Which do you support most and why? (Select 1 or more)

Status
Not open for further replies.

Konrad the mediocre

Well-Known Member
You present valid arguments about the interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. Unfortunately, our founders wrote the laws being a little vague in some ways and specific in others. To be quite honest, I've never researched why they added the first part. I supposed they felt it was necessary to explain why. Maybe they felt hunting and self-defense wasn't a good enough reason to make it a right. Remember that it was written because of what just happened with England. They were trying to take guns away and if they had succeeded, we wouldn't be the United States of America today. At least not in the way we know it.

However, I will disagree with you about the part only being for threats outside our own government. Technically OUR government was England before we declared independence. It was not a foreign government. The English king was our king. We were only a colony. It was only when OUR government started taxing us without representation and attempted to disarm us is when we finally rebelled. Even then it wasn't unanimous primarily because a lot of colonists didn't believe we could beat the most power military in the world with only shopkeepers and farmers. It took a lot of guts for our founding fathers to declare independence knowing full well that we were declaring war.
In fact the right to keep and bear arms already existed in the colonies as it was inherited from the same right under English law. Perhaps the reason it was reaffirmed in the constitution was to remind people of their duty to (not from) the state. The right evolved over a thousand years starting with a subject's duty to the king to help defend the country from vikings and other invaders. Was the right granted to englishmen simply to enable them to uphold their obligations to their lords? Is this what the founders intended? Doesn't really matter anymore.
 

Stephen Longshanks

Forum Moderator
Is this what the founders intended? Doesn't really matter anymore.
You are correct that it doesn't really matter, because most people interpret the Constitution in light of their political agenda and not in light of the intent of the founding fathers, nor the circumstances of the times when it was written. Very frustrating.
 

Lucifer1904

Well-Known Member
I have the constitution in my pocket so here is exactly what the second ammendment says.
"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."
SecondAmendentoftheUnitedStatesConstitution.jpg
 

ajax659

Member
People kill people.. straight and simple.
The how really does not matter. It is the "WHY" we need to figure out and fix.
 

Stephen Longshanks

Forum Moderator
The how does matter. Toddlers kill people with guns, because many gun owners don't secure their weapons. People that have easy access to guns kill people when they might not if they had to work at it. Even responsible gun owners accidentally kill people they don't intend to through mistakes. Not to mention the idiot a couple of years ago that tried to be a hero and stop a robbery, unaware that there was a second person involved. Then there's the situation in Dallas where there was a shooter, but police had trouble figuring out who and where he was, because there were so many people present openly carrying firearms. Restricting access to anything more than hunting rifles (not semi-automatic) and pistols for home defense, and returning to the enlightened days of no concealed carry, would go a long way to making this country safer.
 

ajax659

Member
The how does matter. Toddlers kill people with guns, because many gun owners don't secure their weapons. People that have easy access to guns kill people when they might not if they had to work at it. Even responsible gun owners accidentally kill people they don't intend to through mistakes. Not to mention the idiot a couple of years ago that tried to be a hero and stop a robbery, unaware that there was a second person involved. Then there's the situation in Dallas where there was a shooter, but police had trouble figuring out who and where he was, because there were so many people present openly carrying firearms. Restricting access to anything more than hunting rifles (not semi-automatic) and pistols for home defense, and returning to the enlightened days of no concealed carry, would go a long way to making this country safer.
Accidental deaths... ok, here we go.

Deaths a year from Drowning: all ages: 3482
Deaths a year from Accidental Gun Discharge: all ages: 776

Location of those drownings:
Bathtub: 15%
Pool : 50%
Natural Water: 15%
All other: 20%

Now.. do we want to compare to: Cars, Ladders, Chairs, Stairs, Fires, The string used to let your blinds up and down??
3 kids where I live went on to someone else's property because they had a pond. They got into a canoe the guy had and took off across the lake.
Anyone ever been in a canoe knows, they can tilt very easily and throw you out. Sadly, all 3 kids drowned.. found floating in the pond.
2 kids got on a neighbor's property, and got into an old house that needed to be torn down. They got up on the second floor and the floor caved in, which caused part of the ceiling to above them to cave in also, one was crushed to death, one had a broken leg, concussion and other injuries and will have to live with it the rest of their lives.


Sadly.. accidents happen, and I was not talking about Accidents.. I was talking about just plain ol' MURDER.

Now.. you are correct.. if you are a gun owner, you need to be responsible. You need to keep them locked and safe from children.
If you own guns and have children, you need to make sure they are educated in firearm safety and in use. (when they are old enough to learn)
Yes, if you don't and someone gets killed, you should be held responsible.
 

Stephen Longshanks

Forum Moderator
Accidental deaths... ok, here we go.

Deaths a year from Drowning: all ages: 3482
Deaths a year from Accidental Gun Discharge: all ages: 776

Location of those drownings:
Bathtub: 15%
Pool : 50%
Natural Water: 15%
All other: 20%

Now.. do we want to compare to: Cars, Ladders, Chairs, Stairs, Fires, The string used to let your blinds up and down??
3 kids where I live went on to someone else's property because they had a pond. They got into a canoe the guy had and took off across the lake.
Anyone ever been in a canoe knows, they can tilt very easily and throw you out. Sadly, all 3 kids drowned.. found floating in the pond.
2 kids got on a neighbor's property, and got into an old house that needed to be torn down. They got up on the second floor and the floor caved in, which caused part of the ceiling to above them to cave in also, one was crushed to death, one had a broken leg, concussion and other injuries and will have to live with it the rest of their lives.


Sadly.. accidents happen, and I was not talking about Accidents.. I was talking about just plain ol' MURDER.

Now.. you are correct.. if you are a gun owner, you need to be responsible. You need to keep them locked and safe from children.
If you own guns and have children, you need to make sure they are educated in firearm safety and in use. (when they are old enough to learn)
Yes, if you don't and someone gets killed, you should be held responsible.
Sorry, but on the issue of guns, you can't just pick which part of the conversation to have. And the accidental deaths are a big part of why a lot of people object to them. None of the other things you mention have death as their primary purpose. Guns do.
 

ajax659

Member
Sorry, but on the issue of guns, you can't just pick which part of the conversation to have. And the accidental deaths are a big part of why a lot of people object to them. None of the other things you mention have death as their primary purpose. Guns do.
My comment was more of why people killed, so yes, you are correct, I apologize.

It is pretty sad though that pools were invented for fun, kills more people a year than something that was invented to kill.
There are an estimated 11 million pools in America... averaging 1600 accidental deaths a year.
There are an estimated 300 million Guns in America... averaging 776 accidental deaths a year.

Thank goodness we don't have 300 million pools in America.
(and don't forget, I am not including accidental deaths from Drugs, Alcohol, Cars, Stairs, Ladders, etc....)
 

Stephen Longshanks

Forum Moderator
My comment was more of why people killed, so yes, you are correct, I apologize.

It is pretty sad though that pools were invented for fun, kills more people a year than something that was invented to kill.
There are an estimated 11 million pools in America... averaging 1600 accidental deaths a year.
There are an estimated 300 million Guns in America... averaging 776 accidental deaths a year.

Thank goodness we don't have 300 million pools in America.
(and don't forget, I am not including accidental deaths from Drugs, Alcohol, Cars, Stairs, Ladders, etc....)
Still not relevant, as this ignores how many are killed intentionally with guns. Once again, you have to look at the whole picture, and accidental deaths by other means are irrelevant to the discussion of guns in America.
 
I would prefer death by coconut, at least it would be sudden with no warning or fear :)

for those seeking facts on the gun control issue -- http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp
For example:

* Roughly 14,249 murders were committed in the United States during 2014. Of these, about 9,675 or 68% were committed with firearms.[17]

* A 1993 nationwide survey of 4,977 households found that over the previous five years, at least 0.5% of households had members who had used a gun for defense during a situation in which they thought someone “almost certainly would have been killed” if they “had not used a gun for protection.” This amounted to 162,000 such incidents per year. This excludes all “military service, police work, or work as a security guard.”[18]

162,000 is greater than 14,249...

additionally

* Based on survey data from the U.S. Department of Justice, roughly 5.9 million violent crimes were committed in the United States during 2014.[19] [20] These include simple/aggravated assaults, robberies, sexual assaults, rapes, and murders.[21] Of these, about 600,000 or 10% were committed by offenders visibly armed with a gun.[22]


* Based on survey data from a 2000 study published in the Journal of Quantitative Criminology,[23] U.S. civilians use guns to defend themselves and others from crime at least 989,883 times per year.[24]

989,883 is greater than 600,000

based on the above in my opinion there were significantly more individuals stopping a crime with the use of a firearm, then individuals committing a crime with a firearm. -- understandably the word significantly is subjective i.e why it is an opinion :p
 

Stephen Longshanks

Forum Moderator
I would prefer death by coconut, at least it would be sudden with no warning or fear :)

for those seeking facts on the gun control issue -- http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp
For example:

* Roughly 14,249 murders were committed in the United States during 2014. Of these, about 9,675 or 68% were committed with firearms.[17]

* A 1993 nationwide survey of 4,977 households found that over the previous five years, at least 0.5% of households had members who had used a gun for defense during a situation in which they thought someone “almost certainly would have been killed” if they “had not used a gun for protection.” This amounted to 162,000 such incidents per year. This excludes all “military service, police work, or work as a security guard.”[18]

162,000 is greater than 14,249...

additionally

* Based on survey data from the U.S. Department of Justice, roughly 5.9 million violent crimes were committed in the United States during 2014.[19] [20] These include simple/aggravated assaults, robberies, sexual assaults, rapes, and murders.[21] Of these, about 600,000 or 10% were committed by offenders visibly armed with a gun.[22]


* Based on survey data from a 2000 study published in the Journal of Quantitative Criminology,[23] U.S. civilians use guns to defend themselves and others from crime at least 989,883 times per year.[24]

989,883 is greater than 600,000

based on the above in my opinion there were significantly more individuals stopping a crime with the use of a firearm, then individuals committing a crime with a firearm. -- understandably the word significantly is subjective i.e why it is an opinion :p
Facts? A pro-gun website cherry-picking data to use, most of it from surveys of questionable reliability. Two things I did notice on the website were that: 1) In states that passed right to carry, murder rates either matched the overall U.S. trend downward (did not exceed it) or stayed above the U.S. average per capita, and 2) Murder rates in the U.S. have been at least double the per capita rate in England, and sometimes as high as 5 times the per capita rate. (England has strict gun-control laws.) Both of these kind of shoot down (no pun intended) the point of your post.
 
Facts? A pro-gun website cherry-picking data to use, most of it from surveys of questionable reliability. Two things I did notice on the website were that: 1) In states that passed right to carry, murder rates either matched the overall U.S. trend downward (did not exceed it) or stayed above the U.S. average per capita, and 2) Murder rates in the U.S. have been at least double the per capita rate in England, and sometimes as high as 5 times the per capita rate. (England has strict gun-control laws.) Both of these kind of shoot down (no pun intended) the point of your post.
here is an interesting read:

Finally, as an aside, one has to be very careful in making comparisons across countries because numbers are not always comparable. For example, homicides in England and Wales are not counted the same as in other countries. Their homicide numbers typically “exclude any cases which do not result in conviction, or where the person is not prosecuted on grounds of self defence or otherwise” (Report to Parliament). A more detailed discussion of the difference between “offenses initially recorded as homicide” and “offenses currently recorded as homicide” in England and Wales based on the outcomes of trials is available starting on page 9 here. While this adjustment reduces overall homicides by about 15 percent, it has a larger impact on firearm homicides because those tend to be the ones most likely to involve gang fights that are much more difficult to solve. The problem isn’t just that it reduces the recorded homicide rate in England and Wales, but there would be a sizable reduction in the reported US homicide rate if this approach were used here. For example, from 2000 to 2008 only about 62 percent of US homicides are even cleared by arrest. The numbers in the UK appear to be only adjusted based on cases where charges are brought. In that case, it is useful to note that in the US only about half of those arrested are eventually convicted (also here).

http://crimeresearch.org/2014/03/comparing-murder-rates-across-countries/
 

liotr

New Member
There have been documented cases of guns during uncommanded and killing people . Yes, rare. Winchester arms had a trigger that could fire when cold if the gun was bumped. If the gun happened to be pointed at someone, they would be hit.

Guns make it easier for people to kill other people. Especially if the gun is fully automatic or semi automatic, or semi automatic mofifirled to be automatic.

More people are killed by guns from their household than bad guys are killed. This does include suicides and police shootings. Fact is that owning a gun stastically makes you less safe. Yes, most gun owners are not killed by their own gun, but most non gun owners are not killed by a badge guy either.
 
Guns make it easier for people to kill other people. Especially if the gun is fully automatic or semi automatic, or semi automatic mofifirled to be automatic.
So? Knives make it easier for people to kill other people. Especially if it's big and sharp. How many knife killings have happened in the UK recently?

Your argument doesn't justify banning guns. Especially if it's a protected right under the Constitution.
 

Stephen Longshanks

Forum Moderator
Especially if it's a protected right under the Constitution.
Except that it's not a protected right. The 2nd Amendment has been distorted from its original meaning to justify the gun industry's agenda. That's why gun rights advocates always ignore the part about a "well regulated militia". The 2nd Amendment became meaningless when the U.S. went to a professional Army rather than relying on state-provided militias. Should have been repealed then.
 

cton2.forge

Active Member
Except that it's not a protected right. The 2nd Amendment has been distorted from its original meaning to justify the gun industry's agenda. That's why gun rights advocates always ignore the part about a "well regulated militia". The 2nd Amendment became meaningless when the U.S. went to a professional Army rather than relying on state-provided militias. Should have been repealed then.
Longshanks - let's be honest - the original meaning of the US Constitution was that the 'Citizen' in question was White, owned land and was male. So I kind of throw the whole thing out and make a qualified decision based on the situation today because backe in the 18th century we had sort of a distorted view of things. Might have made sense at the time but not so much today.

Now, everybody gets all absolutist all the time, and I think that is categorically wrong. Guns aren't the problem. The problem is with people that don't understand and respect guns. I'm a proponent of more restrictive gun control measures. Why you ask? Because I grew up on a farm surrounded by guns, learning how to utilize guns properly, spent 10 years of my life in service to this country and half of those in a combat environment. That's why. And that crazy neighbor of mine (who may or may not be on meth) with zero training or experience has the same capability to obtain firearms as I do. That's nuts. But for LE professionals and former military or those who can demonstrate a real NEED and who are trained I don't see an issue. Better education is the key. And not some BS 8 hour class, like a week or more of training. Preferably 1 year or more. Look up gun ownership laws in Israel.

But saying categorically that we should not allow guns period? That's crazy too. Banning in crowded urban cities I wouldn't have a problem with. Because there's no need or cause. But where I grew up (out in the country (otherwise known as the boondox, sticks, boonies or backwoods) guns were a part of life for a reason. We could probably have been okay with bows and arrows but I mean, c'mon.

People have been doing harm to eachother long before guns came around and they'll be doing it long after humanity finds the next greatest tech that outdates guns. So if you are saying that guns should be banned because they are dangerous then the crazies that go before in this thread are right, you're making comparisons that can be applicable to knives, cars and coconuts. No dangerous stuff ever. Check, got it. Gonna go get in my bubble suit now.
 

liotr

New Member
Back when the Constitution was framed and the bill of rights was written, military weapons were owned by town run militias. They were locked up unless the town militia was training or fighting. Do we still have something similar? Yes, it is now called the national guard and is run by each state.

My statement was about high rate of fire guns.

Yes, you can kill someone with a knife, but most people have to get within arms reach to do do, and even with a throwing knife you have to be within about 20 feet and the require much more skill than a gun or a knife at short range.

Let's look at Australia. They restricted guns, and recently had their worst mass shooting in 2 decades. It was 5 people. Complete that to the recent mass shootings herewhere the drumbeat of mass shootings where the dead numbers in the dozens.

So, can we have some common sense restrictions? No loopholes in background checks for gun sales? Meaning every gun sale through a dealer or private person to person has to have a background check? We could set it up so that it is a service that dealers offer as a service to private sales. Could we have laws where someone deemed at risk of suicide or killing someone else have their gun rights temporarily removed? This may be done similarly to emergency search warrants where a judge is contacted after hours to determine cause based on evidence gathered do far. Could we ban kits that have the effect of making a gun fully automatic? Possibly even semi automatic? Could we have mandatory gun safety classes for gun ownership? Would any of these prevent all gun violence? No. Would each one reduce gun violence? Evidence from other countries is yes they would.
 

Stephen Longshanks

Forum Moderator
But saying categorically that we should not allow guns period?
My personal view is that handguns for home defense (not to be carried out in public) and hunting rifles/shotguns should be allowed. And not an unlimited amount of any of them. Outside of the military/police there is no valid argument for carrying weapons in public or owning military type rifles, or owning a large number of handguns/rifles/shotguns. The 2nd Amendment was written and applicable for a different social/military structure that no longer exists. It should be repealed and replaced with something that allows for home defense and hunting, but not unlimited gun ownership or any kind of military type weapon ownership.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.