A good (long) read on gun control.

[Sean]

You're not sounding any less fascist with that statement.

Guess how bothered I am?

 

[richard_daily]

Guess how bothered I am?

With turning fascist?

Cool... I guess.

 

[Liar]

The Bill of Rights protects certain rights that the citizens of many European countries of the day did not have. Free speech, religious freedom, protection from unreasonable search and seizure and other things. In Europe and colonies, weapons were often taken away in order to prevent rebellion. The Second Amendment was added simply because it was needed.

So, weapons ARE special? Ontologically different from, say, a woodsman's axe or a farmer's schyte?

I fail to see the difference between a death caused by something that was made to kill and something that was not.

But at the same time you don't also fail to see why somethig that was made to kill deserves special protection under the law.

 

[blobfish]

So, weapons ARE special? Ontologically different from, say, a woodsman's axe or a farmer's schyte?

But at the same time you don't also fail to see why somethig that was made to kill deserves special protection under the law.

If axes and scythes were commonly seized from the European citizenry, I'm sure those things would have been included in the Constitution.

At any rate, this is a pointless line of discussion, because no one denies that guns are different from other objects. The point is that their intent should have no bearing on their legality.

 

[PoppingTom]

The point is that their intent should have no bearing on their legality.

If their intent is only killing, why not?

 

[blobfish]

If their intent is only killing, why not?

Because that's not inherently bad. Some people and things need to be wounded or killed for the good of other people.

If there were a child molesting device, I would say that it should be outlawed, but guns do far more good than harm.

 

[Liar]

If axes and scythes were commonly seized from the European citizenry, I'm sure those things would have been included in the Constitution.

At any rate, this is a pointless line of discussion, because no one denies that guns are different from other objects. The point is that their intent should have no bearing on their legality.

But they do.

There's a whole constitutional amendment that makes sure that while lawmakers can in theory regulate the sale of a lot of products, they can not to the same extent regulate the sale of guns. There is a bearing on legality - in the favor of guns versus other non constitutionally protected objects.

 

[badbabysitter]

Because that's not inherently bad. Some people and things need to be wounded or killed for the good of other people.

If there were a child molesting device, I would say that it should be outlawed, but guns do far more good than harm.

what defines what is good for other people?


what person needs to die for the benefit of others?

crimainals? fine.. lets say I do support the death penalty ( which I don't ).. those are never taken lightly and are EXTREMELY regulated

why cant guns have similar restrictions when it would " benefit" in the exact same way?

knives can be used to cut your food.... cutting your food with an AK-47 would probably be not as effective, and would probably kill other guests at Thanksgiving

guns do not do far more good

they can be effective as tools when they are regulated as such

 

[badbabysitter]

I fail to see the difference between a death caused by something that was made to kill and something that was not.

when you went driving with your mom as a kid ..did you die?


when someone shoots a guy in the head... he died


your mom used the car with its intended purpose


the guy that shot the other guy dead.... used the gun with its intended purpose

 

[PoppingTom]

Make an argument or a proposal, so we have something to discuss.

I've read the article exactly to the point SeanH mentioned. And it was enough for me.

A gun seller, trainer, who trained SWAT teams, and teachers sometimes for free, which means he is highly biased anyway, promised us to tell us something about guns and gun control, but instead he tells us something about armed teachers and how good it could be, if there were no gun free zones any longer....

...and then he mentioned Oregon as example of "not so many killed because no gun free zone". He forgot to mention that the killer wasn't stopped by any civil gun owner. No mall shooting ever was. Maybe the mall as a gun free zone would have made the same results.

If he wants examples like that: Chardon High School shooting, only 3 people died. Gun free zone.

Westroads Mall shooting, 9 people died, 6 injured. No gun free zone.


Now discuss.

 

[PoppingTom]

... guns do far more good than harm.

That's the American dream. The NRA people are nice guys, with whole lot of ice cream for kids.

The truth is: guns do nothing else but killing. Like atom bombs. I feel much better to know they're in responsible hands.

 

[Ishmael]

You're choosing to focus on that one reference. Is the CDC equally fraudulent? How about the Brady Center?

After almost two decades neither Klecks nor Lotts statistics or scientific statistics have been disproven even after Herculean efforts by the anti-gunners. Neither the numbers nor the methodology. The only challenge to Lott that has been made with any validity was his assertion that more guns equal less crime. The problem is that while his research indicates a strong circumstantial case in support of that assertion, that statement cannot be made with any specific scientific proofs. Kleck avoided that entire issue by letting the data speak to the subject without trying to state a conclusion.

I'll have to go back and re-read the link but I believe the author made reference to Lotts data, not his questioned conclusion. The conclusion is dismissible as a valid argument, the data sets are not.

Ishmael

 

[koalabear]

The 2nd is not here for the convenience of the government. So the MORON purposing only flintlocks is a true MORON.

 

[PoppingTom]

After almost two decades neither Klecks nor Lotts statistics or scientific statistics have been disproven

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=343781

 

[Ishmael]

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=343781

Are you reading challenged? That was precisely the point I was addressing.

You cannot draw a precise causative line from the statistics to the conclusion because there are/were too many external variables at work and there was no scientifically valid control group. The data sets have still withstood all challenges.

Ishmael

 

[Sean]

After almost two decades neither Klecks nor Lotts statistics or scientific statistics have been disproven even after Herculean efforts by the anti-gunners. Neither the numbers nor the methodology. The only challenge to Lott that has been made with any validity was his assertion that more guns equal less crime. The problem is that while his research indicates a strong circumstantial case in support of that assertion, that statement cannot be made with any specific scientific proofs. Kleck avoided that entire issue by letting the data speak to the subject without trying to state a conclusion.

I'll have to go back and re-read the link but I believe the author made reference to Lotts data, not his questioned conclusion. The conclusion is dismissible as a valid argument, the data sets are not.

Ishmael

What data sets? Lott claims he lost all his data in a hard drive crash and can't remmeber any of the names of his researchers.

 

[Weird Harold]

If their intent is only killing, why not?

That presumes that the intent of all guns is killing humans -- a presumption that is false.

For example, the M-16 uses a mid-power, small caliber cartridge specifically because it cases more disabling wounds than deaths -- at least that is one of the reasons for choosing the .223/5.56mm cartridge.

Target pistols/rifles aren't intended to kill anything except paper targets or steel silhouettes.

Hunting rifles and some pistols are designed to kill big game, or small game at long ranges (aka "varmint guns.")

At a guess, more models of guns are made with the intent of killing animals or targets than are made for killing humans.

 

[rockslyde]

Just started reading this thread minutes ago..

Some of the gun-control zealots, asserted the fact that none of the 22 Chinese children died in the knife attack, completely ignoring the fact that 60,000,000 to 80,,000,000 unarmed people were murdered during the "peoples purge" on mainland China during the last century.

Yes, the experts agree....gun control "works".

Just a coincidence that the power structure, now in place, shares the same basic political philosophy as the Maoist's? (collectivism/ socialism/fascism/marxism)

The Eugenics crowd that seems to have gained tremendous power throughout the world, has called for a population reduction from a world of 7 billion down to a sustainable population of 500 million people.

Guess which side of the gun-control debate they're on.

 

[StephenHawking]

Gun control isn't much of an issue for me.

 

[rockslyde]

That's the American dream. The NRA people are nice guys, with whole lot of ice cream for kids.

The truth is: guns do nothing else but killing. Like atom bombs. I feel much better to know they're in responsible hands.

Responsible Hands? Like the Maoist's who killed 60 to 80 million unarmed people in China, or the Stalinist's/Leninist's who killed at least 20 million (some estimates go as high as 50 million), or Pol Pot's people who knocked off 10 million in the killing fields of Cambodia, or the Nazi's who exterminated million's during WWII?

The Obama Regime and his allies share the same basic political philosophy as those afore mentioned. That includes gun control.

If you call the murder of more than 100 million innocent people responsible, I question your sanity.

 

[Sean]

Responsible Hands? Like the Maoist's who killed 60 to 80 million unarmed people in China, or the Stalinist's/Leninist's who killed at least 20 million (some estimates go as high as 50 million), or Pol Pot's people who knocked off 10 million in the killing fields of Cambodia, or the Nazi's who exterminated million's during WWII?

The Obama Regime and his allies share the same basic political philosophy as those afore mentioned. That includes gun control.

If you call the murder of more than 100 million innocent people responsible, I question your sanity.

I told you fuckers that Americans can do irony, didn't I?

 

[rockslyde]

An armed citizenry is the last firewall against tyranny, and we americans do, indeed, live in an age of tyranny. Our liberties are, by design, vanishing rapidly.

The killing of millions of people are beyond our abilities to truly comprehend, yet there are those who trivialize such horrific events, and they call ME insane for daring to cite historical facts, when making my point.

"Those who fail to recognize the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them".

 

[Peregrinator]

I've done so many times. Make possession of anything other than a long gun with a flintlock firing mechanism a class one felony. After a suitable grace period for voluntary destruction of firearms, anyone caught in possession of same will be presumed to be a threat to others and killed on the spot by law enforcement.

How about a suggestion that leads to a society a rational person would want to live in? You're just replacing occasional violence by nuts and hardcore criminals with violence perpetrated by the state against normal people.

Is the BBC a good source? http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/1440764.stm

 

[Sean]

How about a suggestion that leads to a society a rational person would want to live in? You're just replacing occasional violence by nuts and hardcore criminals with violence perpetrated by the state against normal people.

Is the BBC a good source? http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/1440764.stm

Try finding me one that isn't twelve years old.

 

[rockslyde]

I've done so many times. Make possession of anything other than a long gun with a flintlock firing mechanism a class one felony. After a suitable grace period for voluntary destruction of firearms, anyone caught in possession of same will be presumed to be a threat to others and killed on the spot by law enforcement.

So your an advocate of the police state, somehow I'm not surprised. Your obviously unconcerned with the massive corruption, that flourishes in such societies. As history has taught us, "absolute power corrupts, absolutely."

Question. What makes you so certain that you would be immune from the horror's of the police state?