have to worry about what is out of your control because nothing will be. If you take the Landmark forum you could change the the way people relate to weapons like guns.

posted on June 29th, 2008, 7:44 pm

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Sorry, that is hardly clear. We DO NOT HAVE a militia. We have a standing army, which we did not have when the document was written. The founders made sure that their words could be interpreted in a myriad of ways, so that progress could be made. In fact, if you carefully read the explanations that our so-called "fore-fathers" wrote about the freedom to carry weapons; it was to protect against the tyranny of the government... and no one ever mentioned defense against other people.

The "arms race", as you put it, is already occuring. Police units in the US are commonly equipped with assault rifles and the ilk, to deal with the bigger calibre weapons the crooks carry. I find it hard to believe that civilians aren't doing the same, as seems likely given the amount of recent rulings on buying assault rifles in the states. What I was saying earlier with weapons and cost, is the fact that the bigger the calibre/gun/damage-to-be-inflicted, the greater the price. If you can agree with that, than you realize their must be a hierachy in what weapons people can buy, and thus who has access to "greater" protection value. That was my point from that other post. PD himself states that he has an AK-47 for self defense. Why on earth do you need a military-grade weapon to protect yourself?

"Granted, the bigger gun is more likely to inflict a fatal wound with each hit, but if someone points any gun at you, even if its a rinky dink derringer, you're going to do what they say unless you're phenomenally stupid. I really don't understand your alarmist stance as there's no reason it can't happen right now and its very clearly not. Plus, nobody except a few radicals argues seriously for no regulation of guns. Very clearly, there has to be some reasonable, common sense regulation."

Hear in lies the problem Tiberius. You yourself acknowledge that the bigger gun causes more damage and that a larger calibre more likely causes a fatal wound. Why do you need to kill for self protection; isn't it enough to wound? Why do you need an AK-47 that shoots through people and the walls behind them when a small pistol will do just fine to stop your intruder? This is the type of escalation I am talking about. If it was just about self protection, I would expect you to buy a taser or a pellet gun that just wound, not a shotgun aimed at the head to blast their brains on the floor. That is just merely brutality. We aren't talking about self defense when we discuss buying high-calibre weapons, we are discussing revenge; making the other guy pay for entering your castle. Likewise you argue that you are going to do what someone says if they point a gun at you. So if you get pissed off at me, you are going to point your gun at me and tell me what to do? Hardly sounds like your self-protection... more like tyranny. I am not sure though what you mean when you say "it can't happen right now" ; do you mean people doing the above example or...? Sorry for the misunderstanding  Even though people will not necessarily point guns at eachother when they are mad, the possibility exists, which is why I am an alarmist. The United States is the most civilian heavily armed out of any nation in the world:     U.S. most armed country with 90 guns per 100 people
| Reuters
...and I know I cannot link the two, because that would be a causality issue... but we are also "In terms of number of murders worldwide, India is followed by Russia (28,904), Colombia (26,539), South Africa (21,995), Mexico (13,829) and the United States (12,658)" I know that we aren't the murder capital of the world... and now, even though we cannot link the two explicity, wouldn't you expect much less violence if guns helped as you say they do? (rediff.com: India is the murder capital of the world)

The other issue lies with what is considered "common sense" regulation. What regulations would you personally agree with Tiberius? I am actually interested in seeing other viewpoints, for mine is constantly changing based on the evidence.

Well played, DN.  Reading this debate has been like watching the footwork of expert duelists.

However, as Tiberius pointed out, the burden of proof is on you. 

How, exactly, can a gun ban be expected to fix the amount of violent crimes in America?

How many of these crimes actually involved guns?

How many of these guns were obtained legally, or at least in ways where a gun ban could have helped?

Most of all, how can you prove that guns used in self-defense (or the possession of guns in general) haven't already reduced the occurrence of violent crimes?

All of these questions remain unanswered, and must be addressed before your comment becomes anything more than supposition.

posted on June 29th, 2008, 8:33 pm

I agree with Red.

posted on June 29th, 2008, 9:18 pm

DN, we do have a militia.

It's called the National Guard.

Oh, and they are very well regulated

National Guard of the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

posted on June 29th, 2008, 9:57 pm

Sorry, just saw the Hulk. Tony Starks' august presence frazzled my brain.


Anyway, RedShirt makes a most excellent response to DN, who's post, while well written and based at least in part on something besides the usual anti-gun hysterics is just supposition until proof arises. Which I'm relatively certain it won't.



I do believe however, that it is not unrealistic to expect that we can all agree that everyone has a basic right to self defense and in the modern, real world, guns are an inseparable part of that right.

posted on June 29th, 2008, 10:07 pm

Guns will always be a part of modern life.  Even if private use is heavily restricted or banned, they will still find their way into the hands of determined criminals and citizens.  Moreover, I doubt you'll see the police disarming themselves anytime soon.

I, for one, have no wish to live in a society where guns are the privilege of only the government and social elite.

This is a side point only vaguely applicable, but I have several friends who own and operate handguns and rifles.  They own their weapons not to take lives, but to shoot for sport.  They are professional marksmen.

posted on June 29th, 2008, 10:52 pm

Therese no way to know that Red unless you time travail I Sherrie people living in the dark ages thought that about church controlled governments. The resin you can see that in your mind id because you relationship to what is, is so strong it blocks out possibility.

Nether do I but I would like to see guns only used for official resins.

But there are outer ways to get food now killing in that way has no use than to give one the thrill of have the ability chose if some thing lives or dies.

posted on June 29th, 2008, 11:48 pm

Well, if you look at that same Wikipedia article, the federally-controlled National Guard as we know it was officially created in 1916: note that the militia that the founding fathers were talking about is NOT at all associated with the government--as in fact that militia was designed to protect against the tyranny of the government as I had previously stated. So no, we do not have a militia per say.  

"However, as Tiberius pointed out, the burden of proof is on you.  
How, exactly, can a gun ban be expected to fix the amount of violent crimes in America?
How many of these crimes actually involved guns?
How many of these guns were obtained legally, or at least in ways where a gun ban could have helped?
Most of all, how can you prove that guns used in self-defense (or the possession of guns in general) haven't already reduced the occurrence of violent crimes?
All of these questions remain unanswered, and must be addressed before your comment becomes anything more than supposition."

Complements aside, saying that the burden of proof lies on proving that firearms are dangerous is taking the easy way out (as the opposite argument would be supposition as well then). In this case I strongly believe that the burden of proof lies on both sides as all the things that are used to justify owning firearms have not been proven either. No one ever answered the questions I postulated in either post, or attempted to retrace their steps about "what the founding fathers thought". My points have obviously been just merely ignored. All of those questions that I quoted can be turned around, yet no proof was given for those possibilities either. However for some of those questions I have facts: (DEATH BY MURDER): The majority of all violent deaths (by far) in the US are caused by firearms. I am NOT linking firearms related deaths to law on purpose, as for as long as firearms regulations differ among states, firearm usage cannot be easily regulated. All I am stating is that firearms are the main contributers to violence in this country, probably due to how easy it is to obtain them, and their lethality. This is the cause for concern. I can prove that "that guns used in self-defense (or the possession of guns in general) haven't already reduced the occurrence of violent crimes" because of their very nature, as well as what I and Tiberius stated. Tiberius says that "Granted, the bigger gun is more likely to inflict a fatal wound with each hit", and thus we conclude that guns cause violence/death, even if it is self-protection. Secondly we know that possession of guns in general has not reduced violent crimes, as firearms contribute the most to violent crime! In case you do read the entire artical, you will also find statistics for murder based on intimates, revenge, arguments and the ilk. Hardly self-protection yet again.

"Anyway, RedShirt makes a most excellent response to DN, who's post, while well written and based at least in part on something besides the usual anti-gun hysterics is just supposition until proof arises. Which I'm relatively certain it won't."

Yet again, it can just as easily be said about the "pro-gun hysterics": it is all just supposition. That doesn't make the anti-gun stance correct, it just makes the pro-gun stance equally unteniable. Proof needs to be given that guns in civilian use bring down violent crime rates and lead to less murder. From the article above however, it is clear that the presence (not the numerical increase) of firearms leads to more murder. The former statement of course invalidates itself as if one assumes NO civilians had firearms, NO deaths could be attributed to these people using firearm ... however, because civilians do have firearms, they can and do kill.  Perhaps this killing is due to self-protection, but it is still killing nonetheless, and thus proves the point that murder goes up due to firearms. Likewise we assume, as PD stated, that firearms are notoriously easy to get. Why steal them then to commit murder? Obviously then, legal guns are the most likely cause of violent crime, not illegal ones. Does that answer those questions adequately?

By the way, I never advocated a gun ban; and in fact I never stated my position on firearms other than to state that they are dangerous, they do contribute the most to violence, and that it is due to how readily accesible they are. Of course, I could then proceed logically from that point to state that I believe that heavy military grade weapons should be banned and the sale of handguts given UNIFORM regulation throughout the states. Again, no one ever answered why you need an AK-47 or an assault rifle or a nuke ( ) for self protection. Thus I reiterate that while you may claim that I need to prove (what exactly am I proving?) that firearms need better regulation to the point of being much harder to buy and use, you likewise need to prove the converse, and to tell me what their benefit is (with proof please).
[br]Posted on: June 30, 2008, 12:42:27 AM

---

Ewm, he wasn't necessarily talking about killing animals; he might have meant marksmanship on a good 'ol target. 

posted on June 30th, 2008, 1:23 am

Less guns = less guns If there are less guns there will be less for good AND bad people to use. If Less "bad people" have guns there will be less bullets fired = less death.

You need to know if guns are dangerous you kidding me right?  lol

But all fun aside, Guns are made for one purposes to think if three are more guns they wont be used to kill more is more then recluse. If people have guns they will se them many time on humans.

posted on June 30th, 2008, 2:32 am

So basically its denied that guns have a positive effect on violent crime rates and enacting legislation to remove guns from the hands of law abiding citizens will make murder/rape/violent crime in general go down?

1. The gun ban in DC was ineffective in reducing violent crime and a severe wave of violent crime occurred after the ban which was only stopped by intense law enforcement activities. Not only that, it provides a handy contrast with the states of Maryland and Virginia. Both states have easy access to firearms and neither experienced a wave of crime at the same time, despite being in the same area. The conclusion then is that he mere presence of firearms does not lead to violence.

2. John Lott's analysis in his book More Guns, Less Crime demonstrates a clear correlation between the enactment of concealed carry laws and a decrease in violent crime.

3. Laws allowing more prolific ownership of guns have appeared in numerous states since 1987 with no ill effects in any of the states and the strong suggestion of a positive effect on crime rates. Florida and Texas are both prime examples of reduced violent crime following the enactment of concealed carry laws that has been largely consistent over time.

4. Research comparing various countries' violent crime rates, murder rates, and crimes committed with weapons, have found that legal ownership of guns, including concealed carry guns, generally reduces crime rates. At worst, the prevalence of deadly weapons is irrelevant to violent crime rates, having no discernable effect on murder, rape, suicide and violent crime.


We should draw from this the following:

A. Humans are going to kill each other and the presence of firearms will not effect this tendency in any meaningful way and may actually help prevent deaths.

B. Guns being "good" or "bad" is a meaningless debate since attempts to ban them have proven ineffective. We can't do anything about it so the moral worth becomes a non-issue.

C. We should accept that guns are not to blame for society's violent ills whereas our energy would be much better spent on rebuilding destroyed social capital caused in large part by the break down of the traditional family unit.


DN, your own article points out that guns in all probability do not cause high murder or violent crime rates.

Your assertion that

they are dangerous, they do contribute the most to violence, and that it is due to how readily accesible they are

is completely unproven and unsupported by evidence you have presented and your suppositions aren't strong enough to support claiming that as a theory, much less hard fact. The only part of that sentence that is true is that they are dangerous. And since they're dangerous by design, its a completely pointless statement.





I will submit to you that there is sufficient evidence to stand behind the position that guns are not a negative force in society and good cause to believe that they're a positive force, though the later position is debatable. I stand firm in my conviction that they are not a negative force.


And the militia debate is pointless. The supreme court has explained in iron clad terms that the 2nd amendment is an individual right, not a collective one, meaning that whether or not we have a militia, who is in it and similar arguments are pointless.

posted on June 30th, 2008, 10:57 am

What good can come of this a real question? How do having guns benefit the american people?

in making money producing them ... thats your economy all basing on, producing weapons, for some bad-brained peaple thinking that they have to protect themself against thiefs with a 12mm, and those bigger ones starting whole wars, because they don't know better to do with those weapons, than killing people.

thats the ecoonomy of the great good-willing west, cool isn't it?
and if we don't start a war, we make 2 other countries fight each other and sell them our weapons ...
were the peaceful, were the democratic, were the land of the free.

free? free of freedom at best.

posted on June 30th, 2008, 11:17 am

Well a big problem is that people in this country is that people have bean sold that happiness comes from things, people, places, or time, so they buy all this useless stuff to make them saves feel good but they are disappointed at the end and resined and senacol about possibilities. 

Its relay sad and may be the undoing of all that we hold dear.

posted on June 30th, 2008, 12:21 pm

Isn't Washington DC the political capital of america? Surely its a bit risky allowing guns in that kind of environment!?

this is a very interesting debate and part of me wishes this was happening over here - the UK. There has been so many deaths lately, gang killings and the like. Its really awful but i can't help but think - is this what america was like so many years ago? Please don't think i've being racist here but before all the immigrants and such i don't think crime of this sort in the UK was so often and so brutal! I may be wrong.

I truly believe if Guns were a bigger presence in the UK the crooks wouldn't be so tough. Yeah sure they themselves would probably be armed but so would the police and the fear the crooks would have of being shot dead would be greater then the fear of going without a widescreen Hi Def tv in our cushy jails. I think Guns can be much more powerful psychologically then physically.

Whats needed is a well regulated gun society. America has this and to my knowledge has good control as well. Surely no-one can deny illegal guns are far more dangerous then legal guns.

I cannot deny Guns kill. Guns hold little bits of metal that leave the barrel at high speed and at 1 point or another will take the life of someone. But another someone pulls the trigger.


Guns don't kill people. People do.

posted on June 30th, 2008, 11:46 pm

And in the end we all must remember what we can learn from history. The great Alfred Nobel known as "the merchant of death" after his invention of dynamite (and later related military hardware) began being used for purposes of violence, in 1891 told the peace campaigner Bertha von Suttner:
"Perhaps my factories will put an end to war sooner than your congresses: on the day that two army corps can mutually annihilate each other in a second, all civilised nations will surely recoil with horror and disband their troops". 23 years later WWI had begun, the most disastrous and deadly war, on an unimaginable scale, to have ever been fought in human history up to that point ... and yet gun-advocates make the same essential claim - that having guns will bring down violence, be used for self defense... etc. Like it or not, guns are designed to kill, and will never promote good will to fellow man.