what motivates a man to be anti-gun?

[DOMS]

I think what most people don't realize is that IF they ever succeed in banning guns, it is only the first right we are going to loose. The government can then tell us what to do in every aspect of our lives and we can do nothing about it.

Which is why the right to own a gun (and not limited in any way) was put into the Constitution. They Constitution's primary purpose is to protect the citizens from the government.

The founders of our country were against a large government. Kind of sad how things have turned out and how that document has been abused.

 

[ALBOB]

http://www.mrarms.com/colors.html

Daaaaaayum. That's cool. And not very expensive either. I've got a couple of competitoin .45's that could use a nice refinishing.

Thanks Mista.

 

[goandykid]

I don't think anyone here has come out and said "Let's ban all guns out right." Assault rifles themselves were the hot topic.

 

[DOMS]

I don't think anyone here has come out and said "Let's ban all guns out right." Assault rifles themselves were the hot topic.

Granted, assault rifle weren't in existence when the Constitution was drafted, but the founders chose not to put any restrictions (muzzle size, number per household, etc.) on the right to bear arms.

 

[goandykid]

Granted, assault rifle weren't in existence when the Constitution was drafted, but the founders chose not to put any restrictions (muzzle size, number per household, etc.) on the right to bear arms.

True, but a lot does change in 230 years. The need to carry arms isn't as prevalent as it was then.

I have no problem with hunting or anything along those lines, but coming from DC I've seen what guns can do in the wrong hands, and w/e restrictions we have in place jsut simply aren't working. Whether they aren't being enforced or not, something needs to change.

 

[Decker]

A liberal that supports gun rights??? This might be a first.

I like the article because of its dry humor. It is a little bit demeaning, but I think that is appropriate. There are plenty of people out there who want to restrict gun liberty regardless of any impact on crime. These people, in my experience, generally don't have appreciation for the concepts which this nation was founded on, such as liberty. This is not true for all anti-gunners, but it is for a fair percentage. And for those people, I think the tone of the article is appropriate.

"A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself." - John Stuart Mill

I support the constitution including the 2nd amendment. If I were to analyze the gun rights movement I might do it this way:

It is an undeniable fact that guns make murder/aggravated assault much more feasible than any other tool. We arm our soldiers with guns and not butter knives.

There is a correlation between the US???s murder rate and firearm sales???as one increases so does the other. That is not causation though.

Annually, the method of choice for committing murder in the US is murder by handgun???about 60-70% of the total murders. Annually, firearm murders and suicides make up the same number of deaths by firearms in total.

It???s easy to see that guns make killing, for whatever reason, easier to do. Justifiable deaths (self-defense/defense of another) by handguns make up (depending on the year looked at) less than 5% or 1% of gun homicides; depending on what source you look at. It is clear that the murder numbers outstrip the justifiable homicides by over a factor of 9.

The US???s ???handgun murder rate??? per 100,000 population is 5 times higher than the next nearest country. The proportionate US household gun-ownership also dwarfs other countries.

In short, the US has the highest gun ownership and the highest gun murder rate in the world???.2nd place is not even close.

The right to own a gun, like any right, is subject to regulation; Especially in the case of such a destructive instrument. On a very fundamental level, less guns correlates with less gun related deaths. That conclusion has to be factored in with a citizen???s right to bear arms.

Aside from that, I think a more interesting discussion is about the 2nd Amendment itself. I do not believe it grants an individual the right to bear arms at all outside of a militia. Considering the full text of the 2nd Amendment, Art 1 Sec. 8 and subsequent Supreme Court Caselaw: Presser vs. Illinois, United States vs. Miller,United States v. Warin..., no individual right to bear arms exists outside of a Militia. The NRA would never sue the gov. in court on the basis of gun ownership being a fundamental individual right b/c it would lose. That's why the NRA is using an end-run through congress around the judiciary to battle any and all gun regulation.

I agree with the Supreme Court's long-standing interpretation of the Second Amendment [as set forth in the 1939 case, U.S. v. Miller] that the individual's right to bear arms applies only to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia. Except for lawful police and military purposes, the possession of weapons by individuals is not constitutionally protected. Therefore, there is no constitutional impediment to the regulation of firearms."

 

[goandykid]

I support the constitution including the 2nd amendment. If I were to analyze the gun rights movement I might do it this way:

It is an undeniable fact that guns make murder/aggravated assault much more feasible than any other tool. We arm our soldiers with guns and not butter knives.

There is a correlation between the US???s murder rate and firearm sales???as one increases so does the other. That is not causation though.

Annually, the method of choice for committing murder in the US is murder by handgun???about 60-70% of the total murders. Annually, firearm murders and suicides make up the same number of deaths by firearms in total.

It???s easy to see that guns make killing, for whatever reason, easier to do. Justifiable deaths (self-defense/defense of another) by handguns make up (depending on the year looked at) less than 5% or 1% of gun homicides; depending on what source you look at. It is clear that the murder numbers outstrip the justifiable homicides by over a factor of 9.

The US???s ???handgun murder rate??? per 100,000 population is 5 times higher than the next nearest country. The proportionate US household gun-ownership also dwarfs other countries.

In short, the US has the highest gun ownership and the highest gun murder rate in the world???.2nd place is not even close.

The right to own a gun, like any right, is subject to regulation; Especially in the case of such a destructive instrument. On a very fundamental level, less guns correlates with less gun related deaths. That conclusion has to be factored in with a citizen???s right to bear arms.

Aside from that, I think a more interesting discussion is about the 2nd Amendment itself. I do not believe it grants an individual the right to bear arms at all outside of a militia. Considering the full text of the 2nd Amendment, Art 1 Sec. 8 and subsequent Supreme Court Caselaw: Presser vs. Illinois, United States vs. Miller,United States v. Warin..., no individual right to bear arms exists outside of a Militia. The NRA would never sue the gov. in court on the basis of gun ownership being a fundamental individual right b/c it would lose. That's why the NRA is using an end-run through congress around the judiciary to battle any and all gun regulation.

I agree with the Supreme Court's long-standing interpretation of the Second Amendment [as set forth in the 1939 case, U.S. v. Miller] that the individual's right to bear arms applies only to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia. Except for lawful police and military purposes, the possession of weapons by individuals is not constitutionally protected. Therefore, there is no constitutional impediment to the regulation of firearms."

Funny, I was to post the exact same thing.

 

[DOMS]

True, but a lot does change in 230 years. The need to carry arms isn't as prevalent as it was then.

So...you think the government is better now than then?

I have no problem with hunting or anything along those lines, but coming from DC I've seen what guns can do in the wrong hands, and w/e restrictions we have in place jsut simply aren't working. Whether they aren't being enforced or not, something needs to change.

And what, pray tell, might that something be? A complete ban on all guns? More laws that can't be enforced completely in a free society?

 

[goandykid]

So...you think the government is better now than then?



And what, pray tell, might that something be? A complete ban on all guns? More laws that can't be enforced completely in a free society?

If I knew I'd be signing it into Congress right now DOMS. I don't know what the fix is, but I do know w/e we have now isn't working.

As far as the first question, I think it's less of a change in govt than it is in culture and society.

 

[DOMS]

The US???s ???handgun murder rate??? per 100,000 population is 5 times higher than the next nearest country.

This right here render the rest of your post to the level of utter shit.

I find is impossible to believe that Rwanda, though it likely has fewer guns per capita, has a lower murder rate than the US. Both in terms of per capita and absolute numbers. Hell, in just 1995, (in Rwanda) over 800,000 people were killed by small arms fire.

In 2003, according to Interpol, Columbia held the title of the highest murder rate per capita with 63 murders per 100,000 people.

So the US has the most gun owners per capita, but Columbia (who one would assume had less guns), had the highest murder rate.

Your quote is complete and utter shit. It attempts to completely mislead the reader.

 

[goandykid]

This right here render the rest of your post to the level of utter shit.

I find is impossible to believe that Rwanda, though it likely has fewer guns per capita, has a lower murder rate than the US. Both in terms of per capita and absolute numbers. Hell, in just 1995, (in Rwanda) over 800,000 people were killed by small arms fire.

In 2003, according to Interpol, Columbia held the title of the highest murder rate per capita with 63 murders per 100,000 people.

So the US has the most gun owners per capita, but Columbia (who one would assume had less guns), had the highest murder rate.

Your quote is complete and utter shit. It attempts to completely mislead the reader.

I have a hard time believing Decker jsut bullshits things like that. I see what you're saying but maybe Rwanda was not included b/c it's counted as a warzone or something, who knows.

 

[DOMS]

I have a hard time believing Decker jsut bullshits things like that.

I don't think that Decker is bullshitting (though that is a valid strategy when debating). I think he when taking in by a slickly written piece of spin.

His quote (and the one you almost used, I might add), tried to insinuate that because the US has a higher murder rate than the next highest gun owning country per capita, that we have the highest (or one of the highest) murder rates in the world and that the high murder rate can be tied to guns.

There are many more countries (with less guns) that have much higher murder rates.

That quote was an attempt at deception.

 

[goandykid]

I don't think that Decker is bullshitting (though that is a valid strategy when debating). I think he when taking in by a slickly written piece of spin.

His quote (and the one you almost used, I might add), tried to insinuate that because the US has a higher murder rate than the next highest gun owning country per capita, that we have the highest (or one of the highest) murder rates in the world and that the high murder rate can be tied to guns.

There are many more countries (with less guns) that have much higher murder rates.

That quote was an attempt at deception.

Okay, I see what you're saying, but lets try this. Don't include any third world countries.

 

[DOMS]

Okay, I see what you're saying, but lets try this. Don't include any third world countries.

When you start picking and choosing data, the results become irrelevant.

I should also note that, among first-world countries, the all (except the US) either fall under close-knit, small, countries (i.e. Sweden, Netherlands, etc.) or larger countries where the possession of hand guns are curtailed (i.e. UK, Australia, etc.). You'll not find an apples-to-apples comparison with that criteria.

 

[goandykid]

Then how come the UK is a big country w/ banned guns = a lot lower murder rate


Yet when people bring up banning or limiting guns in this thread, people say it'll just promote gun violence?

 

[Decker]

This right here render the rest of your post to the level of utter shit.

I find is impossible to believe that Rwanda, though it likely has fewer guns per capita, has a lower murder rate than the US. Both in terms of per capita and absolute numbers. Hell, in just 1995, (in Rwanda) over 800,000 people were killed by small arms fire.

In 2003, according to Interpol, Columbia held the title of the highest murder rate per capita with 63 murders per 100,000 people.

So the US has the most gun owners per capita, but Columbia (who one would assume had less guns), had the highest murder rate.

Your quote is complete and utter shit. It attempts to completely mislead the reader.

For Rwanda, you are comparing genocidal warfare to crime rates incidental to civil society. That is a mistake.

Murder rate does not equal murder by gun rate.

To quote a person I admire highly, "your quote is complete and utter shit."

 

[Decker]

I don't think that Decker is bullshitting (though that is a valid strategy when debating). I think he when taking in by a slickly written piece of spin.

His quote (and the one you almost used, I might add), tried to insinuate that because the US has a higher murder rate than the next highest gun owning country per capita, that we have the highest (or one of the highest) murder rates in the world and that the high murder rate can be tied to guns.

There are many more countries (with less guns) that have much higher murder rates.

That quote was an attempt at deception.

No, I illuminate. I try not to deceive. You mention countries with hot/cold wars and try to compare their death rates to the US. Why not try a valid comparison like the UK, Switzerland or Japan?

You won't because the murder by gun rate is significantly higher in the US.

 

[goandykid]

Then how come the UK is a big country w/ banned guns = a lot lower murder rate


Yet when people bring up banning or limiting guns in this thread, people say it'll just promote gun violence?

.

 

[DOMS]

Then how come the UK is a big country w/ banned guns = a lot lower murder rate

Good Lord...and they also don't have anywhere near the freedoms that we do in the US. A check to see how prevalent CCTV spying on the public is in the UK.

I should also note that in the UK (and many other places), they message down the murder numbers. In the US, the FBI asks that all law enforcement agencies label every homicide as a murder. In the UK, if the charge is pleaded down, they don't list it as a murder.

Many other countries also do this with the infant mortality numbers.

You have much to learn grasshopper.

Yet when people bring up banning or limiting guns in this thread, people say it'll just promote gun violence?

Some may do that, I, however, bring up the intentions of the founders and my lack of trust in my government.

But yes, if you try to curtail legal gun ownership, then the ratio of criminals guns owners to legal guns owners go down (which is bad). Our country's borders are a lot harder to patrol than the UK's.

 

[DOMS]

Then how come the UK is a big country w/ banned guns = a lot lower murder rate

I just shot that to shit.

Plus, back in 1998 (or about then) Australia banned guns. Then murder rate dropped, then proceed to go right back up as the Australians learned that, yes, you can kill someone without using a gun.

 

[goandykid]

Good Lord...and they also don't have anywhere near the freedoms that we do in the US. A check to see how prevalent CCTV spying on the public is in the UK.

I should also note that in the UK (and many other places), they message down the murder numbers. In the US, the FBI asks that all law enforcement agencies label every homicide as a murder. In the UK, if the charge is pleaded down, they don't list it as a murder.

Many other countries also do this with the infant mortality numbers.

You have much to learn grasshopper.






Some may do that, I, however, bring up the intentions of the founders and my lack of trust in my government.

But yes, if you try to curtail legal gun ownership, then the ratio of criminals guns owners to legal guns owners go down (which is bad). Our country's borders are a lot harder to patrol than the UK's.

All good point DOMS. As much as we value our set of freedoms though, would you trade your freedom to not be watched as much as the UK is(street cameras and whatnot) for a much lower murder rate.

I'm not necessarily saying I would, I'd have to think. Sounds like you got shafted though, w/ the Patriot Act. You are being watched AND our murder rate is high.

 

[Decker]

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2000/colombia/

Colombia's government is fighting a war from all sides. Besieged by two leftist rebel organizations, one of South America's oldest democracies is also being undermined by brutal right-wing paramilitary groups and powerful narcotics traffickers.

You know DOMS comparing Colombia's murder by gun rate to the US's is not only apples to oranges but underhanded. And all just to prove a point.

Shame. shame. shame.

 

[DOMS]

No, I illuminate. I try not to deceive. You mention countries with hot/cold wars and try to compare their death rates to the US. Why not try a valid comparison like the UK, Switzerland or Japan?

You won't because the murder by gun rate is significantly higher in the US.

*Bzzzzzt* Yet another incorrect response.

The UK's murder numbers are messaged. They also have far less freedoms that we do. But I suppose your okay trading freedoms for security...

Japan is unlike any other country in the world. They also enjoy less personal freedoms than we do in the US. But we've established that you're willing to trade freedoms for security.

Did you know that in Switzerland, every able-bodied man and women must spend 260 days in the military? And that nearly 7% of the population in the militia? No wonder their murder rate is so low.

 

[DOMS]

All good point DOMS. As much as we value our set of freedoms though, would you trade your freedom to not be watched as much as the UK is(street cameras and whatnot) for a much lower murder rate.

No. Not for a second. Not ever.

I'm not necessarily saying I would, I'd have to think. Sounds like you got shafted though, w/ the Patriot Act. You are being watched AND our murder rate is high.

The Patriot Act isn't as bad as some would make it out to be, but I still would rather is be retracted. In truth, the Patriot Act has had zero affect on me or anyone else I know.

 

[DOMS]

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2000/colombia/

Colombia's government is fighting a war from all sides. Besieged by two leftist rebel organizations, one of South America's oldest democracies is also being undermined by brutal right-wing paramilitary groups and powerful narcotics traffickers.

You know DOMS comparing Colombia's murder by gun rate to the US's is not only apples to oranges but underhanded. And all just to prove a point.

Shame. shame. shame.

My point was that they have less guns but more murder. That's pretty straight forward to the able-minded.

You don't need guns to have a lot of murders.

 

[DOMS]

Oh, and Mexico also has less guns but more murders. Are they in a war from all sides too?

 

[DOMS]

 

[goandykid]

*Bzzzzzt* Yet another incorrect response.

The UK's murder numbers are messaged. They also have far less freedoms that we do. But I suppose your okay trading freedoms for security...

Japan is unlike any other country in the world. They also enjoy less personal freedoms than we do in the US. But we've established that you're willing to trade freedoms for security.

Did you know that in Switzerland, every able bodies man and women must spend 260 days in the military? And that nearly 7% of the population in the militia? No wonder their murder rate is so low.

If anything, that's been the conservative part's style the past couple years. I can't take a shit w/o being patted down, going through a metal detector, or hearing that the Patriot Act is using satellites to video tape my rectal release.

 

[goandykid]

Sorry my last response took so long, I was motorboating your avatar.

 

[Decker]

*Bzzzzzt* Yet another incorrect response.

The UK's murder numbers are messaged. They also have far less freedoms that we do. But I suppose your okay trading freedoms for security...

Japan is unlike any other country in the world. They also enjoy less personal freedoms than we do in the US. But we've established that you're willing to trade freedoms for security.

Did you know that in Switzerland, every able bodies man and women must spend 260 days in the military? And that nearly 7% of the population in the militia? No wonder their murder rate is so low.

The UK does have more strict gun laws than the US. Japan has no gun murder rate b/c they have no freedoms--oh that's just a joke. The Swiss have muscular gun laws just like the UK. How about: Finland, Portugal, Italy, Scotland,Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Belgium, Denmark, France, Greece, Germany, Norway, Spain......?

Or do you just choose countries with active wars as a baseline for gun murder comparison?

By the way, doesn't the UK's strong gun control laws and almost non-existent gun murder rate show that gun control does work?

I haven't decided how gun regulation would affect US gun murder rates. Frankly, I don't care at the moment but I will sometimes soon.