The Official Second Amendment / Gun Ban Thread

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

^ Thanks for the defence, but I simply considered the source.

I really don't give a tinker's **** what you do with your expendable cash. However, slugs or bullets are simply synonyms. A chunk of metal is a chunk of metal. Rather silly of you to go around contaminating a quarry. Those aggregates eventually will be used for something and having to filter out vicarious bits of metallic scrap shouldn't be an added expense.

Methinks a nerve has been touched.

[Dewm 177]

^ Thanks for the defence, but I simply considered the source.

I really don't give a tinker's **** what you do with your expendable cash. However, slugs or bullets are simply synonyms. A chunk of metal is a chunk of metal. Rather silly of you to go around contaminating a quarry. Those aggregates eventually will be used for something and having to filter out vicarious bits of metallic scrap shouldn't be an added expense.

Methinks a nerve has been touched.

No nerves have been touched, I enjoy a good discussion

(And as far as "contaminating a quarry", the bullets came from the ground, and to the ground they will return)

[Dewm 177]

Yeah I didn't get moose's point.. maybe he's getting a little to old and senile?

Anyways back on point, I haven't seen any statistics where gun bans actually work to reduce crime..

I have to go out of town quite a bit for work, and I do feel better knowing my wife has a few guns at the house, along with a dog and a security system..

Just look at pretty much every other developed country in the world. The US has an extremely high homicide and Ive posted links to four Harvard studies that show that more guns = higher homicide rate.

On top of that, the US has like the highest prison population from all the developed countries, so apparently guns are not much of a deterrent. On top of that, if you look at the crime statistics of other crimes, the rates in the US are not significantly better than for example a bunch of European countries. And those countries have strict gun control laws. So despite having guns, the US has similar crime rates as countries that aren't armed to the teeth.

Now why do crime rates increase in cities or areas that have stricter gun control laws? My guess is that it is rather pointless to ban guns in a city or district if it is surrounded by areas where people can still easily buy guns. Essentially you are disarming one part of the country, while the rest remains armed. And with no way to stop the inflow of arms into a city by people who legally buy their gun and then move towards the city, it doesn't surprise me to see an increase in crime. I think the only way for any kind of gun law to have effect is when it gets introduced nation wide.

And no need to start calling people old and senile because they make a point you do not agree with.

First off, I'll start at the bottom: I called him old and senile not because we didn't agree.. but because his "masturbating" argument was completely off the shelf nonsensical.

And as far as all of your "stats"

Take England for instance: they have a gun ban.. no one is allowed to own a gun, zero zip.. but they have almost 4 TIMES the violent crime rate (rape, robbery, muggins etc....) So I would say it looks like having a gun to protect yourself is a good thing

http://www.dailymail...Britain-US.html

http://www.liveleak....=c82_1357146088

Now as far as the U.S. homicide rate, it is much higher then England (who has a gun ban) BUT its also at a 50 year low... So it doesn't seem this gun killing spree is flying out of control (as the media would have you believe)

http://www.breitbart...t-a-50-Year-Low

http://articles.wash...rate-death-rate

And to your argument about the US having the highest prison rate... doesn't that mean we are actually catching the guys?

You said that having a city wide or state wide ban just doesn't work, because you can't stop the flow of guns into that area.. I would agree with you, BUT having said that... this proves my point about a country-wide gun ban, whats to stop people from bringing guns in from other countries? We had roughly 700,000 new illegals come to the U.S. from Mexico last year. If that many people can come across the border, imagine how many guns they could get through.

Now all of this is said without dragging out places like Chicago, which has the TOUGHEST gun regulations in the U.S. but has the HIGHEST crime/murder rate in the U.S., doesn't seem like its working.. Or newtown CT (aka Sandyhook) which already had an assault weapons ban... which didn't seem to stop the killer. Maybe if the teachers had a gun also, the number of dead would be 1-4 instead of 20+..

[Meastro444 1]

Here in Holland we do just fine without all guns. You can get a gun, if you get a permit for it. Otherwise, to bad.

And Dewm, a 'good' discussion doesn't involve name calling.

[Dewm 177]

Here in Holland we do just fine without all guns. You can get a gun, if you get a permit for it. Otherwise, to bad.

And Dewm, a 'good' discussion doesn't involve name calling.

Did I hurt your feelings?

I'm not sure what "names" your even talking about, unless it was the "old and senile" comment, which neither are names.. so yeah?

and as far as "doing well in holland" looks like you have a higher rape, and assault rate then the U.S. and a higher over all crime rate.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=1005121101168 (bottom of the post there is a link)

[Meastro444 1]

What do you want me to call that then? Verbal abuse?

And actually, that link actually said that us Dutch have lower crime rates and the answers stated in that article seem to be wrong.

[Dewm 177]

What do you want me to call that then? Verbal abuse?

And actually, that link actually said that us Dutch have lower crime rates and the answers stated in that article seem to be wrong.

Ah you are correct, I misread that down at the bottom of the page.

But still

U.S. Total crimes (per capita) 80.0645 per 1,000 people

Netherlands Total crimes (per capita) 79.5779 per 1,000 people

a difference of 0.51 per 1,000 people

Wouldn't say you are doing fantastic compared to the U.S.... in fact they have almost identical numbers when it comes to the over all crime rate.

And I'm sorry if you're offended (I'm not really sorry) but Nonny is almost 75? and calling him old is true (comparatively speaking..) and senile [(of a person) Having or showing the weaknesses or diseases of old age, esp. a loss of mental faculties.]

​well when his argument is that shooting a gun is like masturbating, and that is somehow a bad thing.. I was just saying MAYBE because of his old age (or the amount he post on here) he didn't think through his argument.

Maybe, you should get a little bit of a back bone. If you can't handle someone on the internet calling someone else "senile" when he is 75+ years old... (no offence to you nonny )

[Meastro444 1]

Depends, if bike thefts are included in that number we actually are a lot better off. I prefer bike thefts over murders and other crimes.

[Dewm 177]

Depends, if bike thefts are included in that number we actually are a lot better off. I prefer bike thefts over murders and other crimes.

Well trust me, not all (or even 10%) of our crimes are murders either,

and honestly these are blind statistics.. none of them really address what this thread is about, which is gun ban/control here in the U.S.

And from other statistics here in the U.S. and around the world, I think that we are better off owning guns privately. And you spoke about having guns in Holland "if you had a permit" well here in the U.S. (contrary to popular opinion) you can't just "go buy a gun" (you can but you can't)

Rules differ from state to state,

In my state (Alaska) when you go to buy a firearm you have to get a FBI background check, which they preform for EVERY gun sale, (this is for every state btw)

in some states you need a permit to "conceal carry"

in ALL states you need a very expensive and fairly hard to get permit to own fully automatics (and to this day I don't know of a single mass murder that has committed with a full auto)

In some states there is a 3 day waiting period (to stop people from just buying a gun for suicide)

In NewYork you can't own a gun with a clip larger then 7 rounds.

in D.C. you can't have a gun period.

In all states you have to be over 18 to buy ammunition.

in all states you have to be over 21 to buy a handgun.

....so we aren't these gun wielding cowboys that just go down the main street and shoot stuff up.

[north country dude 202]

Yeah I didn't get moose's point.. maybe he's getting a little to old and senile?

Anyways back on point, I haven't seen any statistics where gun bans actually work to reduce crime..

I have to go out of town quite a bit for work, and I do feel better knowing my wife has a few guns at the house, along with a dog and a security system..

Just look at pretty much every other developed country in the world. The US has an extremely high homicide and Ive posted links to four Harvard studies that show that more guns = higher homicide rate.

On top of that, the US has like the highest prison population from all the developed countries, so apparently guns are not much of a deterrent. On top of that, if you look at the crime statistics of other crimes, the rates in the US are not significantly better than for example a bunch of European countries. And those countries have strict gun control laws. So despite having guns, the US has similar crime rates as countries that aren't armed to the teeth.

Now why do crime rates increase in cities or areas that have stricter gun control laws? My guess is that it is rather pointless to ban guns in a city or district if it is surrounded by areas where people can still easily buy guns. Essentially you are disarming one part of the country, while the rest remains armed. And with no way to stop the inflow of arms into a city by people who legally buy their gun and then move towards the city, it doesn't surprise me to see an increase in crime. I think the only way for any kind of gun law to have effect is when it gets introduced nation wide.

And no need to start calling people old and senile because they make a point you do not agree with.

umm, ... yeah. Just those four studies by Harvard? And these studies have no survivorship bias? Or is this a "we'll use facts from column A and C but not the facts from column B or D because they don't support our conclusion." type of argument?

What about the studies used here?

http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp

The whole discussion is about what the title of this topic indicates, "The Official Second Amendment / Gun Ban Thread". It is a discussion about the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, and whether or not our Federal government has the right to "infringe" on the rights as given by that Amendment. Nothing else.

The arguments by citizens of countries outside the US about whether or not the citizens of the US should amend our constitution, change it's wording, or do away with it altogether carries very little weight. I do not care what your country does with its own citizens, I have no vote there and no comments about what your King, Queen, Parliament, Council, Ruler, or government does with its own citizens.

Now, I'm sorry to bring this up, but the US Supreme Court has already decided the issue. It is unconstitutional for the Federal Government to forbid it's citizens from owning a firearm.

As to what the founders of our country were thinking over 200 years ago when they drew up the Constitution and put the 2nd Amendment in, it is obvious to me that they had a great deal of foresight. They knew that firearm technology would improve and become more efficient in the future and it was toward that future they were looking at when they drew up the entire Constitution.

They knew that in order for their experiment in governing to succeed, they had to have a way to prevent (or make it very difficult for) the new country from devolving into a tyranny, as had happened so many times in the past. They also made it very difficult to change or amend the Constitution, yes, it can be done, but it isn't so simple as "tacking on another rider".

[ncd gets off soapbox]

[Meastro444 1]

The notion that you need guns to prevent a nation of falling in the hands of tyranny is absurd. Where I live, without being able to carry guns wherever we please we seem to do pretty good on the democracy scale.

Also, don't think I am actually trying to get the US to change it's constitution. Don't read that in my posts.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

C'mon you guys, we are way off topic. As for statistics, the statisticians who gather them work for the governments usually. Not biased? Hardly.

Are we all agreed that a gun ban of any kind won't work in the U.S.?

There is no question that technology has outstripped the imagination of those who created the Constitution and the Second Amendment, and that the law has not kept up. This is the normal state of affairs, and it is built into the personna of the human race. Kill first, ask questions later.

We are after all, predators, and we try very hard to be at the top of the food chain. We don't make it there, everywhere. Our civilization is a move to cover up and ameliorate the harsh truth that we really are not very nice, even to one another.

  Edited January 31, 2013 by A Nonny Moose  

[north country dude 202]

The notion that you need guns to prevent a nation of falling in the hands of tyranny is absurd. Where I live, without being able to carry guns wherever we please we seem to do pretty good on the democracy scale.

Also, don't think I am actually trying to get the US to change it's constitution. Don't read that in my posts.

An overly simplistic response I'm afraid and I'm not speaking to anyone specific. I know that can not be read in any of my posts.

As to "The notion that you need guns to prevent a nation of falling in the hands of tyranny is absurd.", do you know the real reason? The historical precedent? Or even why the US Constitution was drafted?

It may sound absurd to you, but it is a fact and not something I just pulled out of my butt. Here is what some people had to say:

"When the United States Constitution was adopted on December 15, 1791, the Founding Fathers still remembered how the British were able to take over a town [Concord, Mass.] because the colonists could not defend themselves. They wanted to make sure that the common person would be ready to go to war in case the United States was ever under attack. The Second Amendment was designed to ensure that if any enemy, including the government, threatened the American citizens, the citizens would be able to protect themselves." -from http://tbchick2011.wordpress.com/2012/12/18/reasons-why-the-second-amendment-exists/

"Given all the gun talk lately, Mark Levin opened his show tonight clarifying the purpose of the 2nd amendment saying that it wasn’t for target shooting or hunting or anything else in that realm. He said that whether you like it or not or whether you agree with it or not, the reason why 2nd amendment exists is to arm the population in order to overthrow a tyrannical government. That’s it." from http://connect.freedomworks.org/news/view/339531?destination=gac%2Fhome

And some history can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

Side note: If you don't like Wikipedia, the Citations and References at the bottom link to a boat load of information about the formation of the US Government.

As to how things are where you live, I can not say, since I have no idea what your country's laws are regarding the rights of it's citizens to " keep and bear arms" and, truthfully, I do not care.

What I DO care about is, whether or not my government is getting too big, how much money it is spending that it doesn't have, and how I can protect myself should a life threatening event occur.

Paranoid? Maybe, but given that the average response time for the State Police where I live is +/- 20mins, and home invasions and murders have occurred nearby(including one serial killer), I'd like to have the option of defending myself, preferably with a firearm and not a 'pair of scissors'.

[LexusInfernus 908]

First off, I'll start at the bottom: I called him old and senile not because we didn't agree.. but because his "masturbating" argument was completely off the shelf nonsensical.

Debate the issues, not each other, as the moderators like to say. I agree with them, Nonny's age and perceived mental sharpness are not the basis on which to base a counter argument. Argumentum ad hominem remains a logical fallacy.

And as far as all of your "stats"

Take England for instance: they have a gun ban.. no one is allowed to own a gun, zero zip.. but they have almost 4 TIMES the violent crime rate (rape, robbery, muggins etc....) So I would say it looks like having a gun to protect yourself is a good thing

http://www.dailymail...Britain-US.html

http://www.liveleak....=c82_1357146088

Ah yes, the UK, its funny that I always see the UK being used by pro gun people as a counter argument that gun control somehow doesn't work. Several things here.

Of all the developed countries, the UK, together with Australia is about the only country that Ive seen so far that has a higher violent crime rate than the US. Two examples of where it is worse, with plenty of other countries that have both gun control and similar or even better crime statistics than the US.

Second, in the particular case of the UK, those statistics you just mentioned are 10 years old. Since then the crime rates have been declining in the UK. Furthermore, there was at that time a drive by the government for people to report more crimes, thereby influencing the statistics. But, I won't deny it, the rates are significantly higher. Again, refer to my first point, that is one country with strict gun control laws that does it worse than the US.

Now as far as the U.S. homicide rate, it is much higher then England (who has a gun ban) BUT its also at a 50 year low... So it doesn't seem this gun killing spree is flying out of control (as the media would have you believe)

http://www.breitbart...t-a-50-Year-Low

http://articles.wash...rate-death-rate

And at a 50 year low its still about 5 times more than in the rest of the developed world. Congratulations!

And to your argument about the US having the highest prison rate... doesn't that mean we are actually catching the guys?

Not really, you guys got the most people in prison per capita in the world.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_pri_per_cap-crime-prisoners-per-capita

Congratulations, you guys put more people in prison than Belarus, a communist dictatorship.

Anyways, combine the fact that crime statistics show that the amount of crimes per capita is not significantly lower than in countries with gun control laws and that you guys have the most people locked away in prison, and it shows pretty clearly that people owning guns does not actually help reduce crime at all. Otherwise the crime rates would have to be lower and there should be less people in prison, as less crime means less criminals which means less people getting convicted.

Oh also, I do not believe that the conviction rate in the US is significantly better than in other countries.

You said that having a city wide or state wide ban just doesn't work, because you can't stop the flow of guns into that area.. I would agree with you, BUT having said that... this proves my point about a country-wide gun ban, whats to stop people from bringing guns in from other countries? We had roughly 700,000 new illegals come to the U.S. from Mexico last year. If that many people can come across the border, imagine how many guns they could get through.

That assumes a number of things. First of all, it assumes that guns are readily available in those other countries, most specifically Mexico. And indeed, quite a few guns are available in Mexico. Not because Mexico has such relaxed gun laws, no, because people actually smuggle all the guns from the US into Mexico. I believe the Mexican government recently complained about that. Yeah, Mexican drug wars are fought out with American guns. So, ban guns in the US and you cut off the supply of guns to Mexico and the availability of them in Mexico.

Second, sure, its possible smuggle guns into any country. However, how many people know a smuggler? How many people have good contacts with smuggling gangs that can get them weapons? No doubt that some criminals do. But the majority? No. Crazy gunmen that shoot up schools and malls? Definitely not. So, people require good criminal contacts in order to get their hands on guns, and not every criminal has such contacts.

Third, if the availability is reduced, and people have to rely on smugglers to get a gun, the prices of weapons and munitions go up fast. Do it right, and soon only the most hardcore professional criminals have the contacts and the money to get a gun. But guns will be so expensive that for your average convenience store robber won't bother with spending so much money on a tool that if he uses it, he faces a much higher penalty for a cash reward that is minimal.

So, will it completely stop criminals from getting guns? No, but no law, rule or restriction will ever make life completely crime free. But laws can significantly reduce the number of gun related deaths, and the number of crimes which involve guns significantly.

Now all of this is said without dragging out places like Chicago, which has the TOUGHEST gun regulations in the U.S. but has the HIGHEST crime/murder rate in the U.S., doesn't seem like its working.. Or newtown CT (aka Sandyhook) which already had an assault weapons ban... which didn't seem to stop the killer. Maybe if the teachers had a gun also, the number of dead would be 1-4 instead of 20+..

Yes, put more guns at school, because accidents never happen. Besides, the dumbest thing you can do is draw a gun on someone who is point a gun at you. That is a sure way to present yourself as a threat to the shooter and draw his attention at the same time.

And again, local regulations are fine, but completely useless in a country where everyone is free to move around, and can simply buy their guns by driving a few miles to another place. If anything, this shows the need to address this issue on a federal level.

Ah you are correct, I misread that down at the bottom of the page.

But still

U.S. Total crimes (per capita) 80.0645 per 1,000 people

Netherlands Total crimes (per capita) 79.5779 per 1,000 people

a difference of 0.51 per 1,000 people

Wouldn't say you are doing fantastic compared to the U.S.... in fact they have almost identical numbers when it comes to the over all crime rate.

Well, we do it with virtually no one owing a gun, and our murder rate is nothing compared to the US. Again demonstrating the uselessness of guns in preventing crime.

umm, ... yeah. Just those four studies by Harvard? And these studies have no survivorship bias? Or is this a "we'll use facts from column A and C but not the facts from column B or D because they don't support our conclusion." type of argument?

What about the studies used here?

http://www.justfacts.../guncontrol.asp

I suggest you read the studies yourself.

As for justfacts.com, I applaud them for their honesty but

Just Facts is a non-profit research and educational institute that began as an informal endeavor in 1997 and was formalized as a 501©3 organization in November 2007. Our commitment to accuracy and exhaustive documentation has resulted in citations and links from universities, non-profit organizations, radio programs, newspapers, and government entities at local, state and national levels. Visitors to this unique resource number in the millions, and numerous notes of appreciation from our readers underscore the impact of this worthwhile endeavor.

James D. Agresti, the president and primary researcher, holds a Bachelor of Science in Mechanical Engineering from Brown University and has worked as a designer of jet aircraft engines, a technical sales professional, and chief engineer of a firm that customizes helicopters. He is the author of Rational Conclusions, a highly researched book evidencing factual support for the Bible across a broad array of academic disciplines.

Stephen F. Cardone, the vice-president, holds a Bachelor of Science in Psychology from Brown University and has 20+ years of private industry experience in corporate management, operations, logistics, accounting, and customer service. Additionally, Just Facts' board of directors, supporters, and contractors are all an integral part of our organization.

Nearly everyone has personal political views, especially those involved in policy research and journalism. In the interest of transparency, we think it is incumbent upon such individuals to straightforwardly disclose this information, despite the fact that they often fail to do so and claim that this lack of disclosure is a mark of objectivity. As is the case with any thoughtful group of people, the staff and board members of Just Facts have some varying opinions, but we overwhelmingly subscribe to these defining principles articulated in the Declaration of Independence:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

In general parlance, we are conservative/libertarian in our viewpoints, but unlike many organizations and media outlets, this does not mean we give preference to facts that coincide with our opinions. Quite the contrary, we are committed to objectivity and will report any fact that meets the criteria below, regardless of the implications.

Such a statement should raise some eyebrows. Having a guy who wrote a book that supposedly factually supports the bible makes me seriously doubt the credibility of their statement that they will publish facts that contradicts their personal believes. And why they even bother mentioning that they all believe that the US constitution said some good things is beyond me. That should not be relevant for the credibility of their research. Also, the sloppy website design kinda suggests amateurism.

And the academic credentials of the people that write for the site, most importantly James D. Agresti are not very convincing. He has a bachelor in engineering, not exactly convincing when you talk about guns, which is more of the political/social science field perhaps mixed with economics.

The arguments by citizens of countries outside the US about whether or not the citizens of the US should amend our constitution, change it's wording, or do away with it altogether carries very little weight. I do not care what your country does with its own citizens, I have no vote there and no comments about what your King, Queen, Parliament, Council, Ruler, or government does with its own citizens.

I'm sorry, I wasn't aware that just because my opinion on the whole is irrelevant, I'm not allowed to participate in any kind of discussion about it.

[Duke87 1,070]

On top of that, the US has like the highest prison population from all the developed countries, so apparently guns are not much of a deterrent. On top of that, if you look at the crime statistics of other crimes, the rates in the US are not significantly better than for example a bunch of European countries. And those countries have strict gun control laws. So despite having guns, the US has similar crime rates as countries that aren't armed to the teeth.

At best, it can be concluded that there is little correlation between gun ownership and crime rates, at least when comparing different societies where there are so many other confounding variables. Ultimately, the biggest influence on crime is culture. You will see more of it in societies that are more accepting of it. And even within the same society, you will see more of it among subgroups where it is more "normal". The availability of guns or any other tool one might use to commit a crime then mostly only affects how crimes are committed, not whether they are.

As for the prison population thing, that is not because the US has more crimes being committed so much as it is that we tend to hand out harsher penalties for the ones that are. Many European countries have a limit on how many years someone can spend in prison - we do not, and frequently put people away for life. Additionally, drug related crimes here usually result in prison sentences where in other countries they usually do not unless really serious.

Although it does vary depending on where in the US you are. The state of Louisiana is notorious for being very tough on crime, and has a higher incarceration rate than any other state, making it the prison capital of the world. Other states, meanwhile, (such as Massachusetts) have maxed out their prison capacity and since they are politically unwilling to expand it have instead become rather lax with sentencing and are often not giving out jail time in cases where it might normally be expected (such as for DUI).

[north country dude 202]

I have read it, in it's entirety. I found a wealth of information there. I don't have to agree or disagree with their conclusions. The link was provided as an example of "survivorship bias" and that the use of statistics to prove a point can be flawed.

I never said you weren't allowed. True, you can have an opinion and present as many studies as you want to back up your opinion, BUT, when it comes down to brass tacks, you can not vote on it.

I'm sorry, but it still doesn't carry very much weight with me. We can debate who's country laws are better or worse until the cows come home, it will have very little effect on the actual decisions made by US citizens regarding it's Constitution. I'm done explaining this.

As for the Second Amendment, it is mostly intact to this day. When and if US citizens decide to give up on this right for the sake of security, they will find that their other rights can be easily abridged and infringed.

I always found this quote to be interesting:

“As long as the government is perceived as working for the benefit of the children, the people will happily endure almost any curtailment of liberty and almost any deprivation.” — Mein Kampf, Adolf Hitler

[LexusInfernus 908]

At best, it can be concluded that there is little correlation between gun ownership and crime rates, at least when comparing different societies where there are so many other confounding variables. Ultimately, the biggest influence on crime is culture. You will see more of it in societies that are more accepting of it. And even within the same society, you will see more of it among subgroups where it is more "normal". The availability of guns or any other tool one might use to commit a crime then mostly only affects how crimes are committed, not whether they are.

Sure, but the argument that I often hear from pro gun advocates that guns work as an deterrent. Meaning that if everyone is armed to the teeth, criminals won't dare to commit a crime because they run the risk of getting shot. The US is a nation that is armed to the teeth, yet it has crime rates that are similar and in a number of cases worse to countries that are not armed to the teeth. Meaning that gun ownership on the whole does not prevent crime all that well. Else the statistics should show that nations with an unarmed populace suffer significantly more from crime than the US.

@north country dude

What does it matter if I can vote on something or not? This is just a friendly discussion on a topic, my ability to vote on it in real life is absolutely irrelevant for the discussion.

Also, it doesn't matter if the US citizens have guns or not, if the US government really wants to, it can infringe on any civil right it wants to. Pistols and hunting rifles are no match against Predator drones and Abrams tanks.

[hym 358]

And to your argument about the US having the highest prison rate... doesn't that mean we are actually catching the guys?

Not really, you guys got the most people in prison per capita in the world.

http://www.nationmas...ners-per-capita

Congratulations, you guys put more people in prison than Belarus, a communist dictatorship.

Anyways, combine the fact that crime statistics show that the amount of crimes per capita is not significantly lower than in countries with gun control laws and that you guys have the most people locked away in prison, and it shows pretty clearly that people owning guns does not actually help reduce crime at all. Otherwise the crime rates would have to be lower and there should be less people in prison, as less crime means less criminals which means less people getting convicted.

Oh also, I do not believe that the conviction rate in the US is significantly better than in other countries.

Such an argument misses quite a few important factors. Drug convictions make a huge portion (if not the majority) of prison sentences in the US. Add in things like "three strikes" laws, abolition of parole systems, decline of mental health support, minimum sentencing, and a drive for increase prison terms have all served to artificially inflate the US prison population. None of these are things that guns would have any meaningful impact on, so a "guns clearly don't work" argument doesn't hold up here.

[AcmeSigns 97]

That assumes a number of things. First of all, it assumes that guns are readily available in those other countries, most specifically Mexico. And indeed, quite a few guns are available in Mexico. Not because Mexico has such relaxed gun laws, no, because people actually smuggle all the guns from the US into Mexico. I believe the Mexican government recently complained about that. Yeah, Mexican drug wars are fought out with American guns. So, ban guns in the US and you cut off the supply of guns to Mexico and the availability of them in Mexico.

Three words: Fast and Furious.

Who was it that was putting guns into the hands of the Mexican cartels again? Oh yeah...the United States Government.

And, before anyone jumps in here with, 'it all started under Bush'...that's only partially correct. The Bush Administration saw that it was doomed to fail and stopped the program. Attorney General Eric Holder and the Obama Administration started it up again without heeding the warning signs. I'm not one of those gun owners who believes that it was some huge conspiracy to further some gun control legislation but it does reek of something 'fishy'.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/atf-fast-furious-sg,0,3828090.storygallery

http://oversight.house.gov/release/issa-grassley-report-on-fast-furious-finds-widespread-justice-department-management-failures/

[north country dude 202]

@north country dude

What does it matter if I can vote on something or not? This is just a friendly discussion on a topic, my ability to vote on it in real life is absolutely irrelevant for the discussion.

Also, it doesn't matter if the US citizens have guns or not, if the US government really wants to, it can infringe on any civil right it wants to. Pistols and hunting rifles are no match against Predator drones and Abrams tanks.

To me, it matters very much. Nobody said you couldn't have an opinion and express it here, but again, it still doesn't have as much value to me as an opinion from a US citizen regarding US Law. Just as I would expect my opinion about a foreign government to have less value than a citizen of that government.

The second point really doesn't make much sense at all.

Pistols and rifles are no match against Predator drones (controlled by a US Armed Services volunteer) and Abrams tanks (each one manned by 4 US Armed Service volunteers). In your opinion these citizens will actually fire on their friends, relatives and loved ones??? really?

Or, realistically, wouldn't a civil war occur if our military was ordered to fire on it's own citizens? If so, then our country would cease to exist as a single nation and infringements on the Bill of Rights wouldn't matter. As what happened during the American Civil War.

No, although the US government may want to, it cannot infringe on the rights of its citizens. It has tried to do so in the past and has failed. See: http://www.socialstu.../courtcases.htm

Further reading on US Supreme Court Decisions

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/cases/historic.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_landmark_court_decisions_in_the_United_States

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Any comments on the discussion and rebuttals here? http://theadvocate.c...dment-confers-a

[Dewm 177]

That assumes a number of things. First of all, it assumes that guns are readily available in those other countries, most specifically Mexico. And indeed, quite a few guns are available in Mexico. Not because Mexico has such relaxed gun laws, no, because people actually smuggle all the guns from the US into Mexico. I believe the Mexican government recently complained about that. Yeah, Mexican drug wars are fought out with American guns. So, ban guns in the US and you cut off the supply of guns to Mexico and the availability of them in Mexico.

Three words: Fast and Furious.

Who was it that was putting guns into the hands of the Mexican cartels again? Oh yeah...the United States Government.

And, before anyone jumps in here with, 'it all started under Bush'...that's only partially correct. The Bush Administration saw that it was doomed to fail and stopped the program. Attorney General Eric Holder and the Obama Administration started it up again without heeding the warning signs. I'm not one of those gun owners who believes that it was some huge conspiracy to further some gun control legislation but it does reek of something 'fishy'.

http://www.latimes.c...90.storygallery

http://oversight.hou...ement-failures/

While I agree that it started under Bush it was under a different form. The program call "wide receiver" which was started under Bush, was a program where WITH the knowledge and consent of the Mexican government they brought guns into Mexico and tracked them and who bought them.

The program under Obama and Eric holder, called "Fast and Furious" was CLOSE to the same operation, with a few exceptions,

1. the Mexican government did NOT have any prior knowledge of the program, and was NOT working with the Justice department.

2. the Justice department did not track the guns like they did in "wide receiver" they put the guns out on the market and waited for them to "pop up"

Why is this important? honestly in my opinion the administration was hoping that the guns would pop up here in the U.S. and they could use it to help pass a national gun ban.

If you don't agree with my assumption, that is quite all right.. but I thought I would clarify on the difference between the two operations.

[LexusInfernus 908]

The second point really doesn't make much sense at all.

Pistols and rifles are no match against Predator drones (controlled by a US Armed Services volunteer) and Abrams tanks (each one manned by 4 US Armed Service volunteers). In your opinion these citizens will actually fire on their friends, relatives and loved ones??? really?

The riot police has no qualms with charging down protesters and using quite a bit of force to break up such a protest. Hell, the riot police has no qualms about spraying pepper spray into a peaceful student sit in protest on an university campus. And the army has already demonstrated that it has no problem with firing on unarmed civilians of other countries. So do you really think that the army won't open fire on American protesters, especially if they are armed with guns?

Or, realistically, wouldn't a civil war occur if our military was ordered to fire on it's own citizens? If so, then our country would cease to exist as a single nation and infringements on the Bill of Rights wouldn't matter. As what happened during the American Civil War.

Civil war is just terminology applied by the eventual victor of the conflict.

No, although the US government may want to, it cannot infringe on the rights of its citizens. It has tried to do so in the past and has failed. See: http://www.socialstu.../courtcases.htm

No? Then what would you call the NDAA or the Patriot Act I and II? All that stands between a government that respects the rights of its citizens and actively works to secure and strengthen them and a government that is out for control is what the people vote for. You saw how it worked in Germany in the 20's and 30's. They voted for Hitler, he used one little terrorist act as an excuse to declare the state of emergency and suspend all civil liberties and impose his rule on the rest of the country. That can happen in every democratic country around the world, just vote for the wrong guy and before you know it, you are no longer a democratic country.

[Ocram's Razr 963]

1. Fast and furious was horrible.

2. Texas and Arizona should have stricter gun laws to lower drug violence near the border.

3. Voting for the wrong politician can be dangerous but sometimes, two seemingly opposing politicians are both working for the same nefarious goal.

--Ocram

[Dewm 177]

1. Fast and furious was horrible.

2. Texas and Arizona should have stricter gun laws to lower drug violence near the border.

3. Voting for the wrong politician can be dangerous but sometimes, two seemingly opposing politicians are both working for the same nefarious goal.

--Ocram

Very true, IMO Bush and Obama have pretty much the same agenda, but Obama is set on "fast speed"

And I think alot of our gun issues and crime (at least in the southern have of the U.S.) would be stopped if we had a dang wall stopping all of those people coming across the border every day.

[hym 358]

2. Texas and Arizona should have stricter gun laws to lower drug violence near the border.

Exactly what gun control laws should Texas be adopting to lower drug violence?

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

<snip>

And I think a lot of our gun issues and crime (at least in the southern have of the U.S.) would be stopped if we had a dang wall stopping all of those people coming across the border every day.

You have problems with your southern border? How are you doing in the north? We'd love to stop the brain drain from out side to yours to keep our industry alive up here in the frozen north. Your present policy of hire Americans first is helping, but I'd like to see it tougher.

We, on the other hand, are being flooded with illegal immigrants by the ship load on the west coast, and not from Mexico. Fortunately we are able to grab most of them, and if we catch them in our waters before they can get very close to shore, we just send them away.

The only way to keep the Mexicans in Mexico is probably via some kind of Marshall Plan to help them build up their economy. This means joining with them to wipe out the drug cartels, which would be good for both countries. Wonder if anyone is working on a treaty to implement something like this with some teeth in it?

And in this context, gun laws won't do a thing. All the guns in question here are illegal anyway.

[Dewm 177]

<snip>

And I think a lot of our gun issues and crime (at least in the southern have of the U.S.) would be stopped if we had a dang wall stopping all of those people coming across the border every day.

You have problems with your southern border? How are you doing in the north? We'd love to stop the brain drain from out side to yours to keep our industry alive up here in the frozen north. Your present policy of hire Americans first is helping, but I'd like to see it tougher.

We, on the other hand, are being flooded with illegal immigrants by the ship load on the west coast, and not from Mexico. Fortunately we are able to grab most of them, and if we catch them in our waters before they can get very close to shore, we just send them away.

The only way to keep the Mexicans in Mexico is probably via some kind of Marshall Plan to help them build up their economy. This means joining with them to wipe out the drug cartels, which would be good for both countries. Wonder if anyone is working on a treaty to implement something like this with some teeth in it?

And in this context, gun laws won't do a thing. All the guns in question here are illegal anyway.

Yeah we have a BIG problem with our southern border. And where I live we don't have a northern border

But as far as rebuilding the Mexican economy, first we would have to get rid of the corrupt government that makes alot of its money FROM the cartels.

And I don't think that a wall/fence would stop 100% I don't think its possible.. But as it is now roughly 60,000 people cross our southern border (illegally) each MONTH.

[Ocram's Razr 963]

The local government in a lot of parts of Mexico are indeed corrupt, that is why the national Federal government stepped in. The increased violence is partially due to increase demand for cocaine in the USA, increased access to guns in southern USA thanks to fear that gun control will remove their rights, the fact that the cartels are less organized and splitting up thanks to leaders in the cartels being removed, and the fact that the United States American and Mexican Governments are incompetent at curbing violence.

--Ocram

[LexusInfernus 908]

Very true, IMO Bush and Obama have pretty much the same agenda, but Obama is set on "fast speed"

And I think alot of our gun issues and crime (at least in the southern have of the U.S.) would be stopped if we had a dang wall stopping all of those people coming across the border every day.

The differences between Bush and Obama are quite large actually.

Also, since when did a wall stop anyone? Especially if the wall is so long. Besides, it is probably cheaper and easier to solve the root of the problem, the reason why Mexicans all want to live in the US. Take away the reason and you don't need a wall anymore.

The only way to keep the Mexicans in Mexico is probably via some kind of Marshall Plan to help them build up their economy. This means joining with them to wipe out the drug cartels, which would be good for both countries. Wonder if anyone is working on a treaty to implement something like this with some teeth in it?

I agree, if you want to wage war on drug cartels, wage an actual war rather than some weak half approach which is mostly just based on policing.

Im quite sure that the Mexican police knows exactly who is part of those cartels and where they are. All they need to do is hand the list to the Americans, and give them permission to send up the Reaper and Predator drones. Just blast those cartels to pieces. But then there is indeed the massive corruption that remains a problem. That does take a systemic approach that is going to take years to work. Problem is, if the authorities are all corrupt, who is going to enforce all those anti corruption laws?

[hym 358]

In general, the Mexican drug cartels have connections with FARC, which itself has access to the international arms market. FARC has access to submersibles, which it uses to ship drugs and weapons to fuel the instability in Mexico. Furthermore, the situation has grown to the point that normal law enforcement agencies in the US, Columbia, and arguably Mexico too, are no longer able to contain it or otherwise hope to get it under control. The "War on Drugs" is no longer a metaphorical war. Military forces are now the only thing that is going to get this problem under control, and to that end, the Pentagon is now engaged in drug related operations.

So how exactly is making it more difficult for me to get a handgun going to have a significant impact on drug organizations with ties to a paramilitary organization with access to the international arms market?