OT:Wow just wow...

[grumpysaddle]

I never said people who own guns own them "to kill." I said nobody other than law enforcement should have the power of a gun. If everyone had a gun to protect themselves it makes law enforcement a waste of tax payer money.

you keep mentioning this and it keeps irritating me. have you ever heard the quote, "power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely"? if law enforcement/military are the only ones, without a doubt, that have guns... what's to stop them from completely abusing their power?

This argument is lame. Only because a government agency has a power doesn't mean that the citizens should have it too to balance it. If this argument was always true you could say that average citizens should have the right to judge other citizens for their crimes or misbehavior, outside the existing legal channels. In other words, you would be approving "eye for an eye". In a democracy there are certain powers that are not and should not be given to the population. That's it, it is just the way it is. And it is like that because every government in a democracy is legitimated by having been elected by the people of that country, who, by voting, have yielded power to that government.

first of all... the united states is a republic. it's a common misconception that it is a democracy. if this were a democracy, united states citizens would be the ones passing all laws and government issues through things like town hall meetings, etc. refer to the quote below from The Federalist #10... Friday, November 23, 1787. Author: James Madison

"The United States is, indeed, a republic, not a democracy. Accurately defined, a democracy is a form of government in which the people decide policy matters directly--through town hall meetings or by voting on ballot initiatives and referendums. A republic, on the other hand, is a system in which the people choose representatives who, in turn, make policy decisions on their behalf. The Framers of the Constitution were altogether fearful of pure democracy. Everything they read and studied taught them that pure democracies "have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths."

next... i fail to see how my argument is "lame". the reason the right to bear arms is NUMBER 2 in the ol' constitution is for good reason. americans, after the revolution against britain, were fearful of governments with too much power. they overcame this through a war and didn't want anything like that to happen again. if the american's own government became too powerful and abusive, citizens had the means to be able to defend themselves against those abuses. there is nothing written in the constitution saying that the average citizen will be able to become judge and jury (actually citizens ARE juries of peers that inevitably decide one's fate through deliberation).

there will always be abuse of power by certain individuals. guns ARE power. while in an impossible utopian society, everyone getting rid of their weapons would be all fine and dandy. it's just not realistic. bad people are going to have weapons regardless of if they are legal or not. (whether those bad people end up being criminals or those in power), should good people also not have the morally just way of defending themselves with their own firearms?

[Go7enKs]

first of all... the united states is a republic. it's a common misconception that it is a democracy. if this were a democracy, united states citizens would be the ones passing all laws and government issues through things like town hall meetings, etc. refer to the quote below from The Federalist #10... Friday, November 23, 1787. Author: James Madison

"The United States is, indeed, a republic, not a democracy. Accurately defined, a democracy is a form of government in which the people decide policy matters directly--through town hall meetings or by voting on ballot initiatives and referendums. A republic, on the other hand, is a system in which the people choose representatives who, in turn, make policy decisions on their behalf. The Framers of the Constitution were altogether fearful of pure democracy. Everything they read and studied taught them that pure democracies "have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths."

You are quibbling over semantics. What you posted is actually true but nowadays the concepts of democracy and republic are pretty much correspondent. In part because pure democracy as defined in you post is a utopia at best.

next... i fail to see how my argument is "lame". the reason the right to bear arms is NUMBER 2 in the ol' constitution is for good reason. americans, after the revolution against britain, were fearful of governments with too much power. they overcame this through a war and didn't want anything like that to happen again. if the american's own government became too powerful and abusive, citizens had the means to be able to defend themselves against those abuses. there is nothing written in the constitution saying that the average citizen will be able to become judge and jury (actually citizens ARE juries of peers that inevitably decide one's fate through deliberation).

there will always be abuse of power by certain individuals. guns ARE power. while in an impossible utopian society, everyone getting rid of their weapons would be all fine and dandy. it's just not realistic. bad people are going to have weapons regardless of if they are legal or not. (whether those bad people end up being criminals or those in power), should good people also not have the morally just way of defending themselves with their own firearms?

I totally understand why the second amendment was introduced in the Bill of Rights, it totally made sense to do it. It MADE sense in SEVENTEEN NINETY ONE. Which is MORE than 200 years ago. The fact that it was valid back then doesn't make it valid now. The dangers of a despotic government are far less now than they were 200 years ago. More so in the United States, who already have a Republic (or democracy) with set rules that have pretty much worked for over 2 centuries. Also, do you really think that your handguns will give you a chance if a president decides to turn your military against you (which, by the way, is so ridiculous that I feel dumb just by posting this). Do you have ANY idea how powerful the US military is? If you are so afraid of a despotic government turning their back on their own citizens you should be outraged by all the money your government wastes on military, which, FYI, comes from taxes. So, theoretically, your money is being spent on something that someday could turn against you, forcing you to defend yourself with guns. Good luck using a gun against F16 and stuff like that. Please, be serious. The argument "guns are to protect the citizens from potentially despotic governments" could have been used on a Suns board 200 years ago, if we had internet back then.

Look, I understand the importace of a Constitution, I study law so I'm pretty familiar with these concepts. I also respect the US constitution as much as any other or even more since it has survived more than 200 years with very few changes. But if something is in a constitution doesn't make it right or true. It WAS right and true 200 years ago. The 2nd amendment was perfect 200 years ago. Now it's obsolete and totally unreasonable. Again, I don't dream about a complete gun ban (although I think it would be a good idea to some extent). Just stricter regulation. Cause right now in some states it looks like it's the Far West, with people walking down the streets with AR-15 strapped on their shoulders.

As for the popular jury, I knew you would come up with it. But "the jury of peers" is a process legally constituted. I was saying that if we hold the argument "if the government can do it, I can do it too" you could argue that I have the right to take justice by my own hand instead of letting the judiciary system do it.

[Fo-Real]

Im not saying he is wrong, i work in law enforcement and think it is a great deterent to a scumbag thinking he can go and randomly rob, and carjack people if one or two of them get ended in the process, and realize that people are not just sitting ducks anymore. But I wouldnt have the nuts to carry an assult rifle in public, even though it is legal because i wouldnt want to be an accident, police officers are people too and all they think about is going home to thier families every night. It isnt normal to roll up on a person with a damn assult rifle on thier shoulder, and might make them nervous, what if i sneeze when he is approaching, hell if i were him id shoot if he flinched wrong. Just not smart even if it is legal. Think of how many sniper crosshairs were between his eyes during that demonstration.

[Fo-Real]

arguing the point isnt going to change the mind of anyone, for or against we all have our own beliefs. 2 things though, the none of the kids who have done this had parents like Me and my Wife, or like my Mom and Dad, (hell or my aunts and uncles, garndparents and family friends, and anyone else who had a hand in this man). Parenting or lack of, is the biggest problem in this Nation. Coming from the lawenforcement side, i see it too much, these kids have no manners, no morals, no guidance (by guidance i mean do this or else, or even thinking they will bringe shame on someone if i do something wrong and caring about that) a lot of people are just not as involved with thier kids or responsible as they need to be these days. 2 if this nation could effectivly take the weapons out of the hands of the criminals on the streets, i would really give up mine. I can handle myself without a damn weapon, but a aint gettin popped by some 90 pound little pice of S@#t because he is trying to make a name for himself, or show off for his little friends or girlfriend. Most of you people have no idea of how powerful the criminal syndicates of this nation are, it is scarry, if you can disarm them then come get my weapons, untill then ill protect #1, witch is my family.

[rsavaj]

Well a station like Fox promotes a far right agenda, CNN is right also but tricks people into giving it sort of a "middle America" feel where they make people believe it's center and MSNBC just reports the facts and tells the news as it is for the most part, how's just reporting the facts liberal?

Don't you think that people who watch Fox are saying the Exact. Same. Thing.? I lean much more towards the liberal side of things so if I had to choose, I'd probably watch MSNBC, but there are OTHER CHOICES that don't tell you what you want to hear! I take it that you're pretty liberal, so you obviously agree with what MSNBC anchors report, and in your eyes, those ARE the facts. But if you really think that Olbermann actually reports "the facts"....no. Just no. I enjoy watching Olbermann from time to time if I'm feeling particularly venemous towards Bill O'Reilly's @sshattery, but I don't watch MSNBC for the news, and I only turn on Fox when I want a good laugh as well.

[the_warden]

That's why I didn't make an argument from protection. I based it on two things:

1. Why should something be a crime if it doesn't directly harm another individual?

I'm sorry but from a legal standpoint you are completely wrong here.

Wrong? I gave my opinion. I don't think you should be prosecuted when you don't hurt someone. Even if you think you should, you have to make an exceptionally large leap to make gun ownership a crime. This isn't drunk driving; this is making it a crime to have my gun locked up in a safe in my house. That's outrageous. It's akin to outlawing alcohol because of the potential for drunk driving.

Criminal laws vary from nation to nation and in the US I guess they vary from state to state but there are some "premises" (for lack of a better word) common to all the world criminal laws. One of them is that certain actions, even if they don't do no harm, are crimes because of the potential danger they entail. If we were to accept your argument that with no harm there shouldn't be any crime then producing a nuclear weapon or a biolgical weapon shouldn't be a crime. These kind of crimes are called "risk crimes" (this is a pretty bad translation from spanish, I have no idea how they call them in english, still the concept is clear). What these crimes penalize is the potential risk of harming some people.

As I argue above: you're making a pretty huge leap to make gun ownership a "risk crime."

Now, I'm not saying having a gun should become a crime, I just think that the legislation in the US and in certain states is way too "liberal". It should be harder to get a gun and it should be prohibited to carry it around. If the population is against a complete ban (never gonna happen since the NRA is so powerful) then at least make the regulations stricter.

Your argument here: "I think gun legislation in the states is too liberal." No evidence. No logic. Just making a statement and not supporting it. Par for the course.

As for the argument "guns are for hunting" then only shotguns and rifles should be allowed. I don't see how a handgun is for hunting, nor a AR-15. I mean u could use them for hunting but seriously, an assault rifle for hunting!?! Come on, who are u kidding?

I didn't make that argument. I was refuting one specific point lilfishi made: that guns are only used to kill people. That is patently untrue. I didn't make any judgment beyond that.

) just as we don't allow crazy people to purchase handguns.

Really? You think that current legislation in the US prevents crazy people to own weapons? I'm not for a complete gun ban, as I said before, simply because it's impossible in the US, but I think that stricter regulation is sorely needed.

Yes? It's not like we don't have background checks or anything.


And again: SHOW ME SOME EVIDENCE THAT GUN LAWS MAKE PEOPLE SAFER.

Again you people take that as an assumption and it isn't. I've cited evidence in direct contradiction to that idea and you just ignore it. You pretend it doesn't exist. You say "well fewer people should have guns" and be done with it. You don't support your argument, you don't base it on anything, and you don't think out what those gun laws even mean.

So:
1. Where is your evidence that gun laws make people safer?
2. What will the punishment be for violating these gun laws?

[grumpysaddle]

you know... i'm done arguing this. no one is going to change their minds.

i AM pissed off about how much money goes into the military. it's absurd. america has got its hands in FAR too many things that it shouldn't. yes, we should help those less fortunate, but should we do that by going in a blowing the crap out of them? not in my opinion.

i hate the idea of guns. but the fact that they are out there is never going to change. i am slightly fearful of a military/govt turning on its people. but that will only be after the people realize how much they are getting screwed. its not there yet, but i don't think its unreasonable to think it could happen in the future. and the sheer number of people in the country.... if they stand up to the military in whatever unlikely event, yeah there would be ridiculous casualties, but i dunno... people will only take so much before they fight back. this is all just some thoughts in the far far reaches of my brain. but you can't give up the right to have that power, especially considering there are so many terrible people that will abuse it.

[BurningHeart]

http://www.examiner.com/x-18410-Newark- ... id-tshirts

Nahhhhhhhhhhhh....NBC isn't biased.

[MaryvalesFinest]

http://www.examiner.com/x-18410-Newark-Young-Conservative-Examiner~y2009m8d13-NBC-Store-sells-Obama-memorabilia-including-Yes-we-did-tshirts

Nahhhhhhhhhhhh....NBC isn't biased.

Obama is a centrist/corporate Democrat and NBC is a center/right leaning news station. Nothing wrong with what their doing really considering Fox was basically campaigning against Obama when he was running for President.

If you're saying Obama or NBC are liberal though, I don't think that's the case. MSNBC is still corporate media like the rest, they just do a better job at reporting the news than CNN or Fox and real liberals voted for Ralph Nader.

[BurningHeart]

lmao, ok.

[lilfishi22]

@ the_warden

I'd like to say that as much as I'd like to continue the debate, I cannot. Admittedly I do not live in the US and do not have the expertise and experience of those who live there. I have tried to naively apply the laws and culture of Australia to that of the US, which considering the difference in demographics, worked against me. I do not have all the information and as a result wrongly questioned the gun laws and culture.

[Go7enKs]

Wrong? I gave my opinion. I don't think you should be prosecuted when you don't hurt someone. Even if you think you should, you have to make an exceptionally large leap to make gun ownership a crime. This isn't drunk driving; this is making it a crime to have my gun locked up in a safe in my house. That's outrageous. It's akin to outlawing alcohol because of the potential for drunk driving.

First of all, just to be clear, I respect your opinion and I'm actually enjoying this conversation very much. But I have to repeat it, you were wrong on that. I know it's your opinion but from a legal standpoint it's wrong. That's just what any other law student or professional would tell you. There are several "risk crimes" (i'd really like to know the english version of this expression btw) in every country in the world. Risk crimes are justified to prevent worse crimes. You could argue that a gun alone isn't too dangerous, but I think it is. And every accidental death in your country proves me right.

As I argue above: you're making a pretty huge leap to make gun ownership a "risk crime."

In many countries it is. So it's not like I'm crazy here. I'm not saying you should do the same as other countries....but it's not otherwordly to consider gun possession as a crime (although in every country u can own a gun, only it's A LOT harder to do so).

Your argument here: "I think gun legislation in the states is too liberal." No evidence. No logic. Just making a statement and not supporting it. Par for the course.

I didn't make that argument. I was refuting one specific point lilfishi made: that guns are only used to kill people. That is patently untrue. I didn't make any judgment beyond that.

Yes? It's not like we don't have background checks or anything.


And again: SHOW ME SOME EVIDENCE THAT GUN LAWS MAKE PEOPLE SAFER.

Again you people take that as an assumption and it isn't. I've cited evidence in direct contradiction to that idea and you just ignore it. You pretend it doesn't exist. You say "well fewer people should have guns" and be done with it. You don't support your argument, you don't base it on anything, and you don't think out what those gun laws even mean.

So:
1. Where is your evidence that gun laws make people safer?
2. What will the punishment be for violating these gun laws?

Super quick research on internet: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violen ... by_country

In the US, 65 % of homicides are done with guns. In other western countries (i'm not counting Colombia or Guatemala for obvious reasons) u can see the steep differences: Spain 16%, Germany 40%, Denmark 24%, Australia 16%...

Also, look at the third and fifth columns. In the US the firearm homicide rate per 100k population is 2.97 on an overall homicide rate of 4.55 (roughly 60% of homicides are done with firearms in the US); in Spain the F.H.R. is 0.25 on an overall of 1.5 (which is 16%), in Denmark it's 0.26 on an overall of 1.09 (roughly 25%) and so forth. I didn't even had to do a lot of research to find this. And I know it's not totally adequate to compare statistics, but if you do it between "civilized" countries the stats must be pretty accurate and can give u an idea of the problem gun ownership causes to your country.

Random quote from an article by theeconomist (http://www.economist.com/daily/chartgal ... d=12294864): "The gun-death rate (whether murder, accident or suicide) in rich countries is highest where there are more guns: America, Switzerland and Finland are in the top four countries for gun ownership per person. The death rate in Britain, which banned handguns following a school shooting in 1996, is 0.1 for every 100,000 people."

Also found this: http://hamptonroads.com/2008/03/map-us- ... s-vs-world
In the US there are 90 guns per 100 civilians. Does that make your country safer? According to the numbers above, it doesn't. Actually, it makes it unsafer, compared to other western countries.

[Sun Scorched]

Let's not pretend that these other "civilized" countries are some shining beacon of hope that the United States could only hope to emulate.

Please, Britain banned guns in '96 did they? After a school shooting? Really? Millions upon millions of people have died in and at the hands of that country since guns have been around, let's not pretend they are at the forefront of some sense of anti-gun morality.

Spain? The only thing they have led has been the inquisition, the persecution of islam & other magically "benevolent" acts.

Although it sounds archaic, this country was founded on a man's right to own a gun. The men who fought in the revolutionary war did so with the same gun they would use to hunt food for their families. Their guns were as much extensions of themselves as the guns of our soldiers nowadays... but most of the revolutionaries were NOT soldiers, they were militia, and they made DAMN sure that was included in the founding documents of this country.

Like it or not, we wouldn't be arguing this right now had guns not been such an important part of the founding of our country.

[the_warden]

Wrong? I gave my opinion. I don't think you should be prosecuted when you don't hurt someone. Even if you think you should, you have to make an exceptionally large leap to make gun ownership a crime. This isn't drunk driving; this is making it a crime to have my gun locked up in a safe in my house. That's outrageous. It's akin to outlawing alcohol because of the potential for drunk driving.

First of all, just to be clear, I respect your opinion and I'm actually enjoying this conversation very much. But I have to repeat it, you were wrong on that. I know it's your opinion but from a legal standpoint it's wrong. That's just what any other law student or professional would tell you. There are several "risk crimes" (i'd really like to know the english version of this expression btw) in every country in the world. Risk crimes are justified to prevent worse crimes. You could argue that a gun alone isn't too dangerous, but I think it is. And every accidental death in your country proves me right.

I still don't get what you mean. I stated my opinion: people shouldn't go to jail for crimes that don't hurt another person. I don't think gun ownership falls into the "risk" category as you claim, and I argue that you could just as well make alcohol illegal on the same grounds, which I think is stupid. I've been around the law my whole life and I'm a pretty active student of philosophy. For you to continue to claim I'm "wrong" is stupid; it's an opinion. I also don't think we should lock people up for drug possession or "illegal" immigration. Those are also opinions. Your argument is akin to saying, "Yeah well they lock people up for drug possession." I don't care what they do. I'm saying what I think they should do.

As I argue above: you're making a pretty huge leap to make gun ownership a "risk crime."

In many countries it is. So it's not like I'm crazy here. I'm not saying you should do the same as other countries....but it's not otherwordly to consider gun possession as a crime (although in every country u can own a gun, only it's A LOT harder to do so).

Again: I'm focusing on the argument. The argument that gun ownership is a risk crime is weak. That doesn't mean countries don't do it. I would also say an argument that tariffs improve your economy is really really stupid. Yet countries do it. The fact that they do it doesn't make them right, and I think that similarly applies in this case. It can be crazy, even if other countries think it's right.

Super quick research on internet: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violen ... by_country

In the US, 65 % of homicides are done with guns. In other western countries (i'm not counting Colombia or Guatemala for obvious reasons) u can see the steep differences: Spain 16%, Germany 40%, Denmark 24%, Australia 16%...

Also, look at the third and fifth columns. In the US the firearm homicide rate per 100k population is 2.97 on an overall homicide rate of 4.55 (roughly 60% of homicides are done with firearms in the US); in Spain the F.H.R. is 0.25 on an overall of 1.5 (which is 16%), in Denmark it's 0.26 on an overall of 1.09 (roughly 25%) and so forth. I didn't even had to do a lot of research to find this. And I know it's not totally adequate to compare statistics, but if you do it between "civilized" countries the stats must be pretty accurate and can give u an idea of the problem gun ownership causes to your country.

Random quote from an article by theeconomist (http://www.economist.com/daily/chartgal ... d=12294864): "The gun-death rate (whether murder, accident or suicide) in rich countries is highest where there are more guns: America, Switzerland and Finland are in the top four countries for gun ownership per person. The death rate in Britain, which banned handguns following a school shooting in 1996, is 0.1 for every 100,000 people."

Also found this: http://hamptonroads.com/2008/03/map-us- ... s-vs-world
In the US there are 90 guns per 100 civilians. Does that make your country safer? According to the numbers above, it doesn't. Actually, it makes it unsafer, compared to other western countries.

The numbers you show above do not say it makes it unsafer. All of your stats describe firearm homicides or firearm suicides (and I don't care about the suicides; I don't see why we have a right to tell people that they have to keep living, but whatever). They don't describe actual murders, which is the important thing. I have no doubt that, if you take away guns, fewer people will die from gun-related incidents. That doesn't mean fewer people will die; it means bad guys will either own guns or substitute things like knives and good guys won't have anything to defend themselves with. It takes a lot of the risk out of committing a crime; if there is a 20% chance I enter a home and the homeowner has a gun, I'm going to be a lot more hesitant to do so than if 1% of homeowners have guns.

Further, you don't show a situation that shows the effects of gun legislation. You should find a place that had guns, then tightened gun laws, then saw a significant decrease in crime/murders. There isn't such an example; even in places like New York, where they think it's a good idea to throw Plaxico Burress in jail for two years for carrying an unregistered handgun, murders actually went up last year (at a greater rate than the population increased). Fewer people were killed by guns, but more people died. I think that's because criminals are more likely to commit crime if their victims are less likely to be armed. I don't see how that wouldn't be the case.

So:
1. Where is your evidence that gun laws make people safer?
2. What will the punishment be for violating these gun laws?

[Go7enKs]

Let's not pretend that these other "civilized" countries are some shining beacon of hope that the United States could only hope to emulate.

Please, Britain banned guns in '96 did they? After a school shooting? Really? Millions upon millions of people have died in and at the hands of that country since guns have been around, let's not pretend they are at the forefront of some sense of anti-gun morality.

Spain? The only thing they have led has been the inquisition, the persecution of islam & other magically "benevolent" acts.

Although it sounds archaic, this country was founded on a man's right to own a gun. The men who fought in the revolutionary war did so with the same gun they would use to hunt food for their families. Their guns were as much extensions of themselves as the guns of our soldiers nowadays... but most of the revolutionaries were NOT soldiers, they were militia, and they made DAMN sure that was included in the founding documents of this country.

Like it or not, we wouldn't be arguing this right now had guns not been such an important part of the founding of our country.

Who said the other countries are beacons of hope? Everybody has issues. As for what u said about Spain...well i'd rather not comment, it was pretty dumb.

So the US was founded on a man's right to own a gun? Wow. And I thought it was founded on freedom and justice. I guess I was wrong. If that's true it is pretty sad.

Wrong? I gave my opinion. I don't think you should be prosecuted when you don't hurt someone. Even if you think you should, you have to make an exceptionally large leap to make gun ownership a crime. This isn't drunk driving; this is making it a crime to have my gun locked up in a safe in my house. That's outrageous. It's akin to outlawing alcohol because of the potential for drunk driving.

First of all, just to be clear, I respect your opinion and I'm actually enjoying this conversation very much. But I have to repeat it, you were wrong on that. I know it's your opinion but from a legal standpoint it's wrong. That's just what any other law student or professional would tell you. There are several "risk crimes" (i'd really like to know the english version of this expression btw) in every country in the world. Risk crimes are justified to prevent worse crimes. You could argue that a gun alone isn't too dangerous, but I think it is. And every accidental death in your country proves me right.

I still don't get what you mean. I stated my opinion: people shouldn't go to jail for crimes that don't hurt another person. I don't think gun ownership falls into the "risk" category as you claim, and I argue that you could just as well make alcohol illegal on the same grounds, which I think is stupid. I've been around the law my whole life and I'm a pretty active student of philosophy. For you to continue to claim I'm "wrong" is stupid; it's an opinion. I also don't think we should lock people up for drug possession or "illegal" immigration. Those are also opinions. Your argument is akin to saying, "Yeah well they lock people up for drug possession." I don't care what they do. I'm saying what I think they should do.

As I argue above: you're making a pretty huge leap to make gun ownership a "risk crime."

In many countries it is. So it's not like I'm crazy here. I'm not saying you should do the same as other countries....but it's not otherwordly to consider gun possession as a crime (although in every country u can own a gun, only it's A LOT harder to do so).

Again: I'm focusing on the argument. The argument that gun ownership is a risk crime is weak. That doesn't mean countries don't do it. I would also say an argument that tariffs improve your economy is really really stupid. Yet countries do it. The fact that they do it doesn't make them right, and I think that similarly applies in this case. It can be crazy, even if other countries think it's right.

Super quick research on internet: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violen ... by_country

In the US, 65 % of homicides are done with guns. In other western countries (i'm not counting Colombia or Guatemala for obvious reasons) u can see the steep differences: Spain 16%, Germany 40%, Denmark 24%, Australia 16%...

Also, look at the third and fifth columns. In the US the firearm homicide rate per 100k population is 2.97 on an overall homicide rate of 4.55 (roughly 60% of homicides are done with firearms in the US); in Spain the F.H.R. is 0.25 on an overall of 1.5 (which is 16%), in Denmark it's 0.26 on an overall of 1.09 (roughly 25%) and so forth. I didn't even had to do a lot of research to find this. And I know it's not totally adequate to compare statistics, but if you do it between "civilized" countries the stats must be pretty accurate and can give u an idea of the problem gun ownership causes to your country.

Random quote from an article by theeconomist (http://www.economist.com/daily/chartgal ... d=12294864): "The gun-death rate (whether murder, accident or suicide) in rich countries is highest where there are more guns: America, Switzerland and Finland are in the top four countries for gun ownership per person. The death rate in Britain, which banned handguns following a school shooting in 1996, is 0.1 for every 100,000 people."

Also found this: http://hamptonroads.com/2008/03/map-us- ... s-vs-world
In the US there are 90 guns per 100 civilians. Does that make your country safer? According to the numbers above, it doesn't. Actually, it makes it unsafer, compared to other western countries.

The numbers you show above do not say it makes it unsafer. All of your stats describe firearm homicides or firearm suicides (and I don't care about the suicides; I don't see why we have a right to tell people that they have to keep living, but whatever). They don't describe actual murders, which is the important thing. I have no doubt that, if you take away guns, fewer people will die from gun-related incidents. That doesn't mean fewer people will die; it means bad guys will either own guns or substitute things like knives and good guys won't have anything to defend themselves with. It takes a lot of the risk out of committing a crime; if there is a 20% chance I enter a home and the homeowner has a gun, I'm going to be a lot more hesitant to do so than if 1% of homeowners have guns.

Further, you don't show a situation that shows the effects of gun legislation. You should find a place that had guns, then tightened gun laws, then saw a significant decrease in crime/murders. There isn't such an example; even in places like New York, where they think it's a good idea to throw Plaxico Burress in jail for two years for carrying an unregistered handgun, murders actually went up last year (at a greater rate than the population increased). Fewer people were killed by guns, but more people died. I think that's because criminals are more likely to commit crime if their victims are less likely to be armed. I don't see how that wouldn't be the case.

So:
1. Where is your evidence that gun laws make people safer?
2. What will the punishment be for violating these gun laws?

So you don't think the numbers I provided u prove anything? You don't think there's a connection between the US' high rate of murders and the number of guns around? Maybe you are just a country of violent men but I believe that there is an evident link between murders and death and guns. It's a little easier to kill with a gun than with a knife for god's sake. Are you going to deny that too?

I also admit that banning guns won't remove them from criminals, but it will make it harder for them to get one. Right now they just walk into a shop and walk out with a gun. With stricter policies it would be a lil harder to get a gun. Right now it's also easier to get illegal guns. Since you can always buy it from somebody who hasn't a criminal record (even though u have it). Plus, there is also the "escalation" argument. Violence feeds violence. If citizens are armed with guns, criminals will get bigger guns and so forth. It's just stupid to fight fire with fire.

As for the risk crimes, answer this simple question. Should a person be sent to jail for producing a bio weapon? or a nuclear weapon? If you keep true on ur claim ur asnwer should be no. And it would a pretty questionable answer.

[the_warden]

So you don't think the numbers I provided u prove anything? You don't think there's a connection between the US' high rate of murders and the number of guns around? Maybe you are just a country of violent men but I believe that there is an evident link between murders and death and guns. It's a little easier to kill with a gun than with a knife for god's sake. Are you going to deny that too?

Certainly not. But you haven't shown any evidence that the murder rate drops when people have less guns. All you've shown is that the United States has more firearm deaths, and I'm not aruging that isn't the case.

It's like a scientific experiment. You need a control (which would be pre-gun legislation numbers) and an experimental group (post-numbers). All you've shown are various countries that could have any number of other factors that could account for the differences.

Even Michael Moore, American liberal extraordinaire, concludes (in Bowling for Columbine) that there is "no connection between gun ownership and gun violence." That's not where it comes from.

I also admit that banning guns won't remove them from criminals, but it will make it harder for them to get one. Right now they just walk into a shop and walk out with a gun. With stricter policies it would be a lil harder to get a gun. Right now it's also easier to get illegal guns. Since you can always buy it from somebody who hasn't a criminal record (even though u have it). Plus, there is also the "escalation" argument. Violence feeds violence. If citizens are armed with guns, criminals will get bigger guns and so forth. It's just stupid to fight fire with fire.

Again: no empirical evidence. As I've said before: my argument is that it makes it much safer for a criminal who wishes to commit a crime when you know your victim only will have a gun 1% of the time as opposed to 20% of the crime. In that situation, ceteris parbius, crime will rise.

As for the risk crimes, answer this simple question. Should a person be sent to jail for producing a bio weapon? or a nuclear weapon? If you keep true on ur claim ur asnwer should be no. And it would a pretty questionable answer.

As I've said, I don't know. If you think a nuclear or biological weapon is analogous to a handgun, you're wrong. I think you could certainly argue that the risks posed by such a weapon, even in its creation, make its creation by anybody (governments included) wrong, just as I could argue that drunk driving, because of the extreme risk to others posed by it, is wrong. Gun ownership isn't anywhere near that level. People estimate between 39-50% of American households have a gun. 12,800 people died from a firearm-related homicide. About 1.6M people in America drive drunk each year. 15,000 people die from alcohol-related automobile accidents. As a rate, it's not even close which one is more dangerous. As I said, you're reaching.

In a similar fashion, do you think people should be allowed to own steak knives? If so, then I would make the same argument that you must think people can also own guns because they are both weapons with the potential for harm. It's not a good argument, but it's just as good of an argument as, "Well, if you think people shouldn't have nuclear bombs then they can't have guns either."

As I've asked before (this is the third time? fourth?): what do you want the punishment to be for gun ownership? You need to be able to answer that question.

[Go7enKs]

Interesting. I'll start from the end. I don't know what punishment should be given to people who own guns (if guns were banned). It depends on a lot of stuff. I believe criminal law should be proportional, you can't punish a murder with the same sentences as a drunk driver and so forth.

I believe that the sentece Plaxico Buress got is pretty fair to me. He was carrying a gun he was not supposed to carry. It's a gun, it's dangerous (he shot himself, sure, but he could have accidentally shot somebody else) and he didn't have a license for that. 2 years is a lot? **** him. He's rich and famous, he should know better.

As I've said, I don't know. If you think a nuclear or biological weapon is analogous to a handgun, you're wrong. I think you could certainly argue that the risks posed by such a weapon, even in its creation, make its creation by anybody (governments included) wrong, just as I could argue that drunk driving, because of the extreme risk to others posed by it, is wrong. Gun ownership isn't anywhere near that level. People estimate between 39-50% of American households have a gun. 12,800 people died from a firearm-related homicide. About 1.6M people in America drive drunk each year. 15,000 people die from alcohol-related automobile accidents. As a rate, it's not even close which one is more dangerous. As I said, you're reaching.

I've never said a biological weapon is the same as a handgun. But you said that "if nobody is hurt, people should not go to jail". You don't hurt anybody creating a biological weapon. You don't hurt anybody producing drugs. But the law wants to protect the citizens by penalizing these kind of actions for the risk they entail. You say a handgun doesn't entail any risk? Well then. I will never change your mind but you're reaching too when you say that.

Again: no empirical evidence. As I've said before: my argument is that it makes it much safer for a criminal who wishes to commit a crime when you know your victim only will have a gun 1% of the time as opposed to 20% of the crime. In that situation, ceteris parbius, crime will rise.

Crime will rise? Really? Who's making claims with no empirical evidence to support them? Also, just an example. Let's say an armed criminal gets into a house and the owner of the house has a gun and he takes it out. Does that make him safer? Maybe the criminal will freak out and shoot him while if the owner didn't have a gun he would have just robbed him. And you know what? I'd take a robbery over death any day of the week, maybe not on a day in which the Spurs rob us...but any other day yeah.

Besides, interestingly you haven't said anything about my theory that with less guns it would be harder for criminals to have guns...I guess you can't counter that since it's totally logical. Obviously, a mobster would still have a gun but do you really think a simple car hijacker would be able to get a gun? I think he wouldn't.

[the_warden]

Interesting. I'll start from the end. I don't know what punishment should be given to people who own guns (if guns were banned). It depends on a lot of stuff. I believe criminal law should be proportional, you can't punish a murder with the same sentences as a drunk driver and so forth.

I believe that the sentece Plaxico Buress got is pretty fair to me. He was carrying a gun he was not supposed to carry. It's a gun, it's dangerous (he shot himself, sure, but he could have accidentally shot somebody else) and he didn't have a license for that. 2 years is a lot? **** him. He's rich and famous, he should know better.

I'm unsurprised to see this boil down to class envy.

And I want to know what punishment they should get. America already imprisons something like 1% of its population. Further, it does so disproportionately against minorities. I think any extension of that (like these gun laws you're advocating) is going to exacerbate that problem.

I also think it is not right that someone should be locked up for two years for carrying a handgun that he did not register with the government. I don't see the justification. "He could have hurt someone," you say, but people who drive drunk, who are far more likely to hurt someone, get much less time. Should we throw drunk drivers in jail for two years as well?

I've never said a biological weapon is the same as a handgun. But you said that "if nobody is hurt, people should not go to jail". You don't hurt anybody creating a biological weapon. You don't hurt anybody producing drugs. But the law wants to protect the citizens by penalizing these kind of actions for the risk they entail. You say a handgun doesn't entail any risk? Well then. I will never change your mind but you're reaching too when you say that.

I said the risk entailed by the ownership of a handgun isn't anywhere near that of a nuclear/biological weapon or even drunk driving. You're right: perhaps I should soften my statement to allow for extreme circumstances. If you do something that has the great potential to inflict harm on others, that should be a crime. Do you want to throw gun ownership into that category? As I said, you're really reaching. A very, very small percentage of deaths are due to firearms despite there being a ton of guns here. Further, a country like Canada, which has just as many guns as the United States, has less than 100 firearm deaths. Guns don't kill people; people kill people. If you want to attack the problem (and I would argue it's a very small problem, really; the murder rate is historically low), you should focus on attitudes and behavior, not restricting what people can own.

Crime will rise? Really? Who's making claims with no empirical evidence to support them?

http://www.mindconnection.com/library/personal/gunban_aus.htm That's from page 2 of this thread. I told you: I've offered some evidence for my claims. You've offered none.

Also, just an example. Let's say an armed criminal gets into a house and the owner of the house has a gun and he takes it out. Does that make him safer?

Maybe the criminal will freak out and shoot him while if the owner didn't have a gun he would have just robbed him. And you know what? I'd take a robbery over death any day of the week, maybe not on a day in which the Spurs rob us...but any other day yeah.

You totally misunderstood my argument. You say "Let's say an armed criminal gets into a house." I'm stopping before that: I'm saying that a criminal is less likely to even go into a house if he feels there is a higher likelihood that the owner has a gun. It's a variable. If I break into a house where there's only a 1% chance the owner has a gun, then it's very unlikely I risk being harmed in the process. Even if I get caught, I'll get jail time, sure, but I won't incur physical harm in the same way.

If there's a 20% chance the owner has a gun, then there's a much more realistic chance I do get shot. There's less of a chance I could overpower the victim. And you further seem to indicate that you don't know American law by assuming the criminal will shoot back. Some might, but a lot wouldn't; if the criminal shot the victim, they'd be guilty of murder (death in the commission of a felony), the police would commit a lot more resources to catch him, and they'd receive a much, much longer sentence if caught.

Besides, interestingly you haven't said anything about my theory that with less guns it would be harder for criminals to have guns...I guess you can't counter that since it's totally logical. Obviously, a mobster would still have a gun but do you really think a simple car hijacker would be able to get a gun? I think he wouldn't.

Your theory seems to be empirically untrue. Criminals do not acquire guns through traditional means; they usually buy them through illegal market sources. If you're going to restrict those sources, you might raise the price and might even shrink the number of guns available, but criminals will still be able to obtain guns. I'd compare it to drugs. Marijuana is illegal in Arizona, but I guarantee I could buy an ounce within the hour if I really wanted to. The fact that it's illegal doesn't make it hard to purchase.

Finally, say you're successful. Say there are fewer guns out there. That doesn't matter if more people are dying. That's the claim you have to defend. That and a pragmatic way to punish gun offenders without enforcing them disproportionately due to race (lol good luck at doing that in America) and stressing the already unjust prison system in America (a "free" country!).

[Go7enKs]

I'm unsurprised to see this boil down to class envy.

LOOOOOOOOOOL. Funny. I have no envy for Buress. He might be richer than me but money doesn't make you happy and I have enough to not worry about it too much. My problem with Plax is that he should know better. This athletes have money and fame and it's sad to see how they waste their lives the way Plax or Vick have done.

And I want to know what punishment they should get. America already imprisons something like 1% of its population. Further, it does so disproportionately against minorities. I think any extension of that (like these gun laws you're advocating) is going to exacerbate that problem.

I also think it is not right that someone should be locked up for two years for carrying a handgun that he did not register with the government. I don't see the justification. "He could have hurt someone," you say, but people who drive drunk, who are far more likely to hurt someone, get much less time. Should we throw drunk drivers in jail for two years as well?

I don't understand why you keep asking me. I'm not so familiar with the US criminal law as to establich a punishment for owning an illegal gun.

I said the risk entailed by the ownership of a handgun isn't anywhere near that of a nuclear/biological weapon or even drunk driving. You're right: perhaps I should soften my statement to allow for extreme circumstances. If you do something that has the great potential to inflict harm on others, that should be a crime. Do you want to throw gun ownership into that category? As I said, you're really reaching. A very, very small percentage of deaths are due to firearms despite there being a ton of guns here. Further, a country like Canada, which has just as many guns as the United States, has less than 100 firearm deaths. Guns don't kill people; people kill people. If you want to attack the problem (and I would argue it's a very small problem, really; the murder rate is historically low), you should focus on attitudes and behavior, not restricting what people can own.

You might be right saying that part of the problem is culture and the "culture of violence" as Moore would say that is present in the US. But, as I already said, I'm advocating for tighter regulation on guns, not a complete ban. Right now in many states is waaaay to easy to get a gun. It might not be a death tool, but it's still something that needs to be used with a lot of precaution and knowledge. You can't allow the citizen to purchase them like they were buying a microwave.

You totally misunderstood my argument. You say "Let's say an armed criminal gets into a house." I'm stopping before that: I'm saying that a criminal is less likely to even go into a house if he feels there is a higher likelihood that the owner has a gun. It's a variable. If I break into a house where there's only a 1% chance the owner has a gun, then it's very unlikely I risk being harmed in the process. Even if I get caught, I'll get jail time, sure, but I won't incur physical harm in the same way.

If there's a 20% chance the owner has a gun, then there's a much more realistic chance I do get shot. There's less of a chance I could overpower the victim. And you further seem to indicate that you don't know American law by assuming the criminal will shoot back. Some might, but a lot wouldn't; if the criminal shot the victim, they'd be guilty of murder (death in the commission of a felony), the police would commit a lot more resources to catch him, and they'd receive a much, much longer sentence if caught.

LOL. So you think that because he might get death sentence he won't shoot? Wow, it must be full of dumb criminals then cause there are still lots of homicides in the US. I hope you are familiar with Beccaria's and other philosopher's theory that Death Sentence isn't a deterrent as it's advocates state. For a desperate criminal (say a junkie who needs money to get drugs or a guy who needs money to survive) it doesn't matter at all if he gets Death sentence cause he's DESPERATE. He's got nothing to lose. Plus, if he has just a small chance that he can get away with it he will risk it. The real deterrent is enforcing the law, not raising punishments. If you enforce the law properly and you ensure prosecution of every criminal, that will be much better than just a Death Sentence.

And you know what' You could say the same about having a gun at home. You think a desperate criminal will care if you have a gun? Sure, he might be worried. But if he has no choice, if he doens't have anything to lose, he'll take a shot at robbing you even if you are armed. Anyway, chances are he'll be more cold-blooded than you and maybe even better at shooting than u.

Plus having a gun at home it's not exactly the same as walking around the street with an AR-15. Are u in favor of that to? I'd like to know how much freedom you support for gun owners. Cause I think there's a huge difference between allowing citizens to protect their homes and allowing them to walk around with a freaking assault rifle on the street.