NationStates Jolt Archive

ok my rant, there will be cussing and probably insutls going at some one or other, if you dont like it, stop reading.....NOW










Guns need to be regulated to the safety of everyone. My favorite bullshit line from the gun nuts on the right is: if guns are regulated, it is the first step to having guns outlawed, and if guns are outlawed we have no way to protect our other rights from the government.
First off that is the most stretched slippery slope i've ever seen. letting gay people marry leads to polygamy being legal is a more sensible slippery slope than that bs. and second, the reason that that is my favourite bullshit line is that those people who argue that guns protect us from the government taking away our right blindly support the removal of those rights by their own side of the political line. they dont realise the right are the ones trying to take away everyones right, of course they support gun rights, it keeps all the idiots quiet becuase they only care about being able to carry guns, they couldnt give a damn less about what other rights they lose.


and if we look at it, the 2nd amendment protects the right to own guns because they are necesary for a well regulated militia. WELL REGULATED, the 2nd amendment protects our rights to own guns while at the same time saying in some form there should be regulation. a militia is the able bodied men of a given state who have been trained as a militia and are working for the state, there is no such thing as a private militia since a militia is a state controlled body. without any well regulated militias there is ZERO reason for the right to own a gun.
not only that but also a militia's arms consist of those common in every household, that is not heavy arms like kalishnikovs and automtic berettas and m80s and m4s and m16s and automatic shotguns. common to every household is like a revolver or .22 or some other hunting rifle. or maybe a musket. those are protected.

and gun regulation does NOT lead to gun banning, gun regulation leads to GUN REGULATION FOR FUCKS SAKE. just because we are making sure you cant go to a gun show and buy anything you want without paper work or background checks doesnt mean we are stopping you from owning a gun, GO TO A FUCKING LEGAL GUN STORE. you need to fill out the paper work and shit, you SHOULD NOT own a gun if you have certain mental illnesses, if you have been convicted of a violent crime or a crime with a gun charge added on, or if some one living in your house has one of the above. nor should you own a gun if you do not have a secure and lock and key gun cabinet or gun case in your house to store a gun and ammo in.

*not to use a Moore-ism*

Canada has more guns per capita than America. Our murder rate is considerably less....

I agree were perfectly safe here in Ireland and poiliceman on the beat dont even
carry guns Its amazing how some people think they need guns to protect themselves if its not legal for the rest of the people to have guns your average mugger isnt gonna have one and organised crime doesnt really go for houses.

In America if you carry guns in public (I imagine) you will be fine. In the UK it carries the death penalty (you can be leagally shot by the police) even if it's just a cap gun. And our murder rate is quite low.

The only regulation that guns need is that they shouldn't blow up whenever you fire them.

That's about it.

Tolerate the American's right to own a gun.

And are you sure England's violent crime rate is lower than America's?

http://www.undcp.org/pdf/crime/seventh_survey/7pc.pdf

The only regulation that guns need is that they shouldn't blow up whenever you fire them.

That's about it.

Tolerate the American's right to own a gun.

And are you sure England's violent crime rate is lower than America's?

http://www.undcp.org/pdf/crime/seventh_survey/7pc.pdf
do you even make a point i should try and debate?

In America if you carry guns in public (I imagine) you will be fine. In the UK it carries the death penalty (you can be leagally shot by the police) even if it's just a cap gun. And our murder rate is quite low.

What the hell kind of reasoning is that? If you carried a weapon in the open in the U.S., the first thing that would happen is that cops would tell you to drop it. And if you didn't comply they would then proceed to shoot the shit out of you.

Do you envision modern America as the wild west, with everybody wearing pistols on their hips and rifles across their backs?

What the hell kind of reasoning is that? If you carried a weapon in the open in the U.S., the first thing that would happen is that cops would tell you to drop it. And if you didn't comply they would then proceed to shoot the shit out of you.

Do you envision modern America as the wild west, with everybody wearing pistols on their hips and rifles across their backs?
concealed fire arm. nuff said. in many states its legal to carry a concealed fire arm

What the hell kind of reasoning is that? If you carried a weapon in the open in the U.S., the first thing that would happen is that cops would tell you to drop it. And if you didn't comply they would then proceed to shoot the shit out of you.

Do you envision modern America as the wild west, with everybody wearing pistols on their hips and rifles across their backs?
Actually, this has become a recent issue in Virginia. The police tried to arrest a bunch of guys for going into a family restaurant brandishing guns. Strangely enough, they could not arrest them, because waving guns around in Virginia is perfectly legal. Maybe that's why Richmond always seems to be the Murder Capital?

concealed fire arm. nuff said. in many states its legal to carry a concealed fire arm
Yes, and you have to go through eighty bajillion miles of red tape to get the liscence.
It is true that people carry concealed weapons anyway, but its still not legal. I bet that people carry concealed weapons in just about every country, legal or not.
I should empasise the 'Just about' here, since some nut is going to say OMG! JO R RONG! PEPLE IN (random country) DUN NT HVE GUNZ!.

Look, worry about your countries internal policies, we can debate our own. I seriously doubt that a family of hicks with three grandfathers and lots and lots of cousins is going to invade you with their deadly scatterguns of death.

EDIT:
Forgot to mention, REGULATION is fine by me, I fully support small children not being able to purchase guns, convicted felons not be able to purchase guns, that sort of thing.
What I DONT support is over-restriction, banning, that sort of thing. I dont even hunt, I enjoy target shooting, and air guns just arent the same.

In America if you carry guns in public (I imagine) you will be fine. In the UK it carries the death penalty (you can be leagally shot by the police) even if it's just a cap gun. And our murder rate is quite low.



Your rate of burglaries is much higher than the USA, as is the assault and robber rate.

You have many more "stabbings" than the USA.

Also your rape rate is about 3 times the USA.

and what the hell do you consider over restricting?

Banning certain types of firearms (Handguns, rifles, whatever, excepting military-grade weapons like assault rifles and such), making it near-immpossible to get a weapon, red-taping, the like.

You know, Kerubia has made an interesting point, and i'd like to point it out again, since it seems that no one has taken a look at it


Originally Posted by Kerubia

http://www.undcp.org/pdf/crime/seventh_survey/7pc.pdf


the link will open a page of acrobat files, and it has the crime rate statistics for every country that i could think of. Check the "Per Capita" portion, and you'll see that England's crime rate was actually higher than the US crime rate.

I lived overseas for quite a bit of my life, and there is a rather distorted view of american violence. some of the people believed that living in america was like living in constant fear of being killed, but that's really not even close to the truth- that's just how the media (yes, even most US media) portrays us.

That doesn't mean that there should be no gun regulations: i firmly believe that gun shows shouldn't be exempted from many of the regulations that they are exempt friom.

But it seems that gun control- or lack therof- is only part of the problem

I am not sure on what to think about this. I agree that there are to many gun nuts but they should be MINORLY regulated (as in you have to now how to use one to get one). I mean seriously. Guns are usually safe. I may sound crazy but in the time os the mobs (1920's) there was actually less crime. That was because everybody could have a gun and you don't now what happens. It would be like every store you rob is a gun store and everybody owns a gun. Thes eareall facts to let you know. I love guns. The feel of the trigger and then the slight kickback of a .22 Bolt action. I say that many people who say horrible things like they are weapons should learn a couple of things. First of all, everything can be a weapon. People could make mustard gas from bleach and Windex but we don't regulate those now do we. I can easily make a homade chemical grenade out of a soda can, pine needles, and poison ivy or the poison family. Anything can be dangerous. I for one think that the NRA is doing a good enough job of teaching people gun saftey and I am tired of the medias propaganda that guns kill people.

just to mention, the list is incomplete, as Brazil, and several other notoriously high murder countries are missing

Egypt has the lowest crime rate, i think.

i wonder about statistics. I bet that most statistics either ignore the per capita part, or only use the "Killed by Guns" statistic. Like england- much higher per capita murder rate, (higher than the US by the amount that the US is higher than Canada) but less violence involving guns.

Guns should be regulated, but it's only part of the problem

I am not sure on what to think about this. I agree that there are to many gun nuts but they should be MINORLY regulated (as in you have to now how to use one to get one). I mean seriously. Guns are usually safe. I may sound crazy but in the time os the mobs (1920's) there was actually less crime. That was because everybody could have a gun and you don't now what happens. It would be like every store you rob is a gun store and everybody owns a gun. Thes eareall facts to let you know. I love guns. The feel of the trigger and then the slight kickback of a .22 Bolt action. I say that many people who say horrible things like they are weapons should learn a couple of things. First of all, everything can be a weapon. People could make mustard gas from bleach and Windex but we don't regulate those now do we. I can easily make a homade chemical grenade out of a soda can, pine needles, and poison ivy or the poison family. Anything can be dangerous. I for one think that the NRA is doing a good enough job of teaching people gun saftey and I am tired of the medias propaganda that guns kill people.
and idiots shouldnt have guns, you dont get a gun. kerubia didnt make any sense so i cant insult him ,but you are OFF YOUR ROCKER, you dont even make any logical sense. you know what kills people? idiots with guns saying guns are perfectly safe and pretending every one knows how and will use a gun safely. guns dont kill people, people dont kill people, the media doesnt kill people. the NRA kills people

*not to use a Moore-ism*

Canada has more guns per capita than America. Our murder rate is considerably less....
Canada has some of the strictest gun regulations in the world. And their murder rate is very high. The rate of hot robbery (robbery while people are in their homes) is way higher. This is because the criminals know that almost certainly there will not be a weapon in the house. In America, robbers generally do not commit hot robberies because of the fear of guns in the house.

You cannot count police and military guns as guns per capita.

Also, in Switzerland, every man is required by law to have an assault weapon in their houses at all time. Required by law. Switzerlands crime rate is next to 0.

Quote: "Handgun ownership acts as a deterrent to crime. In October 1966, the Orlando police began a highly publicized program designed to train women in the use of firearms. The program was prompted by an increase in rape in the months preceding its implementation. The rape rate dropped from 34 incidents for every 100,000 inhabitants in 1966 to 4 incidents per 100,000 in 1967, even though the surrounding areas showed no drop at all. Burglary fell by 25%. No woman ever had to use her gun; the deterrent effect sufficed. Even five years later, Orlando's rape rate was 13% below the 1966 level, although the surrounding area was 308% higher.11,12 In Albuquerque, New Mexico; (13) Highland Park, Michigan;8 New Orleans, Louisiana;8 and Detroit, Michigan;8 crime rates, especially burglaries, plummeted when shopkeepers publicized their acquisition of handguns. When the city council of Kennesaw, Georgia, passed an ordinance requiring each household to keep a firearm, crime dropped 74% the following year. (14)

Surveys of convicted felons indicate that when the risk of confronting an armed victim increases, robberies are abandoned. (15) Among police officers, 90% believe that banning ownership of firearms would make ordinary citizens even more likely to be targets of armed violence. (16)

Criminals do respond to incentives. (17) When they think they will have their own actions reflected back to them, they choose cooperation instead of exploitation. The TIT FOR TAT strategy makes sure that crime doesn't pay.

Few criminals are affected by handgun bans anyway, since five-sixths of them don't purchase their guns legally. (18) Gun bans harm only the innocent."

From Dr Mary Ruwart's, "Healing Our World".

http://www.ruwart.com/Healing/chap16.html

You don't own other people and thus have no right to tell them what to do or forbid them from defending themselves.

Canada has some of the strictest gun regulations in the world. And their murder rate is very high. The rate of hot robbery (robbery while people are in their homes) is way higher. This is because the criminals know that almost certainly there will not be a weapon in the house. In America, robbers generally do not commit hot robberies because of the fear of guns in the house.

You cannot count police and military guns as guns per capita.

Also, in Switzerland, every man is required by law to have an assault weapon in their houses at all time. Required by law. Switzerlands crime rate is next to 0.
according to mr survery from the other conservative guy, that is a LIE. US has a MUCH higher robbery rate than canada

Quote: "Handgun ownership acts as a deterrent to crime. In October 1966, the Orlando police began a highly publicized program designed to train women in the use of firearms. The program was prompted by an increase in rape in the months preceding its implementation. The rape rate dropped from 34 incidents for every 100,000 inhabitants in 1966 to 4 incidents per 100,000 in 1967, even though the surrounding areas showed no drop at all. Burglary fell by 25%. No woman ever had to use her gun; the deterrent effect sufficed. Even five years later, Orlando's rape rate was 13% below the 1966 level, although the surrounding area was 308% higher.11,12 In Albuquerque, New Mexico; (13) Highland Park, Michigan;8 New Orleans, Louisiana;8 and Detroit, Michigan;8 crime rates, especially burglaries, plummeted when shopkeepers publicized their acquisition of handguns. When the city council of Kennesaw, Georgia, passed an ordinance requiring each household to keep a firearm, crime dropped 74% the following year. (14)

Surveys of convicted felons indicate that when the risk of confronting an armed victim increases, robberies are abandoned. (15) Among police officers, 90% believe that banning ownership of firearms would make ordinary citizens even more likely to be targets of armed violence. (16)

Criminals do respond to incentives. (17) When they think they will have their own actions reflected back to them, they choose cooperation instead of exploitation. The TIT FOR TAT strategy makes sure that crime doesn't pay.

Few criminals are affected by handgun bans anyway, since five-sixths of them don't purchase their guns legally. (18) Gun bans harm only the innocent."

From Dr Mary Ruwart's, "Healing Our World".

http://www.ruwart.com/Healing/chap16.html

You don't own other people and thus have no right to tell them what to do or forbid them from defending themselves.
woo woo, here comes the clue train


I NEVER SUGGESTED BANNING GUNS, i suggest regulating their distrubtion

1) no more selling guns at gun shows, unless those sales involve the required paper work and research of a legal gun store

2) NOT EVERY GOD DAMN PERSON IS TRAINED IN FIRE ARM USE. therefore you lose the regulated part, good job, thanks for providing ammo for my idiot gun

You know, Kerubia has made an interesting point, and i'd like to point it out again, since it seems that no one has taken a look at it


Originally Posted by Kerubia

http://www.undcp.org/pdf/crime/seventh_survey/7pc.pdf


the link will open a page of acrobat files, and it has the crime rate statistics for every country that i could think of. Check the "Per Capita" portion, and you'll see that England's crime rate was actually higher than the US crime rate.

I lived overseas for quite a bit of my life, and there is a rather distorted view of american violence. some of the people believed that living in america was like living in constant fear of being killed, but that's really not even close to the truth- that's just how the media (yes, even most US media) portrays us.

That doesn't mean that there should be no gun regulations: i firmly believe that gun shows shouldn't be exempted from many of the regulations that they are exempt friom.

But it seems that gun control- or lack therof- is only part of the problem

Yes lets have another look at that link.

Murders in England and wales per 100,000 people in 1999 with a firearm:1.42
Murders in The US per 100,000 people in 1999 with a firearm:2.97

So the overall crime rate is slightly higher for england and wales (approx 10,000 to US's 8000) but it seems The US has much more violent crime.

EDIT:that should be 0.12 for england and wales, not 1.42

according to mr survery from the other conservative guy, that is a LIE. US has a MUCH higher robbery rate than canada
OK, you obviously did not read my post. Let me refresh you.

rate of hot robbery (robbery while people are in their homes) is way higher
The US has a higher rate of overall robbery, but hot robbery is all but nonexistant here.

Next time, read the whole post, dont just see the words robber is higher and freak out.


EDIT: My 1600th post spent on Guns. Fine with me.

Yes lets have another look at that link.

Murders in England and wales per 100,000 people in 1999 with a firearm:1.42
Murders in The US per 100,000 people in 1999 with a firearm:2.97

So the overall crime rate is slightly higher for england and wales (approx 10,000 to US's 8000) but it seems The US has much more violent crime.

No. The US has more firearm-related murder. You understand the difference, right?

OK, you obviously did not read my post. Let me refresh you.


The US has a higher rate of overall robbery, but hot robbery is all but nonexistant here.

Next time, read the whole post, dont just see the words robber is higher and freak out.


EDIT: My 1600th post spent on Guns. Fine with me.
lets see your stats, since you are obviously hiding a nice pretty pdf like that other one some where, provide your source and evidence or i dont care because you can say whatever you want, until you prove it, logic suggests the higher total rate encompasses a higher rate of what yo uare referring to

Your rate of burglaries is much higher than the USA, as is the assault and robber rate.

You have many more "stabbings" than the USA.

Also your rape rate is about 3 times the USA.

Hmmm... the statistics are, as always, open to debate. here's a graph (http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_tot_cri_cap) showing total crimes per capita for a range of countries. The UK is 86.04 per 1000 people, the USA is 81.55 per 1000 people. Bottom of the list is Yemen, at 1.24 per 1000 people. There is an important caveat at the bottom of the chart, stating "Crime statistics are often better indicators of prevalence of law enforcement and willingness to report crime, than actual prevalence." There is also the fact that the USA has a much lower population density than the UK, which will reduce the incidence of crime in itself. The source for this and the other graphs is given as the Seventh United Nations Survey of Crime Trends and Operations of Criminal Justice Systems, covering the period 1998 - 2000.

For assaults (http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_ass_cap), the USA shows 7.70 per 1000 people, the UK 7.50 per 1000 people.

The graph for burglary (http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_bur_cap) shows the UK at 13.91 per 1000 people, and the USA at 7.23 per 1000 people.

On rape (http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_rap_cap): the USA is listed at 0.30 per 1000 people, the UK at 0.14 per 1000 people -- pretty much the reverse of the figure you quoted. What was your source?

Finally, the murder rate (http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_mur_cap) in the USA is given as 0.04 per 1000 people. The UK's stands at 0.01 per 1000 people -- a quarter of the US value.

and idiots shouldnt have guns, you dont get a gun. kerubia didnt make any sense so i cant insult him ,but you are OFF YOUR ROCKER, you dont even make any logical sense. you know what kills people? idiots with guns saying guns are perfectly safe and pretending every one knows how and will use a gun safely. guns dont kill people, people dont kill people, the media doesnt kill people. the NRA kills people


Do you even know what the NRA is. Do you know what the NRA teaches. When you go into membership training they teach you about gun safety for a whole week. Now that doesn't sound unsafe. The NRA is a great society and don't say that they kill people. They don't let murderers into their association. Also stop being so idiotic. So you say you can't insult Kerubia because he doesn't make any sense, but then you insult me because I don't make any sense. Also, the whole point of what you are saying is that guns kill people and should be regulated but up there you say that guns don't kill people. Also the NRA is a group of people so if they kill people (which they don't) then people kill people which you say they don't. Also maybe you should go back to grammar school before you start calling people idiots and crazy becaus eyou got to learn to use capital letters. I also never said that the media killed people, I said that they tell you that guns are bad which they aren't. Apparently you need to learn some things about guns and gun safety and what the NRA does before you try to argue with someone whos father is a lifetime member of the NRA. Also he served the USA for 10 years and his M16 was the only thing that would stop him from getting shot by some member of Saddams regime in Kuwait (NOTE: I am not saying that Iraqis are bad becaus ethey are not. I have tree Iraqi friends and they are great friends. Also I am not Republican nor Liberal).

No. The US has more firearm-related murder. You understand the difference, right?

Yeah, but the statistics are higher for the US in rape, major assault etc. Its just the most startling difference is in the firearm homicide stats.

Do you even know what the NRA is. Do you know what the NRA teaches. When you go into membership training they teach you about gun safety for a whole week. Now that doesn't sound unsafe. The NRA is a great society and don't say that they kill people. They don't let murderers into their association. Also stop being so idiotic. So you say you can't insult Kerubia because he doesn't make any sense, but then you insult me because I don't make any sense. Also, the whole point of what you are saying is that guns kill people and should be regulated but up there you say that guns don't kill people. Also the NRA is a group of people so if they kill people (which they don't) then people kill people which you say they don't. Also maybe you should go back to grammar school before you start calling people idiots and crazy becaus eyou got to learn to use capital letters. I also never said that the media killed people, I said that they tell you that guns are bad which they aren't. Apparently you need to learn some things about guns and gun safety and what the NRA does before you try to argue with someone whos father is a lifetime member of the NRA. Also he served the USA for 10 years and his M16 was the only thing that would stop him from getting shot by some member of Saddams regime in Kuwait (NOTE: I am not saying that Iraqis are bad becaus ethey are not. I have tree Iraqi friends and they are great friends. Also I am not Republican nor Liberal).
not everyone is part of the NRA, but the NRA wants all guns legal period, that means people not in the NRA can get the guns too. good job, your argument has holes in it.

Bans on scawy-wooking guns have done nothing to stop criminal activity.

Strict-laws for citizens purchasing firearms through a dealer have done nothing to stop criminal activity.

What the hell do you think regulation would do?

Yes lets have another look at that link.

Murders in England and wales per 100,000 people in 1999 with a firearm:1.42
Murders in The US per 100,000 people in 1999 with a firearm:2.97

So the overall crime rate is slightly higher for england and wales (approx 10,000 to US's 8000) but it seems The US has much more violent crime.

EDIT:that should be 0.12 for england and wales, not 1.42

Seriously, can someone who doesnt like gun control answer this post. If gun control doesnt work how come the US's gun murder rate is approximately 20 times that of england and wales?

And I know there are a lot of factors that go into stats like that but 20 times higher is rather a lot dont you think?

not everyone is part of the NRA, but the NRA wants all guns legal period, that means people not in the NRA can get the guns too. good job, your argument has holes in it.

No, wrong. The NRA wants all guns to be legal IF the owner of the gun would is smart enough to use it properly, their main teaching is safety. In fact, the NRA in a way is trying to increase gun laws by making it so only people who know how to use them can use them. Also, it looks like you still haven't gone back to grammar school yet. It seems you have holes in your argument you hipocrite.

Bans on scawy-wooking guns have done nothing to stop criminal activity.

Strict-laws for citizens purchasing firearms through a dealer have done nothing to stop criminal activity.

What the hell do you think regulation would do?
apparently banning guns work, gun crimes is alot lower in countries with guns banned than it is here

No, wrong. The NRA wants all guns to be legal IF the owner of the gun would is smart enough to use it properly, their main teaching is safety. In fact, the NRA in a way is trying to increase gun laws by making it so only people who know how to use them can use them. Also, it looks like you still haven't gone back to grammar school yet. It seems you have holes in your argument you hipocrit.
rofl, good job, you harass my grammar and misspell the word "hypocrite", buffoon.

in a way? thats not a definate, in what way are they trying to do it. and were that true, it would've already happened, the NRA have some of the strongest, if not the strongest, lobbying power in washington, if they wanted to make it harder to get guns for people who arn't trained or anything like i said, it would've been done last year

apparently banning guns work, gun crimes is alot lower in countries with guns banned than it is here
Don't places like Washington DC and Chicago (in the US) have much stricter gun control laws than other places, yet still have high crime rates?

Yeah, but the statistics are higher for the US in rape, major assault etc. Its just the most startling difference is in the firearm homicide stats.

I apologize. I should have checked the .pdf statistics to see if they actually matched CM's.

Here they are, for 1999:

U.S.
Rape - 32.05
Assault - 805.21
Attempted Homicide - no figure
Homicide - 4.55

England
Rape - 15.96
Assault - 833.72
Attempted Homicide - 1.42
Homicide - 1.45

U.S. has more rapes and homicides, England more assaults. Overall, about even. There are probably more crimes that go in the category of "violent crime," but I'm not sure what they are. One interesting thing I noticed was that England is experiencing an upward trend in crimes of these types, while the U.S. seems to be experiencing a downward trend (if you can tell such a thing from just two sample years). Not sure what to make of that.

First of all, I edited my mistake so I am not being a hypocrite. Also if you had noticed, the NRA did make it a bit harder to own a gun and tried to make it even harder. Too bad some of the extere right-wing nut-jobs ranted on how everyone should be able to own a gun regardless of their knowledge on how to use them.

Canada has some of the strictest gun regulations in the world. And their murder rate is very high. The rate of hot robbery (robbery while people are in their homes) is way higher. This is because the criminals know that almost certainly there will not be a weapon in the house. In America, robbers generally do not commit hot robberies because of the fear of guns in the house.

You cannot count police and military guns as guns per capita.

Also, in Switzerland, every man is required by law to have an assault weapon in their houses at all time. Required by law. Switzerlands crime rate is next to 0.

This idea about Switzerland appears to be a myth. According to the Seventh United Nations Survey of Crime Trends and Operations of Criminal Justice Systems (1998-2000) figures for murders with firearms per capita (http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_mur_wit_fir_cap), Switzerland appears at number 19 on the list. Canada stands at number 20. The USA is at number 8. The UK is at number 32.

Link (http://www.nationmaster.com/cat/Crime) to master list of crime statistics.

Seriously, can someone who doesnt like gun control answer this post. If gun control doesnt work how come the US's gun murder rate is approximately 20 times that of england and wales?

And I know there are a lot of factors that go into stats like that but 20 times higher is rather a lot dont you think?

Probably at least 20 times more guns per capita.

Well then wouldn't that be rather compelling evidence that gun control saves lives?

just to mention, the list is incomplete, as Brazil, and several other notoriously high murder countries are missing

Egypt has the lowest crime rate, i think.

i wonder about statistics. I bet that most statistics either ignore the per capita part, or only use the "Killed by Guns" statistic. Like england- much higher per capita murder rate, (higher than the US by the amount that the US is higher than Canada) but less violence involving guns.

Guns should be regulated, but it's only part of the problem


Violent Crime rates (Highest)

1) South Africa
2) Colombia
3) Brazil

That is how it was the last time I heard... I know for certain South Africa is still #1 and Colombia is still #2.


South Africa has about 1 million rapes (of which 20% are against infants and children) and over 54,000 murders per year. Over 250 police are killed in South Africa each year.

They are ranked as the most dangerous society in the world.

Well then wouldn't that be rather compelling evidence that gun control saves lives?

I think Britain is a pretty good example of the fact that people will find other ways to kill each other.

For the record, I'm in favor of sensible levels of gun control, but dead set against banning.

Hmmm... the statistics are, as always, open to debate. here's a graph (http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_tot_cri_cap) showing total crimes per capita for a range of countries. The UK is 86.04 per 1000 people, the USA is 81.55 per 1000 people. Bottom of the list is Yemen, at 1.24 per 1000 people. There is an important caveat at the bottom of the chart, stating "Crime statistics are often better indicators of prevalence of law enforcement and willingness to report crime, than actual prevalence." There is also the fact that the USA has a much lower population density than the UK, which will reduce the incidence of crime in itself. The source for this and the other graphs is given as the Seventh United Nations Survey of Crime Trends and Operations of Criminal Justice Systems, covering the period 1998 - 2000.

For assaults (http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_ass_cap), the USA shows 7.70 per 1000 people, the UK 7.50 per 1000 people.

The graph for burglary (http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_bur_cap) shows the UK at 13.91 per 1000 people, and the USA at 7.23 per 1000 people.

On rape (http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_rap_cap): the USA is listed at 0.30 per 1000 people, the UK at 0.14 per 1000 people -- pretty much the reverse of the figure you quoted. What was your source?

Finally, the murder rate (http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_mur_cap) in the USA is given as 0.04 per 1000 people. The UK's stands at 0.01 per 1000 people -- a quarter of the US value.



England makes their crime rates look much lower by only counting it as a rape or a murder, if there is a conviction. (They could plea a lesser charge, etc)

If you're dead, and you were purposefully killed, it's a murder! Whether or not they ultimately convict the man, it's a murder!

England has quite a different way of reporting crimes, so they look safer.

My sister was attacked by a would be rapist, but she carried a gun and refused to be a victim. Thanks to her actions one more dirtbag is off of the streets forever. Now if anti-concealled carry laws were on the books, she most likely would have been raped if not worse. Tell her that strict gun laws work.

Well then wouldn't that be rather compelling evidence that gun control saves lives?
only in a sensible nation, only in a sensible nation

My sister was attacked by a would be rapist, but she carried a gun and refused to be a victim. Thanks to her actions one more dirtbag is off of the streets forever. Now if anti-concealled carry laws were on the books, she most likely would have been raped if not worse. Tell her that strict gun laws work.
FOR THE LAST DAMNTIME


REGULATING GUNS IS NOT BANNING THEM

My sister was attacked by a would be rapist, but she carried a gun and refused to be a victim. Thanks to her actions one more dirtbag is off of the streets forever. Now if anti-concealled carry laws were on the books, she most likely would have been raped if not worse. Tell her that strict gun laws work.


Well this is proof gun control saves lives! It would have saved the life of the scum so he could attempt to attack more people. (Gun control advocates want to coddle the criminals, and turn us all into helpless sheep)

I say that gun control saves lives (Innocents) at the expense of rotten people (criminals) I don't give a damn if some worthless thug gets a 9mm round between the eyes for trying to rape or rob... Indeed they deserve it, you attack somebody, you'd better be ready for them to fight back.

Gun control advocates are just so upset because they are too weak and cowardly to defend themselves, they say the police will do it... The police are limited in manpower and resources, they cannot be everywhere at the same time. And they take time to respond to calls for help.

It makes gun grabbers mad to see pro-gun people who are strong and confident, willing to defend themselves and be independent.

Well this is proof gun control saves lives! It would have saved the life of the scum so he could attempt to attack more people. (Gun control advocates want to coddle the criminals, and turn us all into helpless sheep)

I say that gun control saves lives (Innocents) at the expense of rotten people (criminals) I don't give a damn if some worthless thug gets a 9mm round between the eyes for trying to rape or rob... Indeed they deserve it, you attack somebody, you'd better be ready for them to fight back.

Gun control advocates are just so upset because they are too weak and cowardly to defend themselves, they say the police will do it... The police are limited in manpower and resources, they cannot be everywhere at the same time. And they take time to respond to calls for help.

It makes gun grabbers mad to see pro-gun people who are strong and confident, willing to defend themselves and be independent.

buy a knife or a sword or something , lets make swords legal, that would make me happy and the hospitals probably and trying to rape people wouldnt go to well

FOR THE LAST DAMNTIME


REGULATING GUNS IS NOT BANNING THEM

Hey moron, where did I say anything about banning them. I said strict gun laws? As in not being able to carry a handgun in public.

England makes their crime rates look much lower by only counting it as a rape or a murder, if there is a conviction. (They could plea a lesser charge, etc)

If you're dead, and you were purposefully killed, it's a murder! Whether or not they ultimately convict the man, it's a murder!

England has quite a different way of reporting crimes, so they look safer.

OK, first off, these statistics are for the UK, not for England alone.

Secondly, neither English nor Scottish law allows plea bargaining, so your first point is invalid. In fact, since US law DOES allow plea bargaining, I'll use your point to argue that it's the USA's statistics which are probably lower than they actually are. Thanks!

Thirdly, the statistics I quoted are for "total recorded intentional homicides", whether in the USA, UK, or wherever: so, to clarify, the US intentional homicide rate per capita (http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_mur_cap) (with or without firearms, please note) is 0.04 per 1000; the UK's is 0.01 per 1000. Unless you have secret knowledge of unrecorded homicides in the UK, or are suggesting that the UK's police deliberately disguise murders as accidental death, of course. But in that case I'd really have to insist on a source. What IS your source for the figures you quoted, anyway?

buy a knife or a sword or something , lets make swords legal, that would make me happy and the hospitals probably and trying to rape people wouldnt go to well

Well it's kind of hard to use a bulky sword when someone has a knife to your jugular from behind.

and if we look at it, the 2nd amendment protects the right to own guns because they are necesary for a well regulated militia. WELL REGULATED, the 2nd amendment protects our rights to own guns while at the same time saying in some form there should be regulation.
"Well-regulated" is an archaic term referring to the upkeep of the militia. It means that members of the militia shouldn't show up for war naked and carrying a rusty pitchfork -- not that the government should be involved in controlling their firearms. One of the purposes of the "militia" referred to in the Constitution was to prevent government tyranny and overthrow a corrupt administration when necessary -- so why would the Founding Fathers delegate this responsibility to an agency controlled by the government?

a militia is the able bodied men of a given state who have been trained as a militia and are working for the state, there is no such thing as a private militia since a militia is a state controlled body.
Thomas Jefferson wrote, "For a people who are free, and who mean to remain so, a well organized and armed militia is their best security." Jefferson is not referring to an external threat here -- he's saying that an armed militia is the best defense against a tyrannical government. You are implying that this defense was intended to be controlled by that same government.

not only that but also a militia's arms consist of those common in every household, that is not heavy arms like kalishnikovs and automtic berettas and m80s and m4s and m16s and automatic shotguns. common to every household is like a revolver or .22 or some other hunting rifle. or maybe a musket. those are protected.
A militia's arms should consist of whatever is necessary to offer a reasonable resistance to a foreign or domestic military. Unfortunately, the Federal government has banned American citizens from owning these weapons, effectively violating the letter and spirit of the Second Amendment.

and gun regulation does NOT lead to gun banning, gun regulation leads to GUN REGULATION FOR FUCKS SAKE.
The argument that increased gun regulation will lead to banning weapons is not a slippery-slope. I recommend that you read up on the assault weapons ban which prevents citizens from owning many of the weapons required to establish a well-regulated militia.

In Birmingham where I grew up all police personnel on the beat in the city centre wear kevlar vests and carry MP5s and gun related crime is still on the rise. Part of the thrill of owning a gun in England is the fact that its outlawed. Its the same with drug abuse. Human nature can make the weak-willed among us want whatever we can't have. If guns were allowed then psychologically there would be less gun owners. England recently had a gun amnesty and it was a phenominal success. Peole just handed in their illegal firearms, no questions asked. Tens of thousands of illegal firearms were handed in and people left unmolested by the police. The gun laws should be revoked in England at least.

buy a knife or a sword or something , lets make swords legal, that would make me happy and the hospitals probably and trying to rape people wouldnt go to well

A sword is unwieldy in close quarters, useless without quite a bit of practice, and impossible to conceal. You can't really bluff with a knife the way you can with a gun, and a knife doesn't allow you to defend yourself very well against someone much stronger than you.

A sword is unwieldy in close quarters, useless without quite a bit of practice, and impossible to conceal. You can't really bluff with a knife the way you can with a gun, and a knife doesn't allow you to defend yourself very well against someone much stronger than you.


Yeah, but knives and swords will really impress a gang of toughs that have clubs, knives, or God forbid... Guns...

A gun in the hands of a law-abiding citizen is the only answer to a gun in the hands of a criminal.


The gun is indeed the great equalizer, it doesn't matter how strong you are, just point and pull.

Well it's kind of hard to use a bulky sword when someone has a knife to your jugular from behind.
i said knives too didnt i, shut up now thanks

The right to bear arms historically, under Anglo-American common law, having been established in the English beill of rights, but abolished in the UK (by means that are, as I understand, legal there but would be illegal in the US), has three functions, in decending order:
1) The self defence of the primary right to life.
2) The defence of the state against foreign invaders
3) The defence of the proper formulation of the state against "tyranny"

If you can come up with a regulation scheme that allows for all three, I would consider it. However, both the current UK and US schemes are anethema to the reasons for ownership of the means of power.

I myself have a gun that might be considered illegal by any police officer that happens to visit my house and it is a great security blanket. Me being paranoid and forever creating scenarios where criminals break into my house in my head the knowledge that I have this gun is of great comfort to me and I always keep its location and the location of its ammo in my head 'just in case'. Even if a person doesn't plan on using a firearm it is still a good 'security blanket' and provides a peace of mind that cannot be matched by anything. What I do envy about American rights is the fact that they can do whatever they like to people who are on their property uninvited. In England criminals can sue for damages and you can be prosecuted for assault if you punch someone who is trying to steal your TV. Its outrageous!

"Well-regulated" is an archaic term referring to the upkeep of the militia. It means that members of the militia shouldn't show up for war naked and carrying a rusty pitchfork -- not that the government should be involved in controlling their firearms. One of the purposes of the "militia" referred to in the Constitution was to prevent government tyranny and overthrow a corrupt administration when necessary -- so why would the Founding Fathers delegate this responsibility to an agency controlled by the government?
i assume you have prove for that inane assertion of the definition of regulated, and you are ONE THIRD right, at that time the federal government and state governments were seperate in their duties and abilities, the militias were STATE controlled, not federal govnerment, and were designed to protect the people and the states from government tyreanny. and also i already addressed the other reaosn that argument is hilarious bullshit


Thomas Jefferson wrote, "For a people who are free, and who mean to remain so, a well organized and armed militia is their best security." Jefferson is not referring to an external threat here -- he's saying that an armed militia is the best defense against a tyrannical government. You are implying that this defense was intended to be controlled by that same government.
well ORGANIZED and armed militia. every other bumpkin with a gun is NOT A WELL ORGANIZED MILITIA. well organized is to be a registered member of the state militia and attend and participate in training drills for. yes an armed militia would be the best defense, good job ignoring the well organized part, nice try, and no its not, since you like to recall archaic things, research state's rights, states and the federal government WERE NOT THE SAME THING, mr archaic language


A militia's arms should consist of whatever is necessary to offer a reasonable resistance to a foreign or domestic military. Unfortunately, the Federal government has banned American citizens from owning these weapons, effectively violating the letter and spirit of the Second Amendment.
wrong, a militias arms should consist of whatever is common place in the homes of the people. you dont even understand the letter and spirit of the 2nd amendment, how can you say people are violating it. and when it was written, the government and people used the same weaponry, sicne then we have developed more advanced weaponry, they are weapons of WAR, not defense or protection, they are not designed to be kept in the home in the case of an intruder, or carried on the street to defend oneself. they are designed to kill, nothing more, they are offensive weapons. an originary person should NOT own an m4 or an M16 or anything else of the like


The argument that increased gun regulation will lead to banning weapons is not a slippery-slope. I recommend that you read up on the assault weapons ban which prevents citizens from owning many of the weapons required to establish a well-regulated militia.
yes it is a slippery slope unless you are an ignorant buffoon, which you have already proven in your selective reasoning process. yes it is a slippery slope, just because guns arnt being allowed to be handed out to any half wit, such as yourself, doesnt mean they will be banned, unless all people become half wits, then they have brought it on themselves

Ok. Guns are most likely not going to be banned in America or Regulated to such an amout that it will significantly lower crime. In fact, criminals usually don't obey the law so what is stopping them from buying a gun.

Yeah, but knives and swords will really impress a gang of toughs that have clubs, knives, or God forbid... Guns...

A gun in the hands of a law-abiding citizen is the only answer to a gun in the hands of a criminal.


The gun is indeed the great equalizer, it doesn't matter how strong you are, just point and pull.
which is exactly why guns are stupid, and why havnt i ignored you yet, your another moronic right wing troll

i said knives too didnt i, shut up now thanks

What would you do if someone was attacking your loved ones (if you have any)? Call the police and wait 5-10 minutes? Come at them with a knife if they have guns? No you want to pack some heat and blow those scumbags away. Shoot and let the cops take away the scum in body bags.

which is exactly why guns are stupid, and why havnt i ignored you yet, your another moronic right wing troll

Wow you do sound like a left wing troll, mongoloid!

Ok. Guns are most likely not going to be banned in America or Regulated to such an amout that it will significantly lower crime. In fact, criminals usually don't obey the law so what is stopping them from buying a gun.
..you do realise part of the regulation would be a crackdown on how guns are sold and streamlining and tighterning the process to make it harder to commit crimes and get away with it. guns should have serial numbers or something somewhere in them and that serial number should be registered to the person ubiyng the gun, so if they resell it or some one else uses it they are held responsible, because it should be in a locked safe or cabinet

What would you do if someone was attacking your loved ones (if you have any)? Call the police and wait 5-10 minutes? Come at them with a knife if they have guns? No you want to pack some heat and blow those scumbags away. Shoot and let the cops take away the scum in body bags.
but if guns are banned it would be a low percentagre chance that they have guns. good job.

I despise American politics (British politics more so but still I hate American politics as well). Your Two party system has the whole country divided. People on the right wing use liberal as an insulting word and vice versa. Its not true that all right wingers advocate stupidly for firearms, similarly not all left wingers want to let all the criminals out of jail. You could at least pretend to get along surely?

I despise American politics (British politics more so but still I hate American politics as well). Your Two party system has the whole country divided. People on the right wing use liberal as an insulting word and vice versa. Its not true that all right wingers advocate stupidly for firearms, similarly not all left wingers want to let all the criminals out of jail. You could at least pretend to get along surely?
dont count on it, both sides are blind and polarised and refuse to listen to anything but the dribble their own side puts out for the most part

Originally Posted by MoeHoward
What would you do if someone was attacking your loved ones (if you have any)? Call the police and wait 5-10 minutes? Come at them with a knife if they have guns? No you want to pack some heat and blow those scumbags away.

I believe Chess squares is being narrow-minded here. As per my earlier point criminals aren't less likely to have guns if they are banned. Black market sales will rapidly get higher as soon as guns are banned in America (not to say that they will be, hypothetical situation). Just imagine the scenario that was was put forward yourself or if you own it remember the game Max Payne where your wife and baby girl are killed by drugged up gun brandishers.

Guns do stop crime just ask the families of those who were shot committing them! As for those who support gun control…….well…………certain people shouldn’t do drugs. Remember criminal don't play by the rules anyway.

Having read your arguments for gun control I must say on your point that gun control will reduce gun violence, thats a duh statement. On the earlier argument, it is legal for a citizen to carry a gun they own openly. I have walked around with a 1911 .45 on my hip through my home town several times. It's only illegal to discarge a gun within city limits, not to have one.
By the way, dumb liberals who attack people as "right wing trolls" when they try to have a polite disscussion like CM did really is why we are allowed to have guns. To protect our rights from the goverment. Samuel Adams, "While the legislature is in session, no mans liberty or proprety are safe" Our founders did mean for the average citizen to have the arms to fight off the goverment if it became nessicary.

i assume you have prove for that inane assertion of the definition of regulated
"Regulated" has an archaic definition "Of troops: Properly disciplined" according to the Oxford English Dictionary, and "regulated" itself can also refer to the maintainance, upkeep and proper functioning of a machine or agency.

wrong, a militias arms should consist of whatever is common place in the homes of the people. you dont even understand the letter and spirit of the 2nd amendment, how can you say people are violating it. and when it was written, the government and people used the same weaponry, sicne then we have developed more advanced weaponry, they are weapons of WAR, not defense or protection, they are not designed to be kept in the home in the case of an intruder, or carried on the street to defend oneself. they are designed to kill, nothing more, they are offensive weapons. an originary person should NOT own an m4 or an M16 or anything else of the like
The purpose of a militia is to defend the people from foreign powers or domestic tyranny. Weapons of war are necessary to perform this duty.

yes it is a slippery slope unless you are an ignorant buffoon, which you have already proven in your selective reasoning process. yes it is a slippery slope, just because guns arnt being allowed to be handed out to any half wit, such as yourself, doesnt mean they will be banned, unless all people become half wits, then they have brought it on themselves
It's not a slippery-slope, because certain firearms have already been banned as a result of increased anti-gun legislation. Moreover, you can look to other countries for examples of gun regulation eventually leading to the prohibition of common firearms. (United Kingdom, Australia.)

I'm not sure how you can continue to insist that this is a "slippery-slope" when weapon bans have been imposed in other countries as a direct result of gradually increasing legislation.

but if guns are banned it would be a low percentagre chance that they have guns. good job.


Have you ever heard of the Prohibition Act of 1920. The selling and buying of alcohol actually increased in total because everyone was trying to get it. It is like the old saying, "You always want what you can't have."

Have you ever heard of the Prohibition Act of 1920. The selling and buying of alcohol actually increased in total because everyone was trying to get it. It is like the old saying, "You always want what you can't have."

My point exactly. The speak easys of America during the period of prohibition were organised by Organised crime and determined business men. Exactly the same thing will happen if guns are banned

'If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns.' But we're talking aobut restriction here, aren't we. In that case, restricting guns will only keep them out of the hands of the people who need 'em. While I agree there needs to be a little more restriction from criminals, there should be less for everyone else.

Anyone convicted of gun-related crimes shouldn't ever be allowed to have a gun again. That's about all the regulation there needs to be. After that, we should loosen gun control a bit (besides some sort of safety training.)

I once heard a story about some city in a Southern state made it illegal for any male over 21 NOT to carry a gun in public. Supposedly crime was non-existant. But this is just a story, who knows if it's true.

As for the NRA, they SUPPORT a bit of gun control, in the sense that they support safety training for anyone with a gun.

Oh! One last thing: Guns don't kill people, people kill people.


(And as an aside, I think that swords, knives and the like should be far, far less regulated. It's easier to carry a gun around than a sword under most state law, and that's not right, imo)

"Regulated" has an archaic definition "Of troops: Properly disciplined" according to the Oxford English Dictionary, and "regulated" itself can also refer to the maintainance, upkeep and proper functioning of a machine or agency.
bingo, "of troops" it says "a well-regulated militia" i do believe a militia is a group of troops and regulated is being used as an adjective for the word militia. good job, you ignored the real definition to pretend and look more intelligent than you are, in doing so, you just look dumber with scrutiny


The purpose of a militia is to defend the people from foreign powers or domestic tyranny. Weapons of war are necessary to perform this duty.
you assume thats all the weapons will be used for. protecting against govenrment tyranny is stupid, those who argue agianst gun control blindly accept that tyranny. weapons of war are NOT needed, the army will protect us from outside interference, if you dont believe so, start a militia. until you join the state militia you dont need anythign more powerful than a hunting rifle


It's not a slippery-slope, because certain firearms have already been banned as a result of increased anti-gun legislation. Moreover, you can look to other countries for examples of gun regulation eventually leading to the prohibition of common firearms. (United Kingdom, Australia.)
yeah, lets see what guns are banned: Kalishnikov's, MAC 10s, Uzis, fully automatic beretta's, revolving chamber shotguns, M4s M16s and other guns like them, and any other guns manipulated in such a manner to be more dangerous than they are designed to be.

I'm not sure how you can continue to insist that this is a "slippery-slope" when weapon bans have been imposed in other countries as a direct result of gradually increasing legislation.
like this
IT IS A SLIPPERY SLOPE. it may or may not happen, but assuming it definately will is a slippery slope

Have you ever heard of the Prohibition Act of 1920. The selling and buying of alcohol actually increased in total because everyone was trying to get it. It is like the old saying, "You always want what you can't have."
ok then taking in the lesson of the prohibition era AND the activities of england and other gun banned societies we should regulate guns and make marijuana, cocaine, heroine, opium and other drugs legal

"I lovesss my gun Lovesss my gun"

and whats the big deal, its not guns that kill people its people that kill people.

I mean come on. shoves can kill people we should regulate thoes, or how about pie, pie can kill people we should regulate thoes. O O O and hands thoes kill people we should regulate thoes.

Your the real gun fanatic

guns arent the problem, people are

and someone said that canada had more guns, BUT not more deaths that america, canada has like 3,000, america has like 11,000

My point exactly. The speak easys of America during the period of prohibition were organised by Organised crime and determined business men. Exactly the same thing will happen if guns are banned
NO ONE IS SUGGESTING GUNS BE BANNED, READ THE ORIGINAL POST OR GO AWYA

everyone is getting off topic into their own little gun nutty fantasy world

"I lovesss my gun Lovesss my gun"

and whats the big deal, its not guns that kill people its people that kill people.

I mean come on. shoves can kill people we should regulate thoes, or how about pie, pie can kill people we should regulate thoes. O O O and hands thoes kill people we should regulate thoes.

Your the real gun fanatic

guns arent the problem, people are

and someone said that canada had more guns, BUT not more deaths that america, canada has like 3,000, america has like 11,000
guns are designed to kill things

you tell me what other activities guns are used for.

'If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns.' But we're talking aobut restriction here, aren't we. In that case, restricting guns will only keep them out of the hands of the people who need 'em. While I agree there needs to be a little more restriction from criminals, there should be less for everyone else.

Anyone convicted of gun-related crimes shouldn't ever be allowed to have a gun again. That's about all the regulation there needs to be. After that, we should loosen gun control a bit (besides some sort of safety training.)

I once heard a story about some city in a Southern state made it illegal for any male over 21 NOT to carry a gun in public. Supposedly crime was non-existant. But this is just a story, who knows if it's true.

As for the NRA, they SUPPORT a bit of gun control, in the sense that they support safety training for anyone with a gun.

Oh! One last thing: Guns don't kill people, people kill people.


(And as an aside, I think that swords, knives and the like should be far, far less regulated. It's easier to carry a gun around than a sword under most state law, and that's not right, imo)
has ANYONE read my original post? anyone at all

guns are designed to kill things

you tell me what other activities guns are used for.


Intimidation. Self-defense.

Are you saying shooting someone in self defense isn't ok? (don't rip into me, it's an honest question)

has ANYONE read my original post? anyone at all

At least I understood you didn't want to ban guns.

Intimidation. Self-defense.

Are you saying shooting someone in self defense isn't ok? (don't rip into me, it's an honest question)
listen to what i just said

guns are designed to kill, what other activities can guns be used for?


knives you can cut and chop things and slices things, you can do that with swords technically because they are blades though that isnt their designed, you will jsut ruin them, but that can be their use, axes can chop and cut things. what can guns do?

bingo, "of troops" it says "a well-regulated militia" i do believe a militia is a group of troops and regulated is being used as an adjective for the word militia. good job, you ignored the real definition to pretend and look more intelligent than you are, in doing so, you just look dumber with scrutiny
Frankly, your unfamiliarity with this issue isn't my problem, although I will attempt to resolve it for the sake of this discussion. Here are two examples of Constitutional contemporaries using the term "well-regulated" to refer to discipline and maintainance rather than government control. Any insistance that the primary modern definition of "regulation" be applied to a document written over 200 years ago is stupid, intellectually-dishonest, and will hopefully end here.

"The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, nor a week nor even a month, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry and of the other classes of the citizens to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people and a serious public inconvenience and loss." -- The Federalist Papers, No. 29.

Hamilton is using the term "well-regulated" to describe the discipline of the militia, not government regulation.

"Resolved, That this appointment be conferred on experienced and vigilant general officers, who are acquainted with whatever relates to the general economy, manoeuvres and discipline of a well regulated army." -- Journals of the Continental Congress, Saturday, December 13, 1777.

The author here is using the term "well-regulated" to describe the general upkeep of the military.

Secondly, the second amendment states:

"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."

This is very specific -- the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, and that is precisely what the government has been doing for the past thirty years.

Well going by that theory you could use to butt of a gun to tenderize meat.

NO ONE IS SUGGESTING GUNS BE BANNED, READ THE ORIGINAL POST OR GO AWYA

everyone is getting off topic into their own little gun nutty fantasy world

My post states *if* not *when*. I read your original post.

guns are designed to kill things

you tell me what other activities guns are used for.

killing people, without guns the world would be a much more horrible place, think about it we'd have to beat eachother to death, thats so barbaric

Frankly, your unfamiliarity with this issue isn't my problem, although I will attempt to resolve it for the sake of this discussion.
oh please, you are the one misinterpreteing, purposefuly, a dictionary definition


Hamilton is using the term "well-regulated" to describe the discipline of the militia, not government regulation.
discipline in and of itself is regulation. you must follow protocols and rules or are inclined to follow them through training



"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."

This is very specific -- the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, and that is precisely what the government has been doing for the past thirty years.

yes thats what it says, the right of the people to keep and bear arms will not be infringed. but lets not ignore the other HALF of the amendment

"a well regulated militia, being necesary to the security of a free state"

and no, everyone person except those who should not have them are allowed to own guns, there is no reason for an average person to own an m16 or kalishnikov, your right to own one is protected, that does not mean however, they cant regulate that in a manner they see fit, as long as it does not involve overly restricting your right to own a fire arm. seeing as how there is no need or reason to own a high powered assault rifle, restricting its ownership is not in violation of the 2nd amendment, as there are many other models of gun legal to own by the average person.

and for what purpose are these guns? to be used in a WELL REGULATED MILITIA for the protection of the state and people against tyranny by the federal government. if that is not fulfilled, for what reason is their the ownership of guns?

killing people, without guns the world would be a much more horrible place, think about it we'd have to beat eachother to death, thats so barbaric
we can always go buy a sword or 2 and stab each other

Guns are used for sport as well as killing though people who use them for sport are in the severe minority.
As for legalising drugs. People who are stupid enough to take drugs should be encouraged to. It'll take their stupid genes out of the pool.

Basically I am saying that guns should definately not be banned as that will encourage their illegal sale. They make people feel safe and can potentially save lives instead of kill people. I don't agree with people taking them out of their home but they shouldn't be banned altogether. As for restrictions we would have to decide on what restrictions we should specifically put in place or have none at all. As a Liberal Chess Squares is being far too general. Life is never that simple. It is a hell of a lot more complicated. A vote should be held by sensible people (i.e. noone that is actually in power) to make the descision on these specific restrictions.

Well going by that theory you could use to butt of a gun to tenderize meat.
not without breaking the gun or setting it off, but the but ofa gun is a horrible and dangerous meat tenderizer, a blade is designed to cut, any blade, what it cuts isnt taken into consideration in that facts. a gun is designed to shoot, not hit stuff repeatedly

Militias don't always look out for the population of their country. Look at these countries in Africa. They have militias that rape women, demand food from poor families and basically form their own tyrannical government, following orders from their corrupt ruler to arrest specific individuals but otherwise waving around their guns to get their own way.

not without breaking the gun or setting it off, but the but ofa gun is a horrible and dangerous meat tenderizer, a blade is designed to cut, any blade, what it cuts isnt taken into consideration in that facts. a gun is designed to shoot, not hit stuff repeatedly


That's not true butts of guns have been made to be used as a buldgoen weapon, espcially older ones where reloading was not as quick and the clips weren't as large. Stop making generalizations.

Guns may not be designed to hit things repeatedly. But they are good at it. Ever heard of pistol whipping someone? Its an effective way to terrorize without killing or if enough force is put into the blow a gun can be used to knock someone unconsious with only one hit.

Isn't this getting a little off topic?

Militias don't always look out for the population of their country. Look at these countries in Africa. They have militias that rape women, demand food from poor families and basically form their own tyrannical government, following orders from their corrupt ruler to arrest specific individuals but otherwise waving around their guns to get their own way.
so..? it was designed to be state run militias, thats what is supposed to be going on

England makes their crime rates look much lower by only counting it as a rape or a murder, if there is a conviction. (They could plea a lesser charge, etc)

If you're dead, and you were purposefully killed, it's a murder! Whether or not they ultimately convict the man, it's a murder!

England has quite a different way of reporting crimes, so they look safer.

Absolutely, 100% correct - I know from bitter personal experience that New Labour, the current "ruling" party here in the United Kingdom (not just England by the way - which is one of four nations making up the United Kingdom) are spectacular manipulators and revisionists of statistics, and crime is no exception.

Example - A friend of mine is burgled. The police attend, the sympathetic, apologetic, but ultimately useless Police Constable tells my friend that there's nothing they can do except give him a case number for Insurance purposes. Why? Because, unofficially, it has become government-directed policy for Police to IGNORE burglaries where there is no evidence immediately leading to an obvious suspect. To add insult to injuries, the crime of breaking and entering is typically recorded as vandalism, purely to make it look to the public as through burglary rates are falling, when the reverse is true.

Crime figures cannot be trusted here, and in Britain at least, gun crime is far more common than statistics suggest, particularly in parts of London and Glasgow (Scotland).

My conclusion is that the handgun ban enforced following the Dunblane tragedy (a typically British knee-jerk reaction that solved nothing) has made little or no difference to gun crime in Britain. While I think that gun owners should at least be registered, clampdown and severe restrictions on ownership will do, and have done NOTHING to take the estimated 300000 illegal guns off our street.

As usual, it's a case of outlaw something, and only outlaws will possess it. Like encryption, privacy, drugs, free speech, democracy, and/or anything else that Daily Mail readers find even remotely threatening.

Comments welcome.

AF (a Scottish non-gun owner)

discipline in and of itself is regulation. you must follow protocols and rules or are inclined to follow them through training
This only implies organization within the militia, not government control.

yes thats what it says, the right of the people to keep and bear arms will not be infringed. but lets not ignore the other HALF of the amendment

"a well regulated militia, being necesary to the security of a free state"
I agree that a militia is necessary to the security of a free state. What does this have to do with infringing on the rights of the people to bear arms? The necessity of a militia composed of able-bodied men carrying their own firearms doesn't change the fact that the amendment specifically states that the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed.

and no, everyone person except those who should not have them are allowed to own guns, there is no reason for an average person to own an m16 or kalishnikov, your right to own one is protected, that does not mean however, they cant regulate that in a manner they see fit, as long as it does not involve overly restricting your right to own a fire arm. seeing as how there is no need or reason to own a high powered assault rifle, restricting its ownership is not in violation of the 2nd amendment, as there are many other models of gun legal to own by the average person.
There is currently no pressing reason for the average person to own an "assault" weapon. Situations change, however, and I find it morally-reprehensible that you would deprive American citizens of the tools necessary to fight a tyrannical government or an invading foreign power. You don't just want to take away our means of defense -- you would place it under control of the oppressive agency.

There was no reason for French citizens in 1935 to possess military weaponry, but there certainly was five years later. There was no reason for the average British citizen to own military weaponry at the beginning of the Second World War, but there would have been had Hitler defeated the Allies and staged an invasion of Britain.

I once heard a story about some city in a Southern state made it illegal for any male over 21 NOT to carry a gun in public. Supposedly crime was non-existant. But this is just a story, who knows if it's true.

It's true.
http://www.rense.com/general9/gunlaw.htm

In fact, in the places where concealed carry laws have been enacted or "loosened" crime rates have also dropped. Funny how when a criminal thinks he has a chance of being shot, he decides not to attempt the crime.

join the militia then you can whine about getting your M4 of Kalishnikov

Alright CS, you have screamed and swore throughout this thread because people have made the logical step from regulating guns to banning them.

Pray tell, what would be the regulations you propose? Your first post was mostly a rant about ... well.. like most of the crap you rant about... right wing idiots taking away everyone elses rights BS.

Please, elaborate on how you would regulate guns and gun ownership?
Something new tho, not what's already on the books.

join the militia then you can whine about getting your M4 of Kalishnikov


I'm already in the Militia, and I have both an AR-15 and an AK-47, so I'm quite sure I'm good to go. :D

But I'm rather they both be fully automatic, and I'd also like to have an M-249, and an M-203 for my Ar-15.


I'd also like an MP-5N, SA-17, Stinger, RPG-7, AT-4, MILAN ATGM, and a few other choice weapons.


My belief is once you pass the background check, you should be able to have any light weapon you want (shoulder fired, truck mounted, etc)

No WMDs though.

I'm already in the Militia, and I have both an AR-15 and an AK-47, so I'm quite sure I'm good to go. :D

But I'm rather they both be fully automatic, and I'd also like to have an M-249, and an M-203 for my Ar-15.


I'd also like an MP-5N, SA-17, Stinger, RPG-7, AT-4, MILAN ATGM, and a few other choice weapons.


My belief is once you pass the background check, you should be able to have any light weapon you want (shoulder fired, truck mounted, etc)

No WMDs though.
and thats why your getting ignored, im still trying to figure out if your a joke account or not, its just simpler to ignore you

Alright CS, you have screamed and swore throughout this thread because people have made the logical step from regulating guns to banning them.

Pray tell, what would be the regulations you propose? Your first post was mostly a rant about ... well.. like most of the crap you rant about... right wing idiots taking away everyone elses rights BS.

Please, elaborate on how you would regulate guns and gun ownership?
Something new tho, not what's already on the books.
if you ask what i propose then imply you read my post, you obviously didnt read it

All states that have enacted concealed handgun laws have had crime rates that have plummetted. Furthermore, the lawful gun owners do not commit crimes, only use them for self-defense, or sport. The criminals that don't obey the laws (or any future laws) commit the crime. Lawful citizens should be able to protect themselves, and this idea is fundamental to our beliefs of a free society. Our founders believed, as did the people they studied, (hobbs, locke, rosseau, that self-preservation was a fundamental right. Crime rates in Austraila, and England have skyrocket since guns were banned. Our founding fathers believed that guns in public hand were important in case the govt. became oppressive. In that case the people, who wrote the constitution, could defend themselves from the tyranny of the government. One of the first things Hitler did when he took power was to take the guns out of the hands of the German citizens hands. That way they could not rebel against him, before he had a firm grip on the nation. Criminals will always have guns, or other means to impose their will on others. Sound not we even the odds? When you ban guns, or completely regulate them, you only tie the hands of the people who are lawful enough to buy them in that manner. Many of you are all to ready to give up another one of our dwindling rights. According to Hamilton, the people were the militia. The national guard did not exist. The rights of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Shall is the strongest legal language possible, this means no ifs ands or buts. It applies. If you don't like guns, don't own one. You have that right. But don't try to enforce your will on the rest of us, who are good americans, don't commit crimes, and choose to own guns. As a former Marine, political scientist, and now law student I belive that I have earned the right to carry a gun, and can do so in a safe and lawful manner. If you want to rely on the police to save you while your family is getting raped or killed that is your right. Personally, I will defend myself and others within the boundary of the laws. Felons should not own guns, and there are laws in place to keep people of questionable motives from purchasing guns. Criminals get them by other means. Kids can't buy them, they are not allowed in certain areas. Understandable. There are many household products that are more dangerous than guns themselves. Even cars kill more people than guns each year, do you want to ban them? Besides the existing laws, the only gun control should hitting what you are aiming at.

our philosophers also thought we should be able to overthrow our government if it became tyrannical and started taking away rights, im pretty sure thats illegal

and gun regulation does NOT lead to gun banning, gun regulation leads to GUN REGULATION FOR FUCKS SAKE. just because we are making sure you cant go to a gun show and buy anything you want without paper work or background checks doesnt mean we are stopping you from owning a gun, GO TO A FUCKING LEGAL GUN STORE. you need to fill out the paper work and shit, you SHOULD NOT own a gun if you have certain mental illnesses, if you have been convicted of a violent crime or a crime with a gun charge added on, or if some one living in your house has one of the above. nor should you own a gun if you do not have a secure and lock and key gun cabinet or gun case in your house to store a gun and ammo in.

I did indeed read it. However, the things you mention here are already on the books, or in concideration.

I asked if you had anything new to add, but you obviously didnt read my post. It's ok.. I have come to expect that from you.

Why do you continue to insist that people can carry swords or knives to defend themselves? Both make terrible defensive weapons, especially for women, because they require a victim to get close to his or her attacker, and depend a good deal on the physical strength of the person using them.

our philosophers also thought we should be able to overthrow our government if it became tyrannical and started taking away rights, im pretty sure thats illegal

What is it you are trying to say here. That it is illegal to overthrow the gov't? Well .... DUH!! It's the gov't that writes the laws making it illegal.
But that's the point. It is the responsibility and duty of any people of any society to protect themselves from the gov't should said gov't become tyrannical etc. I believe that was the whole justification for the American Revolution.

Why do you continue to insist that people can carry swords or knives to defend themselves? Both make terrible defensive weapons, especially for women, because they require a victim to get close to his or her attacker, and depend a good deal on the physical strength of the person using them.

Actually, several varieties of rapiers do not require a great deal of physical strength.. but do require a good deal of training and ability. Some people are just not hand-eye coordinated enough for that type of sword.

I believe it was the movie Untouchables that sum'd it up nicely tho.. If a man uses his fists, you use your club, if he pulls a knife, you pull your gun. Bringing a knife or a sword to a gun fight is just asking to get shot.

I'm already in the Militia, and I have both an AR-15 and an AK-47, so I'm quite sure I'm good to go. :D

But I'm rather they both be fully automatic, and I'd also like to have an M-249, and an M-203 for my Ar-15.


I'd also like an MP-5N, SA-17, Stinger, RPG-7, AT-4, MILAN ATGM, and a few other choice weapons.


My belief is once you pass the background check, you should be able to have any light weapon you want (shoulder fired, truck mounted, etc)

No WMDs though.

Do you honestly call a rocket propelled grenade launcher a *light* weapon?

our philosophers also thought we should be able to overthrow our government if it became tyrannical and started taking away rights, im pretty sure thats illegal

I'm pretty sure under British law it was illegal for us to rise up and shoot redcoats. But that didn't seem to stop people!


By its very nature, a revolution is illegal... It's just a matter if you win (patriots) or lose (terrorists) that is how history records you.

Do you honestly call a rocket propelled grenade launcher a *light* weapon?

It's a shoulder fired weapon, so basically yes, it is a light weapon.


Heavy weapon would be a G-5 155mm howitzer, an Abrams tank, a Tow Missile system. Anything that can not be easily carried by at least 1-3 people.

What's medium weaponry then?

I have to agree. History is recorded by the victors.
But what exactly has that got to do with gun legislation?

well-regulated = WELL DRILLED. It does not mean regulations ala laws.

What's medium weaponry then?


81mm mortar is a medium weapon.

I have to agree. History is recorded by the victors.
But what exactly has that got to do with gun legislation?



When the tyrants win, they pass sweeping gun laws to assure they can maintain power easily.

When the tyrants lose, they go into hiding, come back out later, and lobby for gun laws so they can have a better chance in round two.

The only gun control I like is being able to place all 6 shots from my 44 in the bullseye at 25 yards. Now where can I find a gun store that will sell me a 20mm vulcan cannon with depleted uranium rounds, so I can mount it onto my pickup truck.

I just can’t wait until September 13th. Can anybody guess why?
:D

I just can’t wait until September 13th. Can anybody guess why?
:D

Isn't this when the gun ban expires?

Yep, and it doesn't look like it's going to be renewed anytime soon.
:D

Yep, and it doesn't look like it's going to be renewed anytime soon.
:D


Well maybe then I can get my FFL so I can purchase that cannon for my Chevy pickup. Or at least I can walk into the gun store and say "Uzi 9mm" ala the Terminator.

I think bullets should cost $5000 a piece. Like the wise words of Mr. Chris Rock.

Think about it. There would be alot less shootings, no? Of course the Police would get ahold of bullets for a cheaper price, but still.

This would not include bullets for obvious hunting rifles, but would include, 9mm, NATO, the whole lot of bullets designed to kill people, instead of animals. :sniper:

It would have to have some more accurate details on how it would work, but this is the main idea.

I think bullets should cost $5000 a piece. Like the wise words of Mr. Chris Rock.

Think about it. There would be alot less shootings, no? Of course the Police would get ahold of bullets for a cheaper price, but still.

This would not include bullets for obvious hunting rifles, but would include, 9mm, NATO, the whole lot of bullets designed to kill people, instead of animals. :sniper:

It would have to have some more accurate details on how it would work, but this is the main idea.

I load my own shells and sometimes make my own bullets. So does that make me a criminal scumbag? YES!!!!

I think bullets should cost $5000 a piece. Like the wise words of Mr. Chris Rock.

Think about it. There would be alot less shootings, no? Of course the Police would get ahold of bullets for a cheaper price, but still.

This would not include bullets for obvious hunting rifles, but would include, 9mm, NATO, the whole lot of bullets designed to kill people, instead of animals. :sniper:

It would have to have some more accurate details on how it would work, but this is the main idea.


I think, no I know that people like you are very dangerous when you "thinking" is accepted by the masses and applied to law on any significant level.

I have news for you, 5.56mm and 7.62mm are very common hunting calibers these days. The 5.56 being mostly a varmint caliber, and the 7.62mm for larger game such as perhaps deer and elk.

A 30'06 hunting rifle will kill somebody just as dead as a 7.62mm G-3.

The point is, somebody could jam a pencil into a guy's neck and kill him. There are many ways to kill people, guns being the most obvious because they're seen as easy. Guns are a convenient scapegoat for the sickness in our socities that the liberals don't want to admit exists... Because their policies are the reason socities are sick and degenerate today.

It's not the weapon, it's the person that is behind the weapon.

Guns are objects, people can choose to either use them or abuse them.

It's all about choice, the word "choice" is something the liberals are always shouting about.

*not to use a Moore-ism*

Canada has more guns per capita than America. Our murder rate is considerably less....
Actually I don't believe that Moore stated that we have more guns per capita (although we do have lot of guns), but we do have a lower murder rate per capita. The US murder rate per capita is approximately 3 times higher than in Canada.

but if guns are banned it would be a low percentagre chance that they have guns. good job.

Yeah, but if owning a gun saves just one life . . . just one . . .

Sound familiar?

But I guess that doesn't apply here, since you're not applying a ban on guns. I agree that people should know how to use them first. I'll agree with that regulation.

What I won't agree with is a ban on firearms, or regulation so stiff that it takes years and thousands of dollars to eventually get your firearm. Oh, and we should be allowed to carry them, concealed if we wish, to most places. Common sense exceptions, such as when the President is speaking in a rally, blah blah.

Actually I don't believe that Moore stated that we have more guns per capita (although we do have lot of guns), but we do have a lower murder rate per capita. The US murder rate per capita is approximately 3 times higher than in Canada.

I think he did say that Canadians have more guns than Americans, in Bowling for Colombine.

Well maybe then I can get my FFL so I can purchase that cannon for my Chevy pickup. Or at least I can walk into the gun store and say "Uzi 9mm" ala the Terminator.


You can buy a semi-automatic UZI 9mm in virtually any state...

You can buy a semi-automatic UZI 9mm in virtually any state...

Fully automatic, semi is for wimps.

everyone stop replyign until you read the original message