Comparing gun deaths to car deaths..etc

Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh
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, unless statistics say that guns are bad for some peoples health.

Can you constitutionally define "well regulated militia" and the word "arms." I am not asking for your opinion on this. I want the legal definitions as they are to be interpreted today backed up with citatations. The way I understand it, any random kid that wants a gun is not part of a well regulated militia and chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons are all "arms."

Any help there would be much appreciated.

Citationless opinions will be dismissed as such.

Guns are inanimate objects. Only a tool. There is no difference. Your argument is pure emotion. FYI, I've lost loved ones to violence involving guns. I still own them and help/urge others to do the same.

Question: Where are all these Anti-Gun trolls coming from?

Originally posted by silverbullett
There is no difference.

There is actually a huge difference. Every state in the union has very specific restrictions on who can drive, where they can drive, how they can drive, what they can drive, and must prove they are capable of driving safely before being permitted to. You might say it is "automobile control." Now, I have to wonder why there is not one state in the union that would allow any 12 year old kid that has the urge to hop in a bus and take it for a joyride. Maybe society decided not everyone is fit to have control over something so dangerous purely by nature of existing? See where this logic goes?

Originally posted by silverbullett
Guns are inanimate objects. Only a tool. There is no difference. Your argument is pure emotion. FYI, I've lost loved ones to violence involving guns. I still own them and help/urge others to do the same.

man, but if gun are easy acces. Bad people will have them more easly ! Why not more rules and process to have a gun ?

And you even lost people to gun... Man... can't understand your thinking

You could wait 1-2 month for buying a gun no ? Like having a permit, learn how to use it, do mental check. Then have your gun no ? You have to do that do drive a car ! ( at least in canada )

Gun need control, and they are not like ( OMG, i want to buy a gun RIGHT NOWWWWWWWWWWW and i can't !!! OUTRAGE ). People could wait and do the regulation!

In Canada, gun killing is really rare and are more to do with organised crime.

In USA, your gun killing seem a lot of personal killing :S... Because every one could have them... Even kid kill kid in your country.... ( i remember 2 stories... and they are surly more.


Gun are powerfull and are made to END LIFE. Of animal or humans....

Talking about it like a defense weapons is soo wrong... Because the % of attack vs defense in the gun category is surely like 85% attacking 15% defending.

Sorry for my english, im not from your country ! You still rock ( LOVE USA comedy SOUTH PARK ROCK )

Originally posted by silverbullett
Guns are inanimate objects. Only a tool. There is no difference. Your argument is pure emotion. FYI, I've lost loved ones to violence involving guns. I still own them and help/urge others to do the same.

Question: Where are all these Anti-Gun trolls coming from?

edit on 12-1-2011 by silverbullett because: (no reason given)

where ? Canada, Quebec ! A land of automatic gun are illegal ! And the gouverment didn't try to kill us :O:O:O !!!

( but our gouvernement is corrupt xD )

reply to post by FreeQuebec86


Where I'm from, there is a process to obtaining firearms:

1. Pass the Handgun Safety Course
2. Pass the DOJ Backround Check and get Fingerprinted
3. 10-days later, if everything checks out, you get to take it home. If not, no guns.

Also, it seems you've never had the pleasure of having your home invaded and being robbed at gunpoint. I unfortunately have. That was before I had a family to keep safe. Now I have no choice, I must be prepared to meet any perceived threat against myself or my loved ones at any time. I wish I could afford to live in a nice area with no crime. My government coming to take my guns is the last thing on my mind. I'm more worried about the tweakers who live down the street.

Originally posted by silverbullett
reply to post by FreeQuebec86

 

Where I'm from, there is a process to obtaining firearms:

1. Pass the Handgun Safety Course
2. Pass the DOJ Backround Check and get Fingerprinted
3. 10-days later, if everything checks out, you get to take it home. If not, no guns.

Also, it seems you've never had the pleasure of having your home invaded and being robbed at gunpoint. I unfortunately have. That was before I had a family to keep safe. Now I have no choice, I must be prepared to meet any perceived threat against myself or my loved ones at any time. I wish I could afford to live in a nice area with no crime. My government coming to take my guns is the last thing on my mind. I'm more worried about the tweakers who live down the street.

edit on 12-1-2011 by silverbullett because: (no reason given)

You just say it again ! you was attack in a home invasion with people who got a gun !!!!

That's the problem ! If gun was hard acces, the guy would think more before doing this.

YEAH, we got home invasion in canada too, more rarely and even more rarely with gun ( They use number, like being 3 or more and baseball bat, knife and rope .. :S )

But i really think guns make criminal activity more easly.

And we have very much less murder by gun then you do.


At least i'm happy to see some state got more laws and check then other !

But maybe it's just your mentality, you won your independance by guns. So you love them a lot ! xD

Here gun are just for police and army. And hunting ! Not much as a "daily tool".

You seem to threat your weapons like your wallet xD. Like ( Omg, i forget my gun at the GYM ! ) xD

reply to post by Sinnthia

Can you constitutionally define "well regulated militia" and the word "arms." I am not asking for your opinion on this. I want the legal definitions as they are to be interpreted today backed up with citatations. The way I understand it, any random kid that wants a gun is not part of a well regulated militia and chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons are all "arms."

I'm sure you are quite capable of finding what the constitution defines..
You seem to have no problem with other threads so why ask others to do your research for you here??

State the facts or your opinion...

reply to post by FreeQuebec86


Do you really believe criminals get their guns through legal means? You are sorely mistaken. Also, I don't carry guns on me. I only keep guns at home for home defense.

Originally posted by silverbullett
reply to post by FreeQuebec86

 

Do you really believe criminals get their guns through legal means? You are sorely mistaken. Also, I don't carry guns on me. I only keep guns at home for home defense.

I would think that like 30% or the gun used to kill someone in the USA are surely bought in a gun store with no problem. ( Lol, i admit, random number, but still a good approximation i think, i would even give it to 40% )

BUT PRO-CRIMINAL, surely buy gun on the "black market". And surely kill more people.

But normal low-life, and passionnate crime ( like killing ex-wife ) are surely come from legal way.


And just a question, where come the black market gun ? Like, surely from a legal USA factory ? :S

Here is my take on this...(Even though this was a troll post and more than likely intended to get replies like the "cold dead hands" ones)

I own guns...WILL ALWAYS own guns! I am one of the "cold dead hands" types and like someone mentioned in an earlier post....if you don't believe me...Try me!

This is a question for all those who think guns should be illegal.......Where do you think all the guns that are already out there are going to go? Do you think they will just disappear? Do you think that they will just stop firing? Do you really believe that the government of this country will be able to round them all up and no one will have them? Apparently you have never been around too many criminals with guns....I can tell you from experience that those who create gun violence in the first place will not cease to have guns and sell guns to others who seek out guns.....

To think that anyone would willingly give up their right to bear arms and just expect their government to "do the right thing" and be "fair and just" shows me how truly *snip* the world is. Do you not understand that this would be your last line of defense against tyrants? Do you not understand that if you give up gun rights THEY are the ONLY ONES that will be left with guns? What do you think...you think they are going to give up their guns, scrap all the metal, melt them all down and we are going to live in a world free of guns and gun violence? RIDICULOUS
You government "trusters" make me sick! How can you not see the lies? How can you not see that they don't care about us?
Jesus...I could ramble about this all night and this topic truly pisses me off and saddens me!

I hunt with my guns...I shot targets (like others have said in this thread) How do you expect people to survive if there was say, oh I don't know, a food shortage? How would they hunt?

Lastly, if you really think that many of us will give up our guns just because "the man" is going to come "face stomp" us and "take us away" or whatever.....you are sorely mistaken.....Some of us value freedom to the extent that we are willing to die for it. I would much rather die free than live a slave....(Of course I can already hear them now...talking about..."well good...die...who cares...one less gun totting redneck"
WHATEVER...you can take your materialistic world and shove it! I don't need it anyways!
But as long as there is breath in my body and I am able to move I will defend my right to be free...I will defend my right to bear arms and I will defend my family! Simple as that....

Funny thing is, I bet a lot of you "make guns illegal" people are those "support the troops" type.....Maybe you should realize that those who fought before fought and died believing they were defending the constitution of this country...which includes....THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS! How can you "support the troops" yet no support the constitution which they fought and bleed to protect?
Makes me SICK!
I'm through with this thread as I have no idea why I am wasting my time posting here in the first place....Not like I care what laws they enact when it comes to such things as this.....I WILL be free and I WILL do as I please as long as I don't infringe on the rights or freedoms of others! Again...Simple as that!

One more thing....had to edit to add this...
Had I been born into a perfect world without guns and without power hunger fools who wish to control and enslave then maybe I could see your point....but this IS NOT a perfect world and there are people who wish to control...there are those who wish to kill and there are those who wish to rape and pillage....therefore us "law abiding" FREE citizens MUST protect ourselves....and if you expect that every time someone breaks into your house or tries to kill you that the cops will show up and "save the day"....well in my opinion that makes you a COWARD.....stop supporting the nanny state....Stand up for yourselves and take care of your own....
I would bet that most of those who speak of making guns illegal and taking them away from average citizens have never had to protect themselves...and have never lived in a dangerous neighborhood where criminals and junkies tried to do them harm....and those who have and still expect "help" from "the man".....well like I said before....COWARDS....go ahead and let big daddy hold your hand...but for myself....I can and WILL do it on my own.....!

Originally posted by FreeQuebec86
xD If USA govt try to take down his people i would not work in our current socities and world xD. USA would be banned from all international association and maybe start a world war 3 xD ( for saving the USA citizen from your dictature ).

But, REALLLY ? xD that would never happen xD

That's a pretty naive wordview, friend. Most of the world does not really care what happens in the rest of the world. You think other nations would rush out to help the poor oppresed people in a US dictatorship? You mean like they saved the Burmese people? Laotians? Congolese? Fijians? North Koreans? Pakistanis? Like how Canada valiantly rushed to the rescue of the people of Chile in the 1970's, or Germany's bold and brilliant efforts to free Tajikstan?

No. It doesn't work that way. I'd betcha twenty loonies that Canada would actually HELP a dictatorial United States keep people from hopping the northern border into Canada.

But no, you're right, the US will never strip away those rights to own guns. The second amendment is a great pacifier; so long as the pack of barking morons can wrap their hands around a barrel and lovingly stroke it, they'll apparently never notice the rest of their rights getting yanked out from under them.

Originally posted by Sinnthia

Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh
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, unless statistics say that guns are bad for some peoples health.

Can you constitutionally define "well regulated militia" and the word "arms." I am not asking for your opinion on this. I want the legal definitions as they are to be interpreted today backed up with citatations.

That's easy enough to do. Militia is defined in US Code and basically includes any able-bodied male of draft age.

Not that it matters much. The US Supreme Court ruled as recently as 2008 that the 2nd Amendment confers an individual right to gun ownership unconnected to militia service.

1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.

Source

reply to post by silverbullett


Where, exactly, do you think these guns come from? They don't appear out of thin air, of course, and it's unlikely that there are many illegal gunsmiths that cater only to the criminal element (this isn't a batman comic, after all).

So where do these illegally-acquired handguns come from?

Most are either the legal property of the people who are using them, or were stolen from someone else who had legally purchased them.

The illegal gun market is dependent on the legal gun market, since the legal gun market is the only place you can get guns FOR illegal trade.

reply to post by TheWalkingFox


Actually, it really doesn't help when the government agencies are doing a lot of work to feed the guns to the black market.

ATF walking guns across the border

More information on above post

ATS link to Same Topic

So, if the supposed "Good guys" are feeding the black market with guns, and giving them to uncertain persons without a background check, does that make it better or worse?

The Government, through it's agencies, is setting things up to fail. This could be looked at as a form of Treason.

Thank you, I will keep my arms for putting food on the table, and in the unfortunate event, I must defend myself with Lethal force, I shall do so.

Don't be so simplistic. The gun/car comparison is still valid. We put up with 40,000 car-related deaths per year because the car gives us something we think we need--personal at-will transportation at an affordable price. Yes, that's "arguable," but we still do it.

In the same manner, we use guns most often for self-defense, not for intentionally killing people. (Note: Half the gun deaths in this country are by suicides.) In an oft-cited study by Kleck he showed that as many as 2.45 million crimes per year were thwarted by people who used firearms in self-defense, yet never fired a shot.

The next step here is to analyze violent crime. Within the United States there are various degrees of gun control. California is an example of a state that has many restrictions, some of them quite arbitrary. You cannot effectively get a permit to carry a concealed weapon. Clip sizes are restricted. You cannot buy bulk ammo. So called "assault rifles" (with a black stock that looks mean) are banned, but hunting rifles (wooden stock, same internal gun parts) are not. There's a long list.

Compare those laws to Washington State, which has fair to middlin gun laws. You can't have a machine gun without a special permit, but otherwise you can do all those things you can't do in California.

I'm sure you would feel much safer in California which has all those gun laws to protect you. But that would be foolish because California violent crime rates are over double what they are in Washington. Now take the United States and compare violent crimes and you find the same trend. Great Britain, where you cannot have any firearms at all, has a HIGHER incidence of violent crimes than the United States.

I hear it already: "But, but, there are other factors involved." OF COURSE THERE ARE!!! The question, then, is why not deal with these OTHER FACTORS rathe rthan jump to the conclusion that firearm ownership must be curtailed. When you do that, every time, it makes you more vulnerable, not more safe.

reply to post by kerazeesicko


The "gun statistics" don't tell you how many of the deaths are from cops they don't say how many are from criminals who have the gun illegally or how many have a permit and used it in self defense.

They just say "guns kill (whatever # ) a year"

And it is not about my gun if you came to my door to take it you would see it's about my freedom and my rights.

Why is it people are out to disarm the US why not take that effort and apply it to one of the more genocidal and Homicidal country's or areas in the world like South Africa central America and south America or Mexico or the Sudan arae .
Our fire arms are regulated and you have to pass and exam to get a side arm (legal that is) were as some of the areas mentioned are not regulated and just about any one with the cash can get one semi. or full auto. I agree so restraints need to be put in place to liquidate some of the fire arms in the US, BUT that is my opinion and as such Im not saying suspend the constitution or MY 2nd amendment to do it. So what ever country you are from (OP) why dont you just worry about your little speck of ground and not worry about ours. If you feel like saving some one try to donate to some cause and make a difference that way and leave my constitution alone.
Thank you and good night.

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
That's awesome.

It wasn't intended to be. [noting the sarcasm of your statement]

Yes. Guns are specifically made to end life. It's funny that even while you're trying to deny this, you're also admitting it.

I reread my post, thinking I might have inadvertently indicated a denial, and found none.

The point was that, regardless of the intended purpose of a firearm, they are completely safe in the hands of responsible people and are not inherently evil as suggested by the OP and others.

Just as you alluded to, an automobile is not intended to cause injury or death. However, due to negligence or malice on the part of some operators, they become just as deadly as a firearm.

The results of their use hinges completely upon the user. A firearm is just a bunch of metal, plastic and/or wood and has no power on its own. Angry people should focus their ire on those who use firearms to cause harm.

reply to post by TheWalkingFox

Second, if the US government ever decided, okay, time to mobilize and crack down on everyone... you wouldn't be able to do a single damned thing about it. It'd be like Indians vs. Space Marines, you'd get your face stomped quickly, and efficiently. And you'd probably be billed for it, too.

This is pure ignorance. If just 2% of gun-owners decided to resist, the military would be out-numbered by 2:1 odds. That's including all active-duty, national guard, and drilling reserve - only a relatively small portion of which are even qualified with a weapon (much less trained for any kind of combat).

That's before you consider the majority of the armed forces would refuse to follow such orders, if not actively resist such orders (take the side of civilians and shoot personnel attempting to collect firearms).

Quite honestly, if you expect me to gear-up and pack an assault rifle/carbine around to take away other people's weapons for you, you've got another thing coming. If you expect the military to follow such an order, you've got another thing coming.

If you want to take away firearms - you go right ahead and try. Just don't try and use the military as leverage for your own social agenda. And for damned sure don't try and say: "well, if you won't give us your guns, we'll send people with guns to take them away." Words don't adequately describe how hypocritical and #ed in the head that is.