The Question Of Guns Is A Simple One:

Originally posted by detachedindividual

Originally posted by NavyDoc

If gun bans made you safer, shouldn't your murder rate been much higher in the 1940's to 1950's when there were no such bans?

No, you're trying to prove a negative. That's not reasonable in the slightest.

Also, this about culture and environment. There are several countries where things are not criminalized, because there is no need to criminalize them.

You're suggesting that because there is no law to criminalize something it must be pandemic. That's a nonsense.

I'm not trying to prove a negative (you should really look up what that means). Your nonsense is that gun control makes you safer. An Australian Citizen was statistically much safer before gun control than after. You divert, saying that it is about culture and environment, which actually comes around to our original premise that it is culture and environment that cause murders, deaths, assaults, not private ownership of guns. You can't use one excuse to support your premise and then discard it when it does not.

reply to post by detachedindividual

You cannot be any worse off with these guns being controlled

we already are ... see any incidents per decade of the 19th century vs the 20th (post gun control) ... or are you gonna excuse the obvious with ... but, but, there's more ppl now ?

so ? one million permitted gun carriers roam the streets of one state ... where's the excess violence ?

Vermont doesn't have any 'gun controls' worth speaking of ... where's the excess violence ?
Kennesaw GA has an open carry environment ... where's the excess violence ?

i think it's in your head ... internal conflict is some of the worst around.

Originally posted by Phoenix

Originally posted by DaTroof

 

So these people NEED guns because it's in the Constitution. It's law, right?

So if a law gets passed banning guns, they should fork them over as law abiding citizens. If they don't, they are now criminals in possession of deadly weapons.

So it's not really about the Constitution at all, it's about fear.

It is well documented that our "rights" as defined by our founders and written into the constitution were "god given" or 'naturally in existence" and therefore cannot be taken away by rule of law or man. It is this same belief that led them to believe the people should always have the ability to throw off tyranny by arms, in fact they said it is a duty of a free people.

edit on 21-12-2012 by Phoenix because: quote link

But this is not reality is it.

Your gun will do diddly squat in an effort to overthrow a tyrannical government. You need mass movement, a military response, defection, or outside supply of arms and support.

Your guns will not allow you to overthrow your government. But if those statements were written now, instead of back when the military power was not as vast as it now is, things would be very different wouldn't they?

Originally posted by NavyDoc

Originally posted by detachedindividual

Originally posted by NavyDoc

If gun bans made you safer, shouldn't your murder rate been much higher in the 1940's to 1950's when there were no such bans?

No, you're trying to prove a negative. That's not reasonable in the slightest.

Also, this about culture and environment. There are several countries where things are not criminalized, because there is no need to criminalize them.

You're suggesting that because there is no law to criminalize something it must be pandemic. That's a nonsense.

I'm not trying to prove a negative (you should really look up what that means). Your nonsense is that gun control makes you safer. An Australian Citizen was statistically much safer before gun control than after. You divert, saying that it is about culture and environment, which actually comes around to our original premise that it is culture and environment that cause murders, deaths, assaults, not private ownership of guns. You can't use one excuse to support your premise and then discard it when it does not.

No, the statistics show that gun related crime in Australia has FALLEN, therefore they ARE SAFER than they were before the law was changed.

The facts are out there for people to read for themselves.

You cannot simply lie and say that Australians are at more risk now because of a gun ban, when the statistics show that this is not the case at all.

You can't just make up facts to suit your argument. Australians are SAFER now, because there are FEWER guns able to be used in gun related crime.

I'm not going to post the real and current statistics again, because you're all just ignoring them, just a ATS members ignore the truth, evidence and facts in every other discussion when it affects their belief or delusion.

Originally posted by detachedindividual


So I go back to my previous point. If you think you stand a chance with little guns against tanks, drones, an intel agency, hundreds of thousands of military, fighter jets, and you want to be able to "fight back" and a strange "David and Goliath" way, why not at least make a compromise and keep your arms in the hands of organized and regulated militia at the state level?

If you REALLY think that your right to have guns is about defending yourself against a government, why do you need them all in your homes? Why can't they be securely stored in a regional bunker, able to be used at leisure in designated areas where controls keep the general public safe from their potential destruction and carnage?

You're saying on one hand that your imagined revolution would be supported by the masses, so why not implement and make use of designated areas controlled by those same masses and keep them out of your homes?

Again, you fail at history. Revolutions did not start with people with rocket launchers facing tanks, they started with people with rifles and molotov coctails facing tanks. You need to expand your mind beyond binary thinking.

Why not store them in a cenralized location? I'd think that the answer obvious. A centralized location is vulnerable to attack, confiscation. One may not be able to get to a centralized location. This is why the Swiss have every member of the militia keep their rifles at home.

You also forget that there are many other reasons than fighting a government. Natural disasters bring out gangs of looters where a rifle is best suited for defense. As is public unrest. The only people in the riot zone of LA during the Rodney King riots who came out with their homes and businesses intact were the Korean shop owners who defended their lives and property with (gasp) "assault" rifles.

This is why you keep them at home.

Okay, I'm done with this debate.

I've made my point, some will refuse common sense and logic, and some will even refuse EVIDENCE and STATISTICAL DATA in order to justify their little fantasy world.

Over the last week my estimation of the people of ATS has declined significantly. Belief and delusion reign supreme, evidence and fact are routinely ignored.

Enjoy your squabbles, caress your guns like they'll protect you from a bogey man, wave around that outdated scrap of paper, and weep the next time your "right" to own a high-powered assault weapon results in the deaths of innocent people.

I'm sure you'll justify it in your own head with just a little time watching Fox news.

Originally posted by detachedindividual

Originally posted by NavyDoc

Originally posted by detachedindividual

Originally posted by NavyDoc

If gun bans made you safer, shouldn't your murder rate been much higher in the 1940's to 1950's when there were no such bans?

No, you're trying to prove a negative. That's not reasonable in the slightest.

Also, this about culture and environment. There are several countries where things are not criminalized, because there is no need to criminalize them.

You're suggesting that because there is no law to criminalize something it must be pandemic. That's a nonsense.

I'm not trying to prove a negative (you should really look up what that means). Your nonsense is that gun control makes you safer. An Australian Citizen was statistically much safer before gun control than after. You divert, saying that it is about culture and environment, which actually comes around to our original premise that it is culture and environment that cause murders, deaths, assaults, not private ownership of guns. You can't use one excuse to support your premise and then discard it when it does not.

No, the statistics show that gun related crime in Australia has FALLEN, therefore they ARE SAFER than they were before the law was changed.

The facts are out there for people to read for themselves.

You cannot simply lie and say that Australians are at more risk now because of a gun ban, when the statistics show that this is not the case at all.

You can't just make up facts to suit your argument. Australians are SAFER now, because there are FEWER guns able to be used in gun related crime.

I'm not going to post the real and current statistics again, because you're all just ignoring them, just a ATS members ignore the truth, evidence and facts in every other discussion when it affects their belief or delusion.

You see, here is where you are being disingenuous, because you use the caviat of "gun related crime," neglecting to note that all crime has risen. You ignore those facts because they contradict your premise that gun ownership increases crime.

By using "gun crime" only, you are creating "facts" to suit your arguement and this is one of the more dishonest techniques of the anti-gun people.

Australians are NOT SAFER now. They are more likely to be murdered, robbed, raped, and assaulted than they were a generation ago. Do you think it okay to be killed as long as it was with something other than a gun? As long as a rapist uses a knife, that rape victim should be happy that at least he didn't use a gun?

You say silly stuff like this and tehn acuse others of not being logical and ignoring the facts? C'mon.

reply to post by detachedindividual

Right, because you need a weapon capable of shooting a hundred rounds in the blink of an eye against an invader.

been there, done that, 2010 and only needed one bullet, what's your point ?
if the guns were at a central location (away from home) how would that have helped me or the other 2 humans + 2 dozen creatures present ?

Tell me, how many criminals enter homes with assault rifles?

twice this past week in my city, how's yours ?

Are there any statistics to show the crimes committed with types of weapon used?

not that i've researched as they are not different, like many are trying to make them out to be.
they are about as different as sizes and styles of shoes.

in other words, shoes are shoes, they don't change from being shoes because the style, size or purpose differ

I'll bet that these more powerful weapons are proven NOT to be used in random crime, and are more commonly used in mass murder.

what more powerful weapons ??
that's the point.
you are arguing for something that doesn't even exist.

the 'rifle' necessary to shoot a bear is a whole lot more 'powerful' than the one used in any mass slaying so far. the 'rifle' necessary to shoot a target at a great distance is more 'powerful' than the ones used recently in CT ... what IS the point you are trying to make here ?

Originally posted by detachedindividual
Okay, I'm done with this debate.

I've made my point, some will refuse common sense and logic, and some will even refuse EVIDENCE and STATISTICAL DATA in order to justify their little fantasy world.

Over the last week my estimation of the people of ATS has declined significantly. Belief and delusion reign supreme, evidence and fact are routinely ignored.

Enjoy your squabbles, caress your guns like they'll protect you from a bogey man, wave around that outdated scrap of paper, and weep the next time your "right" to own a high-powered assault weapon results in the deaths of innocent people.

I'm sure you'll justify it in your own head with just a little time watching Fox news.

So when logic, reason, history, and facts fail you, you resort to the arrogant name calling and insulting. The irrational emotion is very apparent in the post above.

Apparently to these dolts crime rates escalating is all fine and dandy if the crimes are not being perpetrated by people with guns?

How under any measure of sanity is that 'logical'?

Originally posted by Phoenix

Originally posted by DaTroof

 

So these people NEED guns because it's in the Constitution. It's law, right?

So if a law gets passed banning guns, they should fork them over as law abiding citizens. If they don't, they are now criminals in possession of deadly weapons.

So it's not really about the Constitution at all, it's about fear.

It is well documented that our "rights" as defined by our founders and written into the constitution were "god given" or 'naturally in existence" and therefore cannot be taken away by rule of law or man. It is this same belief that led them to believe the people should always have the ability to throw off tyranny by arms, in fact they said it is a duty of a free people.

edit on 21-12-2012 by Phoenix because: quote link

my american-born japanese father-in-law stopped believing in the constitution, when they came and confiscated his property and put him and his family into an internment camp during WW2,... after getting out he never voted again, nor did he give a damn about politics...i asked him one day why he never voted, and he said to me, "when i needed the protections of the constitution the most, they weren't there".
he paraphrased about how the constitution is a document of convienient previledges, rather than absolute rights.

Originally posted by jimmyx

Originally posted by Phoenix

Originally posted by DaTroof

 

So these people NEED guns because it's in the Constitution. It's law, right?

So if a law gets passed banning guns, they should fork them over as law abiding citizens. If they don't, they are now criminals in possession of deadly weapons.

So it's not really about the Constitution at all, it's about fear.

It is well documented that our "rights" as defined by our founders and written into the constitution were "god given" or 'naturally in existence" and therefore cannot be taken away by rule of law or man. It is this same belief that led them to believe the people should always have the ability to throw off tyranny by arms, in fact they said it is a duty of a free people.

edit on 21-12-2012 by Phoenix because: quote link

my american-born japanese father-in-law stopped believing in the constitution, when they came and confiscated his property and put him and his family into an internment camp during WW2,... after getting out he never voted again, nor did he give a damn about politics...i asked him one day why he never voted, and he said to me, "when i needed the protections of the constitution the most, they weren't there".
he paraphrased about how the constitution is a document of convienient previledges, rather than absolute rights.

With all due respect to your FIL, the answer to that is not to dispense with Constitutional protections and rights, but rather to fight and strive to ensure that those protections are maintained and safeguarded for ALL citizens.

reply to post by jimmyx

war ... the ultimate manipulator.
glad to hear he made it out, many did not.

If there is a revolution, I couldn't be a front line fighter anymore so I would donate my hardware to the cause.

That said, if I could be taken to a mobile hospital, I could help patch up and comfort injured fighters.

I can prep/cook/can if needed as long as I could sit since I can't stand for long or walk very far.

I can contribute my knowledge and skills.

reply to post by detachedindividual


That is, in a nutshell, where are ideaologies differ!

We don't have to DEFEND our rights to you. YOU, didn't bestow them upon us! We are merely attempting a discouse with those, who insist on imposing, and who do not understand our rights.
Our discussion is NOT a defense, but merely a courtesy. You should probably take a page out of your Queen's handbook and mind your manners, a bit more than you have been...

reply to post by detachedindividual


Not at all,

The numbers exist not only to throw off foreign invaders but also domestic tyranny. Modern military weapons do not gurantee a victory - ask Russia about Cheknya for instance or Russia and the US about Afganistan.

Its also mindful to realize that a modern military functions on a long and complicated logistical tail. Imagine the tail were cut off. All modern weapons systems require intensive maintenance and support. Troops fighting require 6-12 more behind the lines to support. All of that is made possible by a peaceful homefront as it exists now.

Also take into account our soldiers are citizens first, soldiers second - that would make for mass desertions or refusal to carry out illegal orders rampant - many officers would get fragged if they insisted. These times are not like 1861 where divisions in society were clear, its actually mistake of TPTB to fractionalize people as they have because it will in the end bite when the masses don't rally to their cause.

The question of military vs. civilian is not one of capability at all, I actually consider it strawman like as an argument, no, the question is "how far and how hard a push is needed for willpower to change the situation"

An arument was tried for central storage of "civilian militia weapons" where another poster correctly mentioned it was that very thing which made revolution become a "hot" war when British attemted to seize those arms. I happen to like the very nature of decentralization on civilian side and our governments centralization of theirs, it should be easy to work out why thats a good thing.

The histories of Russia, China, Cambodia, Rwanda and many others directly point to the abject failures of so-called gun control - sooner or later the unarmed populance is subjugated, re-educated and those that cannot or will not submit are and have been murdered in the hundreds of millions - that sir is the best agument against your ideas as they stand.

To summarize, we have millions upon millions of armed citizens who; prevent foreign invasion by their very existance, prevent tyranny domestically (real tyranny, not the ersatz) It is proven in this country that gun control worsens crime, it is proven limits on types of guns and accessories have no effect and may even aggravate crime, it is proven that "gun free" zone attract the insane or criminally minded as they become "free fire zones",

reply to post by GoOfYFoOt


And the person panicks, isn't able to to save the children, and all the children and the teacher are dead.

so yea, instead of using quick thinking abilities to handle the situation, they fall back to shoot the terrorist, they are shaking and miss, he kills everybody. She can't bring herself to kill somebody, he kills everyone.

Instead, she used quick wits and protected the kids, without becoming a murder herself.

This is the silly fantasy land that gun nuts live in. They think it is a fail safe and they imagine that everyone turns into a staunch cowboy the second a gun is in their hand, and is suddenly a lethal shot. When all you are doing is adding yet another complexity to the human element.

And this is why gun nuts obsess over guns, more than even lives of children, because they feel weak and powerless and can't fend for themselves without their killing weapon.

FAct is, these women saved far more chilren than any gun would of, and their memories are cheapend by the gun nuts who try to use the heroism to promote their master, the NRA.

In this thread I see:

a) a satanic symbol
b) assertion that we can't defend ourselves against the government and therefore shouldn't have the tools to even try

As if I didn't need another reason to resist this lunacy.

There should not be a "question of guns" any more than there should be a question of fire, a question of water, a question of scissors, or a question of any other object. Yes, some people use guns to kill other people. The fact exists that there are also people who kill others by locking them in buildings and setting the buildings on fire, by holding their heads under water until they are drowned, or by stabbing them relentlessly with scissors or other sharp or pointed objects. Any object, regardless of how simple and harmless it may appear, can be and sometime has been used as a deadly weapon.

In America, we have the Second Amendment, carefully and intentionally designed by the drafters of the Bill of Rights so as to afford the American people with the opportunity to adequately defend the freedom of our individual States as they exist under the blanket called the federal government. The Constitution clearly sets forth the authority of the president to reign as "commander-in-chief" over the armed forces of America. The drafters of the Bill of Rights realized that such authority and power could be turned against the people of America, should the office of the president fall into the hands of tyrants. It is in knowing this that the Second Amendment was passed so as to enable the people with the opportunity to resist such a tyrannical government.

A couple of points must be made clear...

First, the Second Amendment makes it clear that the people have the right "to keep and bear Arms". Note that the word "Arms" is capitalized in the original document. Nowhere in this original document do the drafters mention "guns", "rifles" or "muskets". The mention these objects collectively as "Arms", from the word "armaments", which include any and all forms of armament. This is because the drafters knew that a people cannot successfully defend our freedoms when armed with pistols against large calibre weaponry that the militaries are sure to possess. Any and all forms of "Arms" that a possibly tyrannical government has the ability to possess and to use against the people of America are the same Arms that we, the people, are guaranteed the right to possess as well.

Second, the Second Amendment makes it clear that the right to keep and bear Arms "shall not be infringed". This, alone, makes it clear that any attempt by the governement or the elected representatives of the people to limit and-or restrict armament possession and use by the people is unconstitutional since limits and restrictions serve to infringe upon the rights of the people. Even the act of making it supposedly illegal for a person to possess a firearm without first registering it, or without first acquiring a weapons license or permit, is an infringement upon the rights afforded by the Second Amendment. Even the act of making it supposedly illegal for felons who have paid their debts to society to possess firearms is an infringement because, simply put, felons are people too and they also have the right to defend themselves, their loved ones, their homes and their nation against harm and invasion.

reply to post by DaTroof


Tell that to the people of Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam to name a few they didn't get that memo
The general consensus between those of with testicles is that if we're going to die anyway we might as well go down fighting.