The Flat Earth Society

Other Discussion Boards => Philosophy, Religion & Society => Topic started by: Scroto Gaggins on October 03, 2015, 01:10:15 AM

Title: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: Scroto Gaggins on October 03, 2015, 01:10:15 AM
Hi everyone,
I recently watched the president's address at the white house in the aftermath of the shooting in oregon.
I wondered what the opinion of the users of this forum was.
Please share what you think about this contentious issue.
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: Misero on October 03, 2015, 07:13:47 AM
Here's my solution: Have pistols in locked metal cabinets in public buildings such as schools, colleges, etc.
Now, depending on the budget, they could add a fingerprint detector a keyhole. Not that a fingerprint detector is expensive, really. It's a "small" feature in a $200 phone.
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: hoppy on October 03, 2015, 09:59:54 AM
Oregon shooting is a hoax like most school shootings. How can you keep falling for the same story over and over again?
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: Scroto Gaggins on October 04, 2015, 05:26:47 PM
Oregon shooting is a hoax like most school shootings. How can you keep falling for the same story over and over again?
But you don't deny that shootings happen a lot more regularly in America then any other first-world country?
And that the rather lax gun laws are a direct cause of this?

I live in Australia, where there was a pretty nasty massacre at Port Arthur in Tasmania.
I think that 35 people were killed or something.
The government of the time then passed extreme gun legislation that basically stopped gun violence in Australia.

And about all this being hoaxes.
Admittedly, this could be true.
But who faked it, and for what benefit?
And it is also possible that the figures are not exaggerated, that these massacres are happening.
And if thats the case, then something must be done to stop this problem.
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: mikeman7918 on October 05, 2015, 08:34:56 AM
I strongly oppose gun control.  Banning guns will just fight a symptom, not the disease.  Back when the United States banned alcohol that also seemed like a good idea at first glance but all it did was made people get alcohol illegally and increased the crime rates overall.  Banning guns would just take them away from law abiding citizens who would have used them only for self defense, and criminals could still get their hands on them.
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: TheEngineer on October 05, 2015, 03:35:27 PM
I strongly oppose gun control.  Banning guns will just fight a symptom, not the disease.  Back when the United States banned alcohol that also seemed like a good idea at first glance but all it did was made people get alcohol illegally and increased the crime rates overall.  Banning guns would just take them away from law abiding citizens who would have used them only for self defense, and criminals could still get their hands on them.
Agree 100%. 

Plus, the Second Amendment is pretty clear.
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: Scroto Gaggins on October 05, 2015, 07:45:30 PM
I strongly oppose gun control.  Banning guns will just fight a symptom, not the disease.  Back when the United States banned alcohol that also seemed like a good idea at first glance but all it did was made people get alcohol illegally and increased the crime rates overall.  Banning guns would just take them away from law abiding citizens who would have used them only for self defense, and criminals could still get their hands on them.
But people only have guns for self defence because they are scared of criminals, who probably also have guns.
Americans often bring up points like this, the point that guns fill a societal niche, that they help maintain social order.
That there are benefits to having guns, like self defence etc.

But to disprove this, all we have to do is look at other countries.
Countries that have more guns, also tend to be more violent.
Countries that have less guns, tend to be less violent.
This doesn't mean that the average person is more violent in these countries.
What it does mean is that having easy access to firearms makes it easier for people to kill each other.

I live in Australia.
Our gun laws are tight as hell.
I live on a rural property, and I am still restricted to a bolt-action rifle.
Barely anyone I know who lies in the suburbs has ever shot a gun.
People who live on farms dozens of kilometres away from the nearest one only have bolt action rifles for foxes and roos.
Australians are no less violent than Americans.
There are still murders in Australia.
But the murder rate is no where near that of America's.
In total, and per head.

And maybe criminals could still get their hands on firearms.
Australian criminals can and do get automatic weapons.
But a lot of the murders in the US aren't done by criminals, they're done by 'law abiding citizens'
I don't think that the Columbine killers were criminals when they got their guns.
They were bloody kids.
Kids in high school.
Like the people they killed.

Most of the mass shootings aren't done by 'criminals'.
Most mass shootings are done by people with mental disorders.
Who, thanks to your stupid 18th century second amendment, have access to guns.

God bless America.
You guys need it.
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: TheEngineer on October 05, 2015, 08:31:54 PM
So much fail in one post, where do I start?

That there are benefits to having guns, like self defence etc.
Self defense, entertainment, hunting, prevention of tyranny...

Quote
But a lot of the murders in the US aren't done by criminals, they're done by 'law abiding citizens'
I'm pretty sure murder is classified as a crime.  Therefore, a murderer by default, is not a law abiding citizen.

Quote
I don't think that the Columbine killers were criminals when they got their guns.
They illegally obtained their guns, making them criminals.  So that's what you get for not thinking.

Quote
Most of the mass shootings aren't done by 'criminals'.
By definition, every mass shooting is done by a criminal.  Did you even think when you wrote this sentence?

Quote
Most mass shootings are done by people with mental disorders.
Right.  So why exactly should my firearms be taken away?

Quote
thanks to your stupid 18th century second amendment
I on the other hand, think it is a brilliant amendment.

Oh, and by the way, the US doesn't even break the top 100 countries in intentional homicide rate.

Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: Scroto Gaggins on October 05, 2015, 09:39:35 PM
So much fail in one post, where do I start?

That there are benefits to having guns, like self defence etc.
Self defense, entertainment, hunting, prevention of tyranny...
You seriously need weapons for entertainment? And to what tyranny are you referring to in the US.

Quote
Quote
But a lot of the murders in the US aren't done by criminals, they're done by 'law abiding citizens'
I'm pretty sure murder is classified as a crime.  Therefore, a murderer by default, is not a law abiding citizen.
I realise that was poorly phrased. I meant pre existing criminals, before the time of the murder.

Quote
Quote
I don't think that the Columbine killers were criminals when they got their guns.
They illegally obtained their guns, making them criminals.  So that's what you get for not thinking.
But if guns were more restricted, then they wouldn't have been able to aquire them so easily, no?

Quote
Quote
Most of the mass shootings aren't done by 'criminals'.
By definition, every mass shooting is done by a criminal.  Did you even think when you wrote this sentence?
As said before, pre-existing criminals, people with a criminal record.

Quote
Quote
Most mass shootings are done by people with mental disorders.
Right.  So why exactly should my firearms be taken away?
see end of post

Quote
Quote
thanks to your stupid 18th century second amendment
I on the other hand, think it is a brilliant amendment.
Because you have the right to bear arms, does that make you a happier person?

Quote
Oh, and by the way, the US doesn't even break the top 100 countries in intentional homicide rate.
Yes, admittedly, yes.
However, when we compare the US to other first-word countries, like I said we should, then the US is pretty bad.
Not as bad as Rwanda, but thats hardly something to boast about.

The murder rate in the US is three times higher than that of France and Canada, four times higher then that of the UK and Australia, five times higher than that of Germany and Italy.

Does this not bother you?

That four times as many people are killed in your country than in mine?

To what will you attribute this discrepancy?

Ethnic makeup perhaps?
More violent history?

Maybe being the world's policeman has made America violent at heart?

Or maybe, just maybe, the discrepancy in murder rates is because guns are not restricted enough.
Maybe the fact that four times as many Americans are murdered is because of your Second Amendment.

We don't have a second amendment.
Are our lives terrible?
Is our freedom compromised?
Are we subjects of an tyrannical despot?

No, we aren't.

Our lives and our society are both very similar to that of America.

Except we don't have the Second Amendment.
We don't have as much access to guns.
And we don't kill each other as much.
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: TheEngineer on October 05, 2015, 11:58:23 PM
You seriously need weapons for entertainment?
Need them for entertainment?  No, we have movies here.  And TV.  Sports also.  Lots of entertainment.  I however, also enjoy skeet shooting and target shooting.

Quote
And to what tyranny are you referring to in the US.
The same tyranny the Founding Fathers were referring to when they gave us the Second Amendment.

Quote
I realise that was poorly phrased. I meant pre existing criminals, before the time of the murder.
Oh, so first time offenders are not criminals.  So every first offender gets their first murder for free?  Seeing as you don't see them as criminals.

Quote
But if guns were more restricted, then they wouldn't have been able to aquire them so easily, no?
But you just said they were not criminals before the shootings...

Quote
As said before, pre-existing criminals, people with a criminal record.
Oh, so now 'pre-existing' criminals are only those that have been convicted of committing a crime.  Can you please be a little more consistent in your arguments?

Quote

Quote
Quote
Most mass shootings are done by people with mental disorders.
Right.  So why exactly should my firearms be taken away?
see end of post
I read the end.  I didn't see the part where someone else's mental disorder should allow for my personal property to be forcibly seized.  We also have this thing called the Fourth Amendment.

Quote
Because you have the right to bear arms, does that make you a happier person?
Absolutely!  My family's safety is my primary concern.  The fact that I have a firearm to be able to protect them should the need arise, makes me a happy person, indeed.

Quote
The murder rate in the US is three times higher than that of France and Canada, four times higher then that of the UK and Australia, five times higher than that of Germany and Italy.

Does this not bother you?
Yes it does.  We should make murder a crime.  Oh, wait...

Quote
That four times as many people are killed in your country than in mine?
Your country should outlaw murder, too.  Oh, wait...

Quote
To what will you attribute this discrepancy?
Urban densities.

Quote
Ethnic makeup perhaps?
Are you trying to claim that any one particular race is more violent than another?

Quote
More violent history?
Than...what?

Quote
Maybe being the world's policeman has made America violent at heart?
Being freedom loving people makes us violent? 

Quote
Or maybe, just maybe, the discrepancy in murder rates is because guns are not restricted enough.
Nope.  Here in the states, when concealed carry numbers go up, murder rates go down. 

Quote
Maybe the fact that four times as many Americans are murdered is because of your Second Amendment.
Words on a piece of paper kill people?  I'm pretty sure that does not fit the definition of murder.

Quote
We don't have a second amendment.
Sucks to be you.

Quote
Is our freedom compromised?

You said it yourself:

Quote
We don't have as much access to guns.
So yes, your freedom was compromised when they decided to make very restrictive firearm laws.

As an aside, after the Australian gun laws were enacted, the murder rate did not decrease.  I guess your fellow violent Aussies kept right on killing each other, just using more barbaric means.
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: Scroto Gaggins on October 06, 2015, 01:55:36 AM
Engineer, I have a few questions for you:

1. Have you ever used your firearm(s) to protect yourself or your family?

2. Can you explain why urban density can affect murder rates?

3. Do you accept the murder rate discrepancy?

4. What solution to this would you propose?

5. Why would gun restriction not decrease murder rate, in your opinion?

BTW- some stats from the Australian Institute of Criminology's Homicide Statistics

Murder rate in 1993- 1.9 per 100 000
Port Arthur Massacre- new gun laws (1996)
Murder rate in 2006- 1.3 per 100 000

Thanks, undoubtedly in part, to our strict gun laws, there has only been one massacre in Australia in twenty years.
Our murder rate has dropped. Thanks to our strict gun laws.
And Australians are no worse off than we were before Port Arthur.
We are happy (kinda).
We are healthy (kinda).
We have a good government (finally).

How many mass killings has there been in the US in twenty years?
How many school shootings?
Surely restricting guns would help this problem.

You would still be able to target shoot in Australia.
We have rifle ranges. We hunt.
Friends of mine often pile into their pickup and cruise around their farms, shooting roos (kangaroos are pests here).
But because Australians can't get military, semi-automatic or automatic weaponry, we don't have a high murder rate.
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: Scroto Gaggins on October 06, 2015, 02:13:09 AM
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Gun_deaths_over_time_in_the_US_and_Australia.png

Speaks for itself.
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: MikDaTv on October 06, 2015, 05:54:36 AM
Even if you magically removed all the guns from the United States and could somehow guarantee that other crimes that would have been committed with firearms would not be committed through another means, you would reduce the murder rate in the United States by a whopping 3% +\-.

Now I'm all for gun control.  The average citizen doesn't need access to a bazooka.  But that control should be put in place by people who actually know something about firearms.  There should be intelligent laws based around safety, not blind fear like the laughable assault weapons ban.
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: Scroto Gaggins on October 06, 2015, 06:11:54 AM
Even if you magically removed all the guns from the United States and could somehow guarantee that other crimes that would have been committed with firearms would not be committed through another means, you would reduce the murder rate in the United States by a whopping 3% +\-.

Now I'm all for gun control.  The average citizen doesn't need access to a bazooka.  But that control should be put in place by people who actually know something about firearms.  There should be intelligent laws based around safety, not blind fear like the laughable assault weapons ban.
True, laws motivated on blind fear are not wise.
But isn't banning assault weapons for civilians wise?
If one wants to use military equipment, one should join the military.

Yes, the laws put in place should be reasonable. No question there.
But isn't it also perfectly reasonable to not have any guns?

The changes that need to be made shouldn't just come from the government.
There should be social change as well.
Guns are still seen as necessary, when they are not.

But, yes, there shouldn't really be a full restriction.
That would be over-involvement on the government's part.
But the gun laws in the US are still rather lax, and this needs to be changed.

Fun fact- Flamethrowers are not banned in most US states
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: MikDaTv on October 06, 2015, 07:29:32 AM
Even if you magically removed all the guns from the United States and could somehow guarantee that other crimes that would have been committed with firearms would not be committed through another means, you would reduce the murder rate in the United States by a whopping 3% +\-.

Now I'm all for gun control.  The average citizen doesn't need access to a bazooka.  But that control should be put in place by people who actually know something about firearms.  There should be intelligent laws based around safety, not blind fear like the laughable assault weapons ban.
True, laws motivated on blind fear are not wise.
But isn't banning assault weapons for civilians wise?
If one wants to use military equipment, one should join the military.

Yes, the laws put in place should be reasonable. No question there.
But isn't it also perfectly reasonable to not have any guns?

The changes that need to be made shouldn't just come from the government.
There should be social change as well.
Guns are still seen as necessary, when they are not.

But, yes, there shouldn't really be a full restriction.
That would be over-involvement on the government's part.
But the gun laws in the US are still rather lax, and this needs to be changed.

Fun fact- Flamethrowers are not banned in most US states

There is in force an Assault Rifle ban in force that prevents folks from buying full auto assault rifles.  So a huge chunk of military hardware is banned to the average citizen.  That's been in place since the 70s I believe and I don't think any rational gun advocates are calling for a repeal.

The assault weapons ban that was proposed some time ago had extremely loose and vague definition of what describes an "assault weapon."  A vague definition that had nothing to do with the actual deadliness of the firearm itself.  I don't have the wording in front of me, but I believe it included a line like "if it looks sufficiently intimidating." Which opened up a can of mutant worms.  It made a M14 with a wood stock and no attachments perfectly legal, but a polycarb stock M14 with tactical rails and a flashlight totally illegal.  Same exact gun firing the same exact round but one was made illegal because it was black and had a flashlight on the barrel.

It also limited magazine size, but if a mass shooter really wants to kill some folk he'll just bring more magazines like the columbine kids did.

It's laws like that, proposed by politicians who are basing their knowledge on rhetoric and fear rather than facts and statistics which are the true gun control problem.
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: mikeman7918 on October 06, 2015, 08:01:21 AM
Look at the crime rates between the individual states and you will find that places like Utah where guns are everywhere have less then 1/2 of the murders per 1,000 people the places like California where guns are controlled.  I could cite my source if you wish.  Murder rates in Utah are 1.8 and dropping while California's crime rate is well over 3.
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: MikDaTv on October 06, 2015, 08:20:49 AM
Look at the crime rates between the individual states and you will find that places like Utah where guns are everywhere have less then 1/2 of the murders per 1,000 people the places like California where guns are controlled.  I could cite my source if you wish.  Murder rates in Utah are 1.8 and dropping while California's crime rate is well over 3.

There are also a lot of other vast differences between Utah and Cali.  Correlation does not mean causation.

Still, it's an interesting statistic. 
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: mikeman7918 on October 06, 2015, 08:53:18 AM
I did a bit of research and it turns out that the list of states with the most strict gun control and the list of states with the highest murder rates look very simelar.  There are a few outliers like Hawaii but there is a definite correlation going on with gun controlling states having homicide rates between 3 and 5 while states with tons of guns generally have homicide rates between 1.5 and 3.
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: TheEngineer on October 06, 2015, 10:44:43 AM
1. Have you ever used your firearm(s) to protect yourself or your family?
I use a firearm to protect them every day.  Have I ever had to pull out a weapon in the face of a threat?  Thankfully, no.

Quote
2. Can you explain why urban density can affect murder rates?
If you look at cities with the highest homicide rates, they are all dense urban areas:
Buffalo
Detroit
New Orleans
St. Louis
Baltimore
Newark
Oakland

Quote
3. Do you accept the murder rate discrepancy?
Obviously.

Quote
4. What solution to this would you propose?
Ease firearm restrictions to allow any law abiding citizen to have the opportunity to own/carry a firearm if they so choose.  I like freedom.

Quote
5. Why would gun restriction not decrease murder rate, in your opinion?
It didn't work in Australia, why would it work in the US?
Quote
But because Australians can't get military, semi-automatic or automatic weaponry, we don't have a high murder rate.
Not true.  Because Australians can't get firearms, you may have a lower death by firearm rate.

Quote
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Gun_deaths_over_time_in_the_US_and_Australia.png

Speaks for itself.

Since you like the wiki page so much:
Quote from: Wiki
In 2005 the head of the New South Wales Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, Don Weatherburn,[44] noted that the level of legal gun ownership in NSW increased in recent years, and that the 1996 legislation had had little to no effect on violence. Professor Simon Chapman, former coconvenor of the Coalition for Gun Control, complained that his words "will henceforth be cited by every gun-lusting lobby group throughout the world in their perverse efforts to stall reforms that could save thousands of lives".[45] Weatherburn responded, "The fact is that the introduction of those laws did not result in any acceleration of the downward trend in gun homicide. They may have reduced the risk of mass shootings but we cannot be sure because no one has done the rigorous statistical work required to verify this possibility. It is always unpleasant to acknowledge facts that are inconsistent with your own point of view. But I thought that was what distinguished science from popular prejudice."[46]

Quote from: Wiki
In 2006, the lack of a measurable effect from the 1996 firearms legislation was reported in the British Journal of Criminology. Using ARIMA analysis, Dr Jeanine Baker and Dr Samara McPhedran found no evidence for an impact of the laws on homicide.[47]

Weatherburn described the Baker and McPhedran article as "reputable" and "well-conducted" and stated that the available data are insufficient to draw stronger conclusions.[48] Weatherburn noted the importance of actively policing illegal firearm trafficking and argued that there was little evidence that the new laws had helped in this regard.

And on mass shootings:

Quote from: Wiki
Subsequently, a study by McPhedran and Baker compared the incidence of mass shootings in Australia and New Zealand. Data were standardised to a rate per 100,000 people, to control for differences in population size between the countries and mass shootings before and after 1996/1997 were compared between countries. That study found that in the period 1980Ė1996, both countries experienced mass shootings. The rate did not differ significantly between countries. Since 1996-1997, neither country has experienced a mass shooting event despite the continued availability of semi-automatic longarms in New Zealand. The authors conclude that "the hypothesis that Australia's prohibition of certain types of firearms explains the absence of mass shootings in that country since 1996 does not appear to be supported... if civilian access to certain types of firearms explained the occurrence of mass shootings in Australia (and conversely, if prohibiting such firearms explains the absence of mass shootings), then New Zealand (a country that still allows the ownership of such firearms) would have continued to experience mass shooting events."
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: Scroto Gaggins on October 07, 2015, 05:54:55 AM
Engineer, what do you think would happen if, hypothetically, all guns were banned, and the mere possession of a gun would land someone in jail?

There are approximately 300 million weapons in America. There are about the same number of people.
The number of privately owned firearms in the United States for every hundred citizens is 113.
NBC tells us that one in three Americans is a gun owner.
Which means that for every thirty three (approx.) gun owners, there are 113 guns.
A bit of maths leads to the conclusion that each gun owner owns 3.5 guns.

You don't need that many guns.
If you live in a neighbourhood where you fear for your safety, leave the neighbourhood.
If you, as a society, feel so threatened by your fellow Americans, that you need 3.5 guns to defend yourself, then there is something wrong with your society.

I found an article: Crazy gun laws in the US

1. Colorado, Wisconsin, Mississippi, Utah and Oregon all allow, or prohibit the banning of, students to carry guns on college campuses.

2. Michigan allows concealed weapons in schools, churches, hospitals and sports stadiums.

3. 16 year olds are allowed to buy handguns in Vermont. Vermont has a pretty low crime rate doesn't it?

4. In several states, there has been expansions to the definition of 'self defence' to no longer make it the duty of a person being confronted to back away, meaning that a threatened person could pull a weapon on someone without any hesitation.

To those of us living in our totalitarian fascist repressed societies like the UK and Australia, these laws seem ridiculous.
Why do you need guns at a university? In a church? A hospital?
Why would a sixteen year old need a handgun?
Why would shooting a threat without assessing the situation be a better idea?

In our relatively gun free society, we don't have shootings at universities. The students aren't allowed to have guns.
We don't have shootings in churches like that of Charleston.
We don't have sixteen year olds legally having concealable handguns.
If we feel threatened, we go through the alternatives to violence first.
We ask questions, then call the police if that is needed.

If your society is so acceptant of weaponry, then violence is sure to be inevitable.
It damages global perception of your people and your society.
This, coupled with the reputation gained in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan, make America seem like a nation of gun-toting, self-righteous, violent, ignorant and selfish people.

Guns don't make anything better.
Guns can't make anything better.
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: mikeman7918 on October 07, 2015, 08:01:53 AM
Watch this and tell me with a strait face that more gun control is what we need:
https://www.facebook.com/IsThisFreeDumb/videos/508741059157993/ (https://www.facebook.com/IsThisFreeDumb/videos/508741059157993/)
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: Son of Orospu on October 07, 2015, 09:29:11 AM
mikeman actually makes sense for a change.  I hope he keeps this up.  Good job, mikeman. 
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: TheEngineer on October 07, 2015, 10:23:17 AM
Engineer, what do you think would happen if, hypothetically, all guns were banned, and the mere possession of a gun would land someone in jail?
People would still kill each other, much like they continue to do in Australia.

Quote
A bit of maths leads to the conclusion that each gun owner owns 3.5 guns.

You don't need that many guns.
Says who?  You?  How many guns do I need?  Who are you, or anyone else, to tell me how many of a legal object I can buy, with the money I have earned?  Doesn't sound like freedom to me.

Quote
If you live in a neighbourhood where you fear for your safety, leave the neighbourhood.
If you, as a society, feel so threatened by your fellow Americans, that you need 3.5 guns to defend yourself, then there is something wrong with your society.
I just told you there were other reasons to own a gun besides defense.

Quote
I found an article: Crazy gun laws in the US

1. Colorado, Wisconsin, Mississippi, Utah and Oregon all allow, or prohibit the banning of, students to carry guns on college campuses.
I absolutely agree with this.  Students should be allowed to carry guns on campus.

Quote
2. Michigan allows concealed weapons in schools, churches, hospitals and sports stadiums.
Again, 100% agree with this.

Quote
3. 16 year olds are allowed to buy handguns in Vermont. Vermont has a pretty low crime rate doesn't it?
Thanks for making the point for me.

Quote
4. In several states, there has been expansions to the definition of 'self defence' to no longer make it the duty of a person being confronted to back away, meaning that a threatened person could pull a weapon on someone without any hesitation.
No, you don't have to run away.  You can stand your ground.  Seems pretty common sense to me.

Quote
To those of us living in our totalitarian fascist repressed societies like the UK and Australia, these laws seem ridiculous.
Good, then stay in your totalitarian fascist repressed societies and plead with the local authorities to keep you safe at night.

Quote
Why do you need guns at a university?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appalachian_School_of_Law_shooting (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appalachian_School_of_Law_shooting)

Quote
In a church?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Colorado_YWAM_and_New_Life_shootings (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Colorado_YWAM_and_New_Life_shootings)

Quote
A hospital?
http://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/local/Mercy-Fitzgerald-Hospital-on-Lockdown-268489642.html (http://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/local/Mercy-Fitzgerald-Hospital-on-Lockdown-268489642.html)

Quote
Why would a sixteen year old need a handgun?
The people of Vermont have decided to afford 16 year olds the right to own a handgun.  That is what we call freedom on this side of the world.  The people of our country are the government, and they can decide how their state should be run.

Quote
Why would shooting a threat without assessing the situation be a better idea?
If you have determined that a person is a threat, you have already assessed the situation.

Quote
If we feel threatened, we go through the alternatives to violence first.
Apparently not, as the homicide rate did not decrease after the gun ban was instituted.  So you guys just became more barbaric.

Quote
We ask questions, then call the police if that is needed.
You mean if you are still alive.

Quote
This, coupled with the reputation gained in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan, make America seem like a nation of gun-toting, self-righteous, violent, ignorant and selfish people.
What reputation?  We like freedom and help to spread that to other places.  How terrible of us.

Quote
Guns don't make anything better.
Looks like removing guns from society sure didn't make Australia any better.  Why did you forget to address the evidence that the gun ban in Australia has not decreased homicides or even prevented mass shootings?  It didn't fit your nice little theory?  Maybe you should do a little free thinking, instead of digesting in whole and then regurgitating all of the talking points, when you obviously have no idea what you are talking about.
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: Scroto Gaggins on October 07, 2015, 04:26:39 PM
Engineer, what do you think would happen if, hypothetically, all guns were banned, and the mere possession of a gun would land someone in jail?
People would still kill each other, much like they continue to do in Australia.
I pulled statistics from the Australian Institute of criminology that says that the murder rate has decreased from 1.9 before the Port Arthur Massacre to 1.3 after the Port Arthur Massacre.

Quote
Quote
A bit of maths leads to the conclusion that each gun owner owns 3.5 guns.

You don't need that many guns.
Says who?  You?  How many guns do I need?  Who are you, or anyone else, to tell me how many of a legal object I can buy, with the money I have earned?  Doesn't sound like freedom to me.
Well, if you are being reasonable, say, and instead of 3.5 guns the average gun owner had 27 guns, then I think it is a fair call that that is too many.
You keep on bringing up freedom as one of your points.
Say if we had an umpteenth amendment which said that male citizens have the right to rape women if they don't consent.
We could claim that we were more free than you, because rape is illegal in the US.

Quote
Quote
If you live in a neighbourhood where you fear for your safety, leave the neighbourhood.
If you, as a society, feel so threatened by your fellow Americans, that you need 3.5 guns to defend yourself, then there is something wrong with your society.
I just told you there were other reasons to own a gun besides defense.
You said self-defence, entertainment, hunting and prevention of tyranny.
The middle two are not truly needed in modern society, except maybe hunting if you live in a remote area.
Prevention of tyranny. What tyranny?
When has the US in its modern form ever had do deal with domestic tyranny that would require armed citizenry?

Quote
Quote
I found an article: Crazy gun laws in the US

1. Colorado, Wisconsin, Mississippi, Utah and Oregon all allow, or prohibit the banning of, students to carry guns on college campuses.
I absolutely agree with this.  Students should be allowed to carry guns on campus.
And if a student wants to go on a rampage?
If this happens, then a gun battle will probably ensue. The assailant will probably get killed, but the problem won't be solved.

Quote
Quote
2. Michigan allows concealed weapons in schools, churches, hospitals and sports stadiums.
Again, 100% agree with this.

Quote
3. 16 year olds are allowed to buy handguns in Vermont. Vermont has a pretty low crime rate doesn't it?
Thanks for making the point for me.
The murder rate of one state doesn't equal the murder rate of a nation.
My point was that they (Vermont's 16 year olds) don't need handguns.

Quote
Quote
4. In several states, there has been expansions to the definition of 'self defence' to no longer make it the duty of a person being confronted to back away, meaning that a threatened person could pull a weapon on someone without any hesitation.
No, you don't have to run away.  You can stand your ground.  Seems pretty common sense to me.
What if your first impressions are wrong and you murder someone?

Quote
Quote
To those of us living in our totalitarian fascist repressed societies like the UK and Australia, these laws seem ridiculous.
Good, then stay in your totalitarian fascist repressed societies and plead with the local authorities to keep you safe at night.
We don't need to plead, we already are safe at night.
If someone breaks into my house with the intent to murder me and mine, then I accept that.
If someone is murdered in Australia, the whole community rallies together.
Positive change comes out of this.
I would let myself die if it would bring about social good.
If it is my fate to be murdered, then that is what will happen.

Quote
Quote
Why do you need guns at a university?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appalachian_School_of_Law_shooting (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appalachian_School_of_Law_shooting)
Quote
In a church?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Colorado_YWAM_and_New_Life_shootings (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Colorado_YWAM_and_New_Life_shootings)

Quote
A hospital?
http://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/local/Mercy-Fitzgerald-Hospital-on-Lockdown-268489642.html (http://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/local/Mercy-Fitzgerald-Hospital-on-Lockdown-268489642.html)
[/quote]
All these are tragedies. No denying that.
But these wouldn't have happened if guns were out of the equation.
I applaud the efforts of those who fought back.
However, people still died in these incidences.
Killing the assailant doesn't bring back the victims or stop this from happening again.

Quote
Quote
Why would a sixteen year old need a handgun?
The people of Vermont have decided to afford 16 year olds the right to own a handgun.  That is what we call freedom on this side of the world.  The people of our country are the government, and they can decide how their state should be run.
Funnily enough, other countries have democracy as well.
Just because a law was passed does not mean that the law is justified.

Quote
Quote
Why would shooting a threat without assessing the situation be a better idea?
If you have determined that a person is a threat, you have already assessed the situation.
Because we don't have handguns in our pockets as we walk down the street, we have to look for non-violent ways out.
This is why in my town of 40 000 people, there has been one murder in the last three years.
This shocked the community.
The fact that it was a dispute between two drug dealers, and not someone on the sidewalk, means that our streets are pretty safe.
If someone is drunk, or high, and we feel threatened by them, we extricate ourselves.
Thats why there was one murder in the last three years.

Quote
Quote
If we feel threatened, we go through the alternatives to violence first.
Apparently not, as the homicide rate did not decrease after the gun ban was instituted.  So you guys just became more barbaric.
Umm. The murder rate has decreased.
I gave you stats of the entire country.
You gave me a personal statement that said that the homicide rate in New South Wales had stayed the same.
One state.

Quote
Quote
We ask questions, then call the police if that is needed.
You mean if you are still alive.
Which we nearly always are, as evidenced by our low murder rate.

Quote
Quote
This, coupled with the reputation gained in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan, make America seem like a nation of gun-toting, self-righteous, violent, ignorant and selfish people.
What reputation?  We like freedom and help to spread that to other places.  How terrible of us.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Lai_Massacre (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Lai_Massacre)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Ghraib_torture_and_prisoner_abuse (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Ghraib_torture_and_prisoner_abuse)
America has not spread freedom.
Vietnam is now communist.
You backed out of Iraq and Afghanistan, leaving them to fend for themselves.

Quote
Quote
Guns don't make anything better.
Looks like removing guns from society sure didn't make Australia any better.  Why did you forget to address the evidence that the gun ban in Australia has not decreased homicides or even prevented mass shootings?  It didn't fit your nice little theory?  Maybe you should do a little free thinking, instead of digesting in whole and then regurgitating all of the talking points, when you obviously have no idea what you are talking about.
Well, we don't have school shootings. We haven't had any theatres being shot up.
The Sandy Hook shooter used a XM15 Bushmaster assault rifle,
He killed school children.
You think that the solution is to give more people more guns.
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: Scroto Gaggins on October 07, 2015, 04:33:21 PM
Watch this and tell me with a strait face that more gun control is what we need:
https://www.facebook.com/IsThisFreeDumb/videos/508741059157993/ (https://www.facebook.com/IsThisFreeDumb/videos/508741059157993/)
That is fixing the severity of individual attacks. Not the problem itself.
If no one has guns at all, then she wouldn't need to defend herself.
So, yes, with a straight face, you need more gun control.
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: Scroto Gaggins on October 08, 2015, 02:50:42 AM
I realise that three posts in a row is somewhat poor form, but I found some interesting statistics and articles.

So, the US has the highest amount of guns per person in the world. Nearly twice as much as the next most.
If the argument posited by Mikeman, Engineer et al. is to hold any water, then there should be a correlation between high levels of armed citizenry and less crime eg. homicide
However, this isn't the case.

The US ranks most criminal of the first world countries.
The US ranks 111th for intentional homicide, however, for ease of comparison, lets compare only, again, to first world countries.
The next first world country in line, Finland, is 170th in the same list.
Canada- 173rd
Australia- 185th
UK- 190th
Germany- 200th

As we can see, having more guns doesn't decrease homicide rates, doesn't decrease general crime rates.
But, especially where I live, suicide is a bigger killer than homicide.
Suicide, if attempted with blades or poisons, are only fatal 6-7 percent of the time.
If attempted with a firearm, there is a 95 percent chance of death.
So while the firearms restriction admittedly didn't have much of an effect on homicides (1.9 to 1.3) suicide rates plummeted by 74 percent.

So gun restrictions made people less likely to kill themselves.
Two thirds of gun deaths in the US are suicides. If the rate were to drop 74 percent, then 15 000 Americans wouldn't be dead each year.
Australia's restrictions took 20 percent of our guns out of the public.
And saved lives.

The second amendment is a product of a time when your frontier was still wilderness, Britain and Spain were threats, and the only arms available were single shot muskets and rifles.
At a time when it took twenty seconds to reload after each shot, the right to bear arms was reasonable.
If one can buy an AK47 assault rifle, then it stops being reasonable.

The argument that if guns were restricted, that crime rates would rise, due to "Bad guys having guns" is ludicrous.
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: guv on October 08, 2015, 03:58:37 AM
Don't blame the gun, boots, knives, bottles and iron bars work great. Humans with bad shit in their head are dangerous, fix that. smart man don't take a knife to a gun fight, we just have fewer gun fights in Aus. At least one murder a week in WA, most of them die hard, like not a head shot. Dead is dead!.
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: Scroto Gaggins on October 08, 2015, 04:24:22 AM
Don't blame the gun, boots, knives, bottles and iron bars work great. Humans with bad shit in their head are dangerous, fix that. smart man don't take a knife to a gun fight, we just have fewer gun fights in Aus. At least one murder a week in WA, most of them die hard, like not a head shot. Dead is dead!.
Twenty people are murdered a year in WA. About one a fortnight.
But the stats clearly show that gun restrictions are correlated with fewer homicides. And suicides. And less crime.

And yes, humans are dangerous, so they should be restricted access to powerful weapons.
One cannot kill elementary students in such numbers as easily as we see in the US all the time.
Sandy Hook was committed with an assault rifle. Not a knife. Or a bottle.
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: guv on October 08, 2015, 05:38:47 AM
Don't blame the gun, boots, knives, bottles and iron bars work great. Humans with bad shit in their head are dangerous, fix that. smart man don't take a knife to a gun fight, we just have fewer gun fights in Aus. At least one murder a week in WA, most of them die hard, like not a head shot. Dead is dead!.
Twenty people are murdered a year in WA. About one a fortnight.
But the stats clearly show that gun restrictions are correlated with fewer homicides. And suicides. And less crime.

And yes, humans are dangerous, so they should be restricted access to powerful weapons.
One cannot kill elementary students in such numbers as easily as we see in the US all the time.
Sandy Hook was committed with an assault rifle. Not a knife. Or a bottle.


The most powerful weapon is the human mind. Check the stats for the partition of India, no fancy guns needed. People who get  it in their head that violence is cool and will fix their problems scare shit out of me. The place I live in has a shit load of guns but I feel in more danger down in the city with all the stressed out nutters. I would like to build a 50 mm smooth bore muzzle loader for blowing holes in dead cars, but nanny state Aus would have a fit. Someone has to figure out how to take the guns of the nutters, good luck.
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: Scroto Gaggins on October 08, 2015, 05:53:29 AM
Don't blame the gun, boots, knives, bottles and iron bars work great. Humans with bad shit in their head are dangerous, fix that. smart man don't take a knife to a gun fight, we just have fewer gun fights in Aus. At least one murder a week in WA, most of them die hard, like not a head shot. Dead is dead!.
Twenty people are murdered a year in WA. About one a fortnight.
But the stats clearly show that gun restrictions are correlated with fewer homicides. And suicides. And less crime.

And yes, humans are dangerous, so they should be restricted access to powerful weapons.
One cannot kill elementary students in such numbers as easily as we see in the US all the time.
Sandy Hook was committed with an assault rifle. Not a knife. Or a bottle.


The most powerful weapon is the human mind. Check the stats for the partition of India, no fancy guns needed. People who get  it in their head that violence is cool and will fix their problems scare shit out of me. The place I live in has a shit load of guns but I feel in more danger down in the city with all the stressed out nutters. I would like to build a 50 mm smooth bore muzzle loader for blowing holes in dead cars, but nanny state Aus would have a fit. Someone has to figure out how to take the guns of the nutters, good luck.

Of course violence can happen without guns, check the battle of Cannae.
But the stats don't lie.
When Connecticut introduced firearm restrictions, the homicide rate dropped by 30 percent.
When Missouri repealed a similar law, the homicide rate rose by 20 percent.

It's logical that a society with less weapons would have less violence.
We might not like it, but if people are being murdered less, then something is going right.
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: TheEngineer on October 08, 2015, 09:41:45 AM
I pulled statistics from the Australian Institute of criminology that says that the murder rate has decreased from 1.9 before the Port Arthur Massacre to 1.3 after the Port Arthur Massacre.
Yes, but what you failed to notice (or perhaps intentionally failed to mention) is that the murder rate had been decreasing for the 15 years leading to the gun restrictions.

Quote
Well, if you are being reasonable, say, and instead of 3.5 guns the average gun owner had 27 guns, then I think it is a fair call that that is too many.
Again, says who?  You?  Why do you draw the line at 27?  26 is ok, but 27 is too many?

Quote
You keep on bringing up freedom as one of your points.
Say if we had an umpteenth amendment which said that male citizens have the right to rape women if they don't consent.
We could claim that we were more free than you, because rape is illegal in the US.
But then you would be removing freedom from women.  Are you  sexist?

Quote
You said self-defence, entertainment, hunting and prevention of tyranny.
The middle two are not truly needed in modern society, except maybe hunting if you live in a remote area.
Prevention of tyranny. What tyranny?
When has the US in its modern form ever had do deal with domestic tyranny that would require armed citizenry?
Entertainment and hunting are not needed in a modern society?  Do you go to the movies?  Watch TV?  Make ridiculous comments on an internet chat forum?  All forms of entertainment.
Again, the same tyranny the Founding Fathers envisioned when they gave us the Second Amendment.

Quote
And if a student wants to go on a rampage?
If this happens, then a gun battle will probably ensue. The assailant will probably get killed, but the problem won't be solved.
Sounds like a great outcome to me. 

Quote
The murder rate of one state doesn't equal the murder rate of a nation.
My point was that they (Vermont's 16 year olds) don't need handguns.
Says who?  You?  The people of Vermont disagree.  Plus, you are again making my point for me: Vermont has a low murder rate, yet 16 year olds can own a gun.  That pretty much shoots down your own argument.  Thanks.

Quote
What if your first impressions are wrong and you murder someone?
  Then you go to prison.  Unless, this is your messed up world where you said a murderer is not a criminal.

Quote
If someone breaks into my house with the intent to murder me and mine, then I accept that.
If someone is murdered in Australia, the whole community rallies together.
Positive change comes out of this.
I would let myself die if it would bring about social good.
Lol.   What an asinine statement to make.  Are you 16?  I have a family. I have children that I would do anything to protect.  I wouldn't roll over and let them be killed.

Quote
All these are tragedies. No denying that.
But these wouldn't have happened if guns were out of the equation.
You asked why you would need a gun in each of these places.  So there you go.  Examples of exactly why.

Quote
If someone is drunk, or high, and we feel threatened by them, we extricate ourselves.
So do we.  Not sure what your point is.

Quote
I gave you stats of the entire country.
You gave me a personal statement that said that the homicide rate in New South Wales had stayed the same.
One state.
No, you gave partial stats.  You forgot to mention the homicide rate was decreasing prior to the gun ban.  The research I provided, shows there is no link to the gun ban and homicide rates.

Quote
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Lai_Massacre
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Ghraib_torture_and_prisoner_abuse
America has not spread freedom.
Vietnam is now communist.
You backed out of Iraq and Afghanistan, leaving them to fend for themselves.
One example?  Really?  What about Taiwan, South Korea, Philippines, Germany, Portugal, Spain, Iraq (a democracy!) and Afganistan (an emerging democracy).
What about the $40 billion the US government sends to other countries to help their security and raise their people out of poverty?
Or the $212 billion the American people give worldwide (which by the way, makes us the most charitable country on the planet)?

Quote
The Sandy Hook shooter used a XM15 Bushmaster assault rifle,
He killed school children.
You think that the solution is to give more people more guns.
Yes, if only someone in that school had been armed, they could have stopped the shooter before he killed so many children.

BTW, he did not use an assault rifle.  Please do some of your own research and don't rely on talking points.
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: mikeman7918 on October 08, 2015, 10:25:59 AM
Here is a statistic to consider:

"With just one single exception, the attack on congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords in Tucson in 2011, every public shooting since at least 1950 in the U.S. in which more than three people have been killed has taken place where citizens are not allowed to carry guns."

Coincidence?  I think not.  Adding more gun free zones will not help the situation because even a rampaging killer knows that law abiding citizens won't bring guns there so they will be sitting ducks, unable to do anything about the shooter.  Are you seriously suggesting that making more gun free zones will help the situation?  I already mentioned some statistics showing that homocide rates are higher in states with stricter gun control.

People need to start fighting the disease, not the symptoms.  Taking away guns doesn't change the fact that some people still want to kill others, and the focus should be on that rather then the weapon they use.  A gun is just a device made out of metal and plastic and it's useless outside if the hands of a living being, they are not evil entities plotting to murder your family.
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: Scroto Gaggins on October 08, 2015, 04:28:06 PM
Here is a statistic to consider:

"With just one single exception, the attack on congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords in Tucson in 2011, every public shooting since at least 1950 in the U.S. in which more than three people have been killed has taken place where citizens are not allowed to carry guns."

Coincidence?  I think not.  Adding more gun free zones will not help the situation because even a rampaging killer knows that law abiding citizens won't bring guns there so they will be sitting ducks, unable to do anything about the shooter.  Are you seriously suggesting that making more gun free zones will help the situation?  I already mentioned some statistics showing that homocide rates are higher in states with stricter gun control.
When did I mention more gun-free zones? Yes, having more gun-free zones won't work, but the only reason it won't is that America's gun ownership is so high.
We have gun free zones, nearly all urban areas are gun free zones.
Name an Australian elementary school shooting after the gun restrictions. There hasn't been one.
Yet our teachers aren't armed.

Quote
People need to start fighting the disease, not the symptoms.  Taking away guns doesn't change the fact that some people still want to kill others, and the focus should be on that rather then the weapon they use.  A gun is just a device made out of metal and plastic and it's useless outside if the hands of a living being, they are not evil entities plotting to murder your family.
True, there is still murder. 200 victims a year in Aus, which is 200 too many.
Isn't your solution of arming citizens so that they can withstand assault also only fighting a symptom?

Lets examine the chain of causality.

1. A person has a mental illness, and feels the need to murder someone.
2. Due to America's fairly lax gun laws, he can buy both guns and ammunition cheaply and within the law.
3. Because of his murderous persuasion, he decides to shoot up a diner.
4. In the first few seconds of the assault, as no one expects a massacre, he kills 15 people.
5. Some citizens run off, some hide, some fight back.
6. Some of those who fight back manage to drive the assailant off.
7. The assailant then, as is so common, kills himself.

The end result is a shooting with 16+ dead and more wounded.
This chain of causality is more like a tree. A tree that needs to be cut down.
Arming citizens more would help #5 and #6.
This is akin to chopping some branches off. You are saving lives, but not stopping the crime.
Due to the nature of both mass killings and a mentally ill person's mind, #4 and #3 can't be helped.
I am proposing that gun restriction would negate step 2.
If guns are either illegal, or are strongly restricted, then he will turn to the black market.
The average black market gun in Australia costs about $15 000 ($10 900 US)
The average black market gun in the US costs a few hundred dollars.
If gun restrictions can make the price of a mere handgun $10 000, then people are less likely to buy them.

I am cutting the tree at the base, leaving a stump.
Admittedly, efforts should be made to pull it out by the roots, i.e. understanding mental illness.
But until such time as that becomes a reality, having the tree as a stump is good enough.
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: Scroto Gaggins on October 08, 2015, 06:06:51 PM
According to the FBI, the number one reason for homicide is arguments.
There were 1 816 murders committed in 2011 that were felony related.
There were nearly 6 000 homicides that arose out of non felonious circumstances.
Out of all murders in a calendar year, two thirds were committed with guns, half with handguns.
Three thousand three hundred Americans were killed as a result of arguments. Each year.
That is more then those killed in the September 11 attacks.

We have arguments in Australia.
But we don't kill that many of our fellows each year as the US does.
If there is a heated argument, we don't have the readily available option of shooting the person.
So if the gun restrictions in Aus were implemented in the US, and the same results were observed, and 74 percent of gun murders wouldn't happen, how many lives would be saved?

That is 6352 people not being murdered each year.
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: mikeman7918 on October 09, 2015, 08:38:06 AM
According to the FBI, the number one reason for homicide is arguments.
There were 1 816 murders committed in 2011 that were felony related.
There were nearly 6 000 homicides that arose out of non felonious circumstances.
Out of all murders in a calendar year, two thirds were committed with guns, half with handguns.
Three thousand three hundred Americans were killed as a result of arguments. Each year.
That is more then those killed in the September 11 attacks.

We have arguments in Australia.
But we don't kill that many of our fellows each year as the US does.
If there is a heated argument, we don't have the readily available option of shooting the person.
So if the gun restrictions in Aus were implemented in the US, and the same results were observed, and 74 percent of gun murders wouldn't happen, how many lives would be saved?

That is 6352 people not being murdered each year.

You assume that if these people didn't have guns then they wouldn't kill anyone, this is a logical fallacy.  A few years ago there was a murder that happened a few miles from my house where an insane man killed his wife with a hammer.  The point is that without guns people still kill each other.  I should clarify that that murder I mentioned was the only homicide I have ever been within 10 miles of as far as I know, and it's certainly not a regular occurrence.

The homicide rates in Utah are about the same as the homicide rates in Australia and there are 7 guns in my house.  I should clarify that we don't feel like we need that many to be safe, it's just that sharp shooting is a fun sport.
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: Scroto Gaggins on October 09, 2015, 04:27:34 PM
According to the FBI, the number one reason for homicide is arguments.
There were 1 816 murders committed in 2011 that were felony related.
There were nearly 6 000 homicides that arose out of non felonious circumstances.
Out of all murders in a calendar year, two thirds were committed with guns, half with handguns.
Three thousand three hundred Americans were killed as a result of arguments. Each year.
That is more then those killed in the September 11 attacks.

We have arguments in Australia.
But we don't kill that many of our fellows each year as the US does.
If there is a heated argument, we don't have the readily available option of shooting the person.
So if the gun restrictions in Aus were implemented in the US, and the same results were observed, and 74 percent of gun murders wouldn't happen, how many lives would be saved?

That is 6352 people not being murdered each year.

You assume that if these people didn't have guns then they wouldn't kill anyone, this is a logical fallacy.  A few years ago there was a murder that happened a few miles from my house where an insane man killed his wife with a hammer.  The point is that without guns people still kill each other.  I should clarify that that murder I mentioned was the only homicide I have ever been within 10 miles of as far as I know, and it's certainly not a regular occurrence.

The homicide rates in Utah are about the same as the homicide rates in Australia and there are 7 guns in my house.  I should clarify that we don't feel like we need that many to be safe, it's just that sharp shooting is a fun sport.
No, I'm not saying that there won't be murder, that would indeed be a fallacy.
The topic of this debate is whether gun control would reduce murder.
Following the implementation of gun restrictions is Australia, the gun murder rate dropped by 74 percent.
Engineer raised the point that people still murdered.
Of course people will still murder, why would gun control stop all murder?
Considering that two thirds of all murders in the US are with guns, then gun control, like observed in Australia, would save thousands of lives.
Unless, of course, there is an inherent difference between our two cultures that is the reason for the murder discrepancy.

A big point raised by the members opposite is that even with gun control, criminals would still murder.
The essence of this argument is that because good people will do good, and bad people will do bad, no restrictions are going to help this.
We can extend their argument to the point where murder is not a crime.
Good people will not murder, and criminals still will murder.
How about stealing?
Good people know not to steal, so they won't do it.
Bad people have always stolen, so the law won't make any difference.

What about open carry?
What if it became legal to carry your assault weapon out, safety off, in public?
If you are a law-abiding citizen, then you won't kill anyone, right?
If you're a criminal, then you were always going to kill people, right?

As the FBI tells us, most homicides arise out of non-felonious circumstances.
Not in the process of a robbery, not gang-related (at least primarily) but as the outcome of an argument.
Dispute my evidence, fine.
But when the 'murder rate as a result of an argument' in the US is the same as the total murder rate in Australia, then something has to be wrong.
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: Cactus Thief on October 11, 2015, 04:14:04 AM
I think the biggest issue here is the extensive and inherent gun culture within America. There are a some developed countries that have similar, although still stricter, gun laws to America, but the reason you don't see the same level of violence is because of the significant cultural difference. This includes a respect for the danger associated with guns, and that guns are last resort, rather than a first.
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: Scroto Gaggins on October 11, 2015, 05:32:04 AM
As no one appears to be adding anything to the conversation, I shall.
My comments today will be focusing on the points raised by the opposition, and to rebut them.

"More guns makes the public safer."
We all know that the US has the highest public gun ownership in the world.
If the public having more guns meant that any societal benefit would be achieved, then the United States should be head and shoulders out in front in terms of that benefit being ranked. Followed by Yemen.

"Criminals would still murder, they don't listen to the law anyhow."
How would one define a criminal if they haven't offended yet?
If someone has not yet committed their crime, then they aren't criminals, and as such, still count as 'law abiding citizens'.
So we have a situation where it is too easy for someone with murderous intent to kill large numbers of people.

This entire point is illogical.
The essence of this argument is that criminals by definition are outside the law, and as such, making laws won't affect them.
This is ludicrous on the face of it.
We can extend this flawed logic further to drugs.
'Law abiding citizens' like us won't take drugs, only criminals will, so why not legalise it?
In summary: this point is saying that unless we can stop all murder, there's no point in doing anything at all.

"People will still murder with things other than guns, e.g. knives"
True, people always will murder, sadly. Human nature and all that.
But when two thirds of all murder in the US is done with a firearm, then it is a problem.
When eight thousand Americans are murdered each year with firearms (Four as many as died in Afghanistan), then it is an issue worth discussing.
The US has the thirteenth highest firearm related death rate in the world. It is an issue worth discussing.

Also, guns are designed to kill.
They are designed to be accurate, fast shooting, and deadly.
If the only firearm available was a musket, then I'm all for the Second Amendment.
Three shots a minute that are inaccurate at long range is fine by me.

"Guns make people safer at home"
There are three ways in which you can be killed with a gun.
Homicide, Suicide and by accident.
The risk rate of all three rises if guns are readily available, as studies show.
http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/9/1/48.full (http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/9/1/48.full)
http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/160/10/929.full (http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/160/10/929.full)
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0001457502000490 (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0001457502000490)
Apparently 43 percent of gun owners who have kids don't lock up all guns securely.
That can't be good for the children, surely?

"What about New Zealand?"
This is a good example, like Switzerland, of a society that has access to semi automatic weapons etc. and has a low murder rate.
They both, however, have strict gun control in other areas like licensing etc.
In Switzerland, everyone serves in the military, and has training, and must be fit to serve, i.e. not felons or mentally ill.
Likewise, if you are a felon or mentally ill, then you can't get guns in NZ.
Intersting to note that both these countries' firearm related death rate is higher that Australia's, though.

"Mental health should be the focus"
Absolutely agree. It should be a focus.
But unless you can cure all mental illness, then there needs to be preventative measures elsewhere also.
For at least the time being, mental illness and the tendency to murder are both inevitabilities.
It is therefore reasonable to make the preventative measure the restriction of guns.
If the same measures that were done in Aus. were done in the US, had the same result observed, which there is no reason they shouldn't, then isn't that reasonable.

"Guns would help protect women"
6 times as many women were shot by husbands, partners and ex-partners than were murdered by a stranger.

"The Second Amendment means that I can have guns"
This argument make the assumption that the US Constitution is both unchangeable and perfect.
The US constitution is no more important than any other country's.
It can easily be changed.
The Fifteenth Amendment was written to free slaves, i.e. rid the slave holders of their purchased property.
So there could easily have been made the same arguments about the government taking people's slaves.
'People have always had slaves' 'My family has always had slaves'
'If I didn't have slaves, then I would feel threatened'
'I don't mistreat my slaves, so why should they get taken off me?'
Which brings me to the final opposition point;

"Why should the actions of others affect what I am able to do?"
This is what it comes down to.
After all the reasons and examples of other countries, this is what the debate boils down to.
'I dont misuse my guns, so why should I not have them?'
'Why should this one psycho shooting up a school mean that I cant have an assault rifle?'

True.
The actions of others don't mean that you will commit these actions.
But that is not how society works.
Maybe you can drive your car at 100 mph and not kill anyone.
But Mr. Johnson from down the road drove at 100 in a 50 zone and killed school children.
So now we can't.

Maybe you can take meth and not get addicted or murderous.
But Mr. Smith took some and strangled his kids before cutting his own wrists.
So now we can't.

Someone fell out of their fiftieth storey window, so now they don't open.
Someone drunk drove and died, so now we can't.
Someone killed 35 people in Australia with an assault rifle, so now we can't have them.

Maybe you won't kill anyone with your guns, but eight thousand Americans are murdered with guns each year.
Twice that number again kill themselves with guns.

That leaves twenty four thousand reasons each year for gun control.
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: TheEngineer on October 11, 2015, 11:59:58 AM
I see you have still ignored my last post.
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: Scroto Gaggins on October 11, 2015, 05:38:36 PM
I see you have still ignored my last post.
Which part did I ignore?

"Homicide rates already decreasing in Aus."
Of course, but a just because a reaction is occurring, doesn't mean that a catalyst doesn't do anything.
Gun control stopped gun violence, which is the topic of this debate.

"Why should the government determine how many guns I should and should not have?"
Firstly, the government places other restrictions on citizens, like taxes and laws and such, so it is reasonable that there should be a limit.
Secondly, common sense tells us that there should be a limit.
One gun for target shooting.
One gun for skeet shooting.
One for self defence.

But unless you are going to practice skeet and marksmanship in your backyard, then those could conceivably be locked up at the range. That leaves one gun for self defence in the home.
I used 27 as an example of a number that I thought was so ridiculous, the you would then see my point. I was wrong.

"The Second amendment protects me from tyranny"
If this statement is true, then two thirds of Americans should be under a tyrannical despot while the gun owners aren't.
Firstly, your government is not tyrannous. Americans are still living their normal lives.
And you have democracy.
Secondly, guns do not equal more freedom.
If more guns equal more x, then the USA should be top of the list.
In the Democracy index, Australia, with less guns, is ninth.
The USA with lots of guns, is nineteenth.
If your government is tyrannous, then is your fault for electing them.

"The assailant getting killed is a great outcome"
No doubt it is a great outcome. But it doesn't prevent mass shootings form happening tomorrow, or next week.
Doctors always say: 'Prevention is better than a cure'
This argument also implies that places with concealed carry will have less shootings.
There should be no mass shootings in Oregon's colleges, as they can have concealed carry. Oh wait.

Also, picture the following scenario: A shooter walks into a college and opens fire.
The police are called, and some students start firing back.
When the police arrive, they can see a gun battle.
Are you relying on them to make the right call about who to apprehend and who to not?
If there is only one person with a gun, then the police can know who the assailant is immediately.

"Vermont has a low crime rate and yet 16 year olds can own handguns"
True. There are some states, particularly in New England, that have low crime rates and lax gun laws.
But when you look at the country as a whole, when you look at the United States of America, then the stats aren't in your favour.
When your country has the highest first world crime rate, lowest first world peace index rating, the highest first world firearm related death rate, the second highest world incarceration rate, the highest first world homicide rate, and
The worlds highest public firearm ownership rate.
There is a problem.

You cant say that more guns would make the situation better.
Statistically, you can't.
It is plausible to draw a connection between firearm ownership and firearm death.
It is not also plausible to draw a connection between firearm ownership and murder? And suicide?

If your side is correct, and guns mean that there would be less murder, less shootings, less crime in general; then the USA should have the lowest crime rate, the lowest homicide rate and the least shootings in the world.
But it doesn't.

Gun advocates say that shootings are a mental health issue, not a gun control issue.
Funny, that when other countries have gun control, our mental health issue goes away.
Fancy that?

So, engineer, I think I addressed all your points.
Now be a good boy and reciprocate.
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: mikeman7918 on October 12, 2015, 11:55:18 AM
Another great video about gun control:

https://www.facebook.com/rik.sexton/videos/4123638147897/ (https://www.facebook.com/rik.sexton/videos/4123638147897/)
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: Scroto Gaggins on October 13, 2015, 02:20:51 AM
Another great video about gun control:

https://www.facebook.com/rik.sexton/videos/4123638147897/ (https://www.facebook.com/rik.sexton/videos/4123638147897/)
Are you going to address my points? My rebuttals? No?

I shall now give comments on mr Virtual President's speech.
Full of passion, full of verve. In that sense, a great speech.
His two main points are, and correct me if I'm wrong, is that guns protect against tyranny; and that they shouldn't have the blame of violence upon them, the focus should be on the root cause.

Now, again, if guns cause there to be less crime, then the US should have the lowest crime rate in the world.

If taking away guns from law abiding citizens leaves them vulnerable to murder, rape etc. then countries like Australia should have really high rape and murder.

If disarming the public leads to governmental violence, then Australians should be getting killed all the time by the government.

If concealed carry prevents rape, then states, and countries, without concealed carry should have higher rape levels than those that have concealed carry.

If gun control advocates wanted total disarmament of the American people, then half your points would be valid.

Find me the statistics that show that the US has the lowest crime rate in the world.
Find me the statistics that show how much higher Australia's rape and murder is than the US.
Find me the facts that show that Australians are getting killed by our government.
Find me the rape statistics.
Find me gun control advocates that want total disarmament.

In the meantime, respond to my points, if you please, and I shall leave you with some statistics of my own.

States with Stand Your Ground laws have 7 to 10 percent higher homicide rates.
http://econweb.tamu.edu/mhoekstra/castle_doctrine.pdf (http://econweb.tamu.edu/mhoekstra/castle_doctrine.pdf)

10 times more Americans are shot and killed in arguments than by justifiable homicide.
https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-15 (https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-15)
https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-11 (https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-11)

A woman's chances of being killed during an assault increase fivefold if the abuser has a gun
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1447915/ (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1447915/)

62 percent of online gun sellers don't ask for a background check
http://www.fixgunchecks.org/deleteonlineoutlaws (http://www.fixgunchecks.org/deleteonlineoutlaws)

Again, my points, please
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: mikeman7918 on October 13, 2015, 10:08:58 AM
You are forgetting that Austrailia and America are not the only two countries in the world.  If you take all other countries into account you find that there is no correlation between gun control and crime.  There are many difference between Austrailia and America, and coronation is not nesesarily causation.

Being an American citizen, I am very familiar with American politics and they are kind of a mess.  There has been a fair bit of corruption exposed like congress men bribing each other to vote for bills to become laws, and there was even a bit of suspicious stuff surrounding the last election.  The school system is pretty bad, and most of the US budget is used to sustain the most I nesesarily huge overkill army on Earth even though the money is desperately needed elsewhere.  There are many issues like abortion and gun control that are so controversial that they have the potential to cause a second civil war.  Many people are preparing for a government collapse and/or tyrany because right now that stuff is starting to look likely.  The point I am trying to make is that the lack of gun control is not why crime rates are so high here, you have to consider that there are many other huge differences to consider.

Here is a website I found with a lot of statistics to consider:
http://www.gunfacts.info/gun-control-myths/guns-in-other-countries/ (http://www.gunfacts.info/gun-control-myths/guns-in-other-countries/)
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: Scroto Gaggins on October 13, 2015, 03:49:44 PM
You are forgetting that Austrailia and America are not the only two countries in the world.  If you take all other countries into account you find that there is no correlation between gun control and crime.  There are many difference between Austrailia and America, and coronation is not nesesarily causation.
In first world countries, there is definitely a correlation.
I can link to the firearm related death rates if you want.
And to what differences are you referring?
Are these differences so vast that they would explain the discrepancy?

Quote
Being an American citizen, I am very familiar with American politics and they are kind of a mess.  There has been a fair bit of corruption exposed like congress men bribing each other to vote for bills to become laws, and there was even a bit of suspicious stuff surrounding the last election.  The school system is pretty bad, and most of the US budget is used to sustain the most I nesesarily huge overkill army on Earth even though the money is desperately needed elsewhere. 
True, your army doesn't need to be that big.
True, your political system is kind of stuffed.
True, your schooling isn't great.

Quote
There are many issues like abortion and gun control that are so controversial that they have the potential to cause a second civil war. 
What?
A second civil war over one issue that is personal choice, and one that is common sense?

Quote
Many people are preparing for a government collapse and/or tyrany because right now that stuff is starting to look likely.
Not from down here is doesn't.

Quote
The point I am trying to make is that the lack of gun control is not why crime rates are so high here, you have to consider that there are many other huge differences to consider.
Again, what differences?
But lets examine this claim, that the lack of gun control is not why crime rates are so high.
Maybe if the US had the same system as Switzerland, i.e. the militia, and gun ownership remained high, then yes.
And maybe the reason for the US's high murder rate is because you are inherently violent.
And if that is the case, then it makes sense to have tighter restrictions on weapon ownership.
If americans are more inclined to murder, then it makes sense to not give them more tools to do it with.

I'll say it again, as it is my main point, "If guns provide any societal benefit, then the USA must be leading in a scalar measure of that societal benefit"
Yes, they aren't the worst in anything.
But if publicly owned guns lower violent crime, then the US should have the lowest violent crime rate in the world.
If publicly owned guns stop mass shootings, then the US should not have mass shootings.

We can mirror these also.
If a disarmed public has more violent crime, then Japan should have one of the highest crime rates in the world.
If a lack of publicly owned firearms make mass shootings more likely, then Australia should have lots more mass shootings then we do.

Quote
Here is a website I found with a lot of statistics to consider:
http://www.gunfacts.info/gun-control-myths/guns-in-other-countries/ (http://www.gunfacts.info/gun-control-myths/guns-in-other-countries/)
Looks really interesting, thanks.
Will give it a look-see
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: mikeman7918 on October 14, 2015, 01:54:44 PM
In first world countries, there is definitely a correlation.
I can link to the firearm related death rates if you want.
And to what differences are you referring?
Are these differences so vast that they would explain the discrepancy?

I don't know the exact cause, but gun rules are not it because in the US states with high gun control have high crime and states with low gun control have low crime.

True, your army doesn't need to be that big.
True, your political system is kind of stuffed.
True, your schooling isn't great.

There are also some issues with the poliece force.  In many cases if you call the poliece and order pizza at the same time then the pizza will arrive first.  And if that isn't bad enough, the poliece have a reputation for being violently thanks to the media highlighting events like one a while ago where a white (and rather insane) poliece officer shooting a black man.  I am willing to bet that this has something to do with the crime rates.

What?
A second civil war over one issue that is personal choice, and one that is common sense?

That's the probelem: both sides think that their views are self evident.  The first civil war was about slavery, which is very obviously wrong in today's society yet people advocated it to the extent that the southern states left the union until the northern states won and brought them back.  The point is: wars have been fought over dumber things.

Not from down here is doesn't.

Being someone who lives in Anerica I can tell you that it's a lot worse from this perspective.

Again, what differences?
But lets examine this claim, that the lack of gun control is not why crime rates are so high.
Maybe if the US had the same system as Switzerland, i.e. the militia, and gun ownership remained high, then yes.
And maybe the reason for the US's high murder rate is because you are inherently violent.
And if that is the case, then it makes sense to have tighter restrictions on weapon ownership.
If americans are more inclined to murder, then it makes sense to not give them more tools to do it with.

You can never take away the tools for people to kill each other.  People can kill each other with heavy rocks, sharp sticks, poison, knives, scissors, explosives, and even their bare hands.  Killing has happened since long before guns were invented and it will continue even if they are taken away.  American people are not inherently more violent then anywhere else, we just have some probelems to work out.

I'll say it again, as it is my main point, "If guns provide any societal benefit, then the USA must be leading in a scalar measure of that societal benefit"
Yes, they aren't the worst in anything.
But if publicly owned guns lower violent crime, then the US should have the lowest violent crime rate in the world.
If publicly owned guns stop mass shootings, then the US should not have mass shootings.

Crime rates are influenced by more then one factor.  Internationally there is no correlation between gun ownership and crime, but in individual states crime goes down when gun ownership goes up.  All 50 states are under the same central government, but the states have control of smaller details like gun control.  Statistically speaking, the states are great for gathering statistical data because it eliminates variables.  There are outliers as you might expect as there are still uncontrolled variables, but the correlation is very clear: guns prevent crime.

As for the mass shooting you mentioned, all but one of those happened in gun free zones.

We can mirror these also.
If a disarmed public has more violent crime, then Japan should have one of the highest crime rates in the world.
If a lack of publicly owned firearms make mass shootings more likely, then Australia should have lots more mass shootings then we do.

As I said before, gun ownership is not the only factor influencing crime.  If it were then a correlation of some kind should exist between gun ownership and crime rates internationally, but in reality no such correlation.

Looks really interesting, thanks.
Will give it a look-see

By all means do.  It debunks most of what you have been saying.
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: Scroto Gaggins on October 14, 2015, 02:48:57 PM
In first world countries, there is definitely a correlation.
I can link to the firearm related death rates if you want.
And to what differences are you referring?
Are these differences so vast that they would explain the discrepancy?

I don't know the exact cause, but gun rules are not it because in the US states with high gun control have high crime and states with low gun control have low crime.
I would argue that everywhere in the United States, your gun laws are lenient.
I'd say that your point here is that "Gun availability is linked to reduction in crime", right?
Will address at end.

Quote from: mikeman7918
True, your army doesn't need to be that big.
True, your political system is kind of stuffed.
True, your schooling isn't great.

There are also some issues with the poliece force.  In many cases if you call the poliece and order pizza at the same time then the pizza will arrive first.  And if that isn't bad enough, the poliece have a reputation for being violently thanks to the media highlighting events like one a while ago where a white (and rather insane) poliece officer shooting a black man.  I am willing to bet that this has something to do with the crime rates.
Okay, so your police force needs work.
But let's not forget that most murders arise out of non felonious circumstances, so the police might only get involved once it is too late.

Quote from: mikeman7918
What?
A second civil war over one issue that is personal choice, and one that is common sense?

That's the probelem: both sides think that their views are self evident.  The first civil war was about slavery, which is very obviously wrong in today's society yet people advocated it to the extent that the southern states left the union until the northern states won and brought them back.  The point is: wars have been fought over dumber things.
True, but I thought that the US has changed since the 1860's.
And if the public is so divided on it, have a referendum.
Get the public to vote on whether the Second Amendment is null and void.
If the public is overwhelmingly pro-gun, then thats fine, that is their choice.
If the public is overwhelmingly in favour of gun control, then that is their choice.

Quote from: mikeman7918
Not from down here is doesn't.

Being someone who lives in Anerica I can tell you that it's a lot worse from this perspective.
So maybe the murder discrepancy is part of the buildup to the second civil war?

Quote from: mikeman7918
Again, what differences?
But lets examine this claim, that the lack of gun control is not why crime rates are so high.
Maybe if the US had the same system as Switzerland, i.e. the militia, and gun ownership remained high, then yes.
And maybe the reason for the US's high murder rate is because you are inherently violent.
And if that is the case, then it makes sense to have tighter restrictions on weapon ownership.
If americans are more inclined to murder, then it makes sense to not give them more tools to do it with.

You can never take away the tools for people to kill each other.  People can kill each other with heavy rocks, sharp sticks, poison, knives, scissors, explosives, and even their bare hands.  Killing has happened since long before guns were invented and it will continue even if they are taken away.  American people are not inherently more violent then anywhere else, we just have some probelems to work out.
Yes, of course there will still be murder. But two thirds are done with a firearm.
I believe your point essentially is that murder will always happen, and nothing we can do can stop this.
Interesting.
So tell me about how much higher the murder rate is in the US compared to other first world countries.

Quote from: mikeman7918
I'll say it again, as it is my main point, "If guns provide any societal benefit, then the USA must be leading in a scalar measure of that societal benefit"
Yes, they aren't the worst in anything.
But if publicly owned guns lower violent crime, then the US should have the lowest violent crime rate in the world.
If publicly owned guns stop mass shootings, then the US should not have mass shootings.

Crime rates are influenced by more then one factor.  Internationally there is no correlation between gun ownership and crime, but in individual states crime goes down when gun ownership goes up.  All 50 states are under the same central government, but the states have control of smaller details like gun control.  Statistically speaking, the states are great for gathering statistical data because it eliminates variables.  There are outliers as you might expect as there are still uncontrolled variables, but the correlation is very clear: guns prevent crime.

As for the mass shooting you mentioned, all but one of those happened in gun free zones.
In individual states, gun death goes up as gun ownership goes up.
But internationally, yes the countries with the highest murder rates also have gun control.
But these are third world countries.
If we look at first world countries, they all have lower gun ownership than the US, and lower murder and crime rates.

Quote from: mikeman7918
We can mirror these also.
If a disarmed public has more violent crime, then Japan should have one of the highest crime rates in the world.
If a lack of publicly owned firearms make mass shootings more likely, then Australia should have lots more mass shootings then we do.

As I said before, gun ownership is not the only factor influencing crime.  If it were then a correlation of some kind should exist between gun ownership and crime rates internationally, but in reality no such correlation.
So what huge overarching differences have you found between Australia and Japan, and the USA?
I'll say it again, if guns provide any societal benefit, then the US should be leading in that societal benefit.
Unless you admit that countries with gun control still can and do have lower murder, lower crime, lower suicide and still have democracy.

Quote from: mikeman7918
Looks really interesting, thanks.
Will give it a look-see

By all means do.  It debunks most of what you have been saying.
Most, but not all.
And the sources they are pulling from are very subjective and limited.
I believe I posted an essay a few posts back, could one of you gun advocates please address the points I've raised there?
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: mikeman7918 on October 14, 2015, 06:35:53 PM
Okay, so your police force needs work.
But let's not forget that most murders arise out of non felonious circumstances, so the police might only get involved once it is too late.

Exactly, and that's why people need guns to defend themselves.

True, but I thought that the US has changed since the 1860's.
And if the public is so divided on it, have a referendum.
Get the public to vote on whether the Second Amendment is null and void.
If the public is overwhelmingly pro-gun, then thats fine, that is their choice.
If the public is overwhelmingly in favour of gun control, then that is their choice.

I definitely agree, we need to vote on this.  People who oppose gun control are trying to get the people who advocate gun control to do this, the problem is that everybody knows what the outcome of the vote will be: popular opinion here is that gun control is bad and for the second amendment to be changed the vast majority must agree that gun control is good.

So maybe the murder discrepancy is part of the buildup to the second civil war?

I highly doubt it.  If most murders happened over arguments about hotly debated political issues then that would be the obvious assumption, but that's not the case as far as I know.  I don't really know what the cause of the high homicide rate is, but I know it's not guns because here in Utah crime is low and gun ownership is high.

Yes, of course there will still be murder. But two thirds are done with a firearm.
I believe your point essentially is that murder will always happen, and nothing we can do can stop this.
Interesting.
So tell me about how much higher the murder rate is in the US compared to other first world countries.

The US has a very high homicide rate compared to other countries, but if guns were the cause then Switzerland would have high crime too, but it doesn't.  Also, if you look at Mexico they have lots of gun control and very high crime.  I have been to Mexico once, my brother left his phone unattended for 5 minutes and it was stolen.  Not a very great place to be.

In individual states, gun death goes up as gun ownership goes up.
But internationally, yes the countries with the highest murder rates also have gun control.
But these are third world countries.
If we look at first world countries, they all have lower gun ownership than the US, and lower murder and crime rates.

Gun deaths is not the same as murder.  60% of the gun deaths in the US are suicides, not homicides.  The suicide rate in the US is 11% above the international average and that accounts for much of the difference.  Also, just because a gun was the murder weapon in many cases doesn't mean that it wouldn't be replaced by another murder weapon if gun's were harder to get.  If you look at overall homicide rates then states with more gun control have more murders.

So what huge overarching differences have you found between Australia and Japan, and the USA?
I'll say it again, if guns provide any societal benefit, then the US should be leading in that societal benefit.
Unless you admit that countries with gun control still can and do have lower murder, lower crime, lower suicide and still have democracy.

The United States has been a free country for a really long time.  Whenever tyranny happens it always starts with gun control.  Besides recreation there are two reason s why Americans have guns: to defend against criminals and to defend against the government.  A government cannot tyrannically rule over an armed population, the people who founded the nation knew this which is why they created the second amendment.  When the US government system was being devised the goal was to create a democracy that will always remain a democracy without anyone getting too much power, and even though a bit of corruption is sneaking into the system it has held up very well all things considered because despite it's current short comings the people still have ultimate power.  The government exists to serve the people, not the other way around.  Having weapons gives people the right to take away a government's right to govern if needs be.  That's the social benefit that the US has,

Australia may not be a tyranny, but it's way more likely to happen there then here and all just to take away guns which internationally have no correlation with crime.

Most, but not all.
And the sources they are pulling from are very subjective and limited.
I believe I posted an essay a few posts back, could one of you gun advocates please address the points I've raised there?

I will do that right now:


As no one appears to be adding anything to the conversation, I shall.
My comments today will be focusing on the points raised by the opposition, and to rebut them.

"More guns makes the public safer."
We all know that the US has the highest public gun ownership in the world.
If the public having more guns meant that any societal benefit would be achieved, then the United States should be head and shoulders out in front in terms of that benefit being ranked. Followed by Yemen.

That would be the case if guns were the only factor, but they are clearly not because Switzerland has tons of guns and low crime while Mexico has very few guns and tons of crime.  If it were the only factor and you were right then Mexico would have very low crime and Switzerland would have tons of crime.

"Criminals would still murder, they don't listen to the law anyhow."
How would one define a criminal if they haven't offended yet?
If someone has not yet committed their crime, then they aren't criminals, and as such, still count as 'law abiding citizens'.
So we have a situation where it is too easy for someone with murderous intent to kill large numbers of people.

And those aforementioned crazy people would be shot in a matter of seconds before they could do much harm once everybody knew what was going on.  Shooters pick gun free zones to do their shootings in for a reason you know, they may be crazy but they still have common sense.

This entire point is illogical.
The essence of this argument is that criminals by definition are outside the law, and as such, making laws won't affect them.
This is ludicrous on the face of it.
We can extend this flawed logic further to drugs.
'Law abiding citizens' like us won't take drugs, only criminals will, so why not legalise it?
In summary: this point is saying that unless we can stop all murder, there's no point in doing anything at all.

It's still possible to get your hands on illegal drugs even though they are illegal, and the same applies with guns.  Even in Australia gun related crime still exists.

"People will still murder with things other than guns, e.g. knives"
True, people always will murder, sadly. Human nature and all that.
But when two thirds of all murder in the US is done with a firearm, then it is a problem.
When eight thousand Americans are murdered each year with firearms (Four as many as died in Afghanistan), then it is an issue worth discussing.
The US has the thirteenth highest firearm related death rate in the world. It is an issue worth discussing.

If guns were banned then those people would pick a different murder weapon.  If they are bent on killing someone then they wouldn't be picky about how it's done.  People killed each other as much as ever even before guns were invented.

Also, guns are designed to kill.
They are designed to be accurate, fast shooting, and deadly.
If the only firearm available was a musket, then I'm all for the Second Amendment.
Three shots a minute that are inaccurate at long range is fine by me.

I would be all for that too if only we could take all modern guns away from the black market and the government so that criminals don't have the upper hand and the government doesn't have the power to tyrannically rule the people.  Unfortunately though, modern guns exist so in order to defend ourselves we too need modern guns.  It would also be hard to conceal carry those things, which means that they wouldn't be readily available when you need them.

"Guns make people safer at home"
There are three ways in which you can be killed with a gun.
Homicide, Suicide and by accident.
The risk rate of all three rises if guns are readily available, as studies show.
http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/9/1/48.full (http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/9/1/48.full)
http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/160/10/929.full (http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/160/10/929.full)
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0001457502000490 (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0001457502000490)
Apparently 43 percent of gun owners who have kids don't lock up all guns securely.
That can't be good for the children, surely?

Under that logic knives should be banned too because if parents are not responsible a kid could hurt themselves with it.  If parents want to be idiots with their guns then that's not the government's problem.

"What about New Zealand?"
This is a good example, like Switzerland, of a society that has access to semi automatic weapons etc. and has a low murder rate.
They both, however, have strict gun control in other areas like licensing etc.
In Switzerland, everyone serves in the military, and has training, and must be fit to serve, i.e. not felons or mentally ill.
Likewise, if you are a felon or mentally ill, then you can't get guns in NZ.
Intersting to note that both these countries' firearm related death rate is higher that Australia's, though.

Canada is stricter with guns then the US and yet some of it's provinces have crime rates above the US national average, and there is no correlation between gun control and crime.

"Mental health should be the focus"
Absolutely agree. It should be a focus.
But unless you can cure all mental illness, then there needs to be preventative measures elsewhere also.
For at least the time being, mental illness and the tendency to murder are both inevitabilities.
It is therefore reasonable to make the preventative measure the restriction of guns.
If the same measures that were done in Aus. were done in the US, had the same result observed, which there is no reason they shouldn't, then isn't that reasonable.

Again, almost all public mass shootings occur in gun free zones with only a single exception, and if we take away gun free zones then those people would either be discouraged in fear of their own safety or taken down before they can do much harm.

"Guns would help protect women"
6 times as many women were shot by husbands, partners and ex-partners than were murdered by a stranger.

And if these women had guns too then it would be a fair fight.

"The Second Amendment means that I can have guns"
This argument make the assumption that the US Constitution is both unchangeable and perfect.
The US constitution is no more important than any other country's.
It can easily be changed.
The Fifteenth Amendment was written to free slaves, i.e. rid the slave holders of their purchased property.
So there could easily have been made the same arguments about the government taking people's slaves.
'People have always had slaves' 'My family has always had slaves'
'If I didn't have slaves, then I would feel threatened'
'I don't mistreat my slaves, so why should they get taken off me?'

The reason slavery was finally ended was because it's morally wrong to own another human being.  On the other hand, owning a gun, which is just a machine made out of metal and plastic, is no more morally wrong then owning a car in and of it's self.  The issues in question are about if making guns illegal will change anything for the better and if everyone will be better off because of it.  If all slaves were robots instead of people then I would have nothing against slavery.

Which brings me to the final opposition point;

"Why should the actions of others affect what I am able to do?"
This is what it comes down to.
After all the reasons and examples of other countries, this is what the debate boils down to.
'I dont misuse my guns, so why should I not have them?'
'Why should this one psycho shooting up a school mean that I cant have an assault rifle?'

True.
The actions of others don't mean that you will commit these actions.
But that is not how society works.
Maybe you can drive your car at 100 mph and not kill anyone.
But Mr. Johnson from down the road drove at 100 in a 50 zone and killed school children.
So now we can't.

Maybe you can take meth and not get addicted or murderous.
But Mr. Smith took some and strangled his kids before cutting his own wrists.
So now we can't.

Someone fell out of their fiftieth storey window, so now they don't open.
Someone drunk drove and died, so now we can't.
Someone killed 35 people in Australia with an assault rifle, so now we can't have them.

Maybe you won't kill anyone with your guns, but eight thousand Americans are murdered with guns each year.
Twice that number again kill themselves with guns.

That leaves twenty four thousand reasons each year for gun control.

If opening 50th story windows and drunk driving could also do good like guns then there would have been a lot more controversy about them being banned.  Good law abiding people who have gun's don't just not use them for harm, they can use them for good by protecting themselves and those around them if needs be.  For every gun wielding criminal out there there are 10 gun wielding heroes that would risk their lives to stop the criminals.  Controlling guns may take them away from a few crazy people but it would also take them away from nearly all people who would use them only for good.
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: TheEngineer on October 14, 2015, 11:22:25 PM
So, engineer, I think I addressed all your points.
Now be a good boy and reciprocate.
You forgot this one, which I think is the heart of your argument:

Quote
Lol.   What an asinine statement to make.  Are you 16?  I have a family. I have children that I would do anything to protect.  I wouldn't roll over and let them be killed.

Enough with the foolishness.  Let's look at a real world example of gun restrictions and what effect that has on the society.

Washington, DC.

In the 5 years leading up to the 1977 ban, the murder rate fell from 37 to 27 per 100,000 people.
In the five years after the ban took effect, the murder rate went up to 35/100,000.  Then there was a massive increase in the 90's to 81/100,000!
Between 2008 and 2012, the FBI statistics indicate that murders declined by about 10% nationally for cities sized similar to DC. 
In late 2008, the gun ban was struck down.  In the following four years (2008-2012), murder rate dropped by 42%!

Gun Ownership vs Gun Murder

The top 10 states for gun ownership have ownership rates of >50% and an average gun murder rate of 1.87 per 100,000 people.

The bottom 10 states for gun ownership have ownership rates of <22% and an average gun murder rate of 3.98 per 100,000 people.

If we split the country in half and look at the numbers:
The top 26 states in gun ownership rates have a combined average gun murder rate of 2.33 per 100,000 people.

The bottom 25 (this includes Washington, DC which has the lowest gun ownership rate in the US) has a combined average murder rate of 3.27 per 100,000 people.

The stats seem pretty clear.
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: In the moment on October 20, 2015, 03:22:17 PM
The plan is to take all the guns which I disagree with.
As a mature responsible person I should have the human right to choose as to have a gun or not.
I want to protect myself and family, the police will not come in time if at all.

Interestingly Switzerland is one of the highest gun owners per head of population in the world, yet one of the lowest crime rates.
How come all the lone gun man shootings are happening in the US but not Switzerland?

And how come most of the shooters are on psychotic drugs?
60,000 people die each year of properly prescribed drugs, and I wonder how many road fatalities?

Yet the government and media want you to focus on gun crimes.
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: guv on October 20, 2015, 06:08:52 PM
Just listening to the news, 3 murders, 2 armed robbery's. Welcome to Perth, We don't have any guns but we still got nutters.
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: Scroto Gaggins on October 22, 2015, 02:17:40 AM
The plan is to take all the guns which I disagree with.
As a mature responsible person I should have the human right to choose as to have a gun or not.
I want to protect myself and family, the police will not come in time if at all.

Interestingly Switzerland is one of the highest gun owners per head of population in the world, yet one of the lowest crime rates.
How come all the lone gun man shootings are happening in the US but not Switzerland?

And how come most of the shooters are on psychotic drugs?
60,000 people die each year of properly prescribed drugs, and I wonder how many road fatalities?

Yet the government and media want you to focus on gun crimes.
Since when was the plan to take all the guns?
And people do die in switzerland, but they have a militia system, which is effective gun control.
To have a gun, a swiss citizen has to be militarily trained.
But, yeah, the plan is not to take all guns, just to have a bit more control over who gets them, what kind they are, and where can they be taken.
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: Scroto Gaggins on October 22, 2015, 05:35:42 AM
I was talking to a friend about gun control and he brought up an interesting point of view.
What if we make it really easy for registered gun owners to have all kinds of firearms and have concealed carry etc.
But we make it a lot harder for people to get gun registration.
eg. felons and the mentally ill won't have access.
Could this work?
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: Son of Orospu on October 24, 2015, 01:14:38 PM
I was talking to a friend about gun control and he brought up an interesting point of view.
What if we make it really easy for registered gun owners to have all kinds of firearms and have concealed carry etc.
But we make it a lot harder for people to get gun registration.
eg. felons and the mentally ill won't have access.
Could this work?

That is pretty much the way it already is here in the US.  The problem is that anyone can get an illegal firearm.  Laws only stop people from getting legal weapons. 
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: TheEngineer on October 25, 2015, 12:40:00 AM
I was talking to a friend about gun control and he brought up an interesting point of view.
registered gun owners
No, thanks.  I like my guns unregistered. 
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: Scroto Gaggins on October 25, 2015, 01:27:48 AM
I was talking to a friend about gun control and he brought up an interesting point of view.
What if we make it really easy for registered gun owners to have all kinds of firearms and have concealed carry etc.
But we make it a lot harder for people to get gun registration.
eg. felons and the mentally ill won't have access.
Could this work?

That is pretty much the way it already is here in the US.  The problem is that anyone can get an illegal firearm.  Laws only stop people from getting legal weapons.
So if laws won't stop illegal acts from taking place, as you are claiming, then why do you think we have laws?
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: Son of Orospu on October 25, 2015, 01:50:51 AM
I was talking to a friend about gun control and he brought up an interesting point of view.
What if we make it really easy for registered gun owners to have all kinds of firearms and have concealed carry etc.
But we make it a lot harder for people to get gun registration.
eg. felons and the mentally ill won't have access.
Could this work?

That is pretty much the way it already is here in the US.  The problem is that anyone can get an illegal firearm.  Laws only stop people from getting legal weapons.
So if laws won't stop illegal acts from taking place, as you are claiming, then why do you think we have laws?

If someone wants to break into your house to steal your TV, do you think they even consider that it is against the law to do so?
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: charles bloomington on October 25, 2015, 06:13:59 AM
Oregon shooting is a hoax like most school shootings. How can you keep falling for the same story over and over again?
But you don't deny that shootings happen a lot more regularly in America then any other first-world country?
And that the rather lax gun laws are a direct cause of this?

I live in Australia, where there was a pretty nasty massacre at Port Arthur in Tasmania.
I think that 35 people were killed or something.
The government of the time then passed extreme gun legislation that basically stopped gun violence in Australia.

And about all this being hoaxes.
Admittedly, this could be true.
But who faked it, and for what benefit?
And it is also possible that the figures are not exaggerated, that these massacres are happening.
And if thats the case, then something must be done to stop this problem.
http://southeastasianews.org/portarthur/the_facts.html (http://southeastasianews.org/portarthur/the_facts.html)
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: mikeman7918 on October 25, 2015, 08:42:57 AM
So if laws won't stop illegal acts from taking place, as you are claiming, then why do you think we have laws?

Ths main purpose of laws is not to eradicate crime, but to reduce it by punishong people who break the law so they will think twice about doing it again.
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: 29silhouette on October 25, 2015, 09:33:21 AM
So much in this thread I need to get around to replying to.

Anyway, gotta go load up and do some target shooting shortly with some scary looking high-powered sniper assault ghost guns with high-capacity magazineclips and the shoulder thingy that goes up..... as a gun-hater would put it.
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: Son of Orospu on October 25, 2015, 12:03:51 PM
So if laws won't stop illegal acts from taking place, as you are claiming, then why do you think we have laws?

Ths main purpose of laws is not to eradicate crime, but to reduce it by punishong people who break the law so they will think twice about doing it again.

Some people would argue that the punishment is a deterrent, and that this is the main reason for punishing the criminals.  Others will argue for retribution, and still others, such as yourself, argue for rehabilitation.  I think one thing we can all agree on is that laws do not stop crime.  When someone has the idea to commit a crime, the do not stop when they realize that it is against the law. 
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: charles bloomington on October 25, 2015, 03:04:42 PM
Whats are the  problems when it comes to gun laws . First ,once you register anything , you no longer have right of ownership .Only controlled regulated possession & the gun can be seized, impounded or destroyed at anytime. For any reason. Because you have agreed to giving up your right of ownership.
Second , registration follows in line with then having to obtain a license to operate the fire arm. Which  can be cancelled at anytime for any reason .in fact no reason has to be given by the issuing party to cancel suspend or revoke a license.
In vic Australia , the moment someone applys for a intervention or protection order against someone . No evedance required , they simply walk in to the court house & ask the register to apply & the register must  issued a intrim order till the matter goes before the magistrate.
This automatically  suspends your licence  & your guns have to be handed in. A person only has to claim they fear the other person & the protection order will be granted by the magistrate.  You then can  not  have a firearm licence or any guns registered in your name or your possession for 5 years .
Protection orders are used everyday as a means of extortion. Against licenced gun owners. Threats of losing your guns & licence & never haveing another licence issued to you ever agian . Has people excepting & complying with any demands placed on them. No matter how unlawful or unreasonable. Those demands are . Traffic infringement , pay up regardless. To chalange it can find you having a  protection order taken out on you. If the lying traffic officer wants to get creative or takes a dislike to you qestioning the ticket.
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: Son of Orospu on October 25, 2015, 03:08:45 PM
You tell it, Charles. 
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: charles bloomington on October 26, 2015, 12:27:00 AM
False flags a rife. When it comes to the anti gun agenda. Once they remove all the guns from the public, there will be absolute tyranny. Absolute servitude . Dont kid your self there wont be. The people who contive theses staged events only have one thing in mind .totally control over every thing & God help the rest of us.
http://nodisinfo.com/absolute-proof-virginia-tv-anchor-shooting-is-a-gun-control-zionist-plot/ (http://nodisinfo.com/absolute-proof-virginia-tv-anchor-shooting-is-a-gun-control-zionist-plot/)
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: Scroto Gaggins on October 26, 2015, 01:31:28 AM
False flags a rife. When it comes to the anti gun agenda. Once they remove all the guns from the public, there will be absolute tyranny. Absolute servitude . Dont kid your self there wont be. The people who contive theses staged events only have one thing in mind .totally control over every thing & God help the rest of us.
http://nodisinfo.com/absolute-proof-virginia-tv-anchor-shooting-is-a-gun-control-zionist-plot/ (http://nodisinfo.com/absolute-proof-virginia-tv-anchor-shooting-is-a-gun-control-zionist-plot/)
Why would taking all guns ever be plausible?
Surely it is not unreasonable to have some (read. more) regulations.
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: Scroto Gaggins on October 26, 2015, 01:57:17 AM
I was talking to a friend about gun control and he brought up an interesting point of view.
What if we make it really easy for registered gun owners to have all kinds of firearms and have concealed carry etc.
But we make it a lot harder for people to get gun registration.
eg. felons and the mentally ill won't have access.
Could this work?

That is pretty much the way it already is here in the US.  The problem is that anyone can get an illegal firearm.  Laws only stop people from getting legal weapons.
So if laws won't stop illegal acts from taking place, as you are claiming, then why do you think we have laws?

If someone wants to break into your house to steal your TV, do you think they even consider that it is against the law to do so?
If we extend your argument the other way, where there are no laws or comparatively less laws restricting stealing, then wouldn't people be more likely to steal?
If murder was legal, for example, then wouldn't the murder rate increase?

And on the subject of the black market, of course felons would still get guns.
But most murders in the US arise out of non-felonious circumstances.
The leading cause given fro murder was an argument unrelated to money (according to the FBI).
We can assume that a lot of these murders were impulse based.
Someone insults you or yours so you pull out a handgun and shoot them.
Maybe, retrospectively, you wouldn't have done that.
That's the problem with guns.
In the Joker's words, "They're too quick"

And the comment about anyone being able to get an illegal firearm.
A semiautomatic pistol like a M9 or a Glock costs about 15000 dollars Australian on the black market.
If you have 15 grand lying around, you probably aren't a. Mentally ill, or b. a felon.
Think about how much an assault rifle would cost on the black market in Aus.
If on is on Australia's minimum wage, then a semiautomatic pistol costs about half of your before tax income per year.
A black market pistol in the US costs a few hundred bucks a pop.
Not impossible, even on minimum wage.
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: charles bloomington on October 26, 2015, 04:28:51 AM
False flags a rife. When it comes to the anti gun agenda. Once they remove all the guns from the public, there will be absolute tyranny. Absolute servitude . Dont kid your self there wont be. The people who contive theses staged events only have one thing in mind .totally control over every thing & God help the rest of us.
http://nodisinfo.com/absolute-proof-virginia-tv-anchor-shooting-is-a-gun-control-zionist-plot/ (http://nodisinfo.com/absolute-proof-virginia-tv-anchor-shooting-is-a-gun-control-zionist-plot/)
Why would taking all guns ever be plausible?
Surely it is not unreasonable to have some (read. more) regulations.
Why the desperation to bring in gun control & disarming of the public ? Why the false flags . Surely if their motives were above board. They wouldn't be having to stooping to such sly dishonest fraudulent tactics.
So whats the reasoning? Could it be the wheels have fallen of the implementation of Agenda 21 & their planned one world order.  Could it be their worried the public  wont swallow any more of their multitude of lies & bullshit for much longer. And  will want to bring those that have been committing treason for profit for past 23 year to justice .for selling their fellow country man out . By swearing alegent's to a foreign entity the UN & destroying their own countries sovereignty. The very sovereignty they are supposedly elected to protect.
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: TheEngineer on October 26, 2015, 08:59:12 AM
I see this post was, and continues to be, ignored:

So, engineer, I think I addressed all your points.
Now be a good boy and reciprocate.
You forgot this one, which I think is the heart of your argument:

Quote
Lol.   What an asinine statement to make.  Are you 16?  I have a family. I have children that I would do anything to protect.  I wouldn't roll over and let them be killed.

Enough with the foolishness.  Let's look at a real world example of gun restrictions and what effect that has on the society.

Washington, DC.

In the 5 years leading up to the 1977 ban, the murder rate fell from 37 to 27 per 100,000 people.
In the five years after the ban took effect, the murder rate went up to 35/100,000.  Then there was a massive increase in the 90's to 81/100,000!
Between 2008 and 2012, the FBI statistics indicate that murders declined by about 10% nationally for cities sized similar to DC. 
In late 2008, the gun ban was struck down.  In the following four years (2008-2012), murder rate dropped by 42%!

Gun Ownership vs Gun Murder

The top 10 states for gun ownership have ownership rates of >50% and an average gun murder rate of 1.87 per 100,000 people.

The bottom 10 states for gun ownership have ownership rates of <22% and an average gun murder rate of 3.98 per 100,000 people.

If we split the country in half and look at the numbers:
The top 26 states in gun ownership rates have a combined average gun murder rate of 2.33 per 100,000 people.

The bottom 25 (this includes Washington, DC which has the lowest gun ownership rate in the US) has a combined average murder rate of 3.27 per 100,000 people.

The stats seem pretty clear.
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: mikeman7918 on October 26, 2015, 10:18:16 AM
I see this post was, and continues to be, ignored:

Probobaly because most of the people here agree with you.
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: TheEngineer on October 26, 2015, 12:42:32 PM
I was talking to Scroto since he is still going off on the regulation of firearms.

Surely it is not unreasonable to have some (read. more) regulations.
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: charles bloomington on October 26, 2015, 02:37:53 PM
Lets examine . The law & the reasoning for the push for gun registration & licence .
Common law .no registration & licence required.  Complainant - victom or damage for crime to of taken place & required before conviction of a crime. The prosecution has to prove the accused committed a crime .They have the  burden to prove.
UCC law, registration & licence required to in force commercial code . only informent required, stating code has been breached. For conviction. Burden of proof rests with the accused. To prove they didnt do it. The code  rests on facts . Whats the biggest fact the court will determine. If the gun is registered &  licensed to you. If so you have given up all your rights & are bound to the contract. No proof required only sworn  affidavit from  informant is required for conviction.
You can see why they want you to register the fire arm & hold a licence.
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: charles bloomington on October 26, 2015, 03:21:12 PM
I've tried my best to simplify the clarity, from the smoke & mirrors . Basically common law requires a victim or damaged party for there to be a crime  .UCC only requires a breach of a clause in a contract. Which is any clause they have written in to the contract. Including any clause they have written in allowing them to change a clause during the duration of that contract. Along with any clause allowing them not to have to give  notification of any changes  to the registered licenced party. The UCC is drafted to give corporate governments the total upper hand on the public & remove your common law  right of a fair hearing & trial.
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: Scroto Gaggins on October 26, 2015, 03:33:05 PM
I see this post was, and continues to be, ignored:

So, engineer, I think I addressed all your points.
Now be a good boy and reciprocate.
You forgot this one, which I think is the heart of your argument:

Quote
Lol.   What an asinine statement to make.  Are you 16?  I have a family. I have children that I would do anything to protect.  I wouldn't roll over and let them be killed.

Enough with the foolishness.  Let's look at a real world example of gun restrictions and what effect that has on the society.

Washington, DC.

In the 5 years leading up to the 1977 ban, the murder rate fell from 37 to 27 per 100,000 people.
In the five years after the ban took effect, the murder rate went up to 35/100,000.  Then there was a massive increase in the 90's to 81/100,000!
Between 2008 and 2012, the FBI statistics indicate that murders declined by about 10% nationally for cities sized similar to DC. 
In late 2008, the gun ban was struck down.  In the following four years (2008-2012), murder rate dropped by 42%!

Gun Ownership vs Gun Murder

The top 10 states for gun ownership have ownership rates of >50% and an average gun murder rate of 1.87 per 100,000 people.

The bottom 10 states for gun ownership have ownership rates of <22% and an average gun murder rate of 3.98 per 100,000 people.

If we split the country in half and look at the numbers:
The top 26 states in gun ownership rates have a combined average gun murder rate of 2.33 per 100,000 people.

The bottom 25 (this includes Washington, DC which has the lowest gun ownership rate in the US) has a combined average murder rate of 3.27 per 100,000 people.

The stats seem pretty clear.
When I brought up the comparatively high murder rate and gun ownership rate of the entire USA (compared to other first world countries) , then the response was that there was other factors that need to be taken into account.
If that is the reaction to my bringing up statistics, then it should be the same when you bring up statistics.

But, addressing your stats, I would say that unless the USA has a vastly different societal outlook on, and tolerance of violence, then we should see the same results repeated internationally.
i.e. the US has the highest gun ownership, therefore they should have the lowest murder. Japan has low gun ownership, therefore they should have higher murder rates.

Btw, my entire argument is predicated on the assumption that Americans have the same inclination to violence as other first world citizens. This could be wrong.
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: charles bloomington on October 26, 2015, 03:51:57 PM
Forget the statistics.  It all boils down to them wanting you to contract away your inalienable right to defend your self & hiring them to do the defending on your  behalf  for a fee. That would be great if it wasn't for the fact , that they are increasingly becoming the persons you need to be defended from .
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: Scroto Gaggins on October 26, 2015, 04:07:07 PM
Forget the statistics.  It all boils down to them wanting you to contract away your inalienable right to defend your self & hiring them to do the defending on your  behalf  for a fee. That would be great if it wasn't for the fact , that they are increasingly becoming the persons you need to be defended from .
To which government are you referring?
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: TheEngineer on October 26, 2015, 11:33:45 PM
But, addressing your stats, I would say that unless the USA has a vastly different societal outlook on, and tolerance of violence, then we should see the same results repeated internationally.
i.e. the US has the highest gun ownership, therefore they should have the lowest murder. Japan has low gun ownership, therefore they should have higher murder rates.
That does not address my stats: When gun ownership is high, gun murder rates are low.  When gun ownership rates are low, gun murder rates are high.

The stats don't lie and are pretty clear on this one.
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: Scroto Gaggins on October 27, 2015, 01:57:11 AM
But, addressing your stats, I would say that unless the USA has a vastly different societal outlook on, and tolerance of violence, then we should see the same results repeated internationally.
i.e. the US has the highest gun ownership, therefore they should have the lowest murder. Japan has low gun ownership, therefore they should have higher murder rates.
That does not address my stats: When gun ownership is high, gun murder rates are low.  When gun ownership rates are low, gun murder rates are high.

The stats don't lie and are pretty clear on this one.
The USA has the highest gun ownership in the first world, and the highest gun death rate and gun murder rate in the first world.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate

These stats contradict what you are saying, do they not?
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: charles bloomington on October 27, 2015, 04:52:52 AM
Forget the statistics.  It all boils down to them wanting you to contract away your inalienable right to defend your self & hiring them to do the defending on your  behalf  for a fee. That would be great if it wasn't for the fact , that they are increasingly becoming the persons you need to be defended from .
To which government are you referring?
All corporate Governments that are signatories to the UN  agenda21.
Please spare me the bullshit they have our best interest &well being at heart.
Wanting to introduce a carbon tax to address climate change . When their the ones that are  phucking with the climate.
Carbon tax  what a great idea to milk the public of more of their hard earned labour notes & property . Level playing field . Phuck off  its sure not a fair one.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-10-16/lanis-govendir-malcolm-turnbull-and-tax-avoidance/6861606 (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-10-16/lanis-govendir-malcolm-turnbull-and-tax-avoidance/6861606)
Thats the real reason they want to disarm the public of their fire arms . The average man in the street  might just tell them to phuck right off with their continual demands for more & more tax duties rates & fines . With the fire power to back that  phuck right  off  up.
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: charles bloomington on October 27, 2015, 05:07:30 AM
Turnbull states that he invested overseas so as to avoid potential conflicts of interest.
What conflict  of interest would that be scrotum Gaggins .Paying tax ? You know tax , what they extort out of the avarage bloke everyday .
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: Scroto Gaggins on October 27, 2015, 05:34:42 AM
Turnbull states that he invested overseas so as to avoid potential conflicts of interest.
What conflict  of interest would that be scrotum Gaggins .Paying tax ? You know tax , what they extort out of the avarage bloke everyday .
I cant speak for Turnbull, as I'm not him.
And I am aware of what tax is, as I do pay it.
But at the end of the day, my owning a firearm is not going to stop Turnbull investing in the Cayman Islands.
If you don't like the Liberal Party, vote Labour. It's that simple.
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: charles bloomington on October 27, 2015, 06:24:08 AM
Turnbull states that he invested overseas so as to avoid potential conflicts of interest.
What conflict  of interest would that be scrotum Gaggins .Paying tax ? You know tax , what they extort out of the avarage bloke everyday .
I cant speak for Turnbull, as I'm not him.
And I am aware of what tax is, as I do pay it.
But at the end of the day, my owning a firearm is not going to stop Turnbull investing in the Cayman Islands.
If you don't like the Liberal Party, vote Labour. It's that simple.
Why would I want to vote ? Why do I need to vote for any of theses de facto's imposter's ? 
Why would I want to be their  ward & make them my trusty & beneficiary ? Why would I want to give up my inalienable rights? Since when was I part  of their privetly owned corporation. ? The fact is only those who are employees of their privetly owned corperation  has to vote. Their company  constitution does not apply to those who are not employees or share holders & I'm sure as hell dont wish to contract with them nor want their service's. 
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: TheEngineer on October 27, 2015, 12:02:06 PM
But, addressing your stats, I would say that unless the USA has a vastly different societal outlook on, and tolerance of violence, then we should see the same results repeated internationally.
i.e. the US has the highest gun ownership, therefore they should have the lowest murder. Japan has low gun ownership, therefore they should have higher murder rates.
That does not address my stats: When gun ownership is high, gun murder rates are low.  When gun ownership rates are low, gun murder rates are high.

The stats don't lie and are pretty clear on this one.
The USA has the highest gun ownership in the first world, and the highest gun death rate and gun murder rate in the first world.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate

These stats contradict what you are saying, do they not?
Not at all.  The US is not like the rest of the NATO aligned countries, why would we compare the US to Greece?  We are very different countries.

Look at the stats within the US.  They are clear.
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: Scroto Gaggins on October 27, 2015, 02:31:56 PM
But, addressing your stats, I would say that unless the USA has a vastly different societal outlook on, and tolerance of violence, then we should see the same results repeated internationally.
i.e. the US has the highest gun ownership, therefore they should have the lowest murder. Japan has low gun ownership, therefore they should have higher murder rates.
That does not address my stats: When gun ownership is high, gun murder rates are low.  When gun ownership rates are low, gun murder rates are high.

The stats don't lie and are pretty clear on this one.
The USA has the highest gun ownership in the first world, and the highest gun death rate and gun murder rate in the first world.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate

These stats contradict what you are saying, do they not?
Not at all.  The US is not like the rest of the NATO aligned countries, why would we compare the US to Greece?  We are very different countries.

Look at the stats within the US.  They are clear.
So are you saying that Americans are more inclined to violence than the Greeks?
What about Canadians? Australians?
What huge differences exist between these countries and yours that could lead to such a different murder rate?

If population density is the root cause, as you said earlier, then holland, with one of the highest population densities in the world, should have one of the highest murder rates in the world.

Like I said earlier, I am basing my argument on the fact that Americans are normal people.
I may be wrong.
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: TheEngineer on October 27, 2015, 07:43:12 PM
So are you saying that Americans are more inclined to violence than the Greeks?
What about Canadians? Australians?
What huge differences exist between these countries and yours that could lead to such a different murder rate?
Lots.

Quote
If population density is the root cause, as you said earlier
No, I said urban density, not population density.

Quote
Like I said earlier, I am basing my argument on the fact that Americans are normal people.
I may be wrong.
And I am showing you the stats, which you don't want to accept or even acknowledge. 
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: Scroto Gaggins on October 28, 2015, 06:50:06 AM
So are you saying that Americans are more inclined to violence than the Greeks?
What about Canadians? Australians?
What huge differences exist between these countries and yours that could lead to such a different murder rate?
Lots.
I said what differences, not how many.

Quote
Quote
If population density is the root cause, as you said earlier
No, I said urban density, not population density.
What about tokyo for example?

Quote
Quote
Like I said earlier, I am basing my argument on the fact that Americans are normal people.
I may be wrong.
And I am showing you the stats, which you don't want to accept or even acknowledge.
So do your stats show that americans are not normal people? Or are they?
Even the 25 highest gun ownership states have a higher murder rate than first-world countries.
My question is why.
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: mikeman7918 on October 28, 2015, 07:59:21 AM
I'm not sure what is causing all the crime in the US, but I can tell you that it's not guns.  If it were guns the states with high gun ownership would have more crime then states with low gun ownership, but in reality that trend is reversed.  Internationally there is no correlation between gun ownership and crime.  The statistics make it clear that guns lower crime rates, but they are still a rather small factor compared to other things.
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: TheEngineer on October 28, 2015, 10:43:15 AM
So do your stats show that americans are not normal people? Or are they?
Even the 25 highest gun ownership states have a higher murder rate than first-world countries.
My question is why.
Your argument was about gun restrictions, not culture.  The stats show, very clearly, that states with high gun ownership rates have lower gun murder rates than those with low gun ownership rates.  And why do you keep restricting the argument to NATO aligned countries?
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: Scroto Gaggins on October 28, 2015, 03:52:04 PM
I'm not sure what is causing all the crime in the US, but I can tell you that it's not guns.  If it were guns the states with high gun ownership would have more crime then states with low gun ownership, but in reality that trend is reversed.  Internationally there is no correlation between gun ownership and crime.  The statistics make it clear that guns lower crime rates, but they are still a rather small factor compared to other things.
Like I said before, if guns lower crime rates, then the US should have the lowest crime rate in the world.
And if they are a small factor, then the removal of them shouldn't cause much strife, should it?


So do your stats show that americans are not normal people? Or are they?
Even the 25 highest gun ownership states have a higher murder rate than first-world countries.
My question is why.
Your argument was about gun restrictions, not culture.  The stats show, very clearly, that states with high gun ownership rates have lower gun murder rates than those with low gun ownership rates.  And why do you keep restricting the argument to NATO aligned countries?
And how do you propose we change that culture? What policies can be put in place that change gun culture?

Also, in one sentence you mention how you think your argument works in the US, in the next sentence, you criticise me for sticking to first-world (not NATO) countries.
You can't have the privileges of being specific while denying that to me.

The reason why I'm restricting my argument to first-world countries is as they all are fairly similar, in terms of freedom, governmental stability and societal sophistication.
Comparing the US to, for example, Rwanda and Somalia isn't a fair comparison, as they do not have a stable government and have active rebellions.

This is my point though.
Gun control in the first world is linked to lower crime and murder rates.
In the US, it appears not to be.

However, you are making a very big mistake if you think that all gun control policies are the same.
Switzerland's gun policy means that to own a gun, one must serve in the military.
In Australia and New Zealand, a lot of paperwork and licensing has to be gone through to get firearms.

Gun control is a blanket term for any legislation which restricts to some extent the purchasing, using and carrying of firearms.
There are obviously policies that work, and those that don't.
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: TheEngineer on October 28, 2015, 09:36:28 PM
Like I said before, if guns lower crime rates, then the US should have the lowest crime rate in the world.
And if they are a small factor, then the removal of them shouldn't cause much strife, should it?
My stats show the opposite.  I don't know why you keep failing to address that point.

Quote
And how do you propose we change that culture? What policies can be put in place that change gun culture?
I don't want any policies.  Those without freedom always run to the government for help.  I don't want the government involved in changing any culture.

Quote
Also, in one sentence you mention how you think your argument works in the US, in the next sentence, you criticise me for sticking to first-world (not NATO) countries.
You can't have the privileges of being specific while denying that to me.
I'm asking why you are limiting your crime rate stats to NATO countries.  That doesn't make sense.  Does Brazil not count?  What about Mexico?  The only reason you would do that is to push your narrative.

Quote
Gun control in the first world is linked to lower crime and murder rates.
In the US, it appears not to be.
Right, so why are you pushing for more gun control in the US?  You want the murder rate to go up?

Quote
However, you are making a very big mistake if you think that all gun control policies are the same.
Who said that?

Quote
Switzerland's gun policy means that to own a gun, one must serve in the military.
Yep, and that is a horrible idea.

Quote
In Australia and New Zealand, a lot of paperwork and licensing has to be gone through to get firearms.
Again, horrible idea.

Quote
Gun control is a blanket term for any legislation which restricts to some extent the purchasing, using and carrying of firearms
Yes, I understand English.

Quote
There are obviously policies that work, and those that don't.
And in the US, gun control policies don't work.  As is evidenced by the stats.  Which you still ignore.

Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: Scroto Gaggins on October 29, 2015, 01:51:09 AM
Like I said before, if guns lower crime rates, then the US should have the lowest crime rate in the world.
And if they are a small factor, then the removal of them shouldn't cause much strife, should it?
My stats show the opposite.  I don't know why you keep failing to address that point.
My stats show the opposite to your stats. I don't know why you keep failing to address that point.

Quote
Quote
And how do you propose we change that culture? What policies can be put in place that change gun culture?
I don't want any policies.  Those without freedom always run to the government for help.  I don't want the government involved in changing any culture.
Then address the first part of that quote.

Quote
Quote
Also, in one sentence you mention how you think your argument works in the US, in the next sentence, you criticise me for sticking to first-world (not NATO) countries.
You can't have the privileges of being specific while denying that to me.
I'm asking why you are limiting your crime rate stats to NATO countries.  That doesn't make sense.  Does Brazil not count?  What about Mexico?  The only reason you would do that is to push your narrative.
Or because it makes sense to compare countries that are more alike, rather than those that aren't.

Quote
Quote
Gun control in the first world is linked to lower crime and murder rates.
In the US, it appears not to be.
Right, so why are you pushing for more gun control in the US?  You want the murder rate to go up?
I said this to point out that if better gun control is instituted, then maybe the trends seen won't be.

Quote
Quote
However, you are making a very big mistake if you think that all gun control policies are the same.
Who said that?
All of you implied it when bringing up DC and Chicago, for example. Just because a policy doesn't work in one place, doesn't mean that gun control in all forms will have the same effect.

Quote
Quote
Switzerland's gun policy means that to own a gun, one must serve in the military.
Yep, and that is a horrible idea.
Doesn't the Second Amendment mention a well-regulated militia?
Isn't that what switzerland has?
Explain why this is a horrible idea?

Quote
Quote
In Australia and New Zealand, a lot of paperwork and licensing has to be gone through to get firearms.
Again, horrible idea.
Again, why?

Quote
Quote
Gun control is a blanket term for any legislation which restricts to some extent the purchasing, using and carrying of firearms
Yes, I understand English.
I wasn't aware of that when I typed a reply. In English.

Quote
Quote
There are obviously policies that work, and those that don't.
And in the US, gun control policies don't work.  As is evidenced by the stats.  Which you still ignore.
[/quote]
Then better policies need to be established.
I believe I posted stats which show that homicide, suicide and accidental death by firearm increases where there are more firearms.
I also believe that you did not address them.
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: Son of Orospu on October 29, 2015, 05:00:33 AM
I was talking to a friend about gun control and he brought up an interesting point of view.
What if we make it really easy for registered gun owners to have all kinds of firearms and have concealed carry etc.
But we make it a lot harder for people to get gun registration.
eg. felons and the mentally ill won't have access.
Could this work?

That is pretty much the way it already is here in the US.  The problem is that anyone can get an illegal firearm.  Laws only stop people from getting legal weapons.
So if laws won't stop illegal acts from taking place, as you are claiming, then why do you think we have laws?

If someone wants to break into your house to steal your TV, do you think they even consider that it is against the law to do so?
If we extend your argument the other way, where there are no laws or comparatively less laws restricting stealing, then wouldn't people be more likely to steal?
If murder was legal, for example, then wouldn't the murder rate increase?

And on the subject of the black market, of course felons would still get guns.
But most murders in the US arise out of non-felonious circumstances.
The leading cause given fro murder was an argument unrelated to money (according to the FBI).
We can assume that a lot of these murders were impulse based.
Someone insults you or yours so you pull out a handgun and shoot them.
Maybe, retrospectively, you wouldn't have done that.
That's the problem with guns.
In the Joker's words, "They're too quick"

And the comment about anyone being able to get an illegal firearm.
A semiautomatic pistol like a M9 or a Glock costs about 15000 dollars Australian on the black market.
If you have 15 grand lying around, you probably aren't a. Mentally ill, or b. a felon.
Think about how much an assault rifle would cost on the black market in Aus.
If on is on Australia's minimum wage, then a semiautomatic pistol costs about half of your before tax income per year.
A black market pistol in the US costs a few hundred bucks a pop.
Not impossible, even on minimum wage.

I did not say that there should be no laws.  I said that making things illegal does not deter people from doing those things.  Un-prescribed drugs are illegal in most countries, yet people still do drugs.  Murder has always been illegal, yet people have always killed each other.  What makes you think that making a tool illegal is going to stop people from being violent?  How many people are killed by hammers or screwdrivers every year in the world?  Should those tools be illegal too? 
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: charles bloomington on October 29, 2015, 05:36:45 AM
I'm not sure what is causing all the crime in the US, but I can tell you that it's not guns.  If it were guns the states with high gun ownership would have more crime then states with low gun ownership, but in reality that trend is reversed.  Internationally there is no correlation between gun ownership and crime.  The statistics make it clear that guns lower crime rates, but they are still a rather small factor compared to other things.
Like I said before, if guns lower crime rates, then the US should have the lowest crime rate in the world.
And if they are a small factor, then the removal of them shouldn't cause much strife, should it?


So do your stats show that americans are not normal people? Or are they?
Even the 25 highest gun ownership states have a higher murder rate than first-world countries.
My question is why.
Your argument was about gun restrictions, not culture.  The stats show, very clearly, that states with high gun ownership rates have lower gun murder rates than those with low gun ownership rates.  And why do you keep restricting the argument to NATO aligned countries?
And how do you propose we change that culture? What policies can be put in place that change gun culture?

Also, in one sentence you mention how you think your argument works in the US, in the next sentence, you criticise me for sticking to first-world (not NATO) countries.
You can't have the privileges of being specific while denying that to me.

The reason why I'm restricting my argument to first-world countries is as they all are fairly similar, in terms of freedom, governmental stability and societal sophistication.
Comparing the US to, for example, Rwanda and Somalia isn't a fair comparison, as they do not have a stable government and have active rebellions.

This is my point though.
Gun control in the first world is linked to lower crime and murder rates.
In the US, it appears not to be.

However, you are making a very big mistake if you think that all gun control policies are the same.
Switzerland's gun policy means that to own a gun, one must serve in the military.
In Australia and New Zealand, a lot of paperwork and licensing has to be gone through to get firearms.

Gun control is a blanket term for any legislation which restricts to some extent the purchasing, using and carrying of firearms.
There are obviously policies that work, and those that don't.
What policies can be put in place . You mean what unlawful legislation can these's corperations acting as de facto GOVERNMENTS  get away with implamenting. What legislation should that be?  bank policie ?
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: Scroto Gaggins on October 29, 2015, 06:33:50 AM
I was talking to a friend about gun control and he brought up an interesting point of view.
What if we make it really easy for registered gun owners to have all kinds of firearms and have concealed carry etc.
But we make it a lot harder for people to get gun registration.
eg. felons and the mentally ill won't have access.
Could this work?

That is pretty much the way it already is here in the US.  The problem is that anyone can get an illegal firearm.  Laws only stop people from getting legal weapons.
So if laws won't stop illegal acts from taking place, as you are claiming, then why do you think we have laws?

If someone wants to break into your house to steal your TV, do you think they even consider that it is against the law to do so?
If we extend your argument the other way, where there are no laws or comparatively less laws restricting stealing, then wouldn't people be more likely to steal?
If murder was legal, for example, then wouldn't the murder rate increase?

And on the subject of the black market, of course felons would still get guns.
But most murders in the US arise out of non-felonious circumstances.
The leading cause given fro murder was an argument unrelated to money (according to the FBI).
We can assume that a lot of these murders were impulse based.
Someone insults you or yours so you pull out a handgun and shoot them.
Maybe, retrospectively, you wouldn't have done that.
That's the problem with guns.
In the Joker's words, "They're too quick"

And the comment about anyone being able to get an illegal firearm.
A semiautomatic pistol like a M9 or a Glock costs about 15000 dollars Australian on the black market.
If you have 15 grand lying around, you probably aren't a. Mentally ill, or b. a felon.
Think about how much an assault rifle would cost on the black market in Aus.
If on is on Australia's minimum wage, then a semiautomatic pistol costs about half of your before tax income per year.
A black market pistol in the US costs a few hundred bucks a pop.
Not impossible, even on minimum wage.

I did not say that there should be no laws.  I said that making things illegal does not deter people from doing those things.  Un-prescribed drugs are illegal in most countries, yet people still do drugs.  Murder has always been illegal, yet people have always killed each other.  What makes you think that making a tool illegal is going to stop people from being violent?  How many people are killed by hammers or screwdrivers every year in the world?  Should those tools be illegal too?
Do you admit, though, that if drugs were completely legal, that more people would be users?
Because if that is the case, then we can see a trend saying that the less restrictions there are, the more people will do something.
Hence, it is a reasonable assumption that the increased regulation (not banning) of weapons will lead to reduced murder.
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: Son of Orospu on October 29, 2015, 06:44:24 AM
I was talking to a friend about gun control and he brought up an interesting point of view.
What if we make it really easy for registered gun owners to have all kinds of firearms and have concealed carry etc.
But we make it a lot harder for people to get gun registration.
eg. felons and the mentally ill won't have access.
Could this work?

That is pretty much the way it already is here in the US.  The problem is that anyone can get an illegal firearm.  Laws only stop people from getting legal weapons.
So if laws won't stop illegal acts from taking place, as you are claiming, then why do you think we have laws?

If someone wants to break into your house to steal your TV, do you think they even consider that it is against the law to do so?
If we extend your argument the other way, where there are no laws or comparatively less laws restricting stealing, then wouldn't people be more likely to steal?
If murder was legal, for example, then wouldn't the murder rate increase?

And on the subject of the black market, of course felons would still get guns.
But most murders in the US arise out of non-felonious circumstances.
The leading cause given fro murder was an argument unrelated to money (according to the FBI).
We can assume that a lot of these murders were impulse based.
Someone insults you or yours so you pull out a handgun and shoot them.
Maybe, retrospectively, you wouldn't have done that.
That's the problem with guns.
In the Joker's words, "They're too quick"

And the comment about anyone being able to get an illegal firearm.
A semiautomatic pistol like a M9 or a Glock costs about 15000 dollars Australian on the black market.
If you have 15 grand lying around, you probably aren't a. Mentally ill, or b. a felon.
Think about how much an assault rifle would cost on the black market in Aus.
If on is on Australia's minimum wage, then a semiautomatic pistol costs about half of your before tax income per year.
A black market pistol in the US costs a few hundred bucks a pop.
Not impossible, even on minimum wage.

I did not say that there should be no laws.  I said that making things illegal does not deter people from doing those things.  Un-prescribed drugs are illegal in most countries, yet people still do drugs.  Murder has always been illegal, yet people have always killed each other.  What makes you think that making a tool illegal is going to stop people from being violent?  How many people are killed by hammers or screwdrivers every year in the world?  Should those tools be illegal too?
Do you admit, though, that if drugs were completely legal, that more people would be users?
Because if that is the case, then we can see a trend saying that the less restrictions there are, the more people will do something.
Hence, it is a reasonable assumption that the increased regulation (not banning) of weapons will lead to reduced murder.

That is not the case here in the US, where several states have legalized marijuana.  The legalization of the drug did not spike surges of new smokers. 
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: mikeman7918 on October 29, 2015, 08:20:28 AM
Like I said before, if guns lower crime rates, then the US should have the lowest crime rate in the world.
And if they are a small factor, then the removal of them shouldn't cause much strife, should it?

Like I said, gun ownership is not the only factor.  Different states are more similar to each other then different nations and in the states crime rate goes down when gun ownership goes up.  If guns were taken in the US then crime rates would increase a fair bit and also we would be venerable to tyranny.

In the US the reason we have guns is not because we are terrified that someone would try to kill us, we have them for the same reason that ships have life boats.  We just want to be prepared for everything.  Banning guns will prevent murder about as well as banning life boats will prevent ships from sinking.
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: charles bloomington on October 29, 2015, 03:12:23 PM
Like I said before, if guns lower crime rates, then the US should have the lowest crime rate in the world.
And if they are a small factor, then the removal of them shouldn't cause much strife, should it?

Like I said, gun ownership is not the only factor.  Different states are more similar to each other then different nations and in the states crime rate goes down when gun ownership goes up.  If guns were taken in the US then crime rates would increase a fair bit and also we would be venerable to tyranny.

In the US the reason we have guns is not because we are terrified that someone would try to kill us, we have them for the same reason that ships have life boats.  We just want to be prepared for everything.  Banning guns will prevent murder about as well as banning life boats will prevent ships from sinking.
Venerable to tyranny . Your already living  in tyranny. Ya dumb ass. The corperation US .The federal Reserve run the show under Universal commercial code . Amrilty law . Their not following the constatution of the United States of America. There following the privet US coperation constitution.  UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. You have no constitutional rights  in that constatution. Your just a customer who has an account forced on to you. Which they determine the terms & conditions of the contracts.  WAKE UP & Dont surrender (contract)your inalienable right to protect your  life & property .Owning & useing a fire arm for self defence . Is your right, not theirs to take away unless you consent , contract to give up that right. They want to take that right away , so you will be forced to defended all matters in their rigid Courts.
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: Scroto Gaggins on October 29, 2015, 03:34:37 PM
Like I said before, if guns lower crime rates, then the US should have the lowest crime rate in the world.
And if they are a small factor, then the removal of them shouldn't cause much strife, should it?

Like I said, gun ownership is not the only factor.  Different states are more similar to each other then different nations and in the states crime rate goes down when gun ownership goes up.  If guns were taken in the US then crime rates would increase a fair bit and also we would be venerable to tyranny.

In the US the reason we have guns is not because we are terrified that someone would try to kill us, we have them for the same reason that ships have life boats.  We just want to be prepared for everything.  Banning guns will prevent murder about as well as banning life boats will prevent ships from sinking.
Again, why would anyone ban guns?
Gun control doesn't mean every single firearm would be taken.
But some restrictions need to be in place.
The second amendment mentions a 'well-regulated militia'.
Basically, the second amendment sanctions gun control, in the form of regulations.
Why are you opposed to gun licensing, for example?
If you aren't a felon, or mentally ill, then you can have firearms.
That is an example of common sense gun control, which should be implemented.

Let me ask you these questions:
Do you think 12 year olds should be allowed firearms?
Do you think mentally retarded people should be allowed firearms?
Do you think firearms should be carried on planes?
Do you think machine guns should be publicly available?
Do you think rocket launchers should be publicly available?

If you think that any of these instances are unreasonable, then you want gun control.
The question should be how much gun control, and that is a conversation that i would love to have.

Your example is quite stupid, though.
We are not banning guns. Ergo, ships will still have lifeboats.
I can put forward counter examples.
"Banning guns to prevent murder would work about as much as banning pools to prevent backyard drownings."
"Putting in gun regulations to prevent murder would work about as well as putting a limit on how fast people can drive to prevent road accidents."
"Regulating guns to prevent murder would work as well as a cigarette tax would to deter smokers"
All three of these are a better comparison to that of gun control.

I'll say it again, in case you missed it.

GUN CONTROL DOES NOT MEAN THE BANNING OF GUNS
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: TheEngineer on October 29, 2015, 10:08:06 PM
My stats show the opposite to your stats. I don't know why you keep failing to address that point.
Because your stats are not for the US.  Mine are.

Quote
Quote
Quote
And how do you propose we change that culture? What policies can be put in place that change gun culture?
I don't want any policies.  Those without freedom always run to the government for help.  I don't want the government involved in changing any culture.
Then address the first part of that quote.
It starts at home.  I am personally affecting change in the culture by how I raise my three children.  I don't need the government to come tell me how to raise my kids.  You might, but I don't.

Quote
Quote
Quote
Also, in one sentence you mention how you think your argument works in the US, in the next sentence, you criticise me for sticking to first-world (not NATO) countries.
You can't have the privileges of being specific while denying that to me.
I'm asking why you are limiting your crime rate stats to NATO countries.  That doesn't make sense.  Does Brazil not count?  What about Mexico?  The only reason you would do that is to push your narrative.
Or because it makes sense to compare countries that are more alike, rather than those that aren't.
But why only NATO countries?

Quote
Quote
Quote
Gun control in the first world is linked to lower crime and murder rates.
In the US, it appears not to be.
Right, so why are you pushing for more gun control in the US?  You want the murder rate to go up?
I said this to point out that if better gun control is instituted, then maybe the trends seen won't be.
My stats say otherwise.  Gun control goes up, so does the crime rate.

Quote
Quote
Quote
However, you are making a very big mistake if you think that all gun control policies are the same.
Who said that?
All of you implied it when bringing up DC and Chicago, for example. Just because a policy doesn't work in one place, doesn't mean that gun control in all forms will have the same effect.
We have 50 states that have various forms of gun control (and ownership) and the stats show that higher ownership means less crime.

Quote
Quote
Quote
Switzerland's gun policy means that to own a gun, one must serve in the military.
Yep, and that is a horrible idea.
Doesn't the Second Amendment mention a well-regulated militia?
Yes it does.  But you (and the rest of the gun control crowd) apply today's bastardization of the words 'well-regulated militia' to hide the true meaning contained in the Constitution/Bill of Rights.  'Well-regulated' at the time, meant 'in proper working order', it had nothing to do with government regulations.  'A militia' refers to the unorganized militia made of ordinary citizens.  Therefore: "Citizens, maintaining their skill with arms, being necessary for the security of a free state (country), the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed".  Sounds pretty clear to me.

Quote
Isn't that what switzerland has?
Explain why this is a horrible idea?
Conscripting your army is a great way to ruin morale.  The only people who should join the military are those that choose to do so of their own free will.  I don't like government telling me what to do with my life.

Quote
Quote
Quote
In Australia and New Zealand, a lot of paperwork and licensing has to be gone through to get firearms.
Again, horrible idea.
Again, why?
Uh...regulations.

Quote
Quote
Quote
There are obviously policies that work, and those that don't.
And in the US, gun control policies don't work.  As is evidenced by the stats.  Which you still ignore.
Then better policies need to be established.
I believe I posted stats which show that homicide, suicide and accidental death by firearm increases where there are more firearms.
I also believe that you did not address them.
I've shown you the exact opposite.  In the US, the higher the gun ownership, the lower the gun murder rate.
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: charles bloomington on October 29, 2015, 10:32:41 PM
Like I said before, if guns lower crime rates, then the US should have the lowest crime rate in the world.
And if they are a small factor, then the removal of them shouldn't cause much strife, should it?

Like I said, gun ownership is not the only factor.  Different states are more similar to each other then different nations and in the states crime rate goes down when gun ownership goes up.  If guns were taken in the US then crime rates would increase a fair bit and also we would be venerable to tyranny.

In the US the reason we have guns is not because we are terrified that someone would try to kill us, we have them for the same reason that ships have life boats.  We just want to be prepared for everything.  Banning guns will prevent murder about as well as banning life boats will prevent ships from sinking.
Again, why would anyone ban guns?
Gun control doesn't mean every single firearm would be taken.
But some restrictions need to be in place.
The second amendment mentions a 'well-regulated militia'.
Basically, the second amendment sanctions gun control, in the form of regulations.
Why are you opposed to gun licensing, for example?
If you aren't a felon, or mentally ill, then you can have firearms.
That is an example of common sense gun control, which should be implemented.

Let me ask you these questions:
Do you think 12 year olds should be allowed firearms?
Do you think mentally retarded people should be allowed firearms?
Do you think firearms should be carried on planes?
Do you think machine guns should be publicly available?
Do you think rocket launchers should be publicly available?

If you think that any of these instances are unreasonable, then you want gun control.
The question should be how much gun control, and that is a conversation that i would love to have.

Your example is quite stupid, though.
We are not banning guns. Ergo, ships will still have lifeboats.
I can put forward counter examples.
"Banning guns to prevent murder would work about as much as banning pools to prevent backyard drownings."
"Putting in gun regulations to prevent murder would work about as well as putting a limit on how fast people can drive to prevent road accidents."
"Regulating guns to prevent murder would work as well as a cigarette tax would to deter smokers"
All three of these are a better comparison to that of gun control.

I'll say it again, in case you missed it.

GUN CONTROL DOES NOT MEAN THE BANNING OF GUNS
Church it up all you like scrotum Gaggins . The issue of gun control is one of who decides the controllers , who decides mental competencey. Who makes the laws ,Who regulates the laws & who enforces the gun control .  So to date we have a group of international banksters running the show ,of de facto GOVERNMENTS. Vier sly dishonest non disclosed bankruptcy laws. Where is the full transparency , you would expect of those given that roll & responsibility.  Theses phuckers are running a slave trade & you want the slaves to trust them further. You must be phucken insane . No gun for you lol.
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: Scroto Gaggins on October 30, 2015, 04:46:24 PM
My stats show the opposite to your stats. I don't know why you keep failing to address that point.
Because your stats are not for the US.  Mine are.
And why should they be different?
What makes Americans so violent in your opinion?

Quote
Quote
Quote
Quote
And how do you propose we change that culture? What policies can be put in place that change gun culture?
I don't want any policies.  Those without freedom always run to the government for help.  I don't want the government involved in changing any culture.
Then address the first part of that quote.
It starts at home.  I am personally affecting change in the culture by how I raise my three children.  I don't need the government to come tell me how to raise my kids.  You might, but I don't.
That is great, but in the meantime, some mentally ill person is buying frearms.

Quote
Quote
Quote
Quote
Also, in one sentence you mention how you think your argument works in the US, in the next sentence, you criticise me for sticking to first-world (not NATO) countries.
You can't have the privileges of being specific while denying that to me.
I'm asking why you are limiting your crime rate stats to NATO countries.  That doesn't make sense.  Does Brazil not count?  What about Mexico?  The only reason you would do that is to push your narrative.
Or because it makes sense to compare countries that are more alike, rather than those that aren't.
But why only NATO countries?
Actually no, I am not sticking to only NATO countries, as I have said before.
I am sticking to first world countries, all of whom are capitalist democracies, have good standard of living and high GDP per capita. It makes no sense to compare the US to Rwanda, as there are too many societal and governmental differences.
Some first world countries aren't in NATO, and some NATO countries aren't in the first world.

Quote
Quote
Quote
Quote
Gun control in the first world is linked to lower crime and murder rates.
In the US, it appears not to be.
Right, so why are you pushing for more gun control in the US?  You want the murder rate to go up?
I said this to point out that if better gun control is instituted, then maybe the trends seen won't be.
My stats say otherwise.  Gun control goes up, so does the crime rate.
If gun control went down drastically, do you not see that there would be more violence?
And are you really saying that if the US has more background checks, for example, that there will be more murder?
Also, why, again, would this trend be observed in the US alone out of the first world?

Quote
Quote
Quote
Quote
However, you are making a very big mistake if you think that all gun control policies are the same.
Who said that?
All of you implied it when bringing up DC and Chicago, for example. Just because a policy doesn't work in one place, doesn't mean that gun control in all forms will have the same effect.
We have 50 states that have various forms of gun control (and ownership) and the stats show that higher ownership means less crime.
Why are you so against gun control if you admit that all states have it?
Again, why is this trend observed in the US but not in Canada, Australia or the UK?

Quote
Quote
Quote
Quote
Switzerland's gun policy means that to own a gun, one must serve in the military.
Yep, and that is a horrible idea.
Doesn't the Second Amendment mention a well-regulated militia?
Yes it does.  But you (and the rest of the gun control crowd) apply today's bastardization of the words 'well-regulated militia' to hide the true meaning contained in the Constitution/Bill of Rights.  'Well-regulated' at the time, meant 'in proper working order', it had nothing to do with government regulations.  'A militia' refers to the unorganized militia made of ordinary citizens.  Therefore: "Citizens, maintaining their skill with arms, being necessary for the security of a free state (country), the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed".  Sounds pretty clear to me.
Interesting how other countries without the right to bear arms are still free states.
If we see that the amendment is wrong on this count, or at least stuck in the spirit of the past, why assume that it is correct?
This is obviously a relic of the 18th century, and times change.

Quote
Quote
Isn't that what switzerland has?
Explain why this is a horrible idea?
Conscripting your army is a great way to ruin morale.  The only people who should join the military are those that choose to do so of their own free will.  I don't like government telling me what to do with my life.
Do you drive by the speed limit?
Do you pay taxes?
If you do, then the government is telling you what to do and you are listening.

Quote
Quote
Quote
Quote
In Australia and New Zealand, a lot of paperwork and licensing has to be gone through to get firearms.
Again, horrible idea.
Again, why?
Uh...regulations.
Why is having a firearm licence bad in of itself?
You have to have a drivers licence to drive, we have to have a firearm licence to own firearms.

Quote
Quote
Quote
Quote
There are obviously policies that work, and those that don't.
And in the US, gun control policies don't work.  As is evidenced by the stats.  Which you still ignore.
Then better policies need to be established.
I believe I posted stats which show that homicide, suicide and accidental death by firearm increases where there are more firearms.
I also believe that you did not address them.
I've shown you the exact opposite.  In the US, the higher the gun ownership, the lower the gun murder rate.
So you dispute the stats which I showed earlier?
The fact that you are more likely to have fun if there is a firearm around doesn't concern you?
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: TheEngineer on October 30, 2015, 06:01:53 PM
And why should they be different?
What makes Americans so violent in your opinion?
Because they obviously are.  You are trying to show stats comparing the US to other countries.  I'm showing you stats comparing the US to the US.  Why are we more violent?  In my opinion, it's due to the urban density and the glorification of certain types of criminals.  But we seem to be getting less violent, as crime rate has been dropping for many, many years now.

Quote
That is great, but in the meantime, some mentally ill person is buying frearms.
If they have been diagnosed as mentally ill, then they are prohibited from buying a firearm.  If they have not been diagnosed, then it is a good thing I have a firearm so that I can protect my family.

Quote
Actually no, I am not sticking to only NATO countries, as I have said before.
I am sticking to first world countries, all of whom are capitalist democracies, have good standard of living and high GDP per capita. It makes no sense to compare the US to Rwanda, as there are too many societal and governmental differences.
Some first world countries aren't in NATO, and some NATO countries aren't in the first world.
Oh, so you don't know that that is what first world means.  NATO countries.  The non NATO countries are the second world and the neutral/not declared are third world countries.  It was not until a few decades ago that countries began to misuse the First/Second/Third world titles to show economic progress.

Quote
If gun control went down drastically, do you not see that there would be more violence?
No, because the stats say otherwise.  And it makes sense. 

Quote
And are you really saying that if the US has more background checks, for example, that there will be more murder?
All firearm purchases through a FFL require a background check.  I don't know how much more you can have than all.

Quote
Why are you so against gun control if you admit that all states have it?
Because it is unconstitutional.

Quote
Again, why is this trend observed in the US but not in Canada, Australia or the UK?
Why is an orange spherical but this is not seen in strawberries which are also fruit?

Quote
If we see that the amendment is wrong on this count, or at least stuck in the spirit of the past, why assume that it is correct?
Wrong on what count?  The amendment seems to be right on all accounts.

Quote
Do you drive by the speed limit?
Do you pay taxes?
If you do, then the government is telling you what to do and you are listening.
They force me at gun point to do these things.

Quote
You have to have a drivers licence to drive
Last time I checked, driving wasn't a right expressed in the Constitution.

Quote
So you dispute the stats which I showed earlier?
No.  What I don't understand is why you dispute the stats I show.

Quote
The fact that you are more likely to have fun if there is a firearm around doesn't concern you?
No, because I am not stupid and I know how to use a firearm.  By your logic, the military and the police force should be accidentally killing themselves all the time, since there are so many guns around.





Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: Scroto Gaggins on October 30, 2015, 07:48:19 PM
And why should they be different?
What makes Americans so violent in your opinion?
Because they obviously are.  You are trying to show stats comparing the US to other countries.  I'm showing you stats comparing the US to the US.  Why are we more violent?  In my opinion, it's due to the urban density and the glorification of certain types of criminals.  But we seem to be getting less violent, as crime rate has been dropping for many, many years now.
Most of our population lives in dense cities i.e. Melbourne and Sydney.
And our country was founded on the back of the convict.
And yet americans are more than four times more likely to murder someone than an Australian.

Quote
Quote
That is great, but in the meantime, some mentally ill person is buying frearms.
If they have been diagnosed as mentally ill, then they are prohibited from buying a firearm.  If they have not been diagnosed, then it is a good thing I have a firearm so that I can protect my family.
http://www.nij.gov/pubs-sum/165476.htm (http://www.nij.gov/pubs-sum/165476.htm)
Apparently 40% of all firearm purchases don't require a background check.
Felons and the mentally ill: guns for you!

Also, do the mentally ill not count as citizens of the US?
Because if they aren't then that is arbitrarily denying someone their nationality.
And if they are, then they should be allowed as much guns as the next person.

Quote
Quote
Actually no, I am not sticking to only NATO countries, as I have said before.
I am sticking to first world countries, all of whom are capitalist democracies, have good standard of living and high GDP per capita. It makes no sense to compare the US to Rwanda, as there are too many societal and governmental differences.
Some first world countries aren't in NATO, and some NATO countries aren't in the first world.
Oh, so you don't know that that is what first world means.  NATO countries.  The non NATO countries are the second world and the neutral/not declared are third world countries.  It was not until a few decades ago that countries began to misuse the First/Second/Third world titles to show economic progress.
First World
noun
the industrialized capitalist countries of western Europe, North America, Japan, Australia, and New Zealand.
That is what we mean when we say the First World
Last I checked, things have changed since the Cold War.

Quote
Quote
If gun control went down drastically, do you not see that there would be more violence?
No, because the stats say otherwise.  And it makes sense. 
So if anyone of any age or criminal record could buy, legally, 50 caliber machine guns and put them in their houses, and take assault weapons on planes, etc. there would be less murder.
You do know that the biggest cause of murder in the US is an argument, right?
How would putting more guns in the mix help a volatile situation like this?

Quote
Quote
And are you really saying that if the US has more background checks, for example, that there will be more murder?
All firearm purchases through a FFL require a background check.  I don't know how much more you can have than all.
And not every legally purchased firearm is purchased through a FFL.
40 percent of all sales are through a private dealer, and therefore don't require checks.

Quote
Quote
Why are you so against gun control if you admit that all states have it?
Because it is unconstitutional.
And yet all states have gun control.
And asking you for a licence isn't taking away your right to have something.
You can have something, just get a licence.
If you are as law-abiding as you claim, that shouldn't be a problem.

Quote
Quote
Again, why is this trend observed in the US but not in Canada, Australia or the UK?
Why is an orange spherical but this is not seen in strawberries which are also fruit?
Because they are of different genuses, for one.
There you go, a difference.
What difference exist between the US and these three countries that could result in vastly different murder rates?
That is my question.
Quote
Quote
If we see that the amendment is wrong on this count, or at least stuck in the spirit of the past, why assume that it is correct?
Wrong on what count?  The amendment seems to be right on all accounts.
A well-regulated militia is not necessary for the security of a free state.
Australia doesn't have a well-regualted militia, yet we are still free.

Quote
Quote
Do you drive by the speed limit?
Do you pay taxes?
If you do, then the government is telling you what to do and you are listening.
They force me at gun point to do these things.
No one forces you to drive at 60. You can drive at 75 if you want, but as that is breaking the law, a fine will have to be paid.

Quote
Quote
You have to have a drivers licence to drive
Last time I checked, driving wasn't a right expressed in the Constitution.
That is because the constitution was written more than 200 years ago.
But it is still a matter of common sense.
Drivers licence to drive, gun licence to own guns.

Quote
Quote
So you dispute the stats which I showed earlier?
No.  What I don't understand is why you dispute the stats I show.
I don't dispute them, I just want to know why they exist.
But you don't dispute the fact that not only does homicide likelihood increase with more guns, but suicide and accidental deaths do too?
Huh, now we're getting somewhere.

Quote
Quote
The fact that you are more likely to have fun if there is a firearm around doesn't concern you?
No, because I am not stupid and I know how to use a firearm.  By your logic, the military and the police force should be accidentally killing themselves all the time, since there are so many guns around.
Firstly, skill with a firearm isn't a requirement for the purchasing of a firearm.
One can have no idea what to do, and yet can own a high-powered weapon.
Secondly, I wasn't just talking accidents, I was talking suicides as well.
http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/160/10/929.full (http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/160/10/929.full)
Gun violence doesn't just mean against others, it can be against yourself.
Thirdly, suicide is a lot more common amongst the military.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_military_veteran_suicide (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_military_veteran_suicide)
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: TheEngineer on October 30, 2015, 11:24:26 PM
http://www.nij.gov/pubs-sum/165476.htm (http://www.nij.gov/pubs-sum/165476.htm)
Apparently 40% of all firearm purchases don't require a background check.
Can you stop with the talking points and think for yourself?  That 'study' has been debunked, yet the gun control advocates keep pushing it.

Quote
Felons and the mentally ill: guns for you!
Except we already have laws that prohibit those sales.

Quote
Also, do the mentally ill not count as citizens of the US?
Yes they do.  But we have laws to prevent them from purchasing firearms.

Quote
So if anyone of any age or criminal record could buy, legally, 50 caliber machine guns and put them in their houses, and take assault weapons on planes, etc. there would be less murder.
You do know that the biggest cause of murder in the US is an argument, right?
How would putting more guns in the mix help a volatile situation like this?
Because I've already showed you the stats that destroy your argument.  High gun ownership means low gun murders.  I don't know why you keep failing to recognize this point.

Quote
And not every legally purchased firearm is purchased through a FFL.
40 percent of all sales are through a private dealer, and therefore don't require checks.
Again, this stat has been debunked.  Imagine, one person wanting to sell his private property to another person!  Wow, let's make sure the government is in there!  Besides, knowingly selling a firearm to a felon is a crime.

Quote
And yet all states have gun control.
And asking you for a licence isn't taking away your right to have something.
You can have something, just get a licence.
If you are as law-abiding as you claim, that shouldn't be a problem.
Licensing means they know where the guns are.  Take a look at this and realize that this is why:
http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/25/us/new-york-gun-permit-map/ (http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/25/us/new-york-gun-permit-map/)

Quote
What difference exist between the US and these three countries that could result in vastly different murder rates?
Hmm, different countries, different backgrounds, different cultures, different values, different governments, different ethnic makeups, different societal norms...sounds like a lot of differences to me.

Quote
A well-regulated militia is not necessary for the security of a free state.
Australia doesn't have a well-regualted militia, yet we are still free.
Really?  Didn't they take away your guns?

Quote
No one forces you to drive at 60. You can drive at 75 if you want, but as that is breaking the law, a fine will have to be paid.
Like I said, they force me at gun point to do these things.

Quote
But you don't dispute the fact that not only does homicide likelihood increase with more guns, but suicide and accidental deaths do too?
Huh, now we're getting somewhere.
Uh, no.  I provided the stats that say the opposite and I say the opposite.

Quote
Firstly, skill with a firearm isn't a requirement for the purchasing of a firearm.
One can have no idea what to do, and yet can own a high-powered weapon.
Secondly, I wasn't just talking accidents, I was talking suicides as well.
Oh, so now you are claiming that guns cause suicide?

Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: Scroto Gaggins on October 31, 2015, 12:05:08 AM
http://www.nij.gov/pubs-sum/165476.htm (http://www.nij.gov/pubs-sum/165476.htm)
Apparently 40% of all firearm purchases don't require a background check.
Can you stop with the talking points and think for yourself?  That 'study' has been debunked, yet the gun control advocates keep pushing it.
Fair enough.
Got links to any proof of debunking?

Quote
Quote
Felons and the mentally ill: guns for you!
Except we already have laws that prohibit those sales.
Hence, gun control.

Quote
Quote
Also, do the mentally ill not count as citizens of the US?
Yes they do.  But we have laws to prevent them from purchasing firearms.
So even though they are citizens, they don't have the right to bear arms?
So the second amendment doesn't apply in all cases?
I don't see the sub-clause in which the mentally ill are excepted from this amendment.
Therefore, the prohibition of selling firearms to the mentally ill is unconstitutional.

Quote
Quote
So if anyone of any age or criminal record could buy, legally, 50 caliber machine guns and put them in their houses, and take assault weapons on planes, etc. there would be less murder.
You do know that the biggest cause of murder in the US is an argument, right?
How would putting more guns in the mix help a volatile situation like this?
Because I've already showed you the stats that destroy your argument.  High gun ownership means low gun murders.  I don't know why you keep failing to recognize this point.
Wasn't your point that gun ownership stops all murder?
Now its that gun ownership stops gun murder in particular.
Which is it?
And I did recognise your point, in saying that gun control doesn't mean that people can't have guns, it means that there are reasonable restrictions on who has them, what kind they are, where they can be taken etc.

Quote
Quote
And not every legally purchased firearm is purchased through a FFL.
40 percent of all sales are through a private dealer, and therefore don't require checks.
Again, this stat has been debunked.  Imagine, one person wanting to sell his private property to another person!  Wow, let's make sure the government is in there!  Besides, knowingly selling a firearm to a felon is a crime.
Haha. You said that the government shouldn't be involved in the selling of private property, and then in the next sentence said that selling to a felon is a crime.
You cant have it both ways.

Quote
Quote
And yet all states have gun control.
And asking you for a licence isn't taking away your right to have something.
You can have something, just get a licence.
If you are as law-abiding as you claim, that shouldn't be a problem.
Licensing means they know where the guns are.  Take a look at this and realize that this is why:
http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/25/us/new-york-gun-permit-map/ (http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/25/us/new-york-gun-permit-map/)
Stop with the talking points and think for yourself.
See how annoying that is?
Where are all the other scandals in other states about the same thing?
Surely it is nation-wide?

Quote
Quote
What difference exist between the US and these three countries that could result in vastly different murder rates?
Hmm, different countries, different backgrounds, different cultures, different values, different governments, different ethnic makeups, different societal norms...sounds like a lot of differences to me.
Hmm, how do any of these a. apply when talking about the countries in question and b. have any bearing on the propensity to murder?

Quote
Quote
A well-regulated militia is not necessary for the security of a free state.
Australia doesn't have a well-regualted militia, yet we are still free.
Really?  Didn't they take away your guns?
No, only about a fifth.
And they compensated those they took from.
Interestingly, in Australia, we aren't allowed to shoot up schools.
Guess we aren't quite as free as America, hey?

Quote
Quote
No one forces you to drive at 60. You can drive at 75 if you want, but as that is breaking the law, a fine will have to be paid.
Like I said, they force me at gun point to do these things.
Your society is f**ked up if they hold you at gun point to pay speeding fines.

Quote
Quote
But you don't dispute the fact that not only does homicide likelihood increase with more guns, but suicide and accidental deaths do too?
Huh, now we're getting somewhere.
Uh, no.  I provided the stats that say the opposite and I say the opposite.
And yet you said you didn't dispute my stats.

Quote
Quote
Firstly, skill with a firearm isn't a requirement for the purchasing of a firearm.
One can have no idea what to do, and yet can own a high-powered weapon.
Secondly, I wasn't just talking accidents, I was talking suicides as well.
Oh, so now you are claiming that guns cause suicide?
No, I'm saying, with statistical evidence, that the likelihood of someone to kill themselves increases if there are more guns around.
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: TheEngineer on October 31, 2015, 12:55:54 AM
http://www.nij.gov/pubs-sum/165476.htm (http://www.nij.gov/pubs-sum/165476.htm)
Apparently 40% of all firearm purchases don't require a background check.
Can you stop with the talking points and think for yourself?  That 'study' has been debunked, yet the gun control advocates keep pushing it.
Fair enough.
Got links to any proof of debunking?
Yep:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/obamas-continued-use-of-the-claim-that-40-percent-of-gun-sales-lack-background-checks/2013/04/01/002e06ce-9b0f-11e2-a941-a19bce7af755_blog.html
 (https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/obamas-continued-use-of-the-claim-that-40-percent-of-gun-sales-lack-background-checks/2013/04/01/002e06ce-9b0f-11e2-a941-a19bce7af755_blog.html)

Quote
So even though they are citizens, they don't have the right to bear arms?
So the second amendment doesn't apply in all cases?
I don't see the sub-clause in which the mentally ill are excepted from this amendment.
Therefore, the prohibition of selling firearms to the mentally ill is unconstitutional.
Actually, they were deprived their right through due process of law.  Which is how one loses their rights in our system. 

Quote
Wasn't your point that gun ownership stops all murder?
All murder?  No that would be ridiculous.

Quote
Now its that gun ownership stops gun murder in particular.
Which is it?
Since you seem to have lost track of the conversation:
Gun Ownership vs Gun Murder

The top 10 states for gun ownership have ownership rates of >50% and an average gun murder rate of 1.87 per 100,000 people.

The bottom 10 states for gun ownership have ownership rates of <22% and an average gun murder rate of 3.98 per 100,000 people.

If we split the country in half and look at the numbers:
The top 26 states in gun ownership rates have a combined average gun murder rate of 2.33 per 100,000 people.

The bottom 25 (this includes Washington, DC which has the lowest gun ownership rate in the US) has a combined average murder rate of 3.27 per 100,000 people.

The stats seem pretty clear.


Quote
Haha. You said that the government shouldn't be involved in the selling of private property, and then in the next sentence said that selling to a felon is a crime.
You cant have it both ways.
Sure I can.  The government should not be involved in the selling of private property between law abiding citizens.  A felon has had their rights revoked by due process.

Quote
Stop with the talking points and think for yourself.
It's annoying because you didn't use the phrase correctly which would be where I was regurgitating a talking point.

Quote
See how annoying that is?
Where are all the other scandals in other states about the same thing?
Surely it is nation-wide?
All those people affected was not enough for you?  Nothing stops anyone else from doing the same thing.  Including the government.

Quote
Hmm, how do any of these a. apply when talking about the countries in question and b. have any bearing on the propensity to murder?
How do they not?  They directly affect the people of the nation.

Quote
Interestingly, in Australia, we aren't allowed to shoot up schools.
Interestingly, in America, we are not allowed to shoot up schools.

Quote
Your society is f**ked up if they hold you at gun point to pay speeding fines.
I'll ask again:  How old are you?  You are very naive if you don't see that if you don't pay a fine, the government will send people with guns to your house to enforce the penalty.  Don't pay, warrant for your arrest.  Police (with guns!) will forcibly remove you from your personal residence so that you can appear in court.  Which I would assume is the exact same thing that happens in Australia.

Quote
Quote
Quote
But you don't dispute the fact that not only does homicide likelihood increase with more guns, but suicide and accidental deaths do too?
Huh, now we're getting somewhere.
Uh, no.  I provided the stats that say the opposite and I say the opposite.
And yet you said you didn't dispute my stats.
That the US has a higher gun murder rate than the other 'developed' countries.  Please try to keep up with the conversation.

Quote
No, I'm saying, with statistical evidence, that the likelihood of someone to kill themselves increases if there are more guns around.
 
So guns cause people to kill themselves.  Uh, sure...


Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: charles bloomington on October 31, 2015, 04:01:11 AM
Did gun registration & licencing prevent this from happening .https://au.news.yahoo.com/nsw/a/29938645/stocco-father-son-face-court-over-murder/
They were claimed at one stage of carring a SKS semiautomatic riffle.  So if they turned up at your farm gate . You would at the very very least need a .22 to keep them at some distance & take extreme cover. I dont think a diplamatic kind smile ,  a friendly hellow & hand shake . Would ever keep you & your family breathing for very long.
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: Scroto Gaggins on October 31, 2015, 07:46:29 AM
http://www.nij.gov/pubs-sum/165476.htm (http://www.nij.gov/pubs-sum/165476.htm)
Apparently 40% of all firearm purchases don't require a background check.
Can you stop with the talking points and think for yourself?  That 'study' has been debunked, yet the gun control advocates keep pushing it.
Fair enough.
Got links to any proof of debunking?
Yep:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/obamas-continued-use-of-the-claim-that-40-percent-of-gun-sales-lack-background-checks/2013/04/01/002e06ce-9b0f-11e2-a941-a19bce7af755_blog.html
 (https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/obamas-continued-use-of-the-claim-that-40-percent-of-gun-sales-lack-background-checks/2013/04/01/002e06ce-9b0f-11e2-a941-a19bce7af755_blog.html)
Still, 15-20 percent of purchases being extralegal is a worrying statistic.

Quote
Quote
So even though they are citizens, they don't have the right to bear arms?
So the second amendment doesn't apply in all cases?
I don't see the sub-clause in which the mentally ill are excepted from this amendment.
Therefore, the prohibition of selling firearms to the mentally ill is unconstitutional.
Actually, they were deprived their right through due process of law.  Which is how one loses their rights in our system. 
So the second amendment doesn't apply to everyone?

Quote
Quote
Wasn't your point that gun ownership stops all murder?
All murder?  No that would be ridiculous.
I meant all types of murder, sorry.

Quote
Quote
Haha. You said that the government shouldn't be involved in the selling of private property, and then in the next sentence said that selling to a felon is a crime.
You cant have it both ways.
Sure I can.  The government should not be involved in the selling of private property between law abiding citizens.  A felon has had their rights revoked by due process.
Doesn't the government decide who is law abiding?
Can gun control also be implemented by due process?

Quote
Quote
See how annoying that is?
Where are all the other scandals in other states about the same thing?
Surely it is nation-wide?
All those people affected was not enough for you?  Nothing stops anyone else from doing the same thing.  Including the government.
I think that you would have to prove that not only was there an increase in crime, but that that increase was caused by this leak.
Otherwise, your argument would be based on privacy, etc. which is a problem, but not a problem for this thread.

Quote
Quote
Hmm, how do any of these a. apply when talking about the countries in question and b. have any bearing on the propensity to murder?
How do they not?  They directly affect the people of the nation.
So the relatively minor differences between Canada, Australia and the UK and the US produce such a huge discrepancy?
Again, how do they affect violence in particular?

Quote
Quote
Interestingly, in Australia, we aren't allowed to shoot up schools.
Interestingly, in America, we are not allowed to shoot up schools.
So your precious freedom is impinged upon, yet again, by the tyrannical government, who will enforce this rule with the use of force.

Quote
Quote
Your society is f**ked up if they hold you at gun point to pay speeding fines.
I'll ask again:  How old are you?  You are very naive if you don't see that if you don't pay a fine, the government will send people with guns to your house to enforce the penalty.  Don't pay, warrant for your arrest.  Police (with guns!) will forcibly remove you from your personal residence so that you can appear in court.  Which I would assume is the exact same thing that happens in Australia.
Firstly, we just pay the fine.
Secondly, if we don't, then a summons is sent to our residence.
Thirdly, if we still don't comply, or haven't given adequate reason for our absence, then police officers (usually armed but not always) will escort you to court.
No being led at gunpoint.

Quote
Quote
Quote
Quote
But you don't dispute the fact that not only does homicide likelihood increase with more guns, but suicide and accidental deaths do too?
Huh, now we're getting somewhere.
Uh, no.  I provided the stats that say the opposite and I say the opposite.
And yet you said you didn't dispute my stats.
That the US has a higher gun murder rate than the other 'developed' countries.  Please try to keep up with the conversation.
So you do dispute the studies that show that homicide, suicide and accidental death rates go up with firearm ownership?

Quote
Quote
No, I'm saying, with statistical evidence, that the likelihood of someone to kill themselves increases if there are more guns around.
 
So guns cause people to kill themselves.  Uh, sure...
No, mental health problems cause people to kill themselves.
The availability of weapons only increases the likelihood of an attempt, and the potential lethality of that attempt.
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: charles bloomington on October 31, 2015, 05:18:07 PM
http://www.nij.gov/pubs-sum/165476.htm (http://www.nij.gov/pubs-sum/165476.htm)
Apparently 40% of all firearm purchases don't require a background check.
Can you stop with the talking points and think for yourself?  That 'study' has been debunked, yet the gun control advocates keep pushing it.
Fair enough.
Got links to any proof of debunking?
Yep:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/obamas-continued-use-of-the-claim-that-40-percent-of-gun-sales-lack-background-checks/2013/04/01/002e06ce-9b0f-11e2-a941-a19bce7af755_blog.html
 (https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/obamas-continued-use-of-the-claim-that-40-percent-of-gun-sales-lack-background-checks/2013/04/01/002e06ce-9b0f-11e2-a941-a19bce7af755_blog.html)
Still, 15-20 percent of purchases being extralegal is a worrying statistic.

Quote
Quote
So even though they are citizens, they don't have the right to bear arms?
So the second amendment doesn't apply in all cases?
I don't see the sub-clause in which the mentally ill are excepted from this amendment.
Therefore, the prohibition of selling firearms to the mentally ill is unconstitutional.
Actually, they were deprived their right through due process of law.  Which is how one loses their rights in our system. 
So the second amendment doesn't apply to everyone?

Quote
Quote
Wasn't your point that gun ownership stops all murder?
All murder?  No that would be ridiculous.
I meant all types of murder, sorry.

Quote
Quote
Haha. You said that the government shouldn't be involved in the selling of private property, and then in the next sentence said that selling to a felon is a crime.
You cant have it both ways.
Sure I can.  The government should not be involved in the selling of private property between law abiding citizens.  A felon has had their rights revoked by due process.
Doesn't the government decide who is law abiding?
Can gun control also be implemented by due process?

Quote
Quote
See how annoying that is?
Where are all the other scandals in other states about the same thing?
Surely it is nation-wide?
All those people affected was not enough for you?  Nothing stops anyone else from doing the same thing.  Including the government.
I think that you would have to prove that not only was there an increase in crime, but that that increase was caused by this leak.
Otherwise, your argument would be based on privacy, etc. which is a problem, but not a problem for this thread.

Quote
Quote
Hmm, how do any of these a. apply when talking about the countries in question and b. have any bearing on the propensity to murder?
How do they not?  They directly affect the people of the nation.
So the relatively minor differences between Canada, Australia and the UK and the US produce such a huge discrepancy?
Again, how do they affect violence in particular?

Quote
Quote
Interestingly, in Australia, we aren't allowed to shoot up schools.
Interestingly, in America, we are not allowed to shoot up schools.
So your precious freedom is impinged upon, yet again, by the tyrannical government, who will enforce this rule with the use of force.

Quote
Quote
Your society is f**ked up if they hold you at gun point to pay speeding fines.
I'll ask again:  How old are you?  You are very naive if you don't see that if you don't pay a fine, the government will send people with guns to your house to enforce the penalty.  Don't pay, warrant for your arrest.  Police (with guns!) will forcibly remove you from your personal residence so that you can appear in court.  Which I would assume is the exact same thing that happens in Australia.
Firstly, we just pay the fine.
Secondly, if we don't, then a summons is sent to our residence.
Thirdly, if we still don't comply, or haven't given adequate reason for our absence, then police officers (usually armed but not always) will escort you to court.
No being led at gunpoint.

Quote
Quote
Quote
Quote
But you don't dispute the fact that not only does homicide likelihood increase with more guns, but suicide and accidental deaths do too?
Huh, now we're getting somewhere.
Uh, no.  I provided the stats that say the opposite and I say the opposite.
And yet you said you didn't dispute my stats.
That the US has a higher gun murder rate than the other 'developed' countries.  Please try to keep up with the conversation.
So you do dispute the studies that show that homicide, suicide and accidental death rates go up with firearm ownership?

Quote
Quote
No, I'm saying, with statistical evidence, that the likelihood of someone to kill themselves increases if there are more guns around.
 
So guns cause people to kill themselves.  Uh, sure...
No, mental health problems cause people to kill themselves.
The availability of weapons only increases the likelihood of an attempt, and the potential lethality of that attempt.
You are  missing the whole point . WHO will be registering the guns  WHO will be issuing the licences.
People kill them self not because of mental health problems.  They do it out of a feeling of hopelessness. A felling of a way out  of that hopelessness.
Now tell me , Who will be registering the guns & who will be issuing the licences.  THE GOVERNMENT ?
Enuff with your deceptive shit talk Scrotum Gaggins .
http://abr.business.gov.au/SearchByAbn.aspx?abn=66638993569 (http://abr.business.gov.au/SearchByAbn.aspx?abn=66638993569)
When the proper Govement that represents the people & their lawfully rights  is rightfully back in power & truthfully elected by the people then registration & licencing  might be worth considering.  But until then I say dont surrender your rights or your guns to a bunch of money scaming unlawful phoneys.
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: mikeman7918 on November 01, 2015, 09:01:48 AM
Do you think 12 year olds should be allowed firearms?

With parental convent and supervision, yes.  I learned how to shoot before I was 12.

Do you think mentally retarded people should be allowed firearms?

Yes, as long as they can be taught how to use a firearm and be responsible with it.

Do you think firearms should be carried on planes?

Yes.  Do you think anyone would be able to high jack a plane if the passengers could shoot them?  If firearms were allowed on planes then the 9/11 incident wouldn't have happened because the terrorists would have not been able to highball the planes in the first place.

Do you think machine guns should be publicly available?

My brother owns two of them.  Yes, they should be publicly available.  Pistols can do just as much harm or help as a machine gun, with a pistol you just need to spend one second every so often reloading.

Do you think rocket launchers should be publicly available?

Anyone rampaging with a rocket launcher would get a maximum of one shot before he/she could be rushed and taken down.  RPG's take a long time to reload and because of this they could not do much harm or good.  I cannot think of a single instance where an RPG was used by a criminal or terrorist to kill civilians.  Banning them is unnecessary, and if many civilians had guns with them then nobody would dare go out in public and start killing people.
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: Scroto Gaggins on November 01, 2015, 02:51:24 PM
Do you think 12 year olds should be allowed firearms?

With parental convent and supervision, yes.  I learned how to shoot before I was 12.
Should they be allowed to take them to school?

Quote
Do you think mentally retarded people should be allowed firearms?

Yes, as long as they can be taught how to use a firearm and be responsible with it.
Which is a restriction on the conditions of gun ownership, hence, gun control.

Quote
Do you think firearms should be carried on planes?

Yes.  Do you think anyone would be able to high jack a plane if the passengers could shoot them?  If firearms were allowed on planes then the 9/11 incident wouldn't have happened because the terrorists would have not been able to highball the planes in the first place.
But what if someone's gun goes off by accident?
I'm assuming that you've been on a plane, and that you know how tightly people are crammed in.

Quote
Do you think machine guns should be publicly available?

My brother owns two of them.  Yes, they should be publicly available.  Pistols can do just as much harm or help as a machine gun, with a pistol you just need to spend one second every so often reloading.
Your brother owns two machine guns?
Not sub-machine guns, but mounted machine guns?

Quote
Do you think rocket launchers should be publicly available?

Anyone rampaging with a rocket launcher would get a maximum of one shot before he/she could be rushed and taken down.  RPG's take a long time to reload and because of this they could not do much harm or good.  I cannot think of a single instance where an RPG was used by a criminal or terrorist to kill civilians.  Banning them is unnecessary, and if many civilians had guns with them then nobody would dare go out in public and start killing people.
I think that you gun advocates have already stressed that murderers-to-be disregard the law.
Why would they give any regard to the fact that they might be killed? Mass-murderers often kill themselves.
Again, accidents can always happen.
If there are explosives in your suburban house, then accidents are bound to happen.
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: TheEngineer on November 01, 2015, 09:58:18 PM
Still, 15-20 percent of purchases being extralegal is a worrying statistic.
People selling their personal property worries you?

Quote
So the second amendment doesn't apply to everyone?
It does, until you have your rights removed by due process of law.  Felons can't own a firearm nor can they vote (in most cases)

Quote
Can gun control also be implemented by due process?
No law can be implemented if it is unconstitutional.

Quote
I think that you would have to prove that not only was there an increase in crime, but that that increase was caused by this leak.
Why would I have to prove that?  The fact that it was done should be worrying to any gun owner.

Quote
So the relatively minor differences between Canada, Australia and the UK and the US produce such a huge discrepancy?
Again, how do they affect violence in particular?
Oh, so you are just going to wave all the differences as 'relatively minor'?  That's one hell of a cop out if I've ever read one.

Quote
So your precious freedom is impinged upon, yet again, by the tyrannical government, who will enforce this rule with the use of force.
You realize you look ridiculous when you make stupid statements like this, right?

Quote
Thirdly, if we still don't comply, or haven't given adequate reason for our absence, then police officers (usually armed but not always) will escort you to court.
No being led at gunpoint.
Those two statements are contradictory.  You also forgot to answer how hold you were.

Quote
So you do dispute the studies that show that homicide, suicide and accidental death rates go up with firearm ownership?
I've shown the stats that show the gun murder rate is generally lower in states that have high gun ownership.

Quote
The availability of weapons only increases the likelihood of an attempt, and the potential lethality of that attempt.
Because you said before that I was more likely to commit suicide since I had a gun in my house.  But now I would have to be mentally unstable to commit suicide.  Please stick to one story.



Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: Scroto Gaggins on November 02, 2015, 05:39:50 AM
Still, 15-20 percent of purchases being extralegal is a worrying statistic.
People selling their personal property worries you?
If that personal property could cause death or injury to others, then yes.

Quote
Quote
So the second amendment doesn't apply to everyone?
It does, until you have your rights removed by due process of law.  Felons can't own a firearm nor can they vote (in most cases)

Quote
Can gun control also be implemented by due process?
No law can be implemented if it is unconstitutional.
But gun control already exists in the US.
10 year-olds can't buy firearms, ergo, gun control.

Quote
Quote
I think that you would have to prove that not only was there an increase in crime, but that that increase was caused by this leak.
Why would I have to prove that?  The fact that it was done should be worrying to any gun owner.
Well, if there were no adverse and/or deadly consequences, then I don't see this issue as anything more than an invasion of privacy, which is a topic for another thread.

Quote
Quote
So the relatively minor differences between Canada, Australia and the UK and the US produce such a huge discrepancy?
Again, how do they affect violence in particular?
Oh, so you are just going to wave all the differences as 'relatively minor'?  That's one hell of a cop out if I've ever read one.
They all:
Are democracies
Have high GDP both nominally and per capita
Have ethnic and cultural diversity
Are developed both economically and socially
Don't have internal wars/strife
Are valued members of the international community
Etc.
There are more similarities than differences, and the differences that do exist seem hardly likely to cause a fourfold increase in murder rate.
Excepting in part, of course in my opinion, the high levels of gun ownership, and corresponding low levels of gun control.

Quote
Quote
So your precious freedom is impinged upon, yet again, by the tyrannical government, who will enforce this rule with the use of force.
You realize you look ridiculous when you make stupid statements like this, right?
I'm being consistent.
If you complain about the government potentially forcing you to surrender some of your gun rights, then it follows that you should be complaining about other restrictions that the government place on you.
i.e. the prohibition of murder.

Quote
Quote
Thirdly, if we still don't comply, or haven't given adequate reason for our absence, then police officers (usually armed but not always) will escort you to court.
No being led at gunpoint.
Those two statements are contradictory.  You also forgot to answer how hold you were.
Being led at gunpoint implies both an unholstered weapon and the using of that weapon directly for one's coercion.
Neither of those are present in being served a court summons to pay a speeding fine.

Quote
Quote
So you do dispute the studies that show that homicide, suicide and accidental death rates go up with firearm ownership?
I've shown the stats that show the gun murder rate is generally lower in states that have high gun ownership.
https://cdn1.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/3c-CMbmUHo46h0IS755z8eruXvQ=/1600x0/filters:no_upscale()/cdn0.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/4118836/gun%20ownership%20states.png
https://cdn3.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/4P8I10AEIFJTYH0Lhnz_scC4Hvw=/1600x0/filters:no_upscale()/cdn0.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/4002396/gun%20ownership%20countries.jpg
Two graphs.
Both with a positive gradient, as you can see.
Note- we are not just talking about gun murder, but gun deaths in general.

Quote
Quote
The availability of weapons only increases the likelihood of an attempt, and the potential lethality of that attempt.
Because you said before that I was more likely to commit suicide since I had a gun in my house.  But now I would have to be mentally unstable to commit suicide.  Please stick to one story.
People can develop a mental illness at any point in time.
A few misfiring neurons in your brain, and you might suddenly have suicidal impulses.
Bearing in mind the fact that suicide is usually more likely to occur, and is more likely to be fatal, where there are more guns, I think we can see that even if guns aren't the cause, that they are a significant factor.
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: mikeman7918 on November 02, 2015, 08:04:07 AM
Should they be allowed to take them to school?

If they can get a license to carry a gun by that age then yes.

Which is a restriction on the conditions of gun ownership, hence, gun control.

Under your definition I advocate minimal gun control.

But what if someone's gun goes off by accident?
I'm assuming that you've been on a plane, and that you know how tightly people are crammed in.

That's why guns have a safety switch.  When the safety switch is on then you cannot pull the trigger, and usually concealed guns don't have a bulled loaded in the chamber.  For it to be in any danger of going of it must somehow load the first bulled from the magazine and then turn off the safety somehow.  There is really no danger here.

Your brother owns two machine guns?
Not sub-machine guns, but mounted machine guns?

They are sub machine guns.

I think that you gun advocates have already stressed that murderers-to-be disregard the law.
Why would they give any regard to the fact that they might be killed? Mass-murderers often kill themselves.
Again, accidents can always happen.
If there are explosives in your suburban house, then accidents are bound to happen.

Mass murderers may have a screw loose but the fact that the vast majority of public shootings happen in gun free zones proves that they still have common sense in tact to some degree.  They generally kill themselves after they have seen what they have done and before the shooting they generally have no desire to die.  If suicide is what they wanted then they don't have to kill people first.  In any case, with a rocket launcher you could probably kill less people then with an ordinary gun because rocket launchers take forever to reload and a shooter would be lucky to even get one shot off before being rushed or shot.

Fires can happen in suburban houses too, and there are many things often found in houses that could be just as dangerous as rocket launcher ammo.  For example: in my room I have a large pack of model rocket motors and in my Dad's room there is a large stash of gun ammo.  Nobody is forcing people to buy rocket launchers and store them in their house, if someone thinks that it's worth the tiny risk then it should be up to them.
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: Son of Orospu on November 02, 2015, 02:36:56 PM
All three of my kids owned firearms before they were 10 years old.  They are all adults now, and have never shot anybody.  Age does not equate to firearm safety or maturity. 
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: Scroto Gaggins on November 02, 2015, 02:58:38 PM
Which is a restriction on the conditions of gun ownership, hence, gun control.

Under your definition I advocate minimal gun control.
See, gun control of whatever degree is logical.
This is the discussion that should be taking place.
It shouldn't be a question of 'should there be gun control?' it should be a question of 'how much gun control?'
Now that we've established that there has to be some form of restriction, it is a mere question of where do those restrictions apply.

I reckon that the following people should not be allowed guns:
Minors under the age of 16
People who have had a history of psychiatric visits/treatment.
Anyone who is legally and medically retarded.
Anyone who has committed a summary felony in the last, say, 5 years.
Anyone who has committed an indictable offence pending court hearing.
Potentially the very aged, as they might grow careless.

I also propose that to buy firearms, one must have a licence.
I realise and accept that maybe residential details could be leaked to the press etc. but I guess that there is always a risk of government surveillance, whether licence related or not.
To get this licence, one must present two out of the following three items: Passport, Drivers licence and/or birth certificate.
This means that there is proof of identity.
Also, one must present a medical practitioner's certificate showing that you are not, or have ever been mentally ill.
The last step is when you select which type of firearm you wish to own, be it bolt-action rifles, shotguns, handguns etc.
After you select this, you must undergo weapons training, to ensure competency.

I think this model works well, as bar the aforementioned sections of society, everyone can have a weapon.
Comments?
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: charles bloomington on November 03, 2015, 01:03:52 AM
Which is a restriction on the conditions of gun ownership, hence, gun control.

Under your definition I advocate minimal gun control.
See, gun control of whatever degree is logical.
This is the discussion that should be taking place.
It shouldn't be a question of 'should there be gun control?' it should be a question of 'how much gun control?'
Now that we've established that there has to be some form of restriction, it is a mere question of where do those restrictions apply.

I reckon that the following people should not be allowed guns:
Minors under the age of 16
People who have had a history of psychiatric visits/treatment.
Anyone who is legally and medically retarded.
Anyone who has committed a summary felony in the last, say, 5 years.
Anyone who has committed an indictable offence pending court hearing.
Potentially the very aged, as they might grow careless.

I also propose that to buy firearms, one must have a licence.
I realise and accept that maybe residential details could be leaked to the press etc. but I guess that there is always a risk of government surveillance, whether licence related or not.
To get this licence, one must present two out of the following three items: Passport, Drivers licence and/or birth certificate.
This means that there is proof of identity.
Also, one must present a medical practitioner's certificate showing that you are not, or have ever been mentally ill.
The last step is when you select which type of firearm you wish to own, be it bolt-action rifles, shotguns, handguns etc.
After you select this, you must undergo weapons training, to ensure competency.

I think this model works well, as bar the aforementioned sections of society, everyone can have a weapon.
Comments?
No what discussion should be taking place first, is how to deal with the likes of you treacherous lying underhanded agenda 21 scum & your  deceptive legalese codes. Care  discussing that agenda first scrotum Gaggins. Before  you want people to give up their inalienable right to defended their life , their families life & there property.  I'm sure those involved in agenda 21 treason & espionage would like to see all guns removed from the public .so they can go about their treacherous methods , with out fear of ever being brought to justice for their actions.
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: Scroto Gaggins on November 03, 2015, 02:43:19 AM
Which is a restriction on the conditions of gun ownership, hence, gun control.

Under your definition I advocate minimal gun control.
See, gun control of whatever degree is logical.
This is the discussion that should be taking place.
It shouldn't be a question of 'should there be gun control?' it should be a question of 'how much gun control?'
Now that we've established that there has to be some form of restriction, it is a mere question of where do those restrictions apply.

I reckon that the following people should not be allowed guns:
Minors under the age of 16
People who have had a history of psychiatric visits/treatment.
Anyone who is legally and medically retarded.
Anyone who has committed a summary felony in the last, say, 5 years.
Anyone who has committed an indictable offence pending court hearing.
Potentially the very aged, as they might grow careless.

I also propose that to buy firearms, one must have a licence.
I realise and accept that maybe residential details could be leaked to the press etc. but I guess that there is always a risk of government surveillance, whether licence related or not.
To get this licence, one must present two out of the following three items: Passport, Drivers licence and/or birth certificate.
This means that there is proof of identity.
Also, one must present a medical practitioner's certificate showing that you are not, or have ever been mentally ill.
The last step is when you select which type of firearm you wish to own, be it bolt-action rifles, shotguns, handguns etc.
After you select this, you must undergo weapons training, to ensure competency.

I think this model works well, as bar the aforementioned sections of society, everyone can have a weapon.
Comments?
No what discussion should be taking place first, is how to deal with the likes of you treacherous lying underhanded agenda 21 scum & your  deceptive legalese codes. Care  discussing that agenda first scrotum Gaggins. Before  you want people to give up their inalienable right to defended their life , their families life & there property.  I'm sure those involved in agenda 21 treason & espionage would like to see all guns removed from the public .so they can go about their treacherous methods , with out fear of ever being brought to justice for their actions.
Direct me to where I said that no guns should be allowed to the people.
And what is agenda 21?
Oh, that's right, it refers to sustainable development.
If you could kindly phrase your questions in coherent English, then maybe I'd respond to them.
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: charles bloomington on November 04, 2015, 05:03:52 AM
Which is a restriction on the conditions of gun ownership, hence, gun control.

Under your definition I advocate minimal gun control.
See, gun control of whatever degree is logical.
This is the discussion that should be taking place.
It shouldn't be a question of 'should there be gun control?' it should be a question of 'how much gun control?'
Now that we've established that there has to be some form of restriction, it is a mere question of where do those restrictions apply.

I reckon that the following people should not be allowed guns:
Minors under the age of 16
People who have had a history of psychiatric visits/treatment.
Anyone who is legally and medically retarded.
Anyone who has committed a summary felony in the last, say, 5 years.
Anyone who has committed an indictable offence pending court hearing.
Potentially the very aged, as they might grow careless.

I also propose that to buy firearms, one must have a licence.
I realise and accept that maybe residential details could be leaked to the press etc. but I guess that there is always a risk of government surveillance, whether licence related or not.
To get this licence, one must present two out of the following three items: Passport, Drivers licence and/or birth certificate.
This means that there is proof of identity.
Also, one must present a medical practitioner's certificate showing that you are not, or have ever been mentally ill.
The last step is when you select which type of firearm you wish to own, be it bolt-action rifles, shotguns, handguns etc.
After you select this, you must undergo weapons training, to ensure competency.

I think this model works well, as bar the aforementioned sections of society, everyone can have a weapon.
Comments?
No what discussion should be taking place first, is how to deal with the likes of you treacherous lying underhanded agenda 21 scum & your  deceptive legalese codes. Care  discussing that agenda first scrotum Gaggins. Before  you want people to give up their inalienable right to defended their life , their families life & there property.  I'm sure those involved in agenda 21 treason & espionage would like to see all guns removed from the public .so they can go about their treacherous methods , with out fear of ever being brought to justice for their actions.
Direct me to where I said that no guns should be allowed to the people.
And what is agenda 21?
Oh, that's right, it refers to sustainable development.
If you could kindly phrase your questions in coherent English, then maybe I'd respond to them.
Question 1 .are you a advocate for the implementation of agenda 21. Question 2 what is your opinion on this  company. http://abr.business.gov.au/SearchByAbn.aspx?abn=66638993569 (http://abr.business.gov.au/SearchByAbn.aspx?abn=66638993569)
Question 3 what is your opinion on theses companies. http://www.abr.business.gov.au/SearchByAbn.aspx?SearchText=32790228959 (http://www.abr.business.gov.au/SearchByAbn.aspx?SearchText=32790228959)
Question 4 what is your opinion on the dates theses companies were registered.
State Government Entity

A government entity is:

a department of State of the Commonwealth
a department of the Parliament
an executive agency, or statutory agency, within the meaning of the Public Service Act 1999
a department of State of a State or Territory
an organisation that:
is not an entity
, and
is either established by the Commonwealth, a State or a Territory (whether under a law or not) to carry on an enterprise or established for a public purpose by an Australian law, and
can be separately identified by reference to the nature of the activities carried on through the organisation or the location of the organisation
whether or not the organisation is part of a department or branch described in paragraph (a), (b), (c) or (d) or of another organisation of the kind described in this paragraph

So who are theses corperate entity's ?  & who do they represent .? When its clear they are not representative of "a" state of The Commonwealth of Australia . By an Australian law ? Should it not read under Australian law.
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: charles bloomington on November 04, 2015, 05:36:39 AM
http://www.ipaustralia.com.au/applicant/state-of-victoria-c-department-of-justice/trademarks/1465780/ (http://www.ipaustralia.com.au/applicant/state-of-victoria-c-department-of-justice/trademarks/1465780/)
Date   Comment   Type
04-JUL-2013   Applications Lapsed and Withdrawn (Withdrawn)   Advert
25-JUN-2013   Withdraw Application   Update

19-JUN-2013   Withdraw Trademark Application   Correspondence
07-JUN-2013   General correspondence Acceptance   Correspondence
20-MAY-2013   No response to 1st Report within 12 mths   Update
19-APR-2012   Adverse Report - Approved   Report No. 1
19-APR-2012   Amend Status from Indexing Approved   Update
19-APR-2012   Acceptance date   Update
12-JAN-2012   Applications Filed   Advert
20-DEC-2011   Amend Status from Indexed   Update
20-DEC-2011   Amend Status from Filed - Approved   Update
19-DEC-2011   Approve Filing   Update
16-DEC-2011   Filing an Electronic Application for a TM 1 Class   Correspondence

I feel so much safer now our guns & type of gun & who can own one, are now controlled  by license & registration In Australia.  You wouldn't want fire arms to fall in to the hands of unscrupulous individuals.  ::)
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: Aman68 on November 04, 2015, 06:09:51 AM
I used to be for gun control in the US until I got suspicious when obama got on board and started pushing for it, why would his party take such a risk when political parties are known for evasiveness and trying not to upset large, well established groups. I looked into it and many think he wants to disarm America so that when the shitstorm comes down no one will be able to defend themselves. Sounds plausible to me, considering what else I know. Now I'm not quite sure. Things are not always what they seem!
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: Scroto Gaggins on November 04, 2015, 06:29:03 AM
I used to be for gun control in the US until I got suspicious when obama got on board and started pushing for it, why would his party take such a risk when political parties are known for evasiveness and trying not to upset large, well established groups. I looked into it and many think he wants to disarm America so that when the shitstorm comes down no one will be able to defend themselves. Sounds plausible to me, considering what else I know. Now I'm not quite sure. Things are not always what they seem!
You do realise that Mikeman and myself have already reached the consensus that gun control is inevitable?
It is not a question of should there be, it is a question of how much.
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: mikeman7918 on November 04, 2015, 07:51:49 AM
You do realise that Mikeman and myself have already reached the consensus that gun control is inevitable?
It is not a question of should there be, it is a question of how much.

Although the amount of gun control I advocate is less then America has.
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: Son of Orospu on November 04, 2015, 08:35:54 AM
Nobody has commented on my statement that my sons all had firearms before they were 10, yet they never shot anyone.  Perhaps this proves that children can be trained how to safely and responsibly handle firearms? 
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: Scroto Gaggins on November 04, 2015, 03:59:39 PM
Nobody has commented on my statement that my sons all had firearms before they were 10, yet they never shot anyone.  Perhaps this proves that children can be trained how to safely and responsibly handle firearms?
Yes, children can be trained to safely and responsibly handle firearms.
I don't think anyone doubts your effectiveness as a father.

You do realise that Mikeman and myself have already reached the consensus that gun control is inevitable?
It is not a question of should there be, it is a question of how much.

Although the amount of gun control I advocate is less then America has.
Do you see any problems with the model that I proposed?
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: charles bloomington on November 04, 2015, 05:01:29 PM
I used to be for gun control in the US until I got suspicious when obama got on board and started pushing for it, why would his party take such a risk when political parties are known for evasiveness and trying not to upset large, well established groups. I looked into it and many think he wants to disarm America so that when the shitstorm comes down no one will be able to defend themselves. Sounds plausible to me, considering what else I know. Now I'm not quite sure. Things are not always what they seem!
You do realise that Mikeman and myself have already reached the consensus that gun control is inevitable?
It is not a question of should there be, it is a question of how much.
The arrogance of you shit talking scumbag agenda 21is second to none. Time is running out for you shit bags  & the public is awaking up to you corporate lying fraudsters . Of course you want gun control. It makes it more difficult for you to insalve steal & extort property if the public own guns & can defended against having their property unlawful  taken through agenda 21 & its  fraudulent implementation. A defence less public makes for easy pickings.
The agenda 21 scheme , keep the public in the dark about its implemention & removing their ability to enforce their right .by claiming not to know what agenda 21 is if asked , if pressurised on the subject , claim there is nothing to worry about because its non binding , while  implementing it . Defuse any ability to challenge its unlawful implementation though the courts, by continuing  to state that it just their oppinion .stifle justice by installing  corrupt judiciary& lawyers. Lawyers who dont comply remove their lic to practice law  Done  Slowly implament agenda private owned police forces & prisons. Done .Slowly implement their privately controlled defence force .Done. disarming the public ,still working on doing. You seem to be avoiding my previous post scrotum Gaggins. Shying away from commenting on those companies are we ?
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: charles bloomington on November 04, 2015, 10:20:06 PM
We have a moltatued of companies registed as trading enitys claim to be government. So who's issuing the contracts to these's companies ? Anther company. So who owns that company & who are the share holder & stock holders?. Do you realy need a licence from a privet company or register your guns with a private company if you dont own a share in any of those companies. I wouldn't register & pay for a product if I wasn't going recive any benefit from that product. Restrictions cost & harassment seems to be the only thing on offer.
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: charles bloomington on November 05, 2015, 05:38:37 AM
Looks like old Scrotum Gaggins has gone in to hiding . What a petty I was hopeing to raze the fact that the magistrates' court infringment court of victoria, only exsists in name & is a front for a private company called civic compliance pty limited. Which is trading under a completely different ABN number then that of the magistrates' court infringment court of victoria. Even though they are using magistrates' court infringment court of victoria &  seal. Phone the number on the court notice, believing it to be the court & wola, your now contracting with this privet debt collecting agencey. With all the legalese verbal tricks to obligate & exstort money out of you. Talk about a scam . The registrar issues the fines & warrants . No magistrate involved .Civic compliance pty ltd collects the fines. So who is the registrar ? It can only be none other then civil compliance pty ltd.  Want to have it heard in court .you have to quote the obligation number & go through them . Bummer ya just obligated your self &  lost the case before you even got to court.

And you want guns to be registered & owners to be licenced.  When you have  theses types of lying  fraudulent scumbags .  Unlawfuly administering scaming justice.
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: charles bloomington on November 05, 2015, 05:45:29 AM
Heres the biggest joke of all , on the notice .it states it is an offence under section 167 of the infringement act 2006 to intentionally provide false or misleading information . 10 penalty pionts .
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: charles bloomington on November 06, 2015, 01:48:46 AM
Why they want to take your guns away more then ever.http://pn.i-uv.com/courtesy-notices/ (http://pn.i-uv.com/courtesy-notices/)

http://pn.i-uv.com/the-missing-13th-amendment/ (http://pn.i-uv.com/the-missing-13th-amendment/)
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: ronxyz on November 17, 2015, 06:04:48 PM
All able bodied adults in good standing should be required to have a rifle a carbine a shotgun and two pistols. They should be trained and tested yearly at turkey shoots across the land. People need to take responsibility for the protection or their own and others. You need to be ready to take a stand, not cower and die like sheep. The government will not save you and your loved ones, pull it and fire.
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: Luke 22:35-38 on November 18, 2015, 08:26:02 PM
Oregon shooting is a hoax like most school shootings. How can you keep falling for the same story over and over again?
But you don't deny that shootings happen a lot more regularly in America then any other first-world country?
And that the rather lax gun laws are a direct cause of this?

I live in Australia, where there was a pretty nasty massacre at Port Arthur in Tasmania.
I think that 35 people were killed or something.
The government of the time then passed extreme gun legislation that basically stopped gun violence in Australia.

And about all this being hoaxes.
Admittedly, this could be true.
But who faked it, and for what benefit?
And it is also possible that the figures are not exaggerated, that these massacres are happening.
And if thats the case, then something must be done to stop this problem.
Switzerland have pretty lax gun laws too. And Kennesaw, Georgia have mandatory gun ownership. Look at the crime rates to the two places I listed.
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: Scroto Gaggins on November 19, 2015, 05:06:08 AM
Oregon shooting is a hoax like most school shootings. How can you keep falling for the same story over and over again?
But you don't deny that shootings happen a lot more regularly in America then any other first-world country?
And that the rather lax gun laws are a direct cause of this?

I live in Australia, where there was a pretty nasty massacre at Port Arthur in Tasmania.
I think that 35 people were killed or something.
The government of the time then passed extreme gun legislation that basically stopped gun violence in Australia.

And about all this being hoaxes.
Admittedly, this could be true.
But who faked it, and for what benefit?
And it is also possible that the figures are not exaggerated, that these massacres are happening.
And if thats the case, then something must be done to stop this problem.
Switzerland have pretty lax gun laws too. And Kennesaw, Georgia have mandatory gun ownership. Look at the crime rates to the two places I listed.
In Switzerland, to own a firearm, one must first serve in the Military.
I don't know about you, but I'd hardly call national service in the Army and subsequent licensing and governmental involvement etc. 'Lax'.
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: ronxyz on November 19, 2015, 05:36:17 AM
newbee question, on page 1 how do you take the poll? ,thanks
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: Luke 22:35-38 on November 19, 2015, 07:53:53 AM
Oregon shooting is a hoax like most school shootings. How can you keep falling for the same story over and over again?
But you don't deny that shootings happen a lot more regularly in America then any other first-world country?
And that the rather lax gun laws are a direct cause of this?

I live in Australia, where there was a pretty nasty massacre at Port Arthur in Tasmania.
I think that 35 people were killed or something.
The government of the time then passed extreme gun legislation that basically stopped gun violence in Australia.

And about all this being hoaxes.
Admittedly, this could be true.
But who faked it, and for what benefit?
And it is also possible that the figures are not exaggerated, that these massacres are happening.
And if thats the case, then something must be done to stop this problem.
Switzerland have pretty lax gun laws too. And Kennesaw, Georgia have mandatory gun ownership. Look at the crime rates to the two places I listed.
In Switzerland, to own a firearm, one must first serve in the Military.
I don't know about you, but I'd hardly call national service in the Army and subsequent licensing and governmental involvement etc. 'Lax'.
Even still they allow fully automatic rifles in private homes. Also look at the crime rate of Kennesaw, Georgia. Oh and to the noob, you click which thing to vote and click the vote button
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: Soulblood on November 20, 2015, 12:26:23 AM
I usually avoid gun control arguments, but because the constant mentioning of Kennesaw, Georgia intrigued me ...

Our good friends at http://www.neighborhoodscout.com/neighborhoods/crime-rates/ (http://www.neighborhoodscout.com/neighborhoods/crime-rates/) provide detailed crime statistics ...

Kennesaw has an overall rating of 39 (meaning it is safer than 39% of US cities) ... not that impressive. A look at it shows its a 30k town with a median income about 10k above US average (while Georgia is below US average), so not a town where you would expect too much crime in the first place.

For a realistic comparison I looked through the US cencus data for another Georgia city comparable in size and the first I found was Canton, 25k ... close enough. It has an overall rating of 47, so its a lot safer than Kennesaw (it has about 18 crimes per 1000 residents, Kennsaw has 21).

Bottom line, I can't see a significant difference or advantage to comparable, non-mandatory gun areas.
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: Luke 22:35-38 on November 20, 2015, 12:07:40 PM
Then look at states who have more gun laws and compare them to states with less gun laws and see who has the worst crime.
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: Scroto Gaggins on November 20, 2015, 05:41:07 PM
Then look at states who have more gun laws and compare them to states with less gun laws and see who has the worst crime.
The US has the first world's highest crime rate.
The US also has the highest gun ownership in the world.
If more guns equals less crime, then the Us should have the lowest crime in the world.
Please read the previous discussion over the last few pages and then post.
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: Luke 22:35-38 on November 20, 2015, 06:24:02 PM
Then look at states who have more gun laws and compare them to states with less gun laws and see who has the worst crime.
The US has the first world's highest crime rate.
The US also has the highest gun ownership in the world.
If more guns equals less crime, then the Us should have the lowest crime in the world.
Please read the previous discussion over the last few pages and then post.
First place I would like to
Point out that crime rate is going down.
Second, instead of naming USA in general look which state is leading the pack in crime rate. It's the ones who have strict gun laws.
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: TheEarthIsASphere. on November 21, 2015, 07:43:31 PM
I strongly oppose gun control.  Banning guns will just fight a symptom, not the disease.  Back when the United States banned alcohol that also seemed like a good idea at first glance but all it did was made people get alcohol illegally and increased the crime rates overall.  Banning guns would just take them away from law abiding citizens who would have used them only for self defense, and criminals could still get their hands on them.
Agree 100%. 

Plus, the Second Amendment is pretty clear.

Interestingly, the second amendment was created because the original English colonists were denied the right to own guns by the British government.
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: TheEarthIsASphere. on November 21, 2015, 07:47:04 PM
This is my honest opinion:

Before I get started, I just want to say that I think the second amendment is important, and it's a basic right that should be protected. As it stands though, I think gun laws are a little too lax right now. I think there needs to be more background checks to prevent say, someone with a mental illness, convicted criminal, or someone with terroristic intentions from buying a gun and (potentially) causing harm. I also think we need to limit the sale of weapons truly meant for the military, like assault rifles or automatic/semi-automatic weapons. You get the idea.

Other than that, you guys can keep your guns. I could care less.
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: Luke 22:35-38 on November 21, 2015, 09:35:36 PM
This is my honest opinion:

Before I get started, I just want to say that I think the second amendment is important, and it's a basic right that should be protected. As it stands though, I think gun laws are a little too lax right now. I think there needs to be more background checks to prevent say, someone with a mental illness, convicted criminal, or someone with terroristic intentions from buying a gun and (potentially) causing harm. I also think we need to limit the sale of weapons truly meant for the military, like assault rifles or automatic/semi-automatic weapons. You get the idea.

Other than that, you guys can keep your guns. I could care less.
All weapons can be used for assault. That said, assault rifles are rifles with fully automatic capabilities and unless you have a class 3 license you can't buy one. Also the semi auto rifles have only been used in I think 1% of crimes made with guns.   
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: Son of Orospu on November 22, 2015, 04:26:42 AM
A screwdriver can be used to kill someone.  Should we have restrictions on screwdrivers as well? 
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: Scroto Gaggins on November 22, 2015, 05:30:37 AM
A screwdriver can be used to kill someone.  Should we have restrictions on screwdrivers as well?
When you show me the stats that show that the leading weapon in murders is a screwdriver, then yes, they should be restricted.
Also direct me to the mass screwdriverings that have occurred at schools.
When eight thousand American are killed by other Americans using screwdrivers, then there should be restrictions.
If eight thousand people die from something, then actions have to be taken to decrease the likelihood of more deaths occurring.
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: Frank Lee on November 22, 2015, 05:52:06 AM
By far the greatest number of deaths of innocents come from democide. I really thought there would
be laws against this? At least we should be allowed a form of self defense against these mass murderers.
Also question carefully what you see on TV. If these school shootings really happened, perhaps some armed persons could have reduced the deaths caused by criminals. I saw a statistic showing most school deaths occur by suicide. Let's make a law against that!
I suspect gun control (Read that gun registration / confiscation ) is coming.
That does not make me feel any safer.
Let us hope for peace in our time.
May the day come when NO guns exist. That includes governments.
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: 29silhouette on November 22, 2015, 08:14:22 AM
I also think we need to limit the sale of weapons truly meant for the military, like assault rifles or automatic/semi-automatic weapons. You get the idea.
Military small arms are automatic or burst.  These are tightly regulated.  A semi-auto that looks like a military rifle is nothing special, other than the increasingly indoctrinated mentality of "they look scary".  There are plenty of wood-stocked 'hunting' rifles that are semi-auto, and fire higher-powered ammo than a typical AR type rifle.

The 2nd amendment isn't about 'duck hunting'.
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: Scroto Gaggins on November 22, 2015, 03:20:14 PM
I also think we need to limit the sale of weapons truly meant for the military, like assault rifles or automatic/semi-automatic weapons. You get the idea.
Military small arms are automatic or burst.  These are tightly regulated.  A semi-auto that looks like a military rifle is nothing special, other than the increasingly indoctrinated mentality of "they look scary".  There are plenty of wood-stocked 'hunting' rifles that are semi-auto, and fire higher-powered ammo than a typical AR type rifle.

The 2nd amendment isn't about 'duck hunting'.
I think we can all agree that the gun regulations currently in practice are flawed.
However, that does not mean that regulations of any type, and the principals behind doing so, are flawed.
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: charles bloomington on November 22, 2015, 05:32:57 PM
A screwdriver can be used to kill someone.  Should we have restrictions on screwdrivers as well?
When you show me the stats that show that the leading weapon in murders is a screwdriver, then yes, they should be restricted.
Also direct me to the mass screwdriverings that have occurred at schools.
When eight thousand American are killed by other Americans using screwdrivers, then there should be restrictions.
If eight thousand people die from something, then actions have to be taken to decrease the likelihood of more deaths occurring.
The leading weapon in murder in this day & age  is not fire arms . its the drug ice .




Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: Scroto Gaggins on November 23, 2015, 01:07:57 AM
A screwdriver can be used to kill someone.  Should we have restrictions on screwdrivers as well?
When you show me the stats that show that the leading weapon in murders is a screwdriver, then yes, they should be restricted.
Also direct me to the mass screwdriverings that have occurred at schools.
When eight thousand American are killed by other Americans using screwdrivers, then there should be restrictions.
If eight thousand people die from something, then actions have to be taken to decrease the likelihood of more deaths occurring.
The leading weapon in murder in this day & age  is not fire arms . its the drug ice .
Yeah, no.
Unless someone force feeds you crystal meth, then it is not murder.
Ice can be a factor in someones choice to murder, but not the weapon itself.
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: Luke 22:35-38 on November 23, 2015, 09:52:44 AM
I also think we need to limit the sale of weapons truly meant for the military, like assault rifles or automatic/semi-automatic weapons. You get the idea.
Military small arms are automatic or burst.  These are tightly regulated.  A semi-auto that looks like a military rifle is nothing special, other than the increasingly indoctrinated mentality of "they look scary".  There are plenty of wood-stocked 'hunting' rifles that are semi-auto, and fire higher-powered ammo than a typical AR type rifle.

The 2nd amendment isn't about 'duck hunting'.
I think we can all agree that the gun regulations currently in practice are flawed.
However, that does not mean that regulations of any type, and the principals behind doing so, are flawed.
What type of regulations do you propose?
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: charles bloomington on November 23, 2015, 12:51:07 PM
A screwdriver can be used to kill someone.  Should we have restrictions on screwdrivers as well?
When you show me the stats that show that the leading weapon in murders is a screwdriver, then yes, they should be restricted.
Also direct me to the mass screwdriverings that have occurred at schools.
When eight thousand American are killed by other Americans using screwdrivers, then there should be restrictions.
If eight thousand people die from something, then actions have to be taken to decrease the likelihood of more deaths occurring.
The leading weapon in murder in this day & age  is not fire arms . its the drug ice .
Yeah, no.
Unless someone force feeds you crystal meth, then it is not murder.
Ice can be a factor in someones choice to murder, but not the weapon itself.
If the victom was groomed , then there is premeditation . If the substance is known to have over a 50 % chance of leading  to an individuals death. Then you would be wanting a verygood defense lawyer.  To sway the argument it wasn't premeditated murder .
Failing that , I think  the lesser charge of manslaughter  & grievously bodily harm . Is definitely  achievable. ;)
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: Scroto Gaggins on November 23, 2015, 02:20:48 PM
I feel rather snobby of quoting myself, but below is the post where I outline my proposed model.

Which is a restriction on the conditions of gun ownership, hence, gun control.

Under your definition I advocate minimal gun control.
See, gun control of whatever degree is logical.
This is the discussion that should be taking place.
It shouldn't be a question of 'should there be gun control?' it should be a question of 'how much gun control?'
Now that we've established that there has to be some form of restriction, it is a mere question of where do those restrictions apply.

I reckon that the following people should not be allowed guns:
Minors under the age of 16
People who have had a history of psychiatric visits/treatment.
Anyone who is legally and medically retarded.
Anyone who has committed a summary felony in the last, say, 5 years.
Anyone who has committed an indictable offence pending court hearing.
Potentially the very aged, as they might grow careless.

I also propose that to buy firearms, one must have a licence.
I realise and accept that maybe residential details could be leaked to the press etc. but I guess that there is always a risk of government surveillance, whether licence related or not.
To get this licence, one must present two out of the following three items: Passport, Drivers licence and/or birth certificate.
This means that there is proof of identity.
Also, one must present a medical practitioner's certificate showing that you are not, or have ever been mentally ill.
The last step is when you select which type of firearm you wish to own, be it bolt-action rifles, shotguns, handguns etc.
After you select this, you must undergo weapons training, to ensure competency.

I think this model works well, as bar the aforementioned sections of society, everyone can have a weapon.
Comments?
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: charles bloomington on November 23, 2015, 03:24:30 PM
I feel rather snobby of quoting myself, but below is the post where I outline my proposed model.

Which is a restriction on the conditions of gun ownership, hence, gun control.

Under your definition I advocate minimal gun control.
See, gun control of whatever degree is logical.
This is the discussion that should be taking place.
It shouldn't be a question of 'should there be gun control?' it should be a question of 'how much gun control?'
Now that we've established that there has to be some form of restriction, it is a mere question of where do those restrictions apply.

I reckon that the following people should not be allowed guns:
Minors under the age of 16
People who have had a history of psychiatric visits/treatment.
Anyone who is legally and medically retarded.
Anyone who has committed a summary felony in the last, say, 5 years.
Anyone who has committed an indictable offence pending court hearing.
Potentially the very aged, as they might grow careless.

I also propose that to buy firearms, one must have a licence.
I realise and accept that maybe residential details could be leaked to the press etc. but I guess that there is always a risk of government surveillance, whether licence related or not.
To get this licence, one must present two out of the following three items: Passport, Drivers licence and/or birth certificate.
This means that there is proof of identity.
Also, one must present a medical practitioner's certificate showing that you are not, or have ever been mentally ill.
The last step is when you select which type of firearm you wish to own, be it bolt-action rifles, shotguns, handguns etc.
After you select this, you must undergo weapons training, to ensure competency.

I think this model works well, as bar the aforementioned sections of society, everyone can have a weapon.
Comments?
Why is it that those that are always calling  for gun control.  All seem to have  guilty consciences.  Have  you wronged someone  scrotum Gaggins ? Are you living in fear of  reprisal.? When I was a boy police "men"  only carried a whisel & baton.  They where well respected honest members of the public  & the unwritten law was never ever harm a police man . Regardless of who you where good or bad . They served the public !!!. Not as they do now  political parties,greedy banks  & coperations
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: Scroto Gaggins on November 23, 2015, 03:27:38 PM
I feel rather snobby of quoting myself, but below is the post where I outline my proposed model.

Which is a restriction on the conditions of gun ownership, hence, gun control.

Under your definition I advocate minimal gun control.
See, gun control of whatever degree is logical.
This is the discussion that should be taking place.
It shouldn't be a question of 'should there be gun control?' it should be a question of 'how much gun control?'
Now that we've established that there has to be some form of restriction, it is a mere question of where do those restrictions apply.

I reckon that the following people should not be allowed guns:
Minors under the age of 16
People who have had a history of psychiatric visits/treatment.
Anyone who is legally and medically retarded.
Anyone who has committed a summary felony in the last, say, 5 years.
Anyone who has committed an indictable offence pending court hearing.
Potentially the very aged, as they might grow careless.

I also propose that to buy firearms, one must have a licence.
I realise and accept that maybe residential details could be leaked to the press etc. but I guess that there is always a risk of government surveillance, whether licence related or not.
To get this licence, one must present two out of the following three items: Passport, Drivers licence and/or birth certificate.
This means that there is proof of identity.
Also, one must present a medical practitioner's certificate showing that you are not, or have ever been mentally ill.
The last step is when you select which type of firearm you wish to own, be it bolt-action rifles, shotguns, handguns etc.
After you select this, you must undergo weapons training, to ensure competency.

I think this model works well, as bar the aforementioned sections of society, everyone can have a weapon.
Comments?
Why is it that those that are always calling  for gun control.  All seem to have  guilty consciences.  Have  you wronged someone  scrotum Gaggins ? Are you living in fear of  reprisal.? When I was a boy police "men"  only carried a whisel & baton.  They where well respected members of the public  & the unwritten law was never ever harm a police man . Regardless of who you where good or bad . They served the public not political parties & coperations as they do now.
I have wronged people in the past, although that is not the reason why I advocate reasonable gun restrictions.
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: charles bloomington on November 23, 2015, 03:41:07 PM
I feel rather snobby of quoting myself, but below is the post where I outline my proposed model.

Which is a restriction on the conditions of gun ownership, hence, gun control.

Under your definition I advocate minimal gun control.
See, gun control of whatever degree is logical.
This is the discussion that should be taking place.
It shouldn't be a question of 'should there be gun control?' it should be a question of 'how much gun control?'
Now that we've established that there has to be some form of restriction, it is a mere question of where do those restrictions apply.

I reckon that the following people should not be allowed guns:
Minors under the age of 16
People who have had a history of psychiatric visits/treatment.
Anyone who is legally and medically retarded.
Anyone who has committed a summary felony in the last, say, 5 years.
Anyone who has committed an indictable offence pending court hearing.
Potentially the very aged, as they might grow careless.

I also propose that to buy firearms, one must have a licence.
I realise and accept that maybe residential details could be leaked to the press etc. but I guess that there is always a risk of government surveillance, whether licence related or not.
To get this licence, one must present two out of the following three items: Passport, Drivers licence and/or birth certificate.
This means that there is proof of identity.
Also, one must present a medical practitioner's certificate showing that you are not, or have ever been mentally ill.
The last step is when you select which type of firearm you wish to own, be it bolt-action rifles, shotguns, handguns etc.
After you select this, you must undergo weapons training, to ensure competency.

I think this model works well, as bar the aforementioned sections of society, everyone can have a weapon.
Comments?
Why is it that those that are always calling  for gun control.  All seem to have  guilty consciences.  Have  you wronged someone  scrotum Gaggins ? Are you living in fear of  reprisal.? When I was a boy police "men"  only carried a whisel & baton.  They where well respected members of the public  & the unwritten law was never ever harm a police man . Regardless of who you where good or bad . They served the public not political parties & coperations as they do now.
I have wronged people in the past, although that is not the reason why I advocate reasonable gun restrictions.
I will advocate for gun controls , when we get back to a lawful system of public constitution referendums & no one being above the law . A system of what is written in plain understandable English & grammar returning & not the bastard  legalese system of dishonest sly deception & manipulation, that is opperating now.
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: charles bloomington on November 23, 2015, 03:55:43 PM
No one should be made to give up their inalienable right to own a gun & defended their life . If acting lawfuly
No one should have to put up with privet courts that provide no guarantee of fair imparcial  justice . That means courts that operate  as privet star chambers. 
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: Luke 22:35-38 on November 23, 2015, 05:26:25 PM
I feel rather snobby of quoting myself, but below is the post where I outline my proposed model.

Which is a restriction on the conditions of gun ownership, hence, gun control.

Under your definition I advocate minimal gun control.
See, gun control of whatever degree is logical.
This is the discussion that should be taking place.
It shouldn't be a question of 'should there be gun control?' it should be a question of 'how much gun control?'
Now that we've established that there has to be some form of restriction, it is a mere question of where do those restrictions apply.

I reckon that the following people should not be allowed guns:
Minors under the age of 16
People who have had a history of psychiatric visits/treatment.
Anyone who is legally and medically retarded.
Anyone who has committed a summary felony in the last, say, 5 years.
Anyone who has committed an indictable offence pending court hearing.
Potentially the very aged, as they might grow careless.

I also propose that to buy firearms, one must have a licence.
I realise and accept that maybe residential details could be leaked to the press etc. but I guess that there is always a risk of government surveillance, whether licence related or not.
To get this licence, one must present two out of the following three items: Passport, Drivers licence and/or birth certificate.
This means that there is proof of identity.
Also, one must present a medical practitioner's certificate showing that you are not, or have ever been mentally ill.
The last step is when you select which type of firearm you wish to own, be it bolt-action rifles, shotguns, handguns etc.
After you select this, you must undergo weapons training, to ensure competency.

I think this model works well, as bar the aforementioned sections of society, everyone can have a weapon.
Comments?
Why is it that those that are always calling  for gun control.  All seem to have  guilty consciences.  Have  you wronged someone  scrotum Gaggins ? Are you living in fear of  reprisal.? When I was a boy police "men"  only carried a whisel & baton.  They where well respected members of the public  & the unwritten law was never ever harm a police man . Regardless of who you where good or bad . They served the public not political parties & coperations as they do now.
I have wronged people in the past, although that is not the reason why I advocate reasonable gun restrictions.
Again I ask, what type of restrictions are you proposing?
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: Scroto Gaggins on November 23, 2015, 06:08:08 PM
I feel rather snobby of quoting myself, but below is the post where I outline my proposed model.

Which is a restriction on the conditions of gun ownership, hence, gun control.

Under your definition I advocate minimal gun control.
See, gun control of whatever degree is logical.
This is the discussion that should be taking place.
It shouldn't be a question of 'should there be gun control?' it should be a question of 'how much gun control?'
Now that we've established that there has to be some form of restriction, it is a mere question of where do those restrictions apply.

I reckon that the following people should not be allowed guns:
Minors under the age of 16
People who have had a history of psychiatric visits/treatment.
Anyone who is legally and medically retarded.
Anyone who has committed a summary felony in the last, say, 5 years.
Anyone who has committed an indictable offence pending court hearing.
Potentially the very aged, as they might grow careless.

I also propose that to buy firearms, one must have a licence.
I realise and accept that maybe residential details could be leaked to the press etc. but I guess that there is always a risk of government surveillance, whether licence related or not.
To get this licence, one must present two out of the following three items: Passport, Drivers licence and/or birth certificate.
This means that there is proof of identity.
Also, one must present a medical practitioner's certificate showing that you are not, or have ever been mentally ill.
The last step is when you select which type of firearm you wish to own, be it bolt-action rifles, shotguns, handguns etc.
After you select this, you must undergo weapons training, to ensure competency.

I think this model works well, as bar the aforementioned sections of society, everyone can have a weapon.
Comments?
Why is it that those that are always calling  for gun control.  All seem to have  guilty consciences.  Have  you wronged someone  scrotum Gaggins ? Are you living in fear of  reprisal.? When I was a boy police "men"  only carried a whisel & baton.  They where well respected members of the public  & the unwritten law was never ever harm a police man . Regardless of who you where good or bad . They served the public not political parties & coperations as they do now.
I have wronged people in the past, although that is not the reason why I advocate reasonable gun restrictions.
Again I ask, what type of restrictions are you proposing?
I posted my model a while back.
I re posted a few posts back.
The post that you quoted contained within it the model I'm proposing.
Can you not see it?
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: Luke 22:35-38 on November 23, 2015, 07:42:09 PM
I feel rather snobby of quoting myself, but below is the post where I outline my proposed model.

Which is a restriction on the conditions of gun ownership, hence, gun control.

Under your definition I advocate minimal gun control.
See, gun control of whatever degree is logical.
This is the discussion that should be taking place.
It shouldn't be a question of 'should there be gun control?' it should be a question of 'how much gun control?'
Now that we've established that there has to be some form of restriction, it is a mere question of where do those restrictions apply.

I reckon that the following people should not be allowed guns:
Minors under the age of 16
People who have had a history of psychiatric visits/treatment.
Anyone who is legally and medically retarded.
Anyone who has committed a summary felony in the last, say, 5 years.
Anyone who has committed an indictable offence pending court hearing.
Potentially the very aged, as they might grow careless.

I also propose that to buy firearms, one must have a licence.
I realise and accept that maybe residential details could be leaked to the press etc. but I guess that there is always a risk of government surveillance, whether licence related or not.
To get this licence, one must present two out of the following three items: Passport, Drivers licence and/or birth certificate.
This means that there is proof of identity.
Also, one must present a medical practitioner's certificate showing that you are not, or have ever been mentally ill.
The last step is when you select which type of firearm you wish to own, be it bolt-action rifles, shotguns, handguns etc.
After you select this, you must undergo weapons training, to ensure competency.

I think this model works well, as bar the aforementioned sections of society, everyone can have a weapon.
Comments?
With people under 16, if the kid is trained and not threatening anyone then why put a limit?
With psychotic people that can be a slippery slope. Who decides who's crazy or not and why? Some are rather obvious but even then...
Felons, it depends in the crime. Here in the USA there are so many felonies on the books that pretty much all Americans will beconsidered felons if caught. What we should do is only have crimes that take away either life, liberty, or property or a combination of the three to be felonies and as punishment you either fine them, beat them, or execute them depending on the crime.
As for the aged, I think you punish them if they actually get clumsy and accidentally discharge the weapon and it indangered someone else's property and/or life.
And lastly any form of ID can be used by a tyrannical government. Watch the 80s version of "red dawn".
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: 29silhouette on November 23, 2015, 10:57:45 PM


See, gun control of whatever degree is logical.
This is the discussion that should be taking place.
It shouldn't be a question of 'should there be gun control?' it should be a question of 'how much gun control?'
Now that we've established that there has to be some form of restriction, it is a mere question of where do those restrictions apply.

I reckon that the following people should not be allowed guns:
Minors under the age of 16
People who have had a history of psychiatric visits/treatment.
Anyone who is legally and medically retarded.
Anyone who has committed a summary felony in the last, say, 5 years.
Anyone who has committed an indictable offence pending court hearing.
Potentially the very aged, as they might grow careless.

I also propose that to buy firearms, one must have a licence.
I realise and accept that maybe residential details could be leaked to the press etc. but I guess that there is always a risk of government surveillance, whether licence related or not.
To get this licence, one must present two out of the following three items: Passport, Drivers licence and/or birth certificate.
This means that there is proof of identity.
Also, one must present a medical practitioner's certificate showing that you are not, or have ever been mentally ill.

The last step is when you select which type of firearm you wish to own, be it bolt-action rifles, shotguns, handguns etc.
After you select this, you must undergo weapons training, to ensure competency.

I think this model works well, as bar the aforementioned sections of society, everyone can have a weapon.
Comments?
When required in order to exercise a constitutional right, the parts in bold are considered racist by our current administration and the left-wing in general.

Also, you forgot other types of rifles, so simply saying "rifles" would be best.
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: Scroto Gaggins on November 24, 2015, 12:50:26 AM
I feel rather snobby of quoting myself, but below is the post where I outline my proposed model.

See, gun control of whatever degree is logical.
This is the discussion that should be taking place.
It shouldn't be a question of 'should there be gun control?' it should be a question of 'how much gun control?'
Now that we've established that there has to be some form of restriction, it is a mere question of where do those restrictions apply.

I reckon that the following people should not be allowed guns:
Minors under the age of 16
People who have had a history of psychiatric visits/treatment.
Anyone who is legally and medically retarded.
Anyone who has committed a summary felony in the last, say, 5 years.
Anyone who has committed an indictable offence pending court hearing.
Potentially the very aged, as they might grow careless.

I also propose that to buy firearms, one must have a licence.
I realise and accept that maybe residential details could be leaked to the press etc. but I guess that there is always a risk of government surveillance, whether licence related or not.
To get this licence, one must present two out of the following three items: Passport, Drivers licence and/or birth certificate.
This means that there is proof of identity.
Also, one must present a medical practitioner's certificate showing that you are not, or have ever been mentally ill.
The last step is when you select which type of firearm you wish to own, be it bolt-action rifles, shotguns, handguns etc.
After you select this, you must undergo weapons training, to ensure competency.

I think this model works well, as bar the aforementioned sections of society, everyone can have a weapon.
Comments?
With people under 16, if the kid is trained and not threatening anyone then why put a limit?
Fair enough. What age limit would you propose, if any?
I merely picked 16 because that is when kids can drive, have sex etc.

Quote
With psychotic people that can be a slippery slope. Who decides who's crazy or not and why? Some are rather obvious but even then...
Again, what would you propose instead.
We can't really let psychotic people have firearms, so better to be on the safe side, no?

Quote
Felons, it depends in the crime. Here in the USA there are so many felonies on the books that pretty much all Americans will beconsidered felons if caught. What we should do is only have crimes that take away either life, liberty, or property or a combination of the three to be felonies and as punishment you either fine them, beat them, or execute them depending on the crime.
Notice I said summary offences.
Summary indicates the need for the accused to attend a hearing, usually indicative of the crime's seriousness.

Quote
As for the aged, I think you punish them if they actually get clumsy and accidentally discharge the weapon and it endangered someone else's property and/or life.
Or we err on the side of caution and prevent tragedy before it happens.

Quote
And lastly any form of ID can be used by a tyrannical government. Watch the 80s version of "red dawn".
Do you think that we should have drivers' licences then?

When required in order to exercise a constitutional right, the parts in bold are considered racist by our current administration and the left-wing in general.

Also, you forgot other types of rifles, so simply saying "rifles" would be best.
Racist? Maybe unconstitutional, but racist?
And I used bolt-action rifles as an example.
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: charles bloomington on November 24, 2015, 03:24:09 AM
I feel rather snobby of quoting myself, but below is the post where I outline my proposed model.

See, gun control of whatever degree is logical.
This is the discussion that should be taking place.
It shouldn't be a question of 'should there be gun control?' it should be a question of 'how much gun control?'
Now that we've established that there has to be some form of restriction, it is a mere question of where do those restrictions apply.

I reckon that the following people should not be allowed guns:
Minors under the age of 16
People who have had a history of psychiatric visits/treatment.
Anyone who is legally and medically retarded.
Anyone who has committed a summary felony in the last, say, 5 years.
Anyone who has committed an indictable offence pending court hearing.
Potentially the very aged, as they might grow careless.

I also propose that to buy firearms, one must have a licence.
I realise and accept that maybe residential details could be leaked to the press etc. but I guess that there is always a risk of government surveillance, whether licence related or not.
To get this licence, one must present two out of the following three items: Passport, Drivers licence and/or birth certificate.
This means that there is proof of identity.
Also, one must present a medical practitioner's certificate showing that you are not, or have ever been mentally ill.
The last step is when you select which type of firearm you wish to own, be it bolt-action rifles, shotguns, handguns etc.
After you select this, you must undergo weapons training, to ensure competency.

I think this model works well, as bar the aforementioned sections of society, everyone can have a weapon.
Comments?
With people under 16, if the kid is trained and not threatening anyone then why put a limit?
Fair enough. What age limit would you propose, if any?
I merely picked 16 because that is when kids can drive, have sex etc.

Quote
With psychotic people that can be a slippery slope. Who decides who's crazy or not and why? Some are rather obvious but even then...
Again, what would you propose instead.
We can't really let psychotic people have firearms, so better to be on the safe side, no?

Quote
Felons, it depends in the crime. Here in the USA there are so many felonies on the books that pretty much all Americans will beconsidered felons if caught. What we should do is only have crimes that take away either life, liberty, or property or a combination of the three to be felonies and as punishment you either fine them, beat them, or execute them depending on the crime.
Notice I said summary offences.
Summary indicates the need for the accused to attend a hearing, usually indicative of the crime's seriousness.

Quote
As for the aged, I think you punish them if they actually get clumsy and accidentally discharge the weapon and it endangered someone else's property and/or life.
Or we err on the side of caution and prevent tragedy before it happens.

Quote
And lastly any form of ID can be used by a tyrannical government. Watch the 80s version of "red dawn".
Do you think that we should have drivers' licences then?

When required in order to exercise a constitutional right, the parts in bold are considered racist by our current administration and the left-wing in general.

Also, you forgot other types of rifles, so simply saying "rifles" would be best.
Racist? Maybe unconstitutional, but racist?
And I used bolt-action rifles as an example.
Summary offence. Is an invitation to attend the court . You dont have to attend if you dont want to. It is a summary of disputed debit for breached contract.Usual an infringment of contract or licence agreement. If you dont attend the court.The court will  order for a warrant to be issued for arest (which is a statute "warranty") Commerce. This is when the fraud & deception starts . They are not sworn officers of your constitutional company. They are private officers & agents for the banks & political parties, a privet corperation, their corperation.  The statutes only apply to shareholders & employees of that company or the fool hood winked in to contracting with them .Hence the undertaking .In commerce your a fictional dead person ,you have no rights period.
Summary courts will tell you they deal in factual law. That fact is your a fiction ,dead & was  lost at sea.In the eyes of the court .You are also a born bankrupt if born after 1933 . So you have lost the moment you walked in their door , its their court not the publics & just if you think you have managed to of sweet talked  pulling a rabbit out of your hat. Geuss again There is no hearing , the only hearing is that of confirming the victoms name , you the dead bankrupt found at sea . The pirates simply divy up the salvage reward.
Summary courts are star chambers.  You dont attend if you want a half pie chance of keeping the shirt on your back . You correspond by afadavits. Your facts not theirs.
Old Scrotum is just sprooking for fools. Dont be sucker punched in to give up your guns by theses lying barth scum.
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: Scroto Gaggins on November 24, 2015, 02:39:55 PM
If you could kindly express your opinions clearly and coherently Charles, that would be much appreciated.
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: Frank Lee on November 24, 2015, 02:51:47 PM
Charles refers to the U.C.C. Law as described by Blacks law dictionary. (Example is "do you understand"?  means "Do you stand under our authority?"
Basically we don't have a chance, so, keep your guns. It is our only hope of liberty.
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: charles bloomington on November 24, 2015, 03:04:45 PM
If you could kindly express your opinions clearly and coherently Charles, that would be much appreciated.
No !! I dont consent . Care to explain how , summary  minor infringments can be listed as criminal offences & carry a crimminal conviction.
When there is no complainants  damage or victom. ? Only a informent.  Who doesn't have to appear at the mention hearing.
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: Scroto Gaggins on November 24, 2015, 03:30:59 PM
If you could kindly express your opinions clearly and coherently Charles, that would be much appreciated.
No !! I dont consent . Care to explain how , summary  minor infringments can be listed as criminal offences & carry a crimminal conviction.
When there is no complainants  damage or victom. ? Only a informent.  Who doesn't have to appear at the mention hearing.
What does the discussion of legal minutiae have to do with the gun control debate?

Charles refers to the U.C.C. Law as described by Blacks law dictionary. (Example is "do you understand"?  means "Do you stand under our authority?"
Basically we don't have a chance, so, keep your guns. It is our only hope of liberty.
Are you expressing your desire to fight the government?
The government has a military and an economy, both a lot more powerful then your own.
So if the police want to summon you to court, you'll scream "No!" and shoot them down?
These police officers who may have done nothing wrong personally?
And then what?
You get all your similarly repressed citizens together and revolt against the government?
You somehow think that you could survive against the largest and best equipped military in the world?
Unless this is the course of action which you want to take, then sure, keep your guns.
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: Frank Lee on November 24, 2015, 04:19:46 PM
If you could kindly express your opinions clearly and coherently Charles, that would be much appreciated.
No !! I dont consent . Care to explain how , summary  minor infringments can be listed as criminal offences & carry a crimminal conviction.
When there is no complainants  damage or victom. ? Only a informent.  Who doesn't have to appear at the mention hearing.
What does the discussion of legal minutiae have to do with the gun control debate?

Charles refers to the U.C.C. Law as described by Blacks law dictionary. (Example is "do you understand"?  means "Do you stand under our authority?"
Basically we don't have a chance, so, keep your guns. It is our only hope of liberty.
Are you expressing your desire to fight the government?
The government has a military and an economy, both a lot more powerful then your own.
So if the police want to summon you to court, you'll scream "No!" and shoot them down?
These police officers who may have done nothing wrong personally?
And then what?
You get all your similarly repressed citizens together and revolt against the government?
You somehow think that you could survive against the largest and best equipped military in the world?
Unless this is the course of action which you want to take, then sure, keep your guns.

Forgive me if I seem brash...but are you crazy Sir or madam?
I would lose if I fought the common cold. You really need to have a cup of coffee, a Pall Mall and calm down friend.
I am a man of peace. I pay my tickets and speak respectful to law enforcement officers, and when I feel I would need to defend someone, it would be the innocent. Yes especially LEO's.
When the law says it is illegal to have an assault rifle, I will turn mine in.
I can only pray that day never comes, until of course, the rightful and righteous King does appear.
He will come in the clouds with power and great glory. We won't miss HIM.
Until then, I ask for the right to defend myself, and yes, I feel, if the military and police have a weapon,
I should have the right to own that same weapon. Let's not forget, They work for us, right?
Peace on earth and good will toward man. Happy Holidays.
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: charles bloomington on November 24, 2015, 11:56:30 PM
If you could kindly express your opinions clearly and coherently Charles, that would be much appreciated.
No !! I dont consent . Care to explain how , summary  minor infringments can be listed as criminal offences & carry a crimminal conviction.
When there is no complainants  damage or victom. ? Only a informent.  Who doesn't have to appear at the mention hearing.
What does the discussion of legal minutiae have to do with the gun control debate?

Charles refers to the U.C.C. Law as described by Blacks law dictionary. (Example is "do you understand"?  means "Do you stand under our authority?"
Basically we don't have a chance, so, keep your guns. It is our only hope of liberty.
Are you expressing your desire to fight the government?
The government has a military and an economy, both a lot more powerful then your own.
So if the police want to summon you to court, you'll scream "No!" and shoot them down?
These police officers who may have done nothing wrong personally?
And then what?
You get all your similarly repressed citizens together and revolt against the government?
You somehow think that you could survive against the largest and best equipped military in the world?
Unless this is the course of action which you want to take, then sure, keep your guns.
It has everything to do with it. A convicted criminal can be some one who forgot to buckle up their seat belt,  or didn't pay their dog registration on time .  Convicted criminals can't possess or own a firearm under your scam .oh & I dont want to fight your fiat Governments.  I want to see them brought before a Grand jury & tried for treason ,servitude & slavery . And  if found guilty by a jury of 12 ,sentenced to be hung from the neck till dead.
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: Soulblood on November 25, 2015, 12:09:34 AM
Ah, freeman bullshit ... this forum really does have everything ...
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: Scroto Gaggins on November 25, 2015, 12:28:44 AM
If you could kindly express your opinions clearly and coherently Charles, that would be much appreciated.
No !! I dont consent . Care to explain how , summary  minor infringments can be listed as criminal offences & carry a crimminal conviction.
When there is no complainants  damage or victom. ? Only a informent.  Who doesn't have to appear at the mention hearing.
What does the discussion of legal minutiae have to do with the gun control debate?

Charles refers to the U.C.C. Law as described by Blacks law dictionary. (Example is "do you understand"?  means "Do you stand under our authority?"
Basically we don't have a chance, so, keep your guns. It is our only hope of liberty.
Are you expressing your desire to fight the government?
The government has a military and an economy, both a lot more powerful then your own.
So if the police want to summon you to court, you'll scream "No!" and shoot them down?
These police officers who may have done nothing wrong personally?
And then what?
You get all your similarly repressed citizens together and revolt against the government?
You somehow think that you could survive against the largest and best equipped military in the world?
Unless this is the course of action which you want to take, then sure, keep your guns.
It has everything to do with it. A convicted criminal can be some one who forgot to buckle up their seat belt,  or didn't pay their dog registration on time .  Convicted criminals can't possess or own a firearm under your scam .oh & I dont want to fight your fiat Governments.  I want to see them brought before a Grand jury & tried for treason ,servitude & slavery . And  if found guilty by a jury of 12 ,sentenced to be hung from the neck till dead.
By all means, discuss the nuances of my model.
But please, do so in a coherent manner.

Forgive me if I seem brash...but are you crazy Sir or madam?
Please, just Scroto will suffice.

Quote
I would lose if I fought the common cold. You really need to have a cup of coffee, a Pall Mall and calm down friend.
I'm probably more of a cup of tea, ramen noodles and Netflix kind of person.

Quote
I am a man of peace.
Likewise.

Quote
I pay my tickets and speak respectful to law enforcement officers, and when I feel I would need to defend someone, it would be the innocent. Yes especially LEO's.
Great.

Quote
When the law says it is illegal to have an assault rifle, I will turn mine in.
Great.

Quote
I can only pray that day never comes, until of course, the rightful and righteous King does appear.
He will come in the clouds with power and great glory. We won't miss HIM.
Great.

Quote
Until then, I ask for the right to defend myself, and yes, I feel, if the military and police have a weapon,
I should have the right to own that same weapon.
I thought you were a man of peace?
Why own a weapon if you are so adverse to bloodshed?
If you're using the weapon for self defence, then it follows that people will be killed, or wounded.
If you don't plan on ever using a weapon in the aforementioned way, then why own one?

Quote
Peace on earth and good will toward man. Happy Holidays.
And to you, good sir.
Happy holidays.
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: Frank Lee on November 25, 2015, 02:01:56 AM
Quote
Until then, I ask for the right to defend myself, and yes, I feel, if the military and police have a weapon,
I should have the right to own that same weapon.
I thought you were a man of peace?
Why own a weapon if you are so adverse to bloodshed?
If you're using the weapon for self defence, then it follows that people will be killed, or wounded.
If you don't plan on ever using a weapon in the aforementioned way, then why own one?

[/quote]

EVERYTIME i holster my weapon, i consider the gravity of the situation you describe. I pray every time,
that i never need to use it. After all, the righteous law i hold to says, "Thou shalt not kill" Nothing unclear about that. But as a man, should someone wish to do me great harm (Or others), he (or she), should be
well aware, that here, there is a real possibility they may need to pay with their life.
I am certain that just this awareness has the potential if dissuading much crime and violence.
I must also be aware of the potential consequences, as every responsible gun owner knows,
the moment you pull your weapon, your life will change. I like my life as imperfect as it may be.
The citizens are the militia, may we be a society of wise, strong, peaceful people.
May love abound.
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: charles bloomington on November 25, 2015, 03:01:57 AM
Ah, freeman bullshit ... this forum really does have everything ...
So you condone servatude & slavery do you.?
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: Scroto Gaggins on November 25, 2015, 03:28:11 AM
Ah, freeman bullshit ... this forum really does have everything ...
So you condone servatude & slavery do you.?
If we were slaves, then the expression of said slavery would be a crime.
It isn't.
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: charles bloomington on November 25, 2015, 04:26:35 PM
Ah, freeman bullshit ... this forum really does have everything ...
So you condone servatude & slavery do you.?
If we were slaves, then the expression of said slavery would be a crime.
It isn't.

Division 270óSlavery, sexual servitude and deceptive recruiting
270.1  Definition of slavery
                   For the purposes of this Division, slavery is the condition of a person over whom any or all of the powers attaching to the right of ownership are exercised, including where such a condition results from a debt or contract made by the person.
Care to tell me scrotum Gaggins why people are still being force by threats of seizure & sale of there fee simple titlied land by the courts , if they dont keep  paying unlawful council rates on there home . Even after they have discharged their morgage.
So who owns the firearm once its registered.? It seems you dont own proprietary of your home or hold it in fee simple title once the title is registered. Even though the state guarantee its held in fee simple.
So who owns the firearm if its registered. ?
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: Scroto Gaggins on November 27, 2015, 12:24:15 AM
Well, Charles, since I really can't comprehend what you are trying to say, I'm gonna have to ask someone else to explain your comments.
Anyone?
What is Mr. Bloomington talking about.
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: charles bloomington on November 27, 2015, 04:37:28 AM
Well, Charles, since I really can't comprehend what you are trying to say, I'm gonna have to ask someone else to explain your comments.
Anyone?
What is Mr. Bloomington talking about.
Its a simple question ,who owns the gun once its been registered by the purchaser. ?
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: Frank Lee on November 27, 2015, 04:43:07 AM

What is Mr. Bloomington talking about.

I pray Mr. Bloomington's point is properly reflected here, so i shall try. What he say's is true, it is law.
(A preface), Sovereign = Human (You, Mr. Scroto Gaggins)  Straw man = Legal fiction (MR. SCROTO GAGGINS)
2 concepts are put forth, 1, Ownership (Slavery)     2, Contracts (Permissions)
Registration is  a certificate of ownership. For people it is their birth certificate. (Notice all CAPs)
For property (As we would call it)  it is the registration. (It will be in all CAP's)
(Sidebar- A license is permission to do something that is, in fact, illegal.) (It will be in all CAP's)
These are all contracts, in the eyes of the law. You are asking for permission to have and use them.
You think you are a man, you are in fact, in the eyes of the law "A human resource"
As soon as you register, in this case, your gun, you are entering into a contract, that gives you the "right" to use it (Possess it), at the governments discretion.
Citizens are forced, (by threat of violence) to pay taxes. We pay license fees, registration fees, property taxes, sales taxes etc. Failure to pay will revoke any rights you think you have.
Question is are you really free? What do you really own?
Don't pay your taxes and you will find your self destitute, with not so much as the shirt on your back.
Perhaps even in a cage.
(Money is a whole other concept we shan't touch on.)
Be prudent and take care when entering into a contract, which most don't understand.
I pray Charles correct me where I am wrong.
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: Scroto Gaggins on November 27, 2015, 05:02:13 AM

What is Mr. Bloomington talking about.

I pray Mr. Bloomington's point is properly reflected here, so i shall try. What he say's is true, it is law.
(A preface), Sovereign = Human (You, Mr. Scroto Gaggins)  Straw man = Legal fiction (MR. SCROTO GAGGINS)
2 concepts are put forth, 1, Ownership (Slavery)     2, Contracts (Permissions)
Registration is  a certificate of ownership. For people it is their birth certificate. (Notice all CAPs)
For property (As we would call it)  it is the registration. (It will be in all CAP's)
(Sidebar- A license is permission to do something that is, in fact, illegal.) (It will be in all CAP's)
These are all contracts, in the eyes of the law. You are asking for permission to have and use them.
You think you are a man, you are in fact, in the eyes of the law "A human resource"
As soon as you register, in this case, your gun, you are entering into a contract, that gives you the "right" to use it (Possess it), at the governments discretion.
Citizens are forced, (by threat of violence) to pay taxes. We pay license fees, registration fees, property taxes, sales taxes etc. Failure to pay will revoke any rights you think you have.
Question is are you really free? What do you really own?
Don't pay your taxes and you will find your self destitute, with not so much as the shirt on your back.
Perhaps even in a cage.
(Money is a whole other concept we shan't touch on.)
Be prudent and take care when entering into a contract, which most don't understand.
I pray Charles correct me where I am wrong.
But bearing in mind that it is both a choice and luxury to have a firearm, isn't registration of it reasonable?
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: Frank Lee on November 27, 2015, 05:39:07 AM

But bearing in mind that it is both a choice and luxury to have a firearm, isn't registration of it reasonable?
[/quote]

No, in fact, it truly is not.     It is a choice. A very important and very personal choice.
But a luxury it is not. A $50,000 car is a luxury. A spare bedroom is a luxury. Gold necklace.. etc.
A gun should be a matter of rights, both for personal defense, and the well being of community.
To register it and give ownership of it to the government would be a grave mistake.
As a licensed owner, who has been scrutinized by law enforcement authorities, should not that be adequate?
I do not believe that the license is by any means needed, but, as a good citizen, and for the right to carry
concealed, I comply.
Either way, whatever rules are passed, they should be passed by the states, not the federal government.
This way if a gun free zone is enacted, a person who would feel comfortable there, could move.
States made clear, the federal government, may not infringe on the right of citizens to keep and bear arms.
Leave it to the Sheriffs to enforce state laws. Sheriff is the only constitutional law enforcement authority.
To them the utmost respect should be offered. As they have all my respect, no person will ever hurt a LEO
on my watch. We are all in this together. Lets all watch each others backs. I only hope if  i am badly hurt,
there will be a responsible person to come to my aid. And yours, good sir.
Gun registration is a very serious mistake. They will be removed in short order once it takes place.
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: 29silhouette on November 27, 2015, 10:11:41 AM
Racist? Maybe unconstitutional, but racist?
And I used bolt-action rifles as an example.
Yes pretty much, racist.  You see, the left-wingers here in the U.S. often imply that requiring an ID to exercise a constitutional right is racist.  Getting an ID requires proof of citizenship, SS card, birth certificate, etc, and to do this requires fees, driving someplace (what if they don't have a car) and therefore transportation costs, etc, etc, etc. 

Now, according to these same people, it's a burden for poor people to meet these requirements, and it's 'racist' because (also according to them) poor people lacking ID are predominately black, hispanic, or other minority.  This is all regarding voter ID laws and the prevention of voter fraud. 

So, if it's racist to require identification to vote (a constitutional right) because of the processes, transportation, and associated fees, then it must also be racist to require an ID in addition to firearm insurance, training classes, evaluations, etc, to own a firearm (also a constitutional right) because of the processes, transportation, and associated fees for meeting those requirements.
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: Scroto Gaggins on November 27, 2015, 03:17:45 PM
Racist? Maybe unconstitutional, but racist?
And I used bolt-action rifles as an example.
Yes pretty much, racist.  You see, the left-wingers here in the U.S. often imply that requiring an ID to exercise a constitutional right is racist.  Getting an ID requires proof of citizenship, SS card, birth certificate, etc, and to do this requires fees, driving someplace (what if they don't have a car) and therefore transportation costs, etc, etc, etc. 

Now, according to these same people, it's a burden for poor people to meet these requirements, and it's 'racist' because (also according to them) poor people lacking ID are predominately black, hispanic, or other minority.  This is all regarding voter ID laws and the prevention of voter fraud. 

So, if it's racist to require identification to vote (a constitutional right) because of the processes, transportation, and associated fees, then it must also be racist to require an ID in addition to firearm insurance, training classes, evaluations, etc, to own a firearm (also a constitutional right) because of the processes, transportation, and associated fees for meeting those requirements.
It's at this point that i'm not sure if you are being left-wing, or playing devil's advocate.
But what I'm getting from you is that gun control should only be implemented in the upper-middle class community.
If it is indeed racist to demand ID from those who may lack financial stability, should we just let anyone buy a gun, as demanding ID from someone could be racist?
Basically, though, in response to Mr. Lee's post also, the ownership of a gun is a luxury.
It is non-essential (if it was essential, then explain places like Japan).
Guns are, in most cases, owned by people who also have more guns.
If one is able to buy multiple firearms, and ammunition thereof, from a firearm dealer, then it is not that much of a burden to provide ID.

Your point does stand that in the current system, gun control can discriminate based on income.
My model is an ideal society, and in an ideal society, the government takes care of it's citizens.
If it is financially stressful for some to provide ID, attend classes, etc. then the government must make those things cheaper.
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: Frank Lee on November 28, 2015, 02:51:39 AM

Basically, though, in response to Mr. Lee's post also, the ownership of a gun is a luxury.
It is non-essential (if it was essential, then explain places like Japan).



I understand how one could say it is a luxury to own a gun. In the strictest sense, perhaps it is.
I will be forced to add that locks on your car and house, ignition keys to start a vehicle, security cameras,
alarm systems are all luxury's.
Perhaps this is true in a sense, but, with the world being less than perfect, I do hold it to be a form of
protection, and quite a bit more than a luxury.

If one were to live in a very rural area, where few people are, it would be much more of a luxury perhaps,
but then, you would need to take into account, that it could be used as a tool to hunt food, if eating
flesh is your thing.

No arguments here. Just working thru ideas.

I can not wait till swords and spears are beat into plows and pruning hooks. That is the only realistic
model you could offer that I believe will be possible.

About Japan. Many differences, and things are changing.
Just a snip it. (From NationMaster Blog)

What are most disturbing are however arguments that the low crime is partially a result of a police culture that are obsessed with keeping crime statistics low. Former detectives claim that police is unwilling to investigate homicides unless there is a clear suspects and frequently labels unnatural deaths as suicides without performing autopsies. Coincidentally, Japan has one of the highest suicide rates in the world.
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: charles bloomington on November 28, 2015, 03:10:50 AM

What is Mr. Bloomington talking about.

I pray Mr. Bloomington's point is properly reflected here, so i shall try. What he say's is true, it is law.
(A preface), Sovereign = Human (You, Mr. Scroto Gaggins)  Straw man = Legal fiction (MR. SCROTO GAGGINS)
2 concepts are put forth, 1, Ownership (Slavery)     2, Contracts (Permissions)
Registration is  a certificate of ownership. For people it is their birth certificate. (Notice all CAPs)
For property (As we would call it)  it is the registration. (It will be in all CAP's)
(Sidebar- A license is permission to do something that is, in fact, illegal.) (It will be in all CAP's)
These are all contracts, in the eyes of the law. You are asking for permission to have and use them.
You think you are a man, you are in fact, in the eyes of the law "A human resource"
As soon as you register, in this case, your gun, you are entering into a contract, that gives you the "right" to use it (Possess it), at the governments discretion.
Citizens are forced, (by threat of violence) to pay taxes. We pay license fees, registration fees, property taxes, sales taxes etc. Failure to pay will revoke any rights you think you have.
Question is are you really free? What do you really own?
Don't pay your taxes and you will find your self destitute, with not so much as the shirt on your back.
Perhaps even in a cage.
(Money is a whole other concept we shan't touch on.)
Be prudent and take care when entering into a contract, which most don't understand.
I pray Charles correct me where I am wrong.
But bearing in mind that it is both a choice and luxury to have a firearm, isn't registration of it reasonable?
Theres  no bearing in mind .
Its not a choice.As your inalienable rights provides , that no contract needs to be entered in to unless you wish to give up that right. Theres no choice for there is no requirement for  anything to be chosen . Its your own " personal preference  & no ones else's business " & its certainly not a luxury, because that would constatute  an  implied contract . You haven't entered in to .


In Australian scrotum Gaggins . Its clear in the trade practices act 1974 section 80 . No one has to do business with a company or corporation if they do not wish to . Last I checked a  fiat government is a corporation I can chose not to do business with on any  agreement proposed & put forward  ,I wish not to contract to.
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: Scroto Gaggins on November 28, 2015, 04:58:31 AM

Basically, though, in response to Mr. Lee's post also, the ownership of a gun is a luxury.
It is non-essential (if it was essential, then explain places like Japan).



I understand how one could say it is a luxury to own a gun. In the strictest sense, perhaps it is.
I will be forced to add that locks on your car and house, ignition keys to start a vehicle, security cameras,
alarm systems are all luxury's.
Perhaps this is true in a sense, but, with the world being less than perfect, I do hold it to be a form of
protection, and quite a bit more than a luxury.
To the contrary, protection is a luxury, and should only be used if needed.
i.e. if you live in the middle of nowhere, then you don't need locks on your door.


Quote
If one were to live in a very rural area, where few people are, it would be much more of a luxury perhaps,
but then, you would need to take into account, that it could be used as a tool to hunt food, if eating
flesh is your thing.
Also to the contrary, lots of my friends who grew up on farms used rifles all the damn time.
For pests, etc.

Quote
I can not wait till swords and spears are beat into plows and pruning hooks. That is the only realistic
model you could offer that I believe will be possible.
I cannot wait until that day as well, my friend.
But in the meantime, there should be restrictions on weapons being available to the public.

Quote
About Japan. Many differences, and things are changing.
Just a snip it. (From NationMaster Blog)

What are most disturbing are however arguments that the low crime is partially a result of a police culture that are obsessed with keeping crime statistics low. Former detectives claim that police is unwilling to investigate homicides unless there is a clear suspects and frequently labels unnatural deaths as suicides without performing autopsies. Coincidentally, Japan has one of the highest suicide rates in the world.
The United States's suicide rate is 2/3 of Japan's.
Not as high, but still fairly high.
Meanwhile, the United States's murder rate is ten times as high as that of Japan.
Just saying.
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: Frank Lee on November 28, 2015, 06:14:44 AM

To the contrary, protection is a luxury, and should only be used if needed.


Here I must say nay.
It can only be a luxury if you rely on someone else for your full protection.
To defend myself is a right. A lion in captivity needs no teeth. But not being a prisoner, it's teeth are no luxury. Example "There is never a cop around when you need one"
As people are not animals (for the most part). People will only protect themselves when endangered. (Or one of his own). Or am I a prisoner and slave?
If a human is an animal, (Probably a result of a society that foments unrest and insecurity), I will also ask
for the right to protect myself from such an one.
'Tis fun conversing with you!
I wonder why you referred to the "damn gun" in this rant though?

"Also to the contrary, lots of my friends who grew up on farms used rifles all the damn time.
For pests, etc."
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: Scroto Gaggins on November 28, 2015, 04:01:19 PM

To the contrary, protection is a luxury, and should only be used if needed.


Here I must say nay.
It can only be a luxury if you rely on someone else for your full protection.
To defend myself is a right. A lion in captivity needs no teeth. But not being a prisoner, it's teeth are no luxury. Example "There is never a cop around when you need one"
As people are not animals (for the most part). People will only protect themselves when endangered. (Or one of his own). Or am I a prisoner and slave?
If a human is an animal, (Probably a result of a society that foments unrest and insecurity), I will also ask
for the right to protect myself from such an one.
Sure, in my model, if you pass the evaluations and are properly trained, then you can protect yourself all you like.

Quote
'Tis fun conversing with you!
My feelings exactly, good sir.

Quote
I wonder why you referred to the "damn gun" in this rant though?

"Also to the contrary, lots of my friends who grew up on farms used rifles all the damn time.
For pests, etc."
No, I think you'll find that i referred to guns being used "all the damn time"
Pardon my mannerisms, being the colonial frontiersmen that we Australians are, it is inevitable that a certain rough quality permeates into our writing.
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: charles bloomington on November 28, 2015, 09:20:26 PM

To the contrary, protection is a luxury, and should only be used if needed.


Here I must say nay.
It can only be a luxury if you rely on someone else for your full protection.
To defend myself is a right. A lion in captivity needs no teeth. But not being a prisoner, it's teeth are no luxury. Example "There is never a cop around when you need one"
As people are not animals (for the most part). People will only protect themselves when endangered. (Or one of his own). Or am I a prisoner and slave?
If a human is an animal, (Probably a result of a society that foments unrest and insecurity), I will also ask
for the right to protect myself from such an one.
Sure, in my model, if you pass the evaluations and are properly trained, then you can protect yourself all you like.

Quote
'Tis fun conversing with you!
My feelings exactly, good sir.

Quote
I wonder why you referred to the "damn gun" in this rant though?

"Also to the contrary, lots of my friends who grew up on farms used rifles all the damn time.
For pests, etc."
No, I think you'll find that i referred to guns being used "all the damn time"
Pardon my mannerisms, being the colonial frontiersmen that we Australians are, it is inevitable that a certain rough quality permeates into our writing.
Sure, in my model, if you pass the evaluations and are properly trained, then you can protect yourself all you like.
Who will be doing the evaluations ? So if you are properly trained , then you can protect yourself all you like. So then what your saying is , if you dont pass some fiat coperations evaluation & training , you have lost your right to protect yourself. Sounds like this evaluation & training is a process of being  rail roaded .
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: Scroto Gaggins on November 29, 2015, 12:42:36 AM
Charles, are you saying that there should be anarchy?
Because unless there is a hierarchy of power, then that's what it will be.
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: charles bloomington on November 29, 2015, 01:44:24 AM
Charles, are you saying that there should be anarchy?
Because unless there is a hierarchy of power, then that's what it will be.
Anarchy no, "honesty" yes. Being forced to consent to a system run on lies & dishonest manipulation. Exstorting exploiting , useing & abusing peoples trust . Is not hierarchy of power. Its nothing more then manipulated fraud & corruption by dishonest elitists. Persons I would never want to see ever  having any say in who gets to own a firearm.

Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: Scroto Gaggins on November 29, 2015, 02:22:32 AM
Charles, are you saying that there should be anarchy?
Because unless there is a hierarchy of power, then that's what it will be.
Anarchy no, "honesty" yes. Being forced to consent to a system run on lies & dishonest manipulation. Exstorting exploiting , useing & abusing peoples trust . Is not hierarchy of power. Its nothing more then manipulated fraud & corruption by dishonest elitists. Persons I would never want to see ever  having any say in who gets to own a firearm.
Name me any society that existed in history, and I will name you the person(s) in charge.
If you can see this manipulation in today's society, then you should see it in all societies.
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: Frank Lee on November 29, 2015, 02:30:29 AM
Charles, are you saying that there should be anarchy?
Because unless there is a hierarchy of power, then that's what it will be.

Oops, you've draw me back! Good day, good sirs.
Clearly here, a truly marvelous concept has been skewed. I speak of this concept of anarchy. The word has been used for decades now to be thought of as chaos. It is by no means chaos.
The word anarchy actually come from the term anti-archon. It means against the ruler or ruling class.
Chaos means the lack of order. Anarchy means no ruling elite. Here we must break the shackles of brainwashing.
The states in the US had this vision in mind i believe. Once the Federal government was formed, the ruling class got right to work. They established the Federal reserve, (A private cabal of international banks).
Began calling our republic a "democracy", removed from congress the power to select senators and now
"elects" them by popular vote. It is a shame and a crime. Money will buy power. Who controls the money?
An anarchy will always have a steering and guidance body. of the people, by the people and for the people.
Truth be told, I believe men's fears will return them to this idea of centralized power.
So my point is just to clarify that anarchy is not chaos.
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: Scroto Gaggins on November 29, 2015, 04:16:42 AM
Charles, are you saying that there should be anarchy?
Because unless there is a hierarchy of power, then that's what it will be.

Oops, you've draw me back! Good day, good sirs.
Clearly here, a truly marvelous concept has been skewed. I speak of this concept of anarchy. The word has been used for decades now to be thought of as chaos. It is by no means chaos.
The word anarchy actually come from the term anti-archon. It means against the ruler or ruling class.
Chaos means the lack of order. Anarchy means no ruling elite. Here we must break the shackles of brainwashing.
The states in the US had this vision in mind i believe. Once the Federal government was formed, the ruling class got right to work. They established the Federal reserve, (A private cabal of international banks).
Began calling our republic a "democracy", removed from congress the power to select senators and now
"elects" them by popular vote. It is a shame and a crime. Money will buy power. Who controls the money?
An anarchy will always have a steering and guidance body. of the people, by the people and for the people.
Truth be told, I believe men's fears will return them to this idea of centralized power.
So my point is just to clarify that anarchy is not chaos.
True, but never once did I compare anarchy to chaos.
It is just that in an anarchic society, there will be inevitable bloodshed and misery caused by our reverting to primitive societal hierarchies.
In nature, the physically strong (usually males) are in control.
In our current system, like it or not, one can't deny that our quality of life is quite good.

Need I also remind old Charlie that there are always going to be laws that have to be obeyed.
Laws of motion, etc.
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: Frank Lee on November 29, 2015, 04:36:23 AM

In our current system, like it or not, one can't deny that our quality of life is quite good.


As long as the leaders are held accountable for their actions. This is clearly going the way of the dodo.
National security, denial of freedom of information, and political double speak along with undeniable
secret societies (openly admitted by John Kerry and G.W. Bush on mainstream T.V.). I fear that this good life
may soon become quite an unpleasant experience. I do pray I am wrong. Not as much for my sake,
but for the sake of future generations. It seems we have lived beyond our means at the cost of our future generations. My apologies to them for my apathy.
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: charles bloomington on November 29, 2015, 12:39:12 PM
Charles, are you saying that there should be anarchy?
Because unless there is a hierarchy of power, then that's what it will be.

Oops, you've draw me back! Good day, good sirs.
Clearly here, a truly marvelous concept has been skewed. I speak of this concept of anarchy. The word has been used for decades now to be thought of as chaos. It is by no means chaos.
The word anarchy actually come from the term anti-archon. It means against the ruler or ruling class.
Chaos means the lack of order. Anarchy means no ruling elite. Here we must break the shackles of brainwashing.
The states in the US had this vision in mind i believe. Once the Federal government was formed, the ruling class got right to work. They established the Federal reserve, (A private cabal of international banks).
Began calling our republic a "democracy", removed from congress the power to select senators and now
"elects" them by popular vote. It is a shame and a crime. Money will buy power. Who controls the money?
An anarchy will always have a steering and guidance body. of the people, by the people and for the people.
Truth be told, I believe men's fears will return them to this idea of centralized power.
So my point is just to clarify that anarchy is not chaos.
True, but never once did I compare anarchy to chaos.
It is just that in an anarchic society, there will be inevitable bloodshed and misery caused by our reverting to primitive societal hierarchies.
In nature, the physically strong (usually males) are in control.
In our current system, like it or not, one can't deny that our quality of life is quite good.

Need I also remind old Charlie that there are always going to be laws that have to be obeyed.
Laws of motion, etc.
Lets talk about theses laws & lets talk about the misconceptions of what is law & what is not law , but code rules & privet coperations constatution that apply only to their employees & shareholders. Before giving up the right to own & use a firearm. 
Something that is lawful or unlawful is law. Something that is legal is legislation (company policy) , it applies only to the corporations employees & shareholders Or those holding a policy with the corporation & or a contract binding them  to that company policy .
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: Scroto Gaggins on November 29, 2015, 02:40:11 PM
This thread is being derailed by discussions on the validity of laws and governments both.
If you want to make another thread about this, then do so.
This thread is about gun control, and all discussions thereof are predicated on the assumption that democracy exists and governments are benign.
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: charles bloomington on November 30, 2015, 12:03:17 PM
This thread is being derailed by discussions on the validity of laws and governments both.
If you want to make another thread about this, then do so.
This thread is about gun control, and all discussions thereof are predicated on the assumption that democracy exists and governments are benign.
Running from the truth ,I rest my case.
Dont give up your rights , dont give up your guns. Till & when  you know who your contracting with. Demand to know who your contracting with , never just assume. If you dont like the contract proposed & its terms . Then dont contract.
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: Scroto Gaggins on November 30, 2015, 02:56:02 PM
This thread is being derailed by discussions on the validity of laws and governments both.
If you want to make another thread about this, then do so.
This thread is about gun control, and all discussions thereof are predicated on the assumption that democracy exists and governments are benign.
Running from the truth ,I rest my case.
Dont give up your rights , dont give up your guns. Till & when  you know who your contracting with. Demand to know who your contracting with , never just assume. If you dont like the contract proposed & its terms . Then dont contract.
No, I'm not running from the truth.
I'm merely saying that this discussion is between sane people, who don't make grand claims of governmental evil from their comfortable armchairs.
You may believe that all governments are evil, that's fine.
It's just that if that is your standpoint, then any contributions you make to this particular thread will be rather off-topic and counter-productive.
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: charles bloomington on December 01, 2015, 12:46:20 AM
This thread is being derailed by discussions on the validity of laws and governments both.
If you want to make another thread about this, then do so.
This thread is about gun control, and all discussions thereof are predicated on the assumption that democracy exists and governments are benign.
Running from the truth ,I rest my case.
Dont give up your rights , dont give up your guns. Till & when  you know who your contracting with. Demand to know who your contracting with , never just assume. If you dont like the contract proposed & its terms . Then dont contract.
No, I'm not running from the truth.
I'm merely saying that this discussion is between sane people, who don't make grand claims of governmental evil from their comfortable armchairs.
You may believe that all governments are evil, that's fine.
It's just that if that is your standpoint, then any contributions you make to this particular thread will be rather off-topic and counter-productive.
Listen here ya pharken sock puppet. Why don't you provide some evidence  they are public constatuted Governments . Seen as you claim they are &   are making grand claims anyone questioning  their validity to enact firearm controling laws is not sane. 
There are plentiful links to documents on the net that evidence them as fiat. Lets see what you can provide to change those heavly evidenced observations.
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: Scroto Gaggins on December 01, 2015, 04:01:56 AM
This thread is being derailed by discussions on the validity of laws and governments both.
If you want to make another thread about this, then do so.
This thread is about gun control, and all discussions thereof are predicated on the assumption that democracy exists and governments are benign.
Running from the truth ,I rest my case.
Dont give up your rights , dont give up your guns. Till & when  you know who your contracting with. Demand to know who your contracting with , never just assume. If you dont like the contract proposed & its terms . Then dont contract.
No, I'm not running from the truth.
I'm merely saying that this discussion is between sane people, who don't make grand claims of governmental evil from their comfortable armchairs.
You may believe that all governments are evil, that's fine.
It's just that if that is your standpoint, then any contributions you make to this particular thread will be rather off-topic and counter-productive.
Listen here ya pharken sock puppet. Why don't you provide some evidence  they are public constatuted Governments . Seen as you claim they are &   are making grand claims anyone questioning  their validity to enact firearm controling laws is not sane. 
There are plentiful links to documents on the net that evidence them as fiat. Lets see what you can provide to change those heavly evidenced observations.
Can I just ask some questions?
Do you think that all governments that have ever existed have been corrupt at some level?
Do you think that any governments that exist right now are not corrupt?
Do you think that a government can ever exist without corruption of some kind?
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: Misero on December 01, 2015, 12:56:23 PM
This thread is being derailed by discussions on the validity of laws and governments both.
If you want to make another thread about this, then do so.
This thread is about gun control, and all discussions thereof are predicated on the assumption that democracy exists and governments are benign.
Running from the truth ,I rest my case.
Dont give up your rights , dont give up your guns. Till & when  you know who your contracting with. Demand to know who your contracting with , never just assume. If you dont like the contract proposed & its terms . Then dont contract.
No, I'm not running from the truth.
I'm merely saying that this discussion is between sane people, who don't make grand claims of governmental evil from their comfortable armchairs.
You may believe that all governments are evil, that's fine.
It's just that if that is your standpoint, then any contributions you make to this particular thread will be rather off-topic and counter-productive.
Listen here ya pharken sock puppet. Why don't you provide some evidence  they are public constatuted Governments . Seen as you claim they are &   are making grand claims anyone questioning  their validity to enact firearm controling laws is not sane. 
There are plentiful links to documents on the net that evidence them as fiat. Lets see what you can provide to change those heavly evidenced observations.
Can I just ask some questions?
Do you think that all governments that have ever existed have been corrupt at some level?
Do you think that any governments that exist right now are not corrupt?
Do you think that a government can ever exist without corruption of some kind?
Joining the shitstorm now:
Yes
No
Yes

Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: charles bloomington on December 01, 2015, 01:07:06 PM
This thread is being derailed by discussions on the validity of laws and governments both.
If you want to make another thread about this, then do so.
This thread is about gun control, and all discussions thereof are predicated on the assumption that democracy exists and governments are benign.
Running from the truth ,I rest my case.
Dont give up your rights , dont give up your guns. Till & when  you know who your contracting with. Demand to know who your contracting with , never just assume. If you dont like the contract proposed & its terms . Then dont contract.
No, I'm not running from the truth.
I'm merely saying that this discussion is between sane people, who don't make grand claims of governmental evil from their comfortable armchairs.
You may believe that all governments are evil, that's fine.
It's just that if that is your standpoint, then any contributions you make to this particular thread will be rather off-topic and counter-productive.
Listen here ya pharken sock puppet. Why don't you provide some evidence  they are public constatuted Governments . Seen as you claim they are &   are making grand claims anyone questioning  their validity to enact firearm controling laws is not sane. 
There are plentiful links to documents on the net that evidence them as fiat. Lets see what you can provide to change those heavly evidenced observations.
Can I just ask some questions?
Do you think that all governments that have ever existed have been corrupt at some level?
Do you think that any governments that exist right now are not corrupt?
Do you think that a government can ever exist without corruption of some kind?
Governments only function with honesty & integrity , when there is separation of powers .The executive .The legislature. The judiciary.  Bound to the provisions set down  in a lawful constitution document of that country.
That constatution being the lawful document to operate under by agreement of its public citizens.
Do we have that anymore ? Or do we have privet political parties running their own agenda.?
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: TheEarthIsASphere. on December 01, 2015, 01:13:51 PM
This thread is being derailed by discussions on the validity of laws and governments both.
If you want to make another thread about this, then do so.
This thread is about gun control, and all discussions thereof are predicated on the assumption that democracy exists and governments are benign.
Running from the truth ,I rest my case.
Dont give up your rights , dont give up your guns. Till & when  you know who your contracting with. Demand to know who your contracting with , never just assume. If you dont like the contract proposed & its terms . Then dont contract.
No, I'm not running from the truth.
I'm merely saying that this discussion is between sane people, who don't make grand claims of governmental evil from their comfortable armchairs.
You may believe that all governments are evil, that's fine.
It's just that if that is your standpoint, then any contributions you make to this particular thread will be rather off-topic and counter-productive.
Listen here ya pharken sock puppet. Why don't you provide some evidence  they are public constatuted Governments . Seen as you claim they are &   are making grand claims anyone questioning  their validity to enact firearm controling laws is not sane. 
There are plentiful links to documents on the net that evidence them as fiat. Lets see what you can provide to change those heavly evidenced observations.
Can I just ask some questions?
Do you think that all governments that have ever existed have been corrupt at some level?
Do you think that any governments that exist right now are not corrupt?
Do you think that a government can ever exist without corruption of some kind?
Governments only function with honesty & integrity , when there is separation of powers .The executive .The legislature. The judiciary.  Bound to the provisions set down  in a lawful constitution document of that country.
That constatution being the lawful document to operate under by agreement of its public citizens.

Funny enough that you mention that the government should follow the constitution. You anti-gun control freaks seem to have missed the "well-regulated" part of the 2nd Amendment, which implies gun control:

Quote
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.
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: charles bloomington on December 01, 2015, 01:32:32 PM
[Uote author=TheEarthIsRound. link=topic=64592.msg1734250#msg1734250 date=1449004431]
This thread is being derailed by discussions on the validity of laws and governments both.
If you want to make another thread about this, then do so.
This thread is about gun control, and all discussions thereof are predicated on the assumption that democracy exists and governments are benign.
Running from the truth ,I rest my case.
Dont give up your rights , dont give up your guns. Till & when  you know who your contracting with. Demand to know who your contracting with , never just assume. If you dont like the contract proposed & its terms . Then dont contract.
No, I'm not running from the truth.
I'm merely saying that this discussion is between sane people, who don't make grand claims of governmental evil from their comfortable armchairs.
You may believe that all governments are evil, that's fine.
It's just that if that is your standpoint, then any contributions you make to this particular thread will be rather off-topic and counter-productive.
Listen here ya pharken sock puppet. Why don't you provide some evidence  they are public constatuted Governments . Seen as you claim they are &   are making grand claims anyone questioning  their validity to enact firearm controling laws is not sane. 
There are plentiful links to documents on the net that evidence them as fiat. Lets see what you can provide to change those heavly evidenced observations.
Can I just ask some questions?
Do you think that all governments that have ever existed have been corrupt at some level?
Do you think that any governments that exist right now are not corrupt?
Do you think that a government can ever exist without corruption of some kind?
Governments only function with honesty & integrity , when there is separation of powers .The executive .The legislature. The judiciary.  Bound to the provisions set down  in a lawful constitution document of that country.
That constatution being the lawful document to operate under by agreement of its public citizens.

Funny enough that you mention that the government should follow the constitution. You anti-gun control freaks seem to have missed the "well-regulated" part of the 2nd Amendment, which implies gun control:

Quote
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.

Security of a free state , implies just that . No taxes or charges on privet owned land.
That is the USA constatution . Not to confuse it with the constatution of the privet coperation US.
So which constitution is opperating. Who is pushing for the gun controls .
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: TheEarthIsASphere. on December 01, 2015, 01:39:35 PM
This thread is being derailed by discussions on the validity of laws and governments both.
If you want to make another thread about this, then do so.
This thread is about gun control, and all discussions thereof are predicated on the assumption that democracy exists and governments are benign.
Running from the truth ,I rest my case.
Dont give up your rights , dont give up your guns. Till & when  you know who your contracting with. Demand to know who your contracting with , never just assume. If you dont like the contract proposed & its terms . Then dont contract.
No, I'm not running from the truth.
I'm merely saying that this discussion is between sane people, who don't make grand claims of governmental evil from their comfortable armchairs.
You may believe that all governments are evil, that's fine.
It's just that if that is your standpoint, then any contributions you make to this particular thread will be rather off-topic and counter-productive.
Listen here ya pharken sock puppet. Why don't you provide some evidence  they are public constatuted Governments . Seen as you claim they are &   are making grand claims anyone questioning  their validity to enact firearm controling laws is not sane. 
There are plentiful links to documents on the net that evidence them as fiat. Lets see what you can provide to change those heavly evidenced observations.
Can I just ask some questions?
Do you think that all governments that have ever existed have been corrupt at some level?
Do you think that any governments that exist right now are not corrupt?
Do you think that a government can ever exist without corruption of some kind?
Governments only function with honesty & integrity , when there is separation of powers .The executive .The legislature. The judiciary.  Bound to the provisions set down  in a lawful constitution document of that country.
That constatution being the lawful document to operate under by agreement of its public citizens.

Funny enough that you mention that the government should follow the constitution. You anti-gun control freaks seem to have missed the "well-regulated" part of the 2nd Amendment, which implies gun control:

Quote
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.
Security of a free state , implies just that . No taxes or charges on privet owned land.
That is the USA constatution . Not to confuse it with the constatution of the privet coperation US

How are taxes on land relevant here? There is no "constitution of the private corporations" in the U.S. either. Just give up. You've been defeated by the very amendment you're trying to "defend".

Also, spell things correctly.
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: Son of Orospu on December 01, 2015, 01:52:30 PM
Funny enough that you mention that the government should follow the constitution. You anti-gun control freaks seem to have missed the "well-regulated" part of the 2nd Amendment, which implies gun control:

Quote
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.

"Well regulated" applies to Militias in that sentence, not the ownership of firearms.  Basically, it is saying that citizens should be allowed to own and master firearms so that if they are ever needed to be part of a Militia, they will already be armed and trained in the use of firearms.  How could you possibly misinterpret that to mean that the firearms should be regulated?  This is the worst argument I have ever heard. 
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: TheEarthIsASphere. on December 01, 2015, 02:00:51 PM
Funny enough that you mention that the government should follow the constitution. You anti-gun control freaks seem to have missed the "well-regulated" part of the 2nd Amendment, which implies gun control:

Quote
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.

"Well regulated" applies to Militias in that sentence, not the ownership of firearms.  Basically, it is saying that citizens should be allowed to own and master firearms so that if they are ever needed to be part of a Militia, they will already be armed and trained in the use of firearms.  How could you possibly misinterpret that to mean that the firearms should be regulated?  This is the worst argument I have ever heard.

[citation needed]
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: Son of Orospu on December 01, 2015, 02:07:43 PM
Funny enough that you mention that the government should follow the constitution. You anti-gun control freaks seem to have missed the "well-regulated" part of the 2nd Amendment, which implies gun control:

Quote
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.

"Well regulated" applies to Militias in that sentence, not the ownership of firearms.  Basically, it is saying that citizens should be allowed to own and master firearms so that if they are ever needed to be part of a Militia, they will already be armed and trained in the use of firearms.  How could you possibly misinterpret that to mean that the firearms should be regulated?  This is the worst argument I have ever heard.

[citation needed]

I cite the Constitution of the United States of America. 
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: TheEarthIsASphere. on December 01, 2015, 02:09:35 PM
Funny enough that you mention that the government should follow the constitution. You anti-gun control freaks seem to have missed the "well-regulated" part of the 2nd Amendment, which implies gun control:

Quote
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.

"Well regulated" applies to Militias in that sentence, not the ownership of firearms.  Basically, it is saying that citizens should be allowed to own and master firearms so that if they are ever needed to be part of a Militia, they will already be armed and trained in the use of firearms.  How could you possibly misinterpret that to mean that the firearms should be regulated?  This is the worst argument I have ever heard.

[citation needed]

I cite the Constitution of the United States of America.

Not good enough. You weren't there when they wrote it. You can't read the minds of dead people. Just because it's written that way, it doesn't mean that it was intended to be conveyed that way. Try again.
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: charles bloomington on December 01, 2015, 02:10:52 PM
U.S is a private corporation. USA is not the same corporation.  All corporation have a constitution . A well regulated militia , means  a well trained  lawfully acting militia.  What it must be like  to be a pathetic lying  agenda21 sock puppet. :'(
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: TheEarthIsASphere. on December 01, 2015, 02:12:32 PM
U.S is a private corporation. USA is not the same corporation.  All corporation have a constitution . A well regulated militia , means  a well trained  lawfully acting militia.  Whats it must be like  to be a pathetic lying  agenda21 sock puppet. :'(

What's it like to be a shitty, poor, idiotic, uneducated, retarded, gun-toting redneck with no concept of common sense?
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: Scroto Gaggins on December 01, 2015, 02:19:42 PM
Funny enough that you mention that the government should follow the constitution. You anti-gun control freaks seem to have missed the "well-regulated" part of the 2nd Amendment, which implies gun control:

Quote
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.

"Well regulated" applies to Militias in that sentence, not the ownership of firearms.  Basically, it is saying that citizens should be allowed to own and master firearms so that if they are ever needed to be part of a Militia, they will already be armed and trained in the use of firearms.  How could you possibly misinterpret that to mean that the firearms should be regulated?  This is the worst argument I have ever heard.
Militia means armed citizenry.
The second amendment says that the armed citizenry should be well-regulated.
Now, seeing as regulations of some form are sanctioned by the second amendment, why are anti-gun control people always so against regulations of any kind?
Also, the amendment is wrong.
A militia, well-regulated or otherwise, is not necessary to the security of any state, free or otherwise.
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: Son of Orospu on December 01, 2015, 02:21:21 PM
I cite the Constitution of the United States of America.

Not good enough. You weren't there when they wrote it. You can't read the minds of dead people. Just because it's written that way, it doesn't mean that it was intended to be conveyed that way. Try again.

The Constitution is not good enough for you?  It is the supreme law of the land.  It even says so in the Constitution.  Why do you liberals constantly feel the need to change its meaning? 
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: TheEarthIsASphere. on December 01, 2015, 02:22:38 PM
I cite the Constitution of the United States of America.

Not good enough. You weren't there when they wrote it. You can't read the minds of dead people. Just because it's written that way, it doesn't mean that it was intended to be conveyed that way. Try again.

The Constitution is not good enough for you?  It is the supreme law of the land.  It even says so in the Constitution.  Why do you liberals constantly feel the need to change its meaning?

See Scroto Gaggins' reply. It sums up pretty well how wrong you are.
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: Scroto Gaggins on December 01, 2015, 02:23:59 PM
I cite the Constitution of the United States of America.

Not good enough. You weren't there when they wrote it. You can't read the minds of dead people. Just because it's written that way, it doesn't mean that it was intended to be conveyed that way. Try again.

The Constitution is not good enough for you?  It is the supreme law of the land.  It even says so in the Constitution.  Why do you liberals constantly feel the need to change its meaning?
What he is saying is that you can't claim that you know the rationale behind the constitution, as you weren't present.
The constitution is the supreme law of the land, but it can be changed.

EDIT: Thanks TheEarthIsRound. Means a lot
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: TheEarthIsASphere. on December 01, 2015, 02:26:13 PM
I cite the Constitution of the United States of America.

Not good enough. You weren't there when they wrote it. You can't read the minds of dead people. Just because it's written that way, it doesn't mean that it was intended to be conveyed that way. Try again.

The Constitution is not good enough for you?  It is the supreme law of the land.  It even says so in the Constitution.  Why do you liberals constantly feel the need to change its meaning?
What he is saying is that you can't claim that you know the rationale behind the constitution, as you weren't present.
The constitution is the supreme law of the land, but it can be changed.

EDIT: Thanks TheEarthIsRound. Means a lot

No problem.  :)
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: Son of Orospu on December 01, 2015, 02:28:10 PM
Funny enough that you mention that the government should follow the constitution. You anti-gun control freaks seem to have missed the "well-regulated" part of the 2nd Amendment, which implies gun control:

Quote
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.

"Well regulated" applies to Militias in that sentence, not the ownership of firearms.  Basically, it is saying that citizens should be allowed to own and master firearms so that if they are ever needed to be part of a Militia, they will already be armed and trained in the use of firearms.  How could you possibly misinterpret that to mean that the firearms should be regulated?  This is the worst argument I have ever heard.
Militia means armed citizenry.
The second amendment says that the armed citizenry should be well-regulated.
Now, seeing as regulations of some form are sanctioned by the second amendment, why are anti-gun control people always so against regulations of any kind?
Also, the amendment is wrong.
A militia, well-regulated or otherwise, is not necessary to the security of any state, free or otherwise.

Well Regulated means properly trained, equipped, and organized when referring to a Militia.  I know you anti firearm people like to move words that are at the beginning of a sentence to make it reference something at the end of the sentence, but the fact is the words Well Regulated were referring to the word that immediately following them, which is Militia, and the fact is that well regulated means that a Militia would be compatible and comparable with regular troops as far as the equipment that they have and their ability to fight.  Have you ever even studied the American Revolution? 
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: TheEarthIsASphere. on December 01, 2015, 02:30:06 PM
Funny enough that you mention that the government should follow the constitution. You anti-gun control freaks seem to have missed the "well-regulated" part of the 2nd Amendment, which implies gun control:

Quote
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.

"Well regulated" applies to Militias in that sentence, not the ownership of firearms.  Basically, it is saying that citizens should be allowed to own and master firearms so that if they are ever needed to be part of a Militia, they will already be armed and trained in the use of firearms.  How could you possibly misinterpret that to mean that the firearms should be regulated?  This is the worst argument I have ever heard.
Militia means armed citizenry.
The second amendment says that the armed citizenry should be well-regulated.
Now, seeing as regulations of some form are sanctioned by the second amendment, why are anti-gun control people always so against regulations of any kind?
Also, the amendment is wrong.
A militia, well-regulated or otherwise, is not necessary to the security of any state, free or otherwise.

Well Regulated means properly trained, equipped, and organized when referring to a Militia.  I know you anti firearm people like to move words that are at the beginning of a sentence to make it reference something at the end of the sentence, but the fact is the words Well Regulated were referring to the word that immediately following them, which is Militia, and the fact is that well regulated means that a Militia would be compatible and comparable with regular troops as far as the equipment that they have and their ability to fight.  Have you ever even studied the American Revolution?

No. Well-regulated means the same thing when referring to anything:

Quote
regulated - control or supervise something by means of rules and regulations.

You literally could've just searched "define regulated" online and found this.
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: Son of Orospu on December 01, 2015, 02:31:48 PM
I cite the Constitution of the United States of America.

Not good enough. You weren't there when they wrote it. You can't read the minds of dead people. Just because it's written that way, it doesn't mean that it was intended to be conveyed that way. Try again.

The Constitution is not good enough for you?  It is the supreme law of the land.  It even says so in the Constitution.  Why do you liberals constantly feel the need to change its meaning?
What he is saying is that you can't claim that you know the rationale behind the constitution, as you weren't present.
The constitution is the supreme law of the land, but it can be changed.

EDIT: Thanks TheEarthIsRound. Means a lot

While accents and languages change over time, the sentence clearly says that the Militias should be well regulated, not the firearms.  In fact, it clearly says the citizens will be allowed to own firearms.  You can't spin this in your favor.  It clearly says those things. 
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: TheEarthIsASphere. on December 01, 2015, 02:34:30 PM
I cite the Constitution of the United States of America.

Not good enough. You weren't there when they wrote it. You can't read the minds of dead people. Just because it's written that way, it doesn't mean that it was intended to be conveyed that way. Try again.

The Constitution is not good enough for you?  It is the supreme law of the land.  It even says so in the Constitution.  Why do you liberals constantly feel the need to change its meaning?
What he is saying is that you can't claim that you know the rationale behind the constitution, as you weren't present.
The constitution is the supreme law of the land, but it can be changed.

EDIT: Thanks TheEarthIsRound. Means a lot

While accents and languages change over time, the sentence clearly says that the Militias should be well regulated, not the firearms.  In fact, it clearly says the citizens will be allowed to own firearms.  You can't spin this in your favor.  It clearly says those things.



Quote
Militia - Armed citizenry.

In order to the militias, we need to regulate the guns.
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: charles bloomington on December 01, 2015, 02:35:40 PM
Funny enough that you mention that the government should follow the constitution. You anti-gun control freaks seem to have missed the "well-regulated" part of the 2nd Amendment, which implies gun control:

Quote
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.

"Well regulated" applies to Militias in that sentence, not the ownership of firearms.  Basically, it is saying that citizens should be allowed to own and master firearms so that if they are ever needed to be part of a Militia, they will already be armed and trained in the use of firearms.  How could you possibly misinterpret that to mean that the firearms should be regulated?  This is the worst argument I have ever heard.
Militia means armed citizenry.
The second amendment says that the armed citizenry should be well-regulated.
Now, seeing as regulations of some form are sanctioned by the second amendment, why are anti-gun control people always so against regulations of any kind?
Also, the amendment is wrong.
A militia, well-regulated or otherwise, is not necessary to the security of any state, free or otherwise.
Securties are the deeds to land held in trust by the state who registered the deed of possession & owership right.
Must of been  a  sale on socks & buttons over at agenda headquarters.  >:(
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: TheEarthIsASphere. on December 01, 2015, 02:37:59 PM
Funny enough that you mention that the government should follow the constitution. You anti-gun control freaks seem to have missed the "well-regulated" part of the 2nd Amendment, which implies gun control:

Quote
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.

"Well regulated" applies to Militias in that sentence, not the ownership of firearms.  Basically, it is saying that citizens should be allowed to own and master firearms so that if they are ever needed to be part of a Militia, they will already be armed and trained in the use of firearms.  How could you possibly misinterpret that to mean that the firearms should be regulated?  This is the worst argument I have ever heard.
Militia means armed citizenry.
The second amendment says that the armed citizenry should be well-regulated.
Now, seeing as regulations of some form are sanctioned by the second amendment, why are anti-gun control people always so against regulations of any kind?
Also, the amendment is wrong.
A militia, well-regulated or otherwise, is not necessary to the security of any state, free or otherwise.
Securties are the deeds to land held in trust by the state who registered the deed of possession & owership right.
Must of been  a  sale on socks & buttons over at agenda headquarters.  >:(

I don't even know what you're trying to say here. Go out and take a basic high school English class and learn how to spell and form grammatically correct sentences before you come back.
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: Son of Orospu on December 01, 2015, 02:40:33 PM
Funny enough that you mention that the government should follow the constitution. You anti-gun control freaks seem to have missed the "well-regulated" part of the 2nd Amendment, which implies gun control:

Quote
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.

"Well regulated" applies to Militias in that sentence, not the ownership of firearms.  Basically, it is saying that citizens should be allowed to own and master firearms so that if they are ever needed to be part of a Militia, they will already be armed and trained in the use of firearms.  How could you possibly misinterpret that to mean that the firearms should be regulated?  This is the worst argument I have ever heard.
Militia means armed citizenry.
The second amendment says that the armed citizenry should be well-regulated.
Now, seeing as regulations of some form are sanctioned by the second amendment, why are anti-gun control people always so against regulations of any kind?
Also, the amendment is wrong.
A militia, well-regulated or otherwise, is not necessary to the security of any state, free or otherwise.

Well Regulated means properly trained, equipped, and organized when referring to a Militia.  I know you anti firearm people like to move words that are at the beginning of a sentence to make it reference something at the end of the sentence, but the fact is the words Well Regulated were referring to the word that immediately following them, which is Militia, and the fact is that well regulated means that a Militia would be compatible and comparable with regular troops as far as the equipment that they have and their ability to fight.  Have you ever even studied the American Revolution?

No. Well-regulated means the same thing when referring to anything:

Quote
regulated - control or supervise something by means of rules and regulations.

You literally could've just searched "define regulated" online and found this.

You really seem like an idiot right now.  During the American Revolution, the term Regulars was applied to the official military troops on both sides.  Militias were more haphazardly assembled.  After the war, when the Constitution and Bill of Rights were written, the people who wrote it knew the term Regular to mean a soldier, so allowing a group to be Regulated meant that it was allowed to be like the Regular army.  This is not rocket science, folks.  You can twist words and meanings around all you want, but you can't change the fact that it says, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."  Your only defense on this is what the term 'regulated' means and to what it applies.  Seems like you are really digging at the bottom of the barrel here. 
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: TheEarthIsASphere. on December 01, 2015, 02:46:31 PM
Funny enough that you mention that the government should follow the constitution. You anti-gun control freaks seem to have missed the "well-regulated" part of the 2nd Amendment, which implies gun control:

Quote
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.

"Well regulated" applies to Militias in that sentence, not the ownership of firearms.  Basically, it is saying that citizens should be allowed to own and master firearms so that if they are ever needed to be part of a Militia, they will already be armed and trained in the use of firearms.  How could you possibly misinterpret that to mean that the firearms should be regulated?  This is the worst argument I have ever heard.
Militia means armed citizenry.
The second amendment says that the armed citizenry should be well-regulated.
Now, seeing as regulations of some form are sanctioned by the second amendment, why are anti-gun control people always so against regulations of any kind?
Also, the amendment is wrong.
A militia, well-regulated or otherwise, is not necessary to the security of any state, free or otherwise.

Well Regulated means properly trained, equipped, and organized when referring to a Militia.  I know you anti firearm people like to move words that are at the beginning of a sentence to make it reference something at the end of the sentence, but the fact is the words Well Regulated were referring to the word that immediately following them, which is Militia, and the fact is that well regulated means that a Militia would be compatible and comparable with regular troops as far as the equipment that they have and their ability to fight.  Have you ever even studied the American Revolution?

No. Well-regulated means the same thing when referring to anything:

Quote
regulated - control or supervise something by means of rules and regulations.

You literally could've just searched "define regulated" online and found this.

You really seem like an idiot right now.  During the American Revolution, the term Regulars was applied to the official military troops on both sides.  Militias were more haphazardly assembled.  After the war, when the Constitution and Bill of Rights were written, the people who wrote it knew the term Regular to mean a soldier, so allowing a group to be Regulated meant that it was allowed to be like the Regular army.  This is not rocket science, folks.  You can twist words and meanings around all you want, but you can't change the fact that it says, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."  Your only defense on this is what the term 'regulated' means and to what it applies.  Seems like you are really digging at the bottom of the barrel here.

Regular != Regulated buddy.

Again, regulated means the same when referring to any object. Be it guns, or laptops. I'm not the one "twisting meanings" here, you're the one doing that because you know that you're wrong, and you're spewing strings of words to try and "back it up". It's also worth mentioning that amendments can be added, changed, or removed, so for all I care, we can just change the 2nd Amendment to include gun control.



Thanks for making me laugh when you called me an idiot. Made my day knowing that some people aren't capable of writing sentences that refer to themselves.
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: Scroto Gaggins on December 01, 2015, 02:52:56 PM
Funny enough that you mention that the government should follow the constitution. You anti-gun control freaks seem to have missed the "well-regulated" part of the 2nd Amendment, which implies gun control:

Quote
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.

"Well regulated" applies to Militias in that sentence, not the ownership of firearms.  Basically, it is saying that citizens should be allowed to own and master firearms so that if they are ever needed to be part of a Militia, they will already be armed and trained in the use of firearms.  How could you possibly misinterpret that to mean that the firearms should be regulated?  This is the worst argument I have ever heard.
Militia means armed citizenry.
The second amendment says that the armed citizenry should be well-regulated.
Now, seeing as regulations of some form are sanctioned by the second amendment, why are anti-gun control people always so against regulations of any kind?
Also, the amendment is wrong.
A militia, well-regulated or otherwise, is not necessary to the security of any state, free or otherwise.

Well Regulated means properly trained, equipped, and organized when referring to a Militia.  I know you anti firearm people like to move words that are at the beginning of a sentence to make it reference something at the end of the sentence, but the fact is the words Well Regulated were referring to the word that immediately following them, which is Militia, and the fact is that well regulated means that a Militia would be compatible and comparable with regular troops as far as the equipment that they have and their ability to fight.  Have you ever even studied the American Revolution?

No. Well-regulated means the same thing when referring to anything:

Quote
regulated - control or supervise something by means of rules and regulations.

You literally could've just searched "define regulated" online and found this.

You really seem like an idiot right now.  During the American Revolution, the term Regulars was applied to the official military troops on both sides.  Militias were more haphazardly assembled.  After the war, when the Constitution and Bill of Rights were written, the people who wrote it knew the term Regular to mean a soldier, so allowing a group to be Regulated meant that it was allowed to be like the Regular army.  This is not rocket science, folks.  You can twist words and meanings around all you want, but you can't change the fact that it says, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."  Your only defense on this is what the term 'regulated' means and to what it applies.  Seems like you are really digging at the bottom of the barrel here.
Well, to be perfectly honest, I don't think that any gun-control advocate wants guns to banned entirely.
We just want there to be regulations, as advocated by the second amendment.
If these regulations are on the type of gun, then fine.
If these regulations are on who is allowed to have guns, then fine.
If these regulations are on where guns can be carried, then fine.

And, if you are the student of history that you appear to be, then you should know what 'arms' constituted back in the 1700's.
Muskets, which have a fire rate of approximately 3 shots per minute with the accuracy of a drunken piss.
Maybe if the founding fathers had known of automatic weapons and school shootings then they wouldn't have added that amendment.

Also, you haven't addressed my other major point.
If the Second Amendment is so clearly wrong when it talks about the security of a state, then we can see that the constitution is not infallible.
Maybe at the time, and in the circumstance; a well-regulated militia was necessary to the security of that particular free state; but demonstrably, armed citizenry is not necessary to the security of a state.
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: TheEarthIsASphere. on December 01, 2015, 02:54:07 PM
Funny enough that you mention that the government should follow the constitution. You anti-gun control freaks seem to have missed the "well-regulated" part of the 2nd Amendment, which implies gun control:

Quote
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.

"Well regulated" applies to Militias in that sentence, not the ownership of firearms.  Basically, it is saying that citizens should be allowed to own and master firearms so that if they are ever needed to be part of a Militia, they will already be armed and trained in the use of firearms.  How could you possibly misinterpret that to mean that the firearms should be regulated?  This is the worst argument I have ever heard.
Militia means armed citizenry.
The second amendment says that the armed citizenry should be well-regulated.
Now, seeing as regulations of some form are sanctioned by the second amendment, why are anti-gun control people always so against regulations of any kind?
Also, the amendment is wrong.
A militia, well-regulated or otherwise, is not necessary to the security of any state, free or otherwise.

Well Regulated means properly trained, equipped, and organized when referring to a Militia.  I know you anti firearm people like to move words that are at the beginning of a sentence to make it reference something at the end of the sentence, but the fact is the words Well Regulated were referring to the word that immediately following them, which is Militia, and the fact is that well regulated means that a Militia would be compatible and comparable with regular troops as far as the equipment that they have and their ability to fight.  Have you ever even studied the American Revolution?

No. Well-regulated means the same thing when referring to anything:

Quote
regulated - control or supervise something by means of rules and regulations.

You literally could've just searched "define regulated" online and found this.

You really seem like an idiot right now.  During the American Revolution, the term Regulars was applied to the official military troops on both sides.  Militias were more haphazardly assembled.  After the war, when the Constitution and Bill of Rights were written, the people who wrote it knew the term Regular to mean a soldier, so allowing a group to be Regulated meant that it was allowed to be like the Regular army.  This is not rocket science, folks.  You can twist words and meanings around all you want, but you can't change the fact that it says, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."  Your only defense on this is what the term 'regulated' means and to what it applies.  Seems like you are really digging at the bottom of the barrel here.
Well, to be perfectly honest, I don't think that any gun-control advocate wants guns to banned entirely.
We just want there to be regulations, as advocated by the second amendment.
If these regulations are on the type of gun, then fine.
If these regulations are on who is allowed to have guns, then fine.
If these regulations are on where guns can be carried, then fine.

And, if you are the student of history that you appear to be, then you should know what 'arms' constituted back in the 1700's.
Muskets, which have a fire rate of approximately 3 shots per minute with the accuracy of a drunken piss.
Maybe if the founding fathers had known of automatic weapons and school shootings then they wouldn't have added that amendment.

Also, you haven't addressed my other major point.
If the Second Amendment is so clearly wrong when it talks about the security of a state, then we can see that the constitution is not infallible.
Maybe at the time, and in the circumstance; a well-regulated militia was necessary to the security of that particular free state; but demonstrably, armed citizenry is not necessary to the security of a state.

Thank you.
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: Son of Orospu on December 01, 2015, 02:59:56 PM
Quote
reg∑u∑late  (rĕg′yə-lāt′)
tr.v. reg∑u∑lat∑ed, reg∑u∑lat∑ing, reg∑u∑lates
1. To control or direct according to rule, principle, or law.
2. To adjust to a particular specification or requirement: regulate temperature.
3. To adjust (a mechanism) for accurate and proper functioning.
4. To put or maintain in order: regulate one's eating habits.

You focus on definition 1. while ignoring the other three meanings and assume that people centuries ago would agree with you.  You liberals have no morals.  How do you sleep at night? 
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: TheEarthIsASphere. on December 01, 2015, 03:04:06 PM
Quote
reg∑u∑late  (rĕg′yə-lāt′)
tr.v. reg∑u∑lat∑ed, reg∑u∑lat∑ing, reg∑u∑lates
1. To control or direct according to rule, principle, or law.
2. To adjust to a particular specification or requirement: regulate temperature.
3. To adjust (a mechanism) for accurate and proper functioning.
4. To put or maintain in order: regulate one's eating habits.

You focus on definition 1. while ignoring the other three meanings and assume that people centuries ago would agree with you.  You liberals have no morals.  How do you sleep at night?

"no morals" is quite a stretch jrao. I could say that "you conservatives" have no morals because the majority of crazed shooters tend to be conservative gun-fanatics, and "you conservatives" just brush off these incidents saying that gun control "won't help". I'm not also assuming that people centuries ago agreed with me. I'm simply saying that they could've. It's also worth noting that the "other three definitions" are in no way relevant to gun control. Number two could be, but at this point you're just desperately trying drag yourself out of this deep, deep hole you've dug.

I sleep fine at night as well too. A good average of nine hours each night when I don't stay up doing other things.
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: Scroto Gaggins on December 01, 2015, 03:08:00 PM
Quote
reg∑u∑late  (rĕg′yə-lāt′)
tr.v. reg∑u∑lat∑ed, reg∑u∑lat∑ing, reg∑u∑lates
1. To control or direct according to rule, principle, or law.
2. To adjust to a particular specification or requirement: regulate temperature.
3. To adjust (a mechanism) for accurate and proper functioning.
4. To put or maintain in order: regulate one's eating habits.

You focus on definition 1. while ignoring the other three meanings and assume that people centuries ago would agree with you.  You liberals have no morals.  How do you sleep at night?
Reply to my post, maybe?
The fact that the Second Amendment is clearly wrong in one instance?
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: Son of Orospu on December 01, 2015, 03:11:04 PM
Quote
reg∑u∑late  (rĕg′yə-lāt′)
tr.v. reg∑u∑lat∑ed, reg∑u∑lat∑ing, reg∑u∑lates
1. To control or direct according to rule, principle, or law.
2. To adjust to a particular specification or requirement: regulate temperature.
3. To adjust (a mechanism) for accurate and proper functioning.
4. To put or maintain in order: regulate one's eating habits.

You focus on definition 1. while ignoring the other three meanings and assume that people centuries ago would agree with you.  You liberals have no morals.  How do you sleep at night?

"no morals" is quite a stretch jrao. I could say that "you conservatives" have no morals because the majority of crazed shooters tend to be conservative gun-fanatics, and "you conservatives" just brush off these incidents saying that gun control "won't help". I'm not also assuming that people centuries ago agreed with me. I'm simply saying that they could've. It's also worth noting that the "other three definitions" are in no way relevant to gun control. Number two could be, but at this point you're just desperately trying drag yourself out of this deep, deep hole you've dug.

I sleep fine at night as well too. A good average of nine hours each night when I don't stay up doing other things.

"It's also worth noting that the "other three definitions" are in no way relevant to gun control. "

No shit.  That is what I have been saying.  Are you autistic? 
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: TheEarthIsASphere. on December 01, 2015, 03:13:55 PM
Quote
reg∑u∑late  (rĕg′yə-lāt′)
tr.v. reg∑u∑lat∑ed, reg∑u∑lat∑ing, reg∑u∑lates
1. To control or direct according to rule, principle, or law.
2. To adjust to a particular specification or requirement: regulate temperature.
3. To adjust (a mechanism) for accurate and proper functioning.
4. To put or maintain in order: regulate one's eating habits.

You focus on definition 1. while ignoring the other three meanings and assume that people centuries ago would agree with you.  You liberals have no morals.  How do you sleep at night?

"no morals" is quite a stretch jrao. I could say that "you conservatives" have no morals because the majority of crazed shooters tend to be conservative gun-fanatics, and "you conservatives" just brush off these incidents saying that gun control "won't help". I'm not also assuming that people centuries ago agreed with me. I'm simply saying that they could've. It's also worth noting that the "other three definitions" are in no way relevant to gun control. Number two could be, but at this point you're just desperately trying drag yourself out of this deep, deep hole you've dug.

I sleep fine at night as well too. A good average of nine hours each night when I don't stay up doing other things.

"It's also worth noting that the "other three definitions" are in no way relevant to gun control. "

No shit.  That is what I have been saying.  Are you autistic?

No, it's not what you've been saying. You've been prattling on about how there are "other definitions" that I "need to observe". Not once have you said "the other definitions are incorrect". Not once jrao.

Also, please don't make fun of autistic people. I have one sibling with fairly severe autism, and it's not a laughing matter. Of course, you probably won't care, as you seem to know squat about what it is anyways.
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: charles bloomington on December 01, 2015, 03:17:04 PM
Let  me make it real simple for people to comprehend.  While a country is at War its constitution is suspended & admiralty law implamented over the land. Agenda21 is a means to transition to total admiralty, with out the need to invent conflicts every day of the week to keep the lawful constatutions of the country's shelfed & their profitable dictatorships maintained. Hence disarming the public before they wake up to the fact they are having all their property rights slowly taken away  & their lawful constitution & laws of the land slowly repealed.
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: TheEarthIsASphere. on December 01, 2015, 03:20:54 PM
Let  me make it real simple for people to comprehend.  While a country is at War its constitution is suspended & admiralty law implamented over the land. Agenda21 is a means to transition to total admiralty, with out the need to invent conflicts every day of the week to keep the lawful constatution of the country shelfed & their profitable dictatorships maintained. Hence disarming the public before they wake up to the fact they have had all their property taken & their lawful constitution & laws of the land repealed.



Quote
While a country is at War its constitution is suspended & admiralty law implamented over the land.

What!!?? No! This is false on all accounts. How retarded are you? Do you even know what admiralty law is? It deals with governing the oceans.



Quote
Hence disarming the public before they wake up to the fact they have had all their property taken & their lawful constitution & laws of the land repealed.

Stop acting like a conspiracy "theorist" and grow up.
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: charles bloomington on December 01, 2015, 03:24:11 PM
Let  me make it real simple for people to comprehend.  While a country is at War its constitution is suspended & admiralty law implamented over the land. Agenda21 is a means to transition to total admiralty, with out the need to invent conflicts every day of the week to keep the lawful constatution of the country shelfed & their profitable dictatorships maintained. Hence disarming the public before they wake up to the fact they have had all their property taken & their lawful constitution & laws of the land repealed.



Quote
While a country is at War its constitution is suspended & admiralty law implamented over the land.

What!!?? No! This is false on all accounts. How retarded are you? Do you even know what admiralty law is? It deals with governing the oceans.



Quote
Hence disarming the public before they wake up to the fact they have had all their property taken & their lawful constitution & laws of the land repealed.

Stop acting like a conspiracy "theorist" and grow up.
You are nothing more then a lying maggot . A paid sock puppet for the agenda21. 
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: Son of Orospu on December 01, 2015, 03:24:34 PM
Reply to my post, maybe?
The fact that the Second Amendment is clearly wrong in one instance?

Reply to your post about regulations?  Sure, I think there should be regulations.  Such as:

Treat every weapon as if it were loaded.
Never point a weapon at anything you do not intend to kill.
Keep your finger off of the trigger until you are ready to fire.
Leave your weapon on safe until you are ready to fire.

This seems like reasonable regulations to me.  Oh, wait, this is just common sense. 
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: Son of Orospu on December 01, 2015, 03:27:20 PM
Quote
reg∑u∑late  (rĕg′yə-lāt′)
tr.v. reg∑u∑lat∑ed, reg∑u∑lat∑ing, reg∑u∑lates
1. To control or direct according to rule, principle, or law.
2. To adjust to a particular specification or requirement: regulate temperature.
3. To adjust (a mechanism) for accurate and proper functioning.
4. To put or maintain in order: regulate one's eating habits.

You focus on definition 1. while ignoring the other three meanings and assume that people centuries ago would agree with you.  You liberals have no morals.  How do you sleep at night?

"no morals" is quite a stretch jrao. I could say that "you conservatives" have no morals because the majority of crazed shooters tend to be conservative gun-fanatics, and "you conservatives" just brush off these incidents saying that gun control "won't help". I'm not also assuming that people centuries ago agreed with me. I'm simply saying that they could've. It's also worth noting that the "other three definitions" are in no way relevant to gun control. Number two could be, but at this point you're just desperately trying drag yourself out of this deep, deep hole you've dug.

I sleep fine at night as well too. A good average of nine hours each night when I don't stay up doing other things.

"It's also worth noting that the "other three definitions" are in no way relevant to gun control. "

No shit.  That is what I have been saying.  Are you autistic?

No, it's not what you've been saying. You've been prattling on about how there are "other definitions" that I "need to observe". Not once have you said "the other definitions are incorrect". Not once jrao.

Also, please don't make fun of autistic people. I have one sibling with fairly severe autism, and it's not a laughing matter. Of course, you probably won't care, as you seem to know squat about what it is anyways.

I can only conclude that it runs in the family. 
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: TheEarthIsASphere. on December 01, 2015, 03:28:27 PM
Let  me make it real simple for people to comprehend.  While a country is at War its constitution is suspended & admiralty law implamented over the land. Agenda21 is a means to transition to total admiralty, with out the need to invent conflicts every day of the week to keep the lawful constatution of the country shelfed & their profitable dictatorships maintained. Hence disarming the public before they wake up to the fact they have had all their property taken & their lawful constitution & laws of the land repealed.



Quote
While a country is at War its constitution is suspended & admiralty law implamented over the land.

What!!?? No! This is false on all accounts. How retarded are you? Do you even know what admiralty law is? It deals with governing the oceans.



Quote
Hence disarming the public before they wake up to the fact they have had all their property taken & their lawful constitution & laws of the land repealed.

Stop acting like a conspiracy "theorist" and grow up.
You are nothing more then a lying maggot . A paid sock puppet for the agenda21.

Here, I made the effort for you and googled "admiralty law": http://lmgtfy.com/?q=admiralty+law (http://lmgtfy.com/?q=admiralty+law)

To quote the top result:

Quote
Admiralty law or maritime law is a distinct body of law that governs maritime questions and offenses. It is a body of both domestic law governing maritime activities, and private international law governing the relationships between private entities that operate vessels on the oceans. It deals with matters including marine commerce, marine navigation, marine salvaging, shipping, sailors, and the transportation of passengers and goods by sea. Admiralty law also covers many commercial activities, although land based or occurring wholly on land, that are maritime in character.

Do your research before you make yourself look even more stupid chrales. Although, I don't really think that it's possible for you to make yourself look even more stupid at this point.
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: TheEarthIsASphere. on December 01, 2015, 03:29:20 PM
Quote
reg∑u∑late  (rĕg′yə-lāt′)
tr.v. reg∑u∑lat∑ed, reg∑u∑lat∑ing, reg∑u∑lates
1. To control or direct according to rule, principle, or law.
2. To adjust to a particular specification or requirement: regulate temperature.
3. To adjust (a mechanism) for accurate and proper functioning.
4. To put or maintain in order: regulate one's eating habits.

You focus on definition 1. while ignoring the other three meanings and assume that people centuries ago would agree with you.  You liberals have no morals.  How do you sleep at night?

"no morals" is quite a stretch jrao. I could say that "you conservatives" have no morals because the majority of crazed shooters tend to be conservative gun-fanatics, and "you conservatives" just brush off these incidents saying that gun control "won't help". I'm not also assuming that people centuries ago agreed with me. I'm simply saying that they could've. It's also worth noting that the "other three definitions" are in no way relevant to gun control. Number two could be, but at this point you're just desperately trying drag yourself out of this deep, deep hole you've dug.

I sleep fine at night as well too. A good average of nine hours each night when I don't stay up doing other things.

"It's also worth noting that the "other three definitions" are in no way relevant to gun control. "

No shit.  That is what I have been saying.  Are you autistic?

No, it's not what you've been saying. You've been prattling on about how there are "other definitions" that I "need to observe". Not once have you said "the other definitions are incorrect". Not once jrao.

Also, please don't make fun of autistic people. I have one sibling with fairly severe autism, and it's not a laughing matter. Of course, you probably won't care, as you seem to know squat about what it is anyways.

I can only conclude that it runs in the family.

No shit retard, it's a genetic condition. I don't have it, but it's not a laughing matter.
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: Scroto Gaggins on December 01, 2015, 03:30:41 PM
Reply to my post, maybe?
The fact that the Second Amendment is clearly wrong in one instance?

Reply to your post about regulations?  Sure, I think there should be regulations.  Such as:

Treat every weapon as if it were loaded.
Never point a weapon at anything you do not intend to kill.
Keep your finger off of the trigger until you are ready to fire.
Leave your weapon on safe until you are ready to fire.

This seems like reasonable regulations to me.  Oh, wait, this is just common sense.
No, my post(s) about how the Second Amendment is demonstrably wrong on one count, and should therefore not be perceived as infallible in its wisdom.

i.e. It's wrong on one (major) point, so why should its other points be valid
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: TheEarthIsASphere. on December 01, 2015, 03:32:29 PM
Reply to my post, maybe?
The fact that the Second Amendment is clearly wrong in one instance?

Reply to your post about regulations?  Sure, I think there should be regulations.  Such as:

Treat every weapon as if it were loaded.
Never point a weapon at anything you do not intend to kill.
Keep your finger off of the trigger until you are ready to fire.
Leave your weapon on safe until you are ready to fire.

This seems like reasonable regulations to me.  Oh, wait, this is just common sense.

Yeah joar, the problem is this: people who are inclined to commit violent acts aren't going to just "follow" these rules when they obtain, and use a gun to commit violent acts. Hence the reason for gun control.
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: Son of Orospu on December 01, 2015, 03:34:46 PM
Reply to my post, maybe?
The fact that the Second Amendment is clearly wrong in one instance?

Reply to your post about regulations?  Sure, I think there should be regulations.  Such as:

Treat every weapon as if it were loaded.
Never point a weapon at anything you do not intend to kill.
Keep your finger off of the trigger until you are ready to fire.
Leave your weapon on safe until you are ready to fire.

This seems like reasonable regulations to me.  Oh, wait, this is just common sense.
No, my post(s) about how the Second Amendment is demonstrably wrong on one count, and should therefore not be perceived as infallible in its wisdom.

i.e. It's wrong on one (major) point, so why should its other points be valid

Please, post a concise statement declaring exactly what the 2nd Amendment is wrong about and I will be happy to have a pleasant discussion about it with you. 
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: Son of Orospu on December 01, 2015, 03:36:44 PM
Reply to my post, maybe?
The fact that the Second Amendment is clearly wrong in one instance?

Reply to your post about regulations?  Sure, I think there should be regulations.  Such as:

Treat every weapon as if it were loaded.
Never point a weapon at anything you do not intend to kill.
Keep your finger off of the trigger until you are ready to fire.
Leave your weapon on safe until you are ready to fire.

This seems like reasonable regulations to me.  Oh, wait, this is just common sense.

Yeah joar, the problem is this: people who are inclined to commit violent acts aren't going to just "follow" these rules when they obtain, and use a gun to commit violent acts. Hence the reason for gun control.

People who are inclined to commit violent acts aren't going to follow any rules, laws, or regulations, are they?  You people think you can legislate evil out of the world, one freedom at a time. 
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: TheEarthIsASphere. on December 01, 2015, 03:38:57 PM
Reply to my post, maybe?
The fact that the Second Amendment is clearly wrong in one instance?

Reply to your post about regulations?  Sure, I think there should be regulations.  Such as:

Treat every weapon as if it were loaded.
Never point a weapon at anything you do not intend to kill.
Keep your finger off of the trigger until you are ready to fire.
Leave your weapon on safe until you are ready to fire.

This seems like reasonable regulations to me.  Oh, wait, this is just common sense.

Yeah joar, the problem is this: people who are inclined to commit violent acts aren't going to just "follow" these rules when they obtain, and use a gun to commit violent acts. Hence the reason for gun control.

People who are inclined to commit violent acts aren't going to follow any rules, laws, or regulations, are they?  You people think you can legislate evil out of the world, one freedom at a time.

Do you not understand what gun control is? It's preventing certain people from buying weapons, which would prevent violent things like mass shootings from happening. Gun control is not people "coming to your house" and "taking your guns for no reason". It's goal is to prevent people who may cause harm using guns from obtaining, and using a gun to commit violent acts. Is it impossible for you to wrap your mind around that!?
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: Scroto Gaggins on December 01, 2015, 03:42:20 PM
Reply to my post, maybe?
The fact that the Second Amendment is clearly wrong in one instance?

Reply to your post about regulations?  Sure, I think there should be regulations.  Such as:

Treat every weapon as if it were loaded.
Never point a weapon at anything you do not intend to kill.
Keep your finger off of the trigger until you are ready to fire.
Leave your weapon on safe until you are ready to fire.

This seems like reasonable regulations to me.  Oh, wait, this is just common sense.
No, my post(s) about how the Second Amendment is demonstrably wrong on one count, and should therefore not be perceived as infallible in its wisdom.

i.e. It's wrong on one (major) point, so why should its other points be valid

Please, post a concise statement declaring exactly what the 2nd Amendment is wrong about and I will be happy to have a pleasant discussion about it with you.
Sure.
The 2nd Amend. states clearly that the aforementioned "well-regulated militia" is "... necessary to the security of a free state..."
I would like to point out that a militia, well-regulated or otherwise, is not, as the 2nd Amend. claims, necessary to the security of any state, free or otherwise.
Switzerland has a well-regulated militia, it is a secure free state.
Japan does not have a militia, and is a secure free state.
NB: Militia, in this sense, means any form of organised armed citizenry.

As we can see, a well-regulated militia is not necessary to the security of a free state.
Ergo, the 2nd Amend. is wrong in this sense.
Ergo, the 2nd Amend. should not be taken as irrefutably wise.
Ergo, the non-regulation of guns shouldn't be considered wise.
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: Son of Orospu on December 01, 2015, 03:44:24 PM
Reply to my post, maybe?
The fact that the Second Amendment is clearly wrong in one instance?

Reply to your post about regulations?  Sure, I think there should be regulations.  Such as:

Treat every weapon as if it were loaded.
Never point a weapon at anything you do not intend to kill.
Keep your finger off of the trigger until you are ready to fire.
Leave your weapon on safe until you are ready to fire.

This seems like reasonable regulations to me.  Oh, wait, this is just common sense.

Yeah joar, the problem is this: people who are inclined to commit violent acts aren't going to just "follow" these rules when they obtain, and use a gun to commit violent acts. Hence the reason for gun control.

People who are inclined to commit violent acts aren't going to follow any rules, laws, or regulations, are they?  You people think you can legislate evil out of the world, one freedom at a time.

Do you not understand what gun control is? It's preventing certain people from buying weapons, which would prevent violent things like mass shootings from happening. Gun control is not people "coming to your house" and "taking your guns for no reason". It's goal is to prevent people who may cause harm using guns from obtaining, and using a gun to commit violent acts. Is it impossible for you to wrap your mind around that!?

Do you agree that making schools "Gun Free Zones" has worked?  Perhaps you would like to pass a "Hugs instead of Guns" law next? 
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: TheEarthIsASphere. on December 01, 2015, 03:45:10 PM
Reply to my post, maybe?
The fact that the Second Amendment is clearly wrong in one instance?

Reply to your post about regulations?  Sure, I think there should be regulations.  Such as:

Treat every weapon as if it were loaded.
Never point a weapon at anything you do not intend to kill.
Keep your finger off of the trigger until you are ready to fire.
Leave your weapon on safe until you are ready to fire.

This seems like reasonable regulations to me.  Oh, wait, this is just common sense.

Yeah joar, the problem is this: people who are inclined to commit violent acts aren't going to just "follow" these rules when they obtain, and use a gun to commit violent acts. Hence the reason for gun control.

People who are inclined to commit violent acts aren't going to follow any rules, laws, or regulations, are they?  You people think you can legislate evil out of the world, one freedom at a time.

Do you not understand what gun control is? It's preventing certain people from buying weapons, which would prevent violent things like mass shootings from happening. Gun control is not people "coming to your house" and "taking your guns for no reason". It's goal is to prevent people who may cause harm using guns from obtaining, and using a gun to commit violent acts. Is it impossible for you to wrap your mind around that!?

Do you agree that making schools "Gun Free Zones" has worked?  Perhaps you would like to pass a "Hugs instead of Guns" law next?

Yes.
Yes.
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: Son of Orospu on December 01, 2015, 03:46:57 PM
Also, when did the legality of a transaction ever prevent a criminal from purchasing a firearm? 
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: Son of Orospu on December 01, 2015, 03:49:40 PM
Do you agree that making schools "Gun Free Zones" has worked?  Perhaps you would like to pass a "Hugs instead of Guns" law next?

Yes.
Yes.

Really, because I am fairly sure that virtually all school shootings were illegal before the first bullet was fired?  It seems that criminals do not follow the law.  Go figure.  ::)
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: charles bloomington on December 01, 2015, 04:03:17 PM
Let  me make it real simple for people to comprehend.  While a country is at War its constitution is suspended & admiralty law implamented over the land. Agenda21 is a means to transition to total admiralty, with out the need to invent conflicts every day of the week to keep the lawful constatution of the country shelfed & their profitable dictatorships maintained. Hence disarming the public before they wake up to the fact they have had all their property taken & their lawful constitution & laws of the land repealed.



Quote
While a country is at War its constitution is suspended & admiralty law implamented over the land.

What!!?? No! This is false on all accounts. How retarded are you? Do you even know what admiralty law is? It deals with governing the oceans.



Quote
Hence disarming the public before they wake up to the fact they have had all their property taken & their lawful constitution & laws of the land repealed.

Stop acting like a conspiracy "theorist" and grow up.
You are nothing more then a lying maggot . A paid sock puppet for the agenda21.

Here, I made the effort for you and googled "admiralty law": http://lmgtfy.com/?q=admiralty+law (http://lmgtfy.com/?q=admiralty+law)

To quote the top result:

Quote
Admiralty law or maritime law is a distinct body of law that governs maritime questions and offenses. It is a body of both domestic law governing maritime activities, and private international law governing the relationships between private entities that operate vessels on the oceans. It deals with matters including marine commerce, marine navigation, marine salvaging, shipping, sailors, and the transportation of passengers and goods by sea. Admiralty law also covers many commercial activities, although land based or occurring wholly on land, that are maritime in character.

Do your research before you make yourself look even more stupid chrales. Although, I don't really think that it's possible for you to make yourself look even more stupid at this point.
Do your research? [/b] Admiralty law also covers many commercial activities, although land based or occurring wholly on land, that are maritime in character. Is your birth certificate name in all capitals , your bank accounts , your drivers licence.  Your the one looking stupid , but then again your a paid agenda21 sock puppet. So your paid to lie & spread misinformation.
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: charles bloomington on December 01, 2015, 04:05:04 PM
http://www.barefootsworld.net/admiralty.html (http://www.barefootsworld.net/admiralty.html)
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: TheEarthIsASphere. on December 01, 2015, 04:28:09 PM
http://www.barefootsworld.net/admiralty.html (http://www.barefootsworld.net/admiralty.html)

Uh-huh. Totally looks like a trustworthy site. I'll definitely get all my information from there and not a credible resource at all.
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: Luke 22:35-38 on December 01, 2015, 07:23:49 PM
Reply to my post, maybe?
The fact that the Second Amendment is clearly wrong in one instance?

Reply to your post about regulations?  Sure, I think there should be regulations.  Such as:

Treat every weapon as if it were loaded.
Never point a weapon at anything you do not intend to kill.
Keep your finger off of the trigger until you are ready to fire.
Leave your weapon on safe until you are ready to fire.

This seems like reasonable regulations to me.  Oh, wait, this is just common sense.

Yeah joar, the problem is this: people who are inclined to commit violent acts aren't going to just "follow" these rules when they obtain, and use a gun to commit violent acts. Hence the reason for gun control.

People who are inclined to commit violent acts aren't going to follow any rules, laws, or regulations, are they?  You people think you can legislate evil out of the world, one freedom at a time.

Do you not understand what gun control is? It's preventing certain people from buying weapons, which would prevent violent things like mass shootings from happening. Gun control is not people "coming to your house" and "taking your guns for no reason". It's goal is to prevent people who may cause harm using guns from obtaining, and using a gun to commit violent acts. Is it impossible for you to wrap your mind around that!?

Do you agree that making schools "Gun Free Zones" has worked?  Perhaps you would like to pass a "Hugs instead of Guns" law next?

Yes.
Yes.
I like to point out that every mass shooting happened at a gun-free zone. If someone was armed in those instances then he wouldn't have gone far.
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: Scroto Gaggins on December 02, 2015, 01:58:51 AM
Reply to my post, maybe?
The fact that the Second Amendment is clearly wrong in one instance?

Reply to your post about regulations?  Sure, I think there should be regulations.  Such as:

Treat every weapon as if it were loaded.
Never point a weapon at anything you do not intend to kill.
Keep your finger off of the trigger until you are ready to fire.
Leave your weapon on safe until you are ready to fire.

This seems like reasonable regulations to me.  Oh, wait, this is just common sense.
No, my post(s) about how the Second Amendment is demonstrably wrong on one count, and should therefore not be perceived as infallible in its wisdom.

i.e. It's wrong on one (major) point, so why should its other points be valid

Please, post a concise statement declaring exactly what the 2nd Amendment is wrong about and I will be happy to have a pleasant discussion about it with you.
Sure.
The 2nd Amend. states clearly that the aforementioned "well-regulated militia" is "... necessary to the security of a free state..."
I would like to point out that a militia, well-regulated or otherwise, is not, as the 2nd Amend. claims, necessary to the security of any state, free or otherwise.
Switzerland has a well-regulated militia, it is a secure free state.
Japan does not have a militia, and is a secure free state.
NB: Militia, in this sense, means any form of organised armed citizenry.

As we can see, a well-regulated militia is not necessary to the security of a free state.
Ergo, the 2nd Amend. is wrong in this sense.
Ergo, the 2nd Amend. should not be taken as irrefutably wise.
Ergo, the non-regulation of guns shouldn't be considered wise.
Ahem.
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: Son of Orospu on December 02, 2015, 03:04:35 AM
Ahem.

It might surprise you to know that for much of Japan's written history, civilian conscripts have played a very large role in their ability to wage war.  In fact, after WWII, Japan was forbidden from having a proper military due to the terms of surrender.  However, they were eventually allowed to have a civilian militia in order to protect the peace and for self defense purposes.  This carries on even to today.  Japan does not have an army, navy or air force.  Instead, they have the Japanese Ground Self-Defense Force, the Maritime Self-Defense Force, and the Air Self-Defense Force.  So, I am not sure where you are getting your information, but it seems that your sources are wrong. 
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: Scroto Gaggins on December 02, 2015, 04:07:38 AM
Ahem.

It might surprise you to know that for much of Japan's written history, civilian conscripts have played a very large role in their ability to wage war.  In fact, after WWII, Japan was forbidden from having a proper military due to the terms of surrender.  However, they were eventually allowed to have a civilian militia in order to protect the peace and for self defense purposes.  This carries on even to today.  Japan does not have an army, navy or air force.  Instead, they have the Japanese Ground Self-Defense Force, the Maritime Self-Defense Force, and the Air Self-Defense Force.  So, I am not sure where you are getting your information, but it seems that your sources are wrong.
So you hold that a militia is indeed necessary to the security of any state?
Militia, as I'm sure you are aware, is any fighting force made up of non-professional fighters.
So the founding fathers were of the opinion that the involvement of non-professional soldiers in defence is necessary to the security of a state.
In the case of Japan, their Self-Defence Force is not a militia.
In becoming a member of their armed forces, that becomes your job.
Ergo, you are now a professional.
Ergo, you are not in a militia.

Make no mistake, a militia system can aid in national security, but it is by no means necessary.
And if a militia is not necessary, then the Founding Fathers were wrong.
And if they were wrong on this count, then it seems imprudent to assume wisdom when citing their other point.
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: Son of Orospu on December 02, 2015, 05:49:31 AM
Ahem.

It might surprise you to know that for much of Japan's written history, civilian conscripts have played a very large role in their ability to wage war.  In fact, after WWII, Japan was forbidden from having a proper military due to the terms of surrender.  However, they were eventually allowed to have a civilian militia in order to protect the peace and for self defense purposes.  This carries on even to today.  Japan does not have an army, navy or air force.  Instead, they have the Japanese Ground Self-Defense Force, the Maritime Self-Defense Force, and the Air Self-Defense Force.  So, I am not sure where you are getting your information, but it seems that your sources are wrong.
So you hold that a militia is indeed necessary to the security of any state?
Militia, as I'm sure you are aware, is any fighting force made up of non-professional fighters.
So the founding fathers were of the opinion that the involvement of non-professional soldiers in defence is necessary to the security of a state.
In the case of Japan, their Self-Defence Force is not a militia.
In becoming a member of their armed forces, that becomes your job.
Ergo, you are now a professional.
Ergo, you are not in a militia.

Make no mistake, a militia system can aid in national security, but it is by no means necessary.
And if a militia is not necessary, then the Founding Fathers were wrong.
And if they were wrong on this count, then it seems imprudent to assume wisdom when citing their other point.

Well, then, it might surprise you to learn that the Japanese Ground Self-Defense Force does, in fact, have reserve components.  These reservists train for 5 to 30 days per year and perform their regular careers while not training.  Sounds like your definition of a militia to me.  Are you ready to admit defeat, or are you going to continue to drag this on? 
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: TheEarthIsASphere. on December 02, 2015, 06:38:06 AM
Ahem.

It might surprise you to know that for much of Japan's written history, civilian conscripts have played a very large role in their ability to wage war.  In fact, after WWII, Japan was forbidden from having a proper military due to the terms of surrender.  However, they were eventually allowed to have a civilian militia in order to protect the peace and for self defense purposes.  This carries on even to today.  Japan does not have an army, navy or air force.  Instead, they have the Japanese Ground Self-Defense Force, the Maritime Self-Defense Force, and the Air Self-Defense Force.  So, I am not sure where you are getting your information, but it seems that your sources are wrong.
So you hold that a militia is indeed necessary to the security of any state?
Militia, as I'm sure you are aware, is any fighting force made up of non-professional fighters.
So the founding fathers were of the opinion that the involvement of non-professional soldiers in defence is necessary to the security of a state.
In the case of Japan, their Self-Defence Force is not a militia.
In becoming a member of their armed forces, that becomes your job.
Ergo, you are now a professional.
Ergo, you are not in a militia.

Make no mistake, a militia system can aid in national security, but it is by no means necessary.
And if a militia is not necessary, then the Founding Fathers were wrong.
And if they were wrong on this count, then it seems imprudent to assume wisdom when citing their other point.

Well, then, it might surprise you to learn that the Japanese Ground Self-Defense Force does, in fact, have reserve components.  These reservists train for 5 to 30 days per year and perform their regular careers while not training.  Sounds like your definition of a militia to me.  Are you ready to admit defeat, or are you going to continue to drag this on?

If they're part of a government-run military force, then they're part of the military, not a militia. People can have multiple jobs along with an army job, and it's even more common in Japan because they almost never have a need to use their military. That's beside the point though, we aren't arguing about what a militia is, but rather if they're necessary to the "security of a free state", which they aren't.
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: Son of Orospu on December 02, 2015, 06:42:45 AM
Ahem.

It might surprise you to know that for much of Japan's written history, civilian conscripts have played a very large role in their ability to wage war.  In fact, after WWII, Japan was forbidden from having a proper military due to the terms of surrender.  However, they were eventually allowed to have a civilian militia in order to protect the peace and for self defense purposes.  This carries on even to today.  Japan does not have an army, navy or air force.  Instead, they have the Japanese Ground Self-Defense Force, the Maritime Self-Defense Force, and the Air Self-Defense Force.  So, I am not sure where you are getting your information, but it seems that your sources are wrong.
So you hold that a militia is indeed necessary to the security of any state?
Militia, as I'm sure you are aware, is any fighting force made up of non-professional fighters.
So the founding fathers were of the opinion that the involvement of non-professional soldiers in defence is necessary to the security of a state.
In the case of Japan, their Self-Defence Force is not a militia.
In becoming a member of their armed forces, that becomes your job.
Ergo, you are now a professional.
Ergo, you are not in a militia.

Make no mistake, a militia system can aid in national security, but it is by no means necessary.
And if a militia is not necessary, then the Founding Fathers were wrong.
And if they were wrong on this count, then it seems imprudent to assume wisdom when citing their other point.

Well, then, it might surprise you to learn that the Japanese Ground Self-Defense Force does, in fact, have reserve components.  These reservists train for 5 to 30 days per year and perform their regular careers while not training.  Sounds like your definition of a militia to me.  Are you ready to admit defeat, or are you going to continue to drag this on?

If they're part of a government-run military force, then they're part of the military, not a militia. People can have multiple jobs along with an army job, and it's even more common in Japan because they almost never have a need to use their military. That's beside the point though, we aren't arguing about what a militia is, but rather if they're necessary to the "security of a free state", which they aren't.

Scrotum Gagger specifically argued that militias are not necessary and specifically pointed to Japan as an example.  He also specifically defined a militia.  I then showed him that Japan does, in fact, have a militia according to his own definition.  Please, keep up with the conversation.  I know you are trying to help your liberal buddy with his losing argument, but you are only making the both of you look dumber. 
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: TheEarthIsASphere. on December 02, 2015, 06:49:07 AM
Ahem.

It might surprise you to know that for much of Japan's written history, civilian conscripts have played a very large role in their ability to wage war.  In fact, after WWII, Japan was forbidden from having a proper military due to the terms of surrender.  However, they were eventually allowed to have a civilian militia in order to protect the peace and for self defense purposes.  This carries on even to today.  Japan does not have an army, navy or air force.  Instead, they have the Japanese Ground Self-Defense Force, the Maritime Self-Defense Force, and the Air Self-Defense Force.  So, I am not sure where you are getting your information, but it seems that your sources are wrong.
So you hold that a militia is indeed necessary to the security of any state?
Militia, as I'm sure you are aware, is any fighting force made up of non-professional fighters.
So the founding fathers were of the opinion that the involvement of non-professional soldiers in defence is necessary to the security of a state.
In the case of Japan, their Self-Defence Force is not a militia.
In becoming a member of their armed forces, that becomes your job.
Ergo, you are now a professional.
Ergo, you are not in a militia.

Make no mistake, a militia system can aid in national security, but it is by no means necessary.
And if a militia is not necessary, then the Founding Fathers were wrong.
And if they were wrong on this count, then it seems imprudent to assume wisdom when citing their other point.

Well, then, it might surprise you to learn that the Japanese Ground Self-Defense Force does, in fact, have reserve components.  These reservists train for 5 to 30 days per year and perform their regular careers while not training.  Sounds like your definition of a militia to me.  Are you ready to admit defeat, or are you going to continue to drag this on?

If they're part of a government-run military force, then they're part of the military, not a militia. People can have multiple jobs along with an army job, and it's even more common in Japan because they almost never have a need to use their military. That's beside the point though, we aren't arguing about what a militia is, but rather if they're necessary to the "security of a free state", which they aren't.

Scrotum Gagger specifically argued that militias are not necessary and specifically pointed to Japan as an example.  He also specifically defined a militia.  I then showed him that Japan does, in fact, have a militia according to his own definition.  Please, keep up with the conversation.  I know you are trying to help your liberal buddy with his losing argument, but you are only making the both of you look dumber.

Roaj, the point is this: a civilian militia is not necessary to the "security of a free state. I don't care about the context here, and given some of the statements strings of words you've been spewing out, you're only painting an image of yourself as some crazy, extreme right-wing conservative who can't yell anything other than "YER NOT GONNA TAKE ME GUNS FROM MEH HOUSE", and that image doesn't make you look rather "smart". The fact that you even claim yourself to be smart after saying some of those things is completely laughable.
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: Son of Orospu on December 02, 2015, 07:06:46 AM
I, frankly, do not care what you or anyone else on this forum thinks about me.  Perhaps I am a gun nut.  Or, perhaps I simply chose to defend the Constitution of the United States.  Or, perhaps I simply call people out when they spew bullshit on our forum.  Take your pick.  It matters not to me. 
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: TheEarthIsASphere. on December 02, 2015, 07:12:36 AM
I, frankly, do not care what you or anyone else on this forum thinks about me.  Perhaps I am a gun nut.  Or, perhaps I simply chose to defend the Constitution of the United States.  Or, perhaps I simply call people out when they spew bullshit on our forum.  Take your pick.  It matters not to me.

Good for you. I guess you're one of those people who likes to run around and yell "LALALALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU LALALALALA" whenever someone brings up a touchy subject like gun control.
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: Son of Orospu on December 02, 2015, 07:17:40 AM
I, frankly, do not care what you or anyone else on this forum thinks about me.  Perhaps I am a gun nut.  Or, perhaps I simply chose to defend the Constitution of the United States.  Or, perhaps I simply call people out when they spew bullshit on our forum.  Take your pick.  It matters not to me.

Good for you. I guess you're one of those people who likes to run around and yell "LALALALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU LALALALALA" whenever someone brings up a touchy subject like gun control.

But, I do respond to every point you and the other liberals bring up on this subject.  It seems that your side is the one ignoring facts and logic.  I am sorry that you are losing another debate, but remember that nobody can win every debate.  Losing only makes you stronger.  It builds character.  Embrace your defeat and grow from it.  And, above all, grow up.  ;D
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: TheEarthIsASphere. on December 02, 2015, 07:22:52 AM
I, frankly, do not care what you or anyone else on this forum thinks about me.  Perhaps I am a gun nut.  Or, perhaps I simply chose to defend the Constitution of the United States.  Or, perhaps I simply call people out when they spew bullshit on our forum.  Take your pick.  It matters not to me.

Good for you. I guess you're one of those people who likes to run around and yell "LALALALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU LALALALALA" whenever someone brings up a touchy subject like gun control.

But, I do respond to every point you and the other liberals bring up on this subject.  It seems that your side is the one ignoring facts and logic.  I am sorry that you are losing another debate, but remember that nobody can win every debate.  Losing only makes you stronger.  It builds character.  Embrace your defeat and grow from it.  And, above all, grow up.  ;D

No, I won't embrace my so-called "defeat" or "win" until we have gun control in place that prevents criminals from obtaining weapons to commit violent acts. Calling what I just said "illogical" is what makes your stance the illogical stance. By saying that gun control do this is "illogical", you're simply saying that you don't care when say, someone shoots up a school full of innocent children, or when someone goes on a mass murder spree killing hundreds of innocent people.

Let me ask you this: if a family member of yours was killed in a mass shooting because some violence-crazed lunatic got ahold of a gun, due to the lack of proper gun control, would you still be anti-gun control?
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: Son of Orospu on December 02, 2015, 07:40:54 AM
I, frankly, do not care what you or anyone else on this forum thinks about me.  Perhaps I am a gun nut.  Or, perhaps I simply chose to defend the Constitution of the United States.  Or, perhaps I simply call people out when they spew bullshit on our forum.  Take your pick.  It matters not to me.

Good for you. I guess you're one of those people who likes to run around and yell "LALALALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU LALALALALA" whenever someone brings up a touchy subject like gun control.

But, I do respond to every point you and the other liberals bring up on this subject.  It seems that your side is the one ignoring facts and logic.  I am sorry that you are losing another debate, but remember that nobody can win every debate.  Losing only makes you stronger.  It builds character.  Embrace your defeat and grow from it.  And, above all, grow up.  ;D

No, I won't embrace my so-called "defeat" or "win" until we have gun control in place that prevents criminals from obtaining weapons to commit violent acts. Calling what I just said "illogical" is what makes your stance the illogical stance. By saying that gun control do this is "illogical", you're simply saying that you don't care when say, someone shoots up a school full of innocent children, or when someone goes on a mass murder spree killing hundreds of innocent people.

Let me ask you this: if a family member of yours was killed in a mass shooting because some violence-crazed lunatic got ahold of a gun, due to the lack of proper gun control, would you still be anti-gun control?

Oh, the old argumentum ad passiones fallacy (https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-emotion) that you liberals like to throw around.  I have not seen this one in a while.  Let me flip it around on you.

A friend of mine was run over by a car and died shortly after graduating from high school.  If this happened to someone you knew, would you want to ban all cars? 
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: TheEarthIsASphere. on December 02, 2015, 07:47:01 AM
I, frankly, do not care what you or anyone else on this forum thinks about me.  Perhaps I am a gun nut.  Or, perhaps I simply chose to defend the Constitution of the United States.  Or, perhaps I simply call people out when they spew bullshit on our forum.  Take your pick.  It matters not to me.

Good for you. I guess you're one of those people who likes to run around and yell "LALALALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU LALALALALA" whenever someone brings up a touchy subject like gun control.

But, I do respond to every point you and the other liberals bring up on this subject.  It seems that your side is the one ignoring facts and logic.  I am sorry that you are losing another debate, but remember that nobody can win every debate.  Losing only makes you stronger.  It builds character.  Embrace your defeat and grow from it.  And, above all, grow up.  ;D

No, I won't embrace my so-called "defeat" or "win" until we have gun control in place that prevents criminals from obtaining weapons to commit violent acts. Calling what I just said "illogical" is what makes your stance the illogical stance. By saying that gun control do this is "illogical", you're simply saying that you don't care when say, someone shoots up a school full of innocent children, or when someone goes on a mass murder spree killing hundreds of innocent people.

Let me ask you this: if a family member of yours was killed in a mass shooting because some violence-crazed lunatic got ahold of a gun, due to the lack of proper gun control, would you still be anti-gun control?

Oh, the old argumentum ad passiones fallacy (https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-emotion) that you liberals like to throw around.  I have not seen this one in a while.  Let me flip it around on you.

A friend of mine was run over by a car and died shortly after graduating from high school.  If this happened to someone you knew, would you want to ban all cars?



Quote
A friend of mine was run over by a car and died shortly after graduating from high school.  If this happened to someone you knew, would you want to ban all cars?

There's a difference between an accidental death and a murder jaor. I'd think you would know that, but apparently not.
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: Son of Orospu on December 02, 2015, 07:52:17 AM
I, frankly, do not care what you or anyone else on this forum thinks about me.  Perhaps I am a gun nut.  Or, perhaps I simply chose to defend the Constitution of the United States.  Or, perhaps I simply call people out when they spew bullshit on our forum.  Take your pick.  It matters not to me.

Good for you. I guess you're one of those people who likes to run around and yell "LALALALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU LALALALALA" whenever someone brings up a touchy subject like gun control.

But, I do respond to every point you and the other liberals bring up on this subject.  It seems that your side is the one ignoring facts and logic.  I am sorry that you are losing another debate, but remember that nobody can win every debate.  Losing only makes you stronger.  It builds character.  Embrace your defeat and grow from it.  And, above all, grow up.  ;D

No, I won't embrace my so-called "defeat" or "win" until we have gun control in place that prevents criminals from obtaining weapons to commit violent acts. Calling what I just said "illogical" is what makes your stance the illogical stance. By saying that gun control do this is "illogical", you're simply saying that you don't care when say, someone shoots up a school full of innocent children, or when someone goes on a mass murder spree killing hundreds of innocent people.

Let me ask you this: if a family member of yours was killed in a mass shooting because some violence-crazed lunatic got ahold of a gun, due to the lack of proper gun control, would you still be anti-gun control?

Oh, the old argumentum ad passiones fallacy (https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-emotion) that you liberals like to throw around.  I have not seen this one in a while.  Let me flip it around on you.

A friend of mine was run over by a car and died shortly after graduating from high school.  If this happened to someone you knew, would you want to ban all cars?



Quote
A friend of mine was run over by a car and died shortly after graduating from high school.  If this happened to someone you knew, would you want to ban all cars?

There's a difference between an accidental death and a murder jaor. I'd think you would know that, but apparently not.

What makes you so sure it was an accident?  Do you think murder only happens with a firearm?  A guy in a neighboring city of mine was murdered by an acquaintance of his with a hammer not too long ago.  Should we ban hammers?  Screwdrivers?  Knives?  People have been murdering other people since prehistoric times.  If we banned everything that was ever used to murder someone, we would have nothing left.  :(
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: Luke 22:35-38 on December 02, 2015, 08:12:08 AM
I, frankly, do not care what you or anyone else on this forum thinks about me.  Perhaps I am a gun nut.  Or, perhaps I simply chose to defend the Constitution of the United States.  Or, perhaps I simply call people out when they spew bullshit on our forum.  Take your pick.  It matters not to me.

Good for you. I guess you're one of those people who likes to run around and yell "LALALALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU LALALALALA" whenever someone brings up a touchy subject like gun control.

But, I do respond to every point you and the other liberals bring up on this subject.  It seems that your side is the one ignoring facts and logic.  I am sorry that you are losing another debate, but remember that nobody can win every debate.  Losing only makes you stronger.  It builds character.  Embrace your defeat and grow from it.  And, above all, grow up.  ;D

No, I won't embrace my so-called "defeat" or "win" until we have gun control in place that prevents criminals from obtaining weapons to commit violent acts. Calling what I just said "illogical" is what makes your stance the illogical stance. By saying that gun control do this is "illogical", you're simply saying that you don't care when say, someone shoots up a school full of innocent children, or when someone goes on a mass murder spree killing hundreds of innocent people.

Let me ask you this: if a family member of yours was killed in a mass shooting because some violence-crazed lunatic got ahold of a gun, due to the lack of proper gun control, would you still be anti-gun control?

Oh, the old argumentum ad passiones fallacy (https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-emotion) that you liberals like to throw around.  I have not seen this one in a while.  Let me flip it around on you.

A friend of mine was run over by a car and died shortly after graduating from high school.  If this happened to someone you knew, would you want to ban all cars?



Quote
A friend of mine was run over by a car and died shortly after graduating from high school.  If this happened to someone you knew, would you want to ban all cars?

There's a difference between an accidental death and a murder jaor. I'd think you would know that, but apparently not.

I like to point out two things:

1. There's such a thing as road rage
2. One of the reasons some people want to ban guns is because of how "dangerous" they are to the children and will point to cases where children got a hold of a gun and shot someone accidentally.
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: Son of Orospu on December 02, 2015, 08:18:47 AM
I, frankly, do not care what you or anyone else on this forum thinks about me.  Perhaps I am a gun nut.  Or, perhaps I simply chose to defend the Constitution of the United States.  Or, perhaps I simply call people out when they spew bullshit on our forum.  Take your pick.  It matters not to me.

Good for you. I guess you're one of those people who likes to run around and yell "LALALALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU LALALALALA" whenever someone brings up a touchy subject like gun control.

But, I do respond to every point you and the other liberals bring up on this subject.  It seems that your side is the one ignoring facts and logic.  I am sorry that you are losing another debate, but remember that nobody can win every debate.  Losing only makes you stronger.  It builds character.  Embrace your defeat and grow from it.  And, above all, grow up.  ;D

No, I won't embrace my so-called "defeat" or "win" until we have gun control in place that prevents criminals from obtaining weapons to commit violent acts. Calling what I just said "illogical" is what makes your stance the illogical stance. By saying that gun control do this is "illogical", you're simply saying that you don't care when say, someone shoots up a school full of innocent children, or when someone goes on a mass murder spree killing hundreds of innocent people.

Let me ask you this: if a family member of yours was killed in a mass shooting because some violence-crazed lunatic got ahold of a gun, due to the lack of proper gun control, would you still be anti-gun control?

Oh, the old argumentum ad passiones fallacy (https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-emotion) that you liberals like to throw around.  I have not seen this one in a while.  Let me flip it around on you.

A friend of mine was run over by a car and died shortly after graduating from high school.  If this happened to someone you knew, would you want to ban all cars?



Quote
A friend of mine was run over by a car and died shortly after graduating from high school.  If this happened to someone you knew, would you want to ban all cars?

There's a difference between an accidental death and a murder jaor. I'd think you would know that, but apparently not.

I like to point out two things:

1. There's such a thing as road rage
2. One of the reasons some people want to ban guns is because of how "dangerous" they are to the children and will point to cases where children got a hold of a gun and shot someone accidentally.

Just to add to your point, everyday in the US, 300 children are hospitalized for ingesting household poisons.  Why don't we hear the crybaby liberals demanding that bleach should be banned? 
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: Misero on December 02, 2015, 02:03:00 PM
Again, oarj, not murder.
(No, whatever FE'r wants to call me an alt, I'm not TheEarthIsRound.)
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: Son of Orospu on December 02, 2015, 03:02:03 PM
Is the death of a child only wrong when murder is involved?  I know you guys are out of ammo, but please try to at least make reasonable arguments. 
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: Scroto Gaggins on December 02, 2015, 03:31:35 PM
Ahem.

It might surprise you to know that for much of Japan's written history, civilian conscripts have played a very large role in their ability to wage war.  In fact, after WWII, Japan was forbidden from having a proper military due to the terms of surrender.  However, they were eventually allowed to have a civilian militia in order to protect the peace and for self defense purposes.  This carries on even to today.  Japan does not have an army, navy or air force.  Instead, they have the Japanese Ground Self-Defense Force, the Maritime Self-Defense Force, and the Air Self-Defense Force.  So, I am not sure where you are getting your information, but it seems that your sources are wrong.
So you hold that a militia is indeed necessary to the security of any state?
Militia, as I'm sure you are aware, is any fighting force made up of non-professional fighters.
So the founding fathers were of the opinion that the involvement of non-professional soldiers in defence is necessary to the security of a state.
In the case of Japan, their Self-Defence Force is not a militia.
In becoming a member of their armed forces, that becomes your job.
Ergo, you are now a professional.
Ergo, you are not in a militia.

Make no mistake, a militia system can aid in national security, but it is by no means necessary.
And if a militia is not necessary, then the Founding Fathers were wrong.
And if they were wrong on this count, then it seems imprudent to assume wisdom when citing their other point.

Well, then, it might surprise you to learn that the Japanese Ground Self-Defense Force does, in fact, have reserve components.  These reservists train for 5 to 30 days per year and perform their regular careers while not training.  Sounds like your definition of a militia to me.  Are you ready to admit defeat, or are you going to continue to drag this on?

If they're part of a government-run military force, then they're part of the military, not a militia. People can have multiple jobs along with an army job, and it's even more common in Japan because they almost never have a need to use their military. That's beside the point though, we aren't arguing about what a militia is, but rather if they're necessary to the "security of a free state", which they aren't.

Scrotum Gagger specifically argued that militias are not necessary and specifically pointed to Japan as an example.  He also specifically defined a militia.  I then showed him that Japan does, in fact, have a militia according to his own definition.  Please, keep up with the conversation.  I know you are trying to help your liberal buddy with his losing argument, but you are only making the both of you look dumber.
Well, because this argument is about necessity, then I think it's fair to say that the presence of a militia is irrelevant.
Reservists rarely ever participate in active military operations, meaning that the contribution of militias to state defence is limited at best, non-existent at worst, and certainly not necessary.
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: Son of Orospu on December 02, 2015, 04:06:25 PM
Ahem.

It might surprise you to know that for much of Japan's written history, civilian conscripts have played a very large role in their ability to wage war.  In fact, after WWII, Japan was forbidden from having a proper military due to the terms of surrender.  However, they were eventually allowed to have a civilian militia in order to protect the peace and for self defense purposes.  This carries on even to today.  Japan does not have an army, navy or air force.  Instead, they have the Japanese Ground Self-Defense Force, the Maritime Self-Defense Force, and the Air Self-Defense Force.  So, I am not sure where you are getting your information, but it seems that your sources are wrong.
So you hold that a militia is indeed necessary to the security of any state?
Militia, as I'm sure you are aware, is any fighting force made up of non-professional fighters.
So the founding fathers were of the opinion that the involvement of non-professional soldiers in defence is necessary to the security of a state.
In the case of Japan, their Self-Defence Force is not a militia.
In becoming a member of their armed forces, that becomes your job.
Ergo, you are now a professional.
Ergo, you are not in a militia.

Make no mistake, a militia system can aid in national security, but it is by no means necessary.
And if a militia is not necessary, then the Founding Fathers were wrong.
And if they were wrong on this count, then it seems imprudent to assume wisdom when citing their other point.

Well, then, it might surprise you to learn that the Japanese Ground Self-Defense Force does, in fact, have reserve components.  These reservists train for 5 to 30 days per year and perform their regular careers while not training.  Sounds like your definition of a militia to me.  Are you ready to admit defeat, or are you going to continue to drag this on?

If they're part of a government-run military force, then they're part of the military, not a militia. People can have multiple jobs along with an army job, and it's even more common in Japan because they almost never have a need to use their military. That's beside the point though, we aren't arguing about what a militia is, but rather if they're necessary to the "security of a free state", which they aren't.

Scrotum Gagger specifically argued that militias are not necessary and specifically pointed to Japan as an example.  He also specifically defined a militia.  I then showed him that Japan does, in fact, have a militia according to his own definition.  Please, keep up with the conversation.  I know you are trying to help your liberal buddy with his losing argument, but you are only making the both of you look dumber.
Well, because this argument is about necessity, then I think it's fair to say that the presence of a militia is irrelevant.
Reservists rarely ever participate in active military operations, meaning that the contribution of militias to state defence is limited at best, non-existent at worst, and certainly not necessary.

I fail to see how you have established a lack of necessity.  Militias have always been around, and continue to exist virtually everywhere even today.  The fact that they still exist speaks for their necessity.  But, let us examine your perception of reservists.  I can assure you that reservists have participated in every major US conflict that I can think of.  You are absolutely wrong in your statement that they rarely participate in military operations.  I was in the USMC reserves, and I know which recent military operations my old unit participated in.  It sounds to me that you started with Petitio Principii, moved to Dicto Simpliciter when you got called out, and are now trying to back out using Non Sequitur arguments.  How many more fallacies are you and your cohorts going to try to pass off as valid debate tactics? 
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: Misero on December 02, 2015, 06:28:52 PM
Is the death of a child only wrong when murder is involved?  I know you guys are out of ammo, but please try to at least make reasonable arguments.
I'm only saying that it does not pertain to the argument at hand. A death can only be blamed on a person should that person have malicious intent. (Or just complete ineptitude, but that isn't ever the case in shootings).
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: charles bloomington on December 02, 2015, 07:33:43 PM
Ahem.

It might surprise you to know that for much of Japan's written history, civilian conscripts have played a very large role in their ability to wage war.  In fact, after WWII, Japan was forbidden from having a proper military due to the terms of surrender.  However, they were eventually allowed to have a civilian militia in order to protect the peace and for self defense purposes.  This carries on even to today.  Japan does not have an army, navy or air force.  Instead, they have the Japanese Ground Self-Defense Force, the Maritime Self-Defense Force, and the Air Self-Defense Force.  So, I am not sure where you are getting your information, but it seems that your sources are wrong.
So you hold that a militia is indeed necessary to the security of any state?
Militia, as I'm sure you are aware, is any fighting force made up of non-professional fighters.
So the founding fathers were of the opinion that the involvement of non-professional soldiers in defence is necessary to the security of a state.
In the case of Japan, their Self-Defence Force is not a militia.
In becoming a member of their armed forces, that becomes your job.
Ergo, you are now a professional.
Ergo, you are not in a militia.

Make no mistake, a militia system can aid in national security, but it is by no means necessary.
And if a militia is not necessary, then the Founding Fathers were wrong.
And if they were wrong on this count, then it seems imprudent to assume wisdom when citing their other point.

Well, then, it might surprise you to learn that the Japanese Ground Self-Defense Force does, in fact, have reserve components.  These reservists train for 5 to 30 days per year and perform their regular careers while not training.  Sounds like your definition of a militia to me.  Are you ready to admit defeat, or are you going to continue to drag this on?

If they're part of a government-run military force, then they're part of the military, not a militia. People can have multiple jobs along with an army job, and it's even more common in Japan because they almost never have a need to use their military. That's beside the point though, we aren't arguing about what a militia is, but rather if they're necessary to the "security of a free state", which they aren't.

Scrotum Gagger specifically argued that militias are not necessary and specifically pointed to Japan as an example.  He also specifically defined a militia.  I then showed him that Japan does, in fact, have a militia according to his own definition.  Please, keep up with the conversation.  I know you are trying to help your liberal buddy with his losing argument, but you are only making the both of you look dumber.
Well, because this argument is about necessity, then I think it's fair to say that the presence of a militia is irrelevant.
Reservists rarely ever participate in active military operations, meaning that the contribution of militias to state defence is limited at best, non-existent at worst, and certainly not necessary.
Now you really are talking rubbish. Scrotum the Sock puppet . I have a gun licence & own numerous different types of fire arms  & I'm not a member of any  shooters club . I cant tell you the organisation I'm enlisted in, other then saying if the shit ever totally hit  the fan in this country.  We get the nod .
Put it this way ,our specialty is not political or religious & hell would be classed as a first class pleasurable picnic . To what would ride in on the pale horse once  the nod was given. To those who would want to harm this country & its country men & women.

Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: Son of Orospu on December 02, 2015, 11:56:55 PM
Is the death of a child only wrong when murder is involved?  I know you guys are out of ammo, but please try to at least make reasonable arguments.
I'm only saying that it does not pertain to the argument at hand. A death can only be blamed on a person should that person have malicious intent. (Or just complete ineptitude, but that isn't ever the case in shootings).

The same applies to firearms.  The difference is that you liberals like to blame the  firearms and not the people.  Do you not see the double standard here? 
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: Scroto Gaggins on December 03, 2015, 01:45:17 AM
Ahem.

It might surprise you to know that for much of Japan's written history, civilian conscripts have played a very large role in their ability to wage war.  In fact, after WWII, Japan was forbidden from having a proper military due to the terms of surrender.  However, they were eventually allowed to have a civilian militia in order to protect the peace and for self defense purposes.  This carries on even to today.  Japan does not have an army, navy or air force.  Instead, they have the Japanese Ground Self-Defense Force, the Maritime Self-Defense Force, and the Air Self-Defense Force.  So, I am not sure where you are getting your information, but it seems that your sources are wrong.
So you hold that a militia is indeed necessary to the security of any state?
Militia, as I'm sure you are aware, is any fighting force made up of non-professional fighters.
So the founding fathers were of the opinion that the involvement of non-professional soldiers in defence is necessary to the security of a state.
In the case of Japan, their Self-Defence Force is not a militia.
In becoming a member of their armed forces, that becomes your job.
Ergo, you are now a professional.
Ergo, you are not in a militia.

Make no mistake, a militia system can aid in national security, but it is by no means necessary.
And if a militia is not necessary, then the Founding Fathers were wrong.
And if they were wrong on this count, then it seems imprudent to assume wisdom when citing their other point.

Well, then, it might surprise you to learn that the Japanese Ground Self-Defense Force does, in fact, have reserve components.  These reservists train for 5 to 30 days per year and perform their regular careers while not training.  Sounds like your definition of a militia to me.  Are you ready to admit defeat, or are you going to continue to drag this on?

If they're part of a government-run military force, then they're part of the military, not a militia. People can have multiple jobs along with an army job, and it's even more common in Japan because they almost never have a need to use their military. That's beside the point though, we aren't arguing about what a militia is, but rather if they're necessary to the "security of a free state", which they aren't.

Scrotum Gagger specifically argued that militias are not necessary and specifically pointed to Japan as an example.  He also specifically defined a militia.  I then showed him that Japan does, in fact, have a militia according to his own definition.  Please, keep up with the conversation.  I know you are trying to help your liberal buddy with his losing argument, but you are only making the both of you look dumber.
Well, because this argument is about necessity, then I think it's fair to say that the presence of a militia is irrelevant.
Reservists rarely ever participate in active military operations, meaning that the contribution of militias to state defence is limited at best, non-existent at worst, and certainly not necessary.

I fail to see how you have established a lack of necessity.  Militias have always been around, and continue to exist virtually everywhere even today.  The fact that they still exist speaks for their necessity.  But, let us examine your perception of reservists.  I can assure you that reservists have participated in every major US conflict that I can think of.  You are absolutely wrong in your statement that they rarely participate in military operations.  I was in the USMC reserves, and I know which recent military operations my old unit participated in.  It sounds to me that you started with Petitio Principii, moved to Dicto Simpliciter when you got called out, and are now trying to back out using Non Sequitur arguments.  How many more fallacies are you and your cohorts going to try to pass off as valid debate tactics?
Existence doesn't imply/infer/prove necessity by a long shot.
It may prove potential usage, but necessity is a very specific term.
In this sense, x being necessary to the security of a state means that without x, a state isn't secure.
Ergo, if x is not present, then a state isn't secure.
So, Mr. Roach, allow me to present a list of countries without both reserve military forces, or paramilitary forces.
i.e. all countries without civilian involvement in state defence.
By your logic, all these countries shouldn't be secure.

Bahamas
Bosnia
Cape Verde
Ethiopia
Gambia
Ghana
Kosovo
Mozambique
Papua New Guinea
Qatar
Sierra Leone
Slovakia
South Sudan
Suriname
Timor
Turkmenistan
Trinidad and Tobago
United Arab Emirates

A lot of these countries are doing pretty bad, true.
But if the founding fathers were correct, then all of these countries shouldn't be secure.

And yes, reservists have participated in military conflicts. I concede that.
But it is a far cry to say that participation equals necessity.
If all reserve forces were taken out of the equation, and the only military available was professional soldiers, are you saying that the nation would fall?
Bear in mind that if the Founding Fathers were correct, this rule needs to apply to all free states, past and present.
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: Frank Lee on December 03, 2015, 01:59:20 AM

Bear in mind that if the Founding Fathers were correct, this rule needs to apply to all free states, past and present.

NO! The constitution is limitations on Federal power, to insure the continuation of our "Constitutional republic"
It is not some damn globalist document.
The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: Scroto Gaggins on December 03, 2015, 02:10:18 AM

Bear in mind that if the Founding Fathers were correct, this rule needs to apply to all free states, past and present.

NO! The constitution is limitations on Federal power, to insure the continuation of our "Constitutional republic"
It is not some damn globalist document.
The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state..."
That's what my quote was about.
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: Son of Orospu on December 03, 2015, 03:55:56 AM
Ahem.

It might surprise you to know that for much of Japan's written history, civilian conscripts have played a very large role in their ability to wage war.  In fact, after WWII, Japan was forbidden from having a proper military due to the terms of surrender.  However, they were eventually allowed to have a civilian militia in order to protect the peace and for self defense purposes.  This carries on even to today.  Japan does not have an army, navy or air force.  Instead, they have the Japanese Ground Self-Defense Force, the Maritime Self-Defense Force, and the Air Self-Defense Force.  So, I am not sure where you are getting your information, but it seems that your sources are wrong.
So you hold that a militia is indeed necessary to the security of any state?
Militia, as I'm sure you are aware, is any fighting force made up of non-professional fighters.
So the founding fathers were of the opinion that the involvement of non-professional soldiers in defence is necessary to the security of a state.
In the case of Japan, their Self-Defence Force is not a militia.
In becoming a member of their armed forces, that becomes your job.
Ergo, you are now a professional.
Ergo, you are not in a militia.

Make no mistake, a militia system can aid in national security, but it is by no means necessary.
And if a militia is not necessary, then the Founding Fathers were wrong.
And if they were wrong on this count, then it seems imprudent to assume wisdom when citing their other point.

Well, then, it might surprise you to learn that the Japanese Ground Self-Defense Force does, in fact, have reserve components.  These reservists train for 5 to 30 days per year and perform their regular careers while not training.  Sounds like your definition of a militia to me.  Are you ready to admit defeat, or are you going to continue to drag this on?

If they're part of a government-run military force, then they're part of the military, not a militia. People can have multiple jobs along with an army job, and it's even more common in Japan because they almost never have a need to use their military. That's beside the point though, we aren't arguing about what a militia is, but rather if they're necessary to the "security of a free state", which they aren't.

Scrotum Gagger specifically argued that militias are not necessary and specifically pointed to Japan as an example.  He also specifically defined a militia.  I then showed him that Japan does, in fact, have a militia according to his own definition.  Please, keep up with the conversation.  I know you are trying to help your liberal buddy with his losing argument, but you are only making the both of you look dumber.
Well, because this argument is about necessity, then I think it's fair to say that the presence of a militia is irrelevant.
Reservists rarely ever participate in active military operations, meaning that the contribution of militias to state defence is limited at best, non-existent at worst, and certainly not necessary.

I fail to see how you have established a lack of necessity.  Militias have always been around, and continue to exist virtually everywhere even today.  The fact that they still exist speaks for their necessity.  But, let us examine your perception of reservists.  I can assure you that reservists have participated in every major US conflict that I can think of.  You are absolutely wrong in your statement that they rarely participate in military operations.  I was in the USMC reserves, and I know which recent military operations my old unit participated in.  It sounds to me that you started with Petitio Principii, moved to Dicto Simpliciter when you got called out, and are now trying to back out using Non Sequitur arguments.  How many more fallacies are you and your cohorts going to try to pass off as valid debate tactics?
Existence doesn't imply/infer/prove necessity by a long shot.
It may prove potential usage, but necessity is a very specific term.
In this sense, x being necessary to the security of a state means that without x, a state isn't secure.
Ergo, if x is not present, then a state isn't secure.
So, Mr. Roach, allow me to present a list of countries without both reserve military forces, or paramilitary forces.
i.e. all countries without civilian involvement in state defence.
By your logic, all these countries shouldn't be secure.

Bahamas
Bosnia
Cape Verde
Ethiopia
Gambia
Ghana
Kosovo
Mozambique
Papua New Guinea
Qatar
Sierra Leone
Slovakia
South Sudan
Suriname
Timor
Turkmenistan
Trinidad and Tobago
United Arab Emirates

A lot of these countries are doing pretty bad, true.
But if the founding fathers were correct, then all of these countries shouldn't be secure.

And yes, reservists have participated in military conflicts. I concede that.
But it is a far cry to say that participation equals necessity.
If all reserve forces were taken out of the equation, and the only military available was professional soldiers, are you saying that the nation would fall?
Bear in mind that if the Founding Fathers were correct, this rule needs to apply to all free states, past and present.

You continue to use a Dicto Simpliciter argument, and it is not helping you at all.  Just because something is true (or claimed to be true) in one case, that does not mean it is true in all cases.  You can continue with this line of debate all you want to, but that does not make it logically true.  Of course, you will repeat this over and over in an attempt at Argumentum ad Nauseam, but repeating something over and over does not make it logically true.  Sorry that you have failed so hard, but maybe next time you will do better in a debate. 
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: Frank Lee on December 03, 2015, 04:17:22 AM

Bear in mind that if the Founding Fathers were correct, this rule needs to apply to all free states, past and present.

NO! The constitution is limitations on Federal power, to insure the continuation of our "Constitutional republic"
It is not some damn globalist document.
The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state..."
That's what my quote was about.

And I said the Federal government may not usurp the authority of the free state. Thus maintaining the security of a free state.
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state"
You are talking about countries. I answered your falsity.  Or are you saying a state is all the countries in the world?
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: Scroto Gaggins on December 03, 2015, 05:02:17 AM
Ahem.

It might surprise you to know that for much of Japan's written history, civilian conscripts have played a very large role in their ability to wage war.  In fact, after WWII, Japan was forbidden from having a proper military due to the terms of surrender.  However, they were eventually allowed to have a civilian militia in order to protect the peace and for self defense purposes.  This carries on even to today.  Japan does not have an army, navy or air force.  Instead, they have the Japanese Ground Self-Defense Force, the Maritime Self-Defense Force, and the Air Self-Defense Force.  So, I am not sure where you are getting your information, but it seems that your sources are wrong.
So you hold that a militia is indeed necessary to the security of any state?
Militia, as I'm sure you are aware, is any fighting force made up of non-professional fighters.
So the founding fathers were of the opinion that the involvement of non-professional soldiers in defence is necessary to the security of a state.
In the case of Japan, their Self-Defence Force is not a militia.
In becoming a member of their armed forces, that becomes your job.
Ergo, you are now a professional.
Ergo, you are not in a militia.

Make no mistake, a militia system can aid in national security, but it is by no means necessary.
And if a militia is not necessary, then the Founding Fathers were wrong.
And if they were wrong on this count, then it seems imprudent to assume wisdom when citing their other point.

Well, then, it might surprise you to learn that the Japanese Ground Self-Defense Force does, in fact, have reserve components.  These reservists train for 5 to 30 days per year and perform their regular careers while not training.  Sounds like your definition of a militia to me.  Are you ready to admit defeat, or are you going to continue to drag this on?

If they're part of a government-run military force, then they're part of the military, not a militia. People can have multiple jobs along with an army job, and it's even more common in Japan because they almost never have a need to use their military. That's beside the point though, we aren't arguing about what a militia is, but rather if they're necessary to the "security of a free state", which they aren't.

Scrotum Gagger specifically argued that militias are not necessary and specifically pointed to Japan as an example.  He also specifically defined a militia.  I then showed him that Japan does, in fact, have a militia according to his own definition.  Please, keep up with the conversation.  I know you are trying to help your liberal buddy with his losing argument, but you are only making the both of you look dumber.
Well, because this argument is about necessity, then I think it's fair to say that the presence of a militia is irrelevant.
Reservists rarely ever participate in active military operations, meaning that the contribution of militias to state defence is limited at best, non-existent at worst, and certainly not necessary.

I fail to see how you have established a lack of necessity.  Militias have always been around, and continue to exist virtually everywhere even today.  The fact that they still exist speaks for their necessity.  But, let us examine your perception of reservists.  I can assure you that reservists have participated in every major US conflict that I can think of.  You are absolutely wrong in your statement that they rarely participate in military operations.  I was in the USMC reserves, and I know which recent military operations my old unit participated in.  It sounds to me that you started with Petitio Principii, moved to Dicto Simpliciter when you got called out, and are now trying to back out using Non Sequitur arguments.  How many more fallacies are you and your cohorts going to try to pass off as valid debate tactics?
Existence doesn't imply/infer/prove necessity by a long shot.
It may prove potential usage, but necessity is a very specific term.
In this sense, x being necessary to the security of a state means that without x, a state isn't secure.
Ergo, if x is not present, then a state isn't secure.
So, Mr. Roach, allow me to present a list of countries without both reserve military forces, or paramilitary forces.
i.e. all countries without civilian involvement in state defence.
By your logic, all these countries shouldn't be secure.

Bahamas
Bosnia
Cape Verde
Ethiopia
Gambia
Ghana
Kosovo
Mozambique
Papua New Guinea
Qatar
Sierra Leone
Slovakia
South Sudan
Suriname
Timor
Turkmenistan
Trinidad and Tobago
United Arab Emirates

A lot of these countries are doing pretty bad, true.
But if the founding fathers were correct, then all of these countries shouldn't be secure.

And yes, reservists have participated in military conflicts. I concede that.
But it is a far cry to say that participation equals necessity.
If all reserve forces were taken out of the equation, and the only military available was professional soldiers, are you saying that the nation would fall?
Bear in mind that if the Founding Fathers were correct, this rule needs to apply to all free states, past and present.

You continue to use a Dicto Simpliciter argument, and it is not helping you at all.  Just because something is true (or claimed to be true) in one case, that does not mean it is true in all cases.  You can continue with this line of debate all you want to, but that does not make it logically true.  Of course, you will repeat this over and over in an attempt at Argumentum ad Nauseam, but repeating something over and over does not make it logically true.  Sorry that you have failed so hard, but maybe next time you will do better in a debate.
Well, technically, the Founding Fathers used Dicto Simpliciter when they wrote the 2nd Amend. then.
Just because a militia might have been construed as essential to the security of their free state at that time, they wrote that a militia is "necessary for the security of a free state".
Now, unless they didn't mean this, in which case nothing they wrote should be taken seriously, they think that without a militia, a free state cannot be secure.
This is the argument on which they predicate the "right to bear and keep arms shall not be infringed".
If the basis of the entire amendment is flawed, then it follows that the whole amendment is flawed in some way.
And if the amendment is flawed in some way, then it can and should be changed.

Need I also add that the burden of proof lies on the 2nd Amend. , and those who support it, to prove the necessity of a militia in the security of a state.
I shouldn't have to, logically, show that a militia is unnecessary, as you haven't shown that it is.
The Founding Fathers stated that it was, but that's not really good enough.
So, I'll need you to show that the militia is an obligatory component of national security in all free states, without which the state is not secure.
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: Son of Orospu on December 03, 2015, 06:04:11 AM
I was not going to mention this, but since you insist on bringing up the term Free State, most of the countries that you listed as not having a reserve component to their military are in fact a form of dictatorship government.  Why would you equate a free state to a dictatorship?  A dictatorship fears armed civilians.  A free state does not. 
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: TheEarthIsASphere. on December 03, 2015, 07:43:53 AM
Ahem.

It might surprise you to know that for much of Japan's written history, civilian conscripts have played a very large role in their ability to wage war.  In fact, after WWII, Japan was forbidden from having a proper military due to the terms of surrender.  However, they were eventually allowed to have a civilian militia in order to protect the peace and for self defense purposes.  This carries on even to today.  Japan does not have an army, navy or air force.  Instead, they have the Japanese Ground Self-Defense Force, the Maritime Self-Defense Force, and the Air Self-Defense Force.  So, I am not sure where you are getting your information, but it seems that your sources are wrong.
So you hold that a militia is indeed necessary to the security of any state?
Militia, as I'm sure you are aware, is any fighting force made up of non-professional fighters.
So the founding fathers were of the opinion that the involvement of non-professional soldiers in defence is necessary to the security of a state.
In the case of Japan, their Self-Defence Force is not a militia.
In becoming a member of their armed forces, that becomes your job.
Ergo, you are now a professional.
Ergo, you are not in a militia.

Make no mistake, a militia system can aid in national security, but it is by no means necessary.
And if a militia is not necessary, then the Founding Fathers were wrong.
And if they were wrong on this count, then it seems imprudent to assume wisdom when citing their other point.

Well, then, it might surprise you to learn that the Japanese Ground Self-Defense Force does, in fact, have reserve components.  These reservists train for 5 to 30 days per year and perform their regular careers while not training.  Sounds like your definition of a militia to me.  Are you ready to admit defeat, or are you going to continue to drag this on?

If they're part of a government-run military force, then they're part of the military, not a militia. People can have multiple jobs along with an army job, and it's even more common in Japan because they almost never have a need to use their military. That's beside the point though, we aren't arguing about what a militia is, but rather if they're necessary to the "security of a free state", which they aren't.

Scrotum Gagger specifically argued that militias are not necessary and specifically pointed to Japan as an example.  He also specifically defined a militia.  I then showed him that Japan does, in fact, have a militia according to his own definition.  Please, keep up with the conversation.  I know you are trying to help your liberal buddy with his losing argument, but you are only making the both of you look dumber.
Well, because this argument is about necessity, then I think it's fair to say that the presence of a militia is irrelevant.
Reservists rarely ever participate in active military operations, meaning that the contribution of militias to state defence is limited at best, non-existent at worst, and certainly not necessary.
Now you really are talking rubbish. Scrotum the Sock puppet . I have a gun licence & own numerous different types of fire arms  & I'm not a member of any  shooters club . I cant tell you the organisation I'm enlisted in, other then saying if the shit ever totally hit  the fan in this country.  We get the nod .
Put it this way ,our specialty is not political or religious & hell would be classed as a first class pleasurable picnic . To what would ride in on the pale horse once  the nod was given. To those who would want to harm this country & its country men & women.

Looks like we have a genuine anarchist shill. You do know you can be do life in prison without parole for trying to overthrow the government?
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: Son of Orospu on December 03, 2015, 11:18:43 AM
Ahem.

It might surprise you to know that for much of Japan's written history, civilian conscripts have played a very large role in their ability to wage war.  In fact, after WWII, Japan was forbidden from having a proper military due to the terms of surrender.  However, they were eventually allowed to have a civilian militia in order to protect the peace and for self defense purposes.  This carries on even to today.  Japan does not have an army, navy or air force.  Instead, they have the Japanese Ground Self-Defense Force, the Maritime Self-Defense Force, and the Air Self-Defense Force.  So, I am not sure where you are getting your information, but it seems that your sources are wrong.
So you hold that a militia is indeed necessary to the security of any state?
Militia, as I'm sure you are aware, is any fighting force made up of non-professional fighters.
So the founding fathers were of the opinion that the involvement of non-professional soldiers in defence is necessary to the security of a state.
In the case of Japan, their Self-Defence Force is not a militia.
In becoming a member of their armed forces, that becomes your job.
Ergo, you are now a professional.
Ergo, you are not in a militia.

Make no mistake, a militia system can aid in national security, but it is by no means necessary.
And if a militia is not necessary, then the Founding Fathers were wrong.
And if they were wrong on this count, then it seems imprudent to assume wisdom when citing their other point.

Well, then, it might surprise you to learn that the Japanese Ground Self-Defense Force does, in fact, have reserve components.  These reservists train for 5 to 30 days per year and perform their regular careers while not training.  Sounds like your definition of a militia to me.  Are you ready to admit defeat, or are you going to continue to drag this on?

If they're part of a government-run military force, then they're part of the military, not a militia. People can have multiple jobs along with an army job, and it's even more common in Japan because they almost never have a need to use their military. That's beside the point though, we aren't arguing about what a militia is, but rather if they're necessary to the "security of a free state", which they aren't.

Scrotum Gagger specifically argued that militias are not necessary and specifically pointed to Japan as an example.  He also specifically defined a militia.  I then showed him that Japan does, in fact, have a militia according to his own definition.  Please, keep up with the conversation.  I know you are trying to help your liberal buddy with his losing argument, but you are only making the both of you look dumber.
Well, because this argument is about necessity, then I think it's fair to say that the presence of a militia is irrelevant.
Reservists rarely ever participate in active military operations, meaning that the contribution of militias to state defence is limited at best, non-existent at worst, and certainly not necessary.
Now you really are talking rubbish. Scrotum the Sock puppet . I have a gun licence & own numerous different types of fire arms  & I'm not a member of any  shooters club . I cant tell you the organisation I'm enlisted in, other then saying if the shit ever totally hit  the fan in this country.  We get the nod .
Put it this way ,our specialty is not political or religious & hell would be classed as a first class pleasurable picnic . To what would ride in on the pale horse once  the nod was given. To those who would want to harm this country & its country men & women.

Looks like we have a genuine anarchist shill. You do know you can be do life in prison without parole for trying to overthrow the government?

As much as it irks you liberals, freedom of speech is also protected under the constitution.  Not that constitutional rights mean much to your people anyway. 
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: TheEarthIsASphere. on December 03, 2015, 11:31:52 AM
Ahem.

It might surprise you to know that for much of Japan's written history, civilian conscripts have played a very large role in their ability to wage war.  In fact, after WWII, Japan was forbidden from having a proper military due to the terms of surrender.  However, they were eventually allowed to have a civilian militia in order to protect the peace and for self defense purposes.  This carries on even to today.  Japan does not have an army, navy or air force.  Instead, they have the Japanese Ground Self-Defense Force, the Maritime Self-Defense Force, and the Air Self-Defense Force.  So, I am not sure where you are getting your information, but it seems that your sources are wrong.
So you hold that a militia is indeed necessary to the security of any state?
Militia, as I'm sure you are aware, is any fighting force made up of non-professional fighters.
So the founding fathers were of the opinion that the involvement of non-professional soldiers in defence is necessary to the security of a state.
In the case of Japan, their Self-Defence Force is not a militia.
In becoming a member of their armed forces, that becomes your job.
Ergo, you are now a professional.
Ergo, you are not in a militia.

Make no mistake, a militia system can aid in national security, but it is by no means necessary.
And if a militia is not necessary, then the Founding Fathers were wrong.
And if they were wrong on this count, then it seems imprudent to assume wisdom when citing their other point.

Well, then, it might surprise you to learn that the Japanese Ground Self-Defense Force does, in fact, have reserve components.  These reservists train for 5 to 30 days per year and perform their regular careers while not training.  Sounds like your definition of a militia to me.  Are you ready to admit defeat, or are you going to continue to drag this on?

If they're part of a government-run military force, then they're part of the military, not a militia. People can have multiple jobs along with an army job, and it's even more common in Japan because they almost never have a need to use their military. That's beside the point though, we aren't arguing about what a militia is, but rather if they're necessary to the "security of a free state", which they aren't.

Scrotum Gagger specifically argued that militias are not necessary and specifically pointed to Japan as an example.  He also specifically defined a militia.  I then showed him that Japan does, in fact, have a militia according to his own definition.  Please, keep up with the conversation.  I know you are trying to help your liberal buddy with his losing argument, but you are only making the both of you look dumber.
Well, because this argument is about necessity, then I think it's fair to say that the presence of a militia is irrelevant.
Reservists rarely ever participate in active military operations, meaning that the contribution of militias to state defence is limited at best, non-existent at worst, and certainly not necessary.
Now you really are talking rubbish. Scrotum the Sock puppet . I have a gun licence & own numerous different types of fire arms  & I'm not a member of any  shooters club . I cant tell you the organisation I'm enlisted in, other then saying if the shit ever totally hit  the fan in this country.  We get the nod .
Put it this way ,our specialty is not political or religious & hell would be classed as a first class pleasurable picnic . To what would ride in on the pale horse once  the nod was given. To those who would want to harm this country & its country men & women.

Looks like we have a genuine anarchist shill. You do know you can be do life in prison without parole for trying to overthrow the government?

As much as it irks you liberals, freedom of speech is also protected under the constitution.  Not that constitutional rights mean much to your people anyway.

I'm not saying that he can't say stuff like that. I'm simply saying that he can get thrown in jail for life for doing any of the following things:

1. Plotting to overthrow the government.
2. Threatening to overthrow the government.
3. Trying to overthrow the government.

He wouldn't get arrested for doing the following:

1. Saying he'd like the government to be overthrown. (Although this may warrant a federal investigation of you in some cases).
2. Wishing the government would be overthrown.
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: Son of Orospu on December 03, 2015, 11:47:48 AM
I find it intriguing how you Thought Police Liberals can manipulate words to say what ever is on your agenda.  You should feel ashamed. 
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: TheEarthIsASphere. on December 03, 2015, 11:52:56 AM
I find it intriguing how you Thought Police Liberals can manipulate words to say what ever is on your agenda.  You should feel ashamed.

What the hell is wrong with you? I'm not the "thought police". I don't give a shit what other people think. Did you not even bother to read my above post at all?

I'm really starting to think that you're one of those stupid paranoid conservative freaks, raoj.
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: Son of Orospu on December 03, 2015, 11:59:24 AM
So, when you have been defeated in a debate, you, like the rest of your liberal kind, simply resort to ad hominem attacks.  This seems to be becoming a theme amongst your people around here. 
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: TheEarthIsASphere. on December 03, 2015, 12:01:34 PM
So, when you have been defeated in a debate, you, like the rest of your liberal kind, simply resort to ad hominem attacks.  This seems to be becoming a theme amongst your people around here.



Quote
[snip] you Thought Police Liberals can manipulate words to say what ever is on your agenda.  You should feel ashamed.

You're one to be talking about "attacks".
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: charles bloomington on December 03, 2015, 02:38:18 PM
Ahem.

It might surprise you to know that for much of Japan's written history, civilian conscripts have played a very large role in their ability to wage war.  In fact, after WWII, Japan was forbidden from having a proper military due to the terms of surrender.  However, they were eventually allowed to have a civilian militia in order to protect the peace and for self defense purposes.  This carries on even to today.  Japan does not have an army, navy or air force.  Instead, they have the Japanese Ground Self-Defense Force, the Maritime Self-Defense Force, and the Air Self-Defense Force.  So, I am not sure where you are getting your information, but it seems that your sources are wrong.
So you hold that a militia is indeed necessary to the security of any state?
Militia, as I'm sure you are aware, is any fighting force made up of non-professional fighters.
So the founding fathers were of the opinion that the involvement of non-professional soldiers in defence is necessary to the security of a state.
In the case of Japan, their Self-Defence Force is not a militia.
In becoming a member of their armed forces, that becomes your job.
Ergo, you are now a professional.
Ergo, you are not in a militia.

Make no mistake, a militia system can aid in national security, but it is by no means necessary.
And if a militia is not necessary, then the Founding Fathers were wrong.
And if they were wrong on this count, then it seems imprudent to assume wisdom when citing their other point.

Well, then, it might surprise you to learn that the Japanese Ground Self-Defense Force does, in fact, have reserve components.  These reservists train for 5 to 30 days per year and perform their regular careers while not training.  Sounds like your definition of a militia to me.  Are you ready to admit defeat, or are you going to continue to drag this on?

If they're part of a government-run military force, then they're part of the military, not a militia. People can have multiple jobs along with an army job, and it's even more common in Japan because they almost never have a need to use their military. That's beside the point though, we aren't arguing about what a militia is, but rather if they're necessary to the "security of a free state", which they aren't.

Scrotum Gagger specifically argued that militias are not necessary and specifically pointed to Japan as an example.  He also specifically defined a militia.  I then showed him that Japan does, in fact, have a militia according to his own definition.  Please, keep up with the conversation.  I know you are trying to help your liberal buddy with his losing argument, but you are only making the both of you look dumber.
Well, because this argument is about necessity, then I think it's fair to say that the presence of a militia is irrelevant.
Reservists rarely ever participate in active military operations, meaning that the contribution of militias to state defence is limited at best, non-existent at worst, and certainly not necessary.
Now you really are talking rubbish. Scrotum the Sock puppet . I have a gun licence & own numerous different types of fire arms  & I'm not a member of any  shooters club . I cant tell you the organisation I'm enlisted in, other then saying if the shit ever totally hit  the fan in this country.  We get the nod .
Put it this way ,our specialty is not political or religious & hell would be classed as a first class pleasurable picnic . To what would ride in on the pale horse once  the nod was given. To those who would want to harm this country & its country men & women.

Looks like we have a genuine anarchist shill. You do know you can be do life in prison without parole for trying to overthrow the government?
Well you & your Agenda21 friends better get your toothbushes ready then , because thats what use have been doing ,overthrowing lawfully constatuted Governments since 1992 by deception & implamenting unlawful treaties & legislations to further your monopolistic commercial interests.
The 1914 crimes act in this country is very clear on what constatutes treachery & treason.  The crimes act is very clear on what constatutes obtaining property by deception.  Its also clear what constitutes servatude & slavery.  A non binding treaty being implamented by stealth & deception is a criminal offense.  SS 109 of the UCC consolidates that truthfull fact. Theres no over throwing any lawfuly government on my part only a want of the law to be upheld like any law-abiding citizen should.
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: TheEarthIsASphere. on December 03, 2015, 03:02:43 PM
Ahem.

It might surprise you to know that for much of Japan's written history, civilian conscripts have played a very large role in their ability to wage war.  In fact, after WWII, Japan was forbidden from having a proper military due to the terms of surrender.  However, they were eventually allowed to have a civilian militia in order to protect the peace and for self defense purposes.  This carries on even to today.  Japan does not have an army, navy or air force.  Instead, they have the Japanese Ground Self-Defense Force, the Maritime Self-Defense Force, and the Air Self-Defense Force.  So, I am not sure where you are getting your information, but it seems that your sources are wrong.
So you hold that a militia is indeed necessary to the security of any state?
Militia, as I'm sure you are aware, is any fighting force made up of non-professional fighters.
So the founding fathers were of the opinion that the involvement of non-professional soldiers in defence is necessary to the security of a state.
In the case of Japan, their Self-Defence Force is not a militia.
In becoming a member of their armed forces, that becomes your job.
Ergo, you are now a professional.
Ergo, you are not in a militia.

Make no mistake, a militia system can aid in national security, but it is by no means necessary.
And if a militia is not necessary, then the Founding Fathers were wrong.
And if they were wrong on this count, then it seems imprudent to assume wisdom when citing their other point.

Well, then, it might surprise you to learn that the Japanese Ground Self-Defense Force does, in fact, have reserve components.  These reservists train for 5 to 30 days per year and perform their regular careers while not training.  Sounds like your definition of a militia to me.  Are you ready to admit defeat, or are you going to continue to drag this on?

If they're part of a government-run military force, then they're part of the military, not a militia. People can have multiple jobs along with an army job, and it's even more common in Japan because they almost never have a need to use their military. That's beside the point though, we aren't arguing about what a militia is, but rather if they're necessary to the "security of a free state", which they aren't.

Scrotum Gagger specifically argued that militias are not necessary and specifically pointed to Japan as an example.  He also specifically defined a militia.  I then showed him that Japan does, in fact, have a militia according to his own definition.  Please, keep up with the conversation.  I know you are trying to help your liberal buddy with his losing argument, but you are only making the both of you look dumber.
Well, because this argument is about necessity, then I think it's fair to say that the presence of a militia is irrelevant.
Reservists rarely ever participate in active military operations, meaning that the contribution of militias to state defence is limited at best, non-existent at worst, and certainly not necessary.
Now you really are talking rubbish. Scrotum the Sock puppet . I have a gun licence & own numerous different types of fire arms  & I'm not a member of any  shooters club . I cant tell you the organisation I'm enlisted in, other then saying if the shit ever totally hit  the fan in this country.  We get the nod .
Put it this way ,our specialty is not political or religious & hell would be classed as a first class pleasurable picnic . To what would ride in on the pale horse once  the nod was given. To those who would want to harm this country & its country men & women.

Looks like we have a genuine anarchist shill. You do know you can be do life in prison without parole for trying to overthrow the government?
Well you & your Agenda21 friends better get your toothbushes ready then , because thats what use have been doing ,overthrowing lawfully constatuted Governments since 1992 by deception & implamenting unlawful treaties & legislations to further your monopolistic commercial interests.
The 1914 crimes act in this country is very clear on what constatutes treachery & treason.  The crimes act is very clear on what constatutes obtaining property by deception.  Its also clear what constitutes servatude & slavery.  A non binding treaty being implamented by stealth & deception is a criminal offense.  SS 109 of the UCC consolidates that truthfull fact. Theres no over throwing any lawfuly government on my part only a want of the law to be upheld like any law-abiding citizen should.

Okay. I'm sick and tired of you spouting your bullshit, so let me just rip your stupid statement apart.

First off, I don't know why you keep using the term "Agenda 21" in relation to any of the good causes I'm trying to promote here. It isn't even remotely related to controlling the government. Agenda 21 was an agenda created to help promote sustainable development. Just so you don't start going on some rant about sustainable development and calling it a "government takeover", this is what it is: sustainable development is the continued development of man-made things, like buildings, without hurting the environment as well. In short, Agenda 21 is in no way way related to the takeover of governments. There. Nuke one has been dropped.

Alright, next, the Crimes Act of 1914, or to you "1914 crimes act" is in no way related to the U.S in any way. In fact - it was enacted in Australia and is a part of Australian law. Since, obviously, Australian law doesn't effect U.S law in any way, it again, has not one effect on the U.S. Nuke two has been dropped.

Finally, I looked online, and there's not one thing about this "SS 109 of the UCC". The only thing I get back when I look up is the "United Church of Christ", which most certainly don't make the laws and regulations. The final nuke has been dropped.

There you go Chrales. I have destroyed you, and shown to this forum that you don't know shit about what you're talking about.

You had best leave before you make yourself look like even more of a complete fool.
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: Luke 22:35-38 on December 03, 2015, 03:43:06 PM
I like to point out that the colonist rebelled against a established government. That's not to say that I'm calling for a revolution in fact that should be the very last resort.
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: charles bloomington on December 03, 2015, 04:29:11 PM
Ahem.

It might surprise you to know that for much of Japan's written history, civilian conscripts have played a very large role in their ability to wage war.  In fact, after WWII, Japan was forbidden from having a proper military due to the terms of surrender.  However, they were eventually allowed to have a civilian militia in order to protect the peace and for self defense purposes.  This carries on even to today.  Japan does not have an army, navy or air force.  Instead, they have the Japanese Ground Self-Defense Force, the Maritime Self-Defense Force, and the Air Self-Defense Force.  So, I am not sure where you are getting your information, but it seems that your sources are wrong.
So you hold that a militia is indeed necessary to the security of any state?
Militia, as I'm sure you are aware, is any fighting force made up of non-professional fighters.
So the founding fathers were of the opinion that the involvement of non-professional soldiers in defence is necessary to the security of a state.
In the case of Japan, their Self-Defence Force is not a militia.
In becoming a member of their armed forces, that becomes your job.
Ergo, you are now a professional.
Ergo, you are not in a militia.

Make no mistake, a militia system can aid in national security, but it is by no means necessary.
And if a militia is not necessary, then the Founding Fathers were wrong.
And if they were wrong on this count, then it seems imprudent to assume wisdom when citing their other point.

Well, then, it might surprise you to learn that the Japanese Ground Self-Defense Force does, in fact, have reserve components.  These reservists train for 5 to 30 days per year and perform their regular careers while not training.  Sounds like your definition of a militia to me.  Are you ready to admit defeat, or are you going to continue to drag this on?

If they're part of a government-run military force, then they're part of the military, not a militia. People can have multiple jobs along with an army job, and it's even more common in Japan because they almost never have a need to use their military. That's beside the point though, we aren't arguing about what a militia is, but rather if they're necessary to the "security of a free state", which they aren't.

Scrotum Gagger specifically argued that militias are not necessary and specifically pointed to Japan as an example.  He also specifically defined a militia.  I then showed him that Japan does, in fact, have a militia according to his own definition.  Please, keep up with the conversation.  I know you are trying to help your liberal buddy with his losing argument, but you are only making the both of you look dumber.
Well, because this argument is about necessity, then I think it's fair to say that the presence of a militia is irrelevant.
Reservists rarely ever participate in active military operations, meaning that the contribution of militias to state defence is limited at best, non-existent at worst, and certainly not necessary.
Now you really are talking rubbish. Scrotum the Sock puppet . I have a gun licence & own numerous different types of fire arms  & I'm not a member of any  shooters club . I cant tell you the organisation I'm enlisted in, other then saying if the shit ever totally hit  the fan in this country.  We get the nod .
Put it this way ,our specialty is not political or religious & hell would be classed as a first class pleasurable picnic . To what would ride in on the pale horse once  the nod was given. To those who would want to harm this country & its country men & women.

Looks like we have a genuine anarchist shill. You do know you can be do life in prison without parole for trying to overthrow the government?
Well you & your Agenda21 friends better get your toothbushes ready then , because thats what use have been doing ,overthrowing lawfully constatuted Governments since 1992 by deception & implamenting unlawful treaties & legislations to further your monopolistic commercial interests.
The 1914 crimes act in this country is very clear on what constatutes treachery & treason.  The crimes act is very clear on what constatutes obtaining property by deception.  Its also clear what constitutes servatude & slavery.  A non binding treaty being implamented by stealth & deception is a criminal offense.  SS 109 of the UCC consolidates that truthfull fact. Theres no over throwing any lawfuly government on my part only a want of the law to be upheld like any law-abiding citizen should.

Okay. I'm sick and tired of you spouting your bullshit, so let me just rip your stupid statement apart.

First off, I don't know why you keep using the term "Agenda 21" in relation to any of the good causes I'm trying to promote here. It isn't even remotely related to controlling the government. Agenda 21 was an agenda created to help promote sustainable development. Just so you don't start going on some rant about sustainable development and calling it a "government takeover", this is what it is: sustainable development is the continued development of man-made things, like buildings, without hurting the environment as well. In short, Agenda 21 is in no way way related to the takeover of governments. There. Nuke one has been dropped.

Alright, next, the Crimes Act of 1914, or to you "1914 crimes act" is in no way related to the U.S in any way. In fact - it was enacted in Australia and is a part of Australian law. Since, obviously, Australian law doesn't effect U.S law in any way, it again, has not one effect on the U.S. Nuke two has been dropped.

Finally, I looked online, and there's not one thing about this "SS 109 of the UCC". The only thing I get back when I look up is the "United Church of Christ", which most certainly don't make the laws and regulations. The final nuke has been dropped.

There you go Chrales. I have destroyed you, and shown to this forum that you don't know shit about what you're talking about.

You had best leave before you make yourself look like even more of a complete fool.
Universal commercial code ss109 lookup shit talker. A non binding treaty , means there is no Commercial Security Agreement. Which means obtaining property by deception & fraud. Control of property has the same lawfully & legal meaning as propriety ownership. Entering in to a non binding treaty & implamenting it with (no commercial secutity agreement) Is unlawfully & an illegal  breach of both the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution & the USA constitution.
It is treachery & treason to the citizens recognized under those consititutions.
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: Luke 22:35-38 on December 03, 2015, 04:36:53 PM
I think it's about time someone delete some of the quoted posts. It's beginning to be a mile long.
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: TheEarthIsASphere. on December 03, 2015, 04:38:01 PM
Ahem.

It might surprise you to know that for much of Japan's written history, civilian conscripts have played a very large role in their ability to wage war.  In fact, after WWII, Japan was forbidden from having a proper military due to the terms of surrender.  However, they were eventually allowed to have a civilian militia in order to protect the peace and for self defense purposes.  This carries on even to today.  Japan does not have an army, navy or air force.  Instead, they have the Japanese Ground Self-Defense Force, the Maritime Self-Defense Force, and the Air Self-Defense Force.  So, I am not sure where you are getting your information, but it seems that your sources are wrong.
So you hold that a militia is indeed necessary to the security of any state?
Militia, as I'm sure you are aware, is any fighting force made up of non-professional fighters.
So the founding fathers were of the opinion that the involvement of non-professional soldiers in defence is necessary to the security of a state.
In the case of Japan, their Self-Defence Force is not a militia.
In becoming a member of their armed forces, that becomes your job.
Ergo, you are now a professional.
Ergo, you are not in a militia.

Make no mistake, a militia system can aid in national security, but it is by no means necessary.
And if a militia is not necessary, then the Founding Fathers were wrong.
And if they were wrong on this count, then it seems imprudent to assume wisdom when citing their other point.

Well, then, it might surprise you to learn that the Japanese Ground Self-Defense Force does, in fact, have reserve components.  These reservists train for 5 to 30 days per year and perform their regular careers while not training.  Sounds like your definition of a militia to me.  Are you ready to admit defeat, or are you going to continue to drag this on?

If they're part of a government-run military force, then they're part of the military, not a militia. People can have multiple jobs along with an army job, and it's even more common in Japan because they almost never have a need to use their military. That's beside the point though, we aren't arguing about what a militia is, but rather if they're necessary to the "security of a free state", which they aren't.

Scrotum Gagger specifically argued that militias are not necessary and specifically pointed to Japan as an example.  He also specifically defined a militia.  I then showed him that Japan does, in fact, have a militia according to his own definition.  Please, keep up with the conversation.  I know you are trying to help your liberal buddy with his losing argument, but you are only making the both of you look dumber.
Well, because this argument is about necessity, then I think it's fair to say that the presence of a militia is irrelevant.
Reservists rarely ever participate in active military operations, meaning that the contribution of militias to state defence is limited at best, non-existent at worst, and certainly not necessary.
Now you really are talking rubbish. Scrotum the Sock puppet . I have a gun licence & own numerous different types of fire arms  & I'm not a member of any  shooters club . I cant tell you the organisation I'm enlisted in, other then saying if the shit ever totally hit  the fan in this country.  We get the nod .
Put it this way ,our specialty is not political or religious & hell would be classed as a first class pleasurable picnic . To what would ride in on the pale horse once  the nod was given. To those who would want to harm this country & its country men & women.

Looks like we have a genuine anarchist shill. You do know you can be do life in prison without parole for trying to overthrow the government?
Well you & your Agenda21 friends better get your toothbushes ready then , because thats what use have been doing ,overthrowing lawfully constatuted Governments since 1992 by deception & implamenting unlawful treaties & legislations to further your monopolistic commercial interests.
The 1914 crimes act in this country is very clear on what constatutes treachery & treason.  The crimes act is very clear on what constatutes obtaining property by deception.  Its also clear what constitutes servatude & slavery.  A non binding treaty being implamented by stealth & deception is a criminal offense.  SS 109 of the UCC consolidates that truthfull fact. Theres no over throwing any lawfuly government on my part only a want of the law to be upheld like any law-abiding citizen should.

Okay. I'm sick and tired of you spouting your bullshit, so let me just rip your stupid statement apart.

First off, I don't know why you keep using the term "Agenda 21" in relation to any of the good causes I'm trying to promote here. It isn't even remotely related to controlling the government. Agenda 21 was an agenda created to help promote sustainable development. Just so you don't start going on some rant about sustainable development and calling it a "government takeover", this is what it is: sustainable development is the continued development of man-made things, like buildings, without hurting the environment as well. In short, Agenda 21 is in no way way related to the takeover of governments. There. Nuke one has been dropped.

Alright, next, the Crimes Act of 1914, or to you "1914 crimes act" is in no way related to the U.S in any way. In fact - it was enacted in Australia and is a part of Australian law. Since, obviously, Australian law doesn't effect U.S law in any way, it again, has not one effect on the U.S. Nuke two has been dropped.

Finally, I looked online, and there's not one thing about this "SS 109 of the UCC". The only thing I get back when I look up is the "United Church of Christ", which most certainly don't make the laws and regulations. The final nuke has been dropped.

There you go Chrales. I have destroyed you, and shown to this forum that you don't know shit about what you're talking about.

You had best leave before you make yourself look like even more of a complete fool.
Universal commercial code ss109 lookup shit talker. A non binding treaty , means there is no Commercial Security Agreement. Which means obtaining property by deception & fraud. Control of property has the same lawfully & legal meaning as propriety ownership. Entering in to a non binding treaty (no commercial secutity agreement) It is an unlawfully & an illegal  breach of both the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution & the USA constitution.

Bud, I've already burned you to the ground once. I've looked up this "Universal Commerce Code SS109" and I didn't find one damn thing. At this point, if you can't be bothered to provide a credible source, then you're just spewing incoherent strings of words.
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: charles bloomington on December 03, 2015, 04:42:03 PM
https://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/5/5-109 (https://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/5/5-109)
Universal commercial code ss109 lookup shit talker. A non binding treaty , means there is no Commercial Security Agreement. Which means obtaining property by deception & fraud. Control of property has the same lawfully & legal meaning as propriety ownership. Entering in to a non binding treaty & implamenting it with (no commercial secutity agreement) Is unlawfully & an illegal  breach of both the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution & the USA constitution.
It is treachery & treason to the citizens recognized under those consititutions.
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: TheEarthIsASphere. on December 03, 2015, 04:47:14 PM
https://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/5/5-109 (https://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/5/5-109)

I'm sorry, I just laughed so hard right there. This law isn't saying that people can just take you're property at their own will, in fact, it's not even doing something remotely related to that. This deals with "Fraud and Forgery". Maybe you'd have known that if you bothered to even look at it once. Cahrles, everything you say at this point only increases your visible level of retardation.
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: charles bloomington on December 03, 2015, 04:59:06 PM
https://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/5/5-109 (https://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/5/5-109)

I'm sorry, I just laughed so hard right there. This law isn't saying that people can just take you're property at their own will, in fact, it's not even doing something remotely related to that. This deals with "Fraud and Forgery". Maybe you'd have known that if you bothered to even look at it once. Cahrles, everything you say at this point only increases your visible level of retardation.
materially fraudulent
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: charles bloomington on December 03, 2015, 05:02:31 PM
You will be able to provide the commercial secutity agreement in your afadavit , wont you ? For the property your Agenda21 has taken under its control. Remebering control has the same lawfully & legal meaning as propriety ownership.
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: TheEarthIsASphere. on December 03, 2015, 05:06:50 PM
https://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/5/5-109 (https://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/5/5-109)

I'm sorry, I just laughed so hard right there. This law isn't saying that people can just take you're property at their own will, in fact, it's not even doing something remotely related to that. This deals with "Fraud and Forgery". Maybe you'd have known that if you bothered to even look at it once. Cahrles, everything you say at this point only increases your visible level of retardation.
materially fraudulent

Your point shithead? All that "materially fraudulent" means is "copied".
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: charles bloomington on December 03, 2015, 09:14:00 PM
https://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/5/5-109 (https://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/5/5-109)

I'm sorry, I just laughed so hard right there. This law isn't saying that people can just take you're property at their own will, in fact, it's not even doing something remotely related to that. This deals with "Fraud and Forgery". Maybe you'd have known that if you bothered to even look at it once. Cahrles, everything you say at this point only increases your visible level of retardation.
materially fraudulent

Your point shithead? All that "materially fraudulent" means is "copied".
I hope thats not going to be your rebuttal , when your served with a COMMERCIAL AFFIDAVIT. Oh dear
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: charles bloomington on December 03, 2015, 09:27:32 PM
Like I said , you will be able to produce that commercial secutity agreement wont you ?. For that non binding agenda21 treaty you community communists have been  implamenting since 1992. I hope you relies piracy is a crime with hash penalties .
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: Scroto Gaggins on December 04, 2015, 01:17:12 AM
I was not going to mention this, but since you insist on bringing up the term Free State, most of the countries that you listed as not having a reserve component to their military are in fact a form of dictatorship government.  Why would you equate a free state to a dictatorship?  A dictatorship fears armed civilians.  A free state does not.
Fair enough.
Most of these countries don't have what most would call democracy.
Most is not all, however, and even if one free state which lacks a reserve or paramilitary component of their military still has state security, then the Founding Fathers are wrong.
Again, though, burden of proof says that the Founding Fathers, and by proxy you, must show how the existence of reservists is necessary to national security.
Necessary.
Not useful, not helpful, not established, but necessary.
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: Son of Orospu on December 04, 2015, 02:40:04 AM
Again, though, burden of proof says that the Founding Fathers, and by proxy you, must show how the existence of reservists is necessary to national security.

I see.  Argumentum ad Logicam is no more useful than your other logical fallacies.  Something is not proven false simply because it has not been proven true, or in this case, perceived to have not been proven true.  Please, try again. 
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: charles bloomington on December 04, 2015, 04:25:07 AM
Was San Bernardino Shooting a False Flag?: (http://)
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: TheEarthIsASphere. on December 04, 2015, 05:12:14 AM
Like I said , you will be able to produce that commercial secutity agreement wont you ?. For that non binding agenda21 treaty you community communists have been  implamenting since 1992. I hope you relies piracy is a crime with hash penalties .

Agenda 21 isn't some "vast conspiracy" dumbass! Are you not capable of reading or researching? I clearly said that Agenda 21 is an agenda to promote sustainable development, which I also explained, and I'm not going to bother explaining again.

I don't know why you're bothering to mention commercial security agreements. They're not related here. I also don't know how piracy somehow got involved. It almost seems like, oh, you're trying to derail the thread.
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: TheEarthIsASphere. on December 04, 2015, 05:16:20 AM
Charles, everything you say at this point is irrelevant. I've now ripped you apart, let's see... Oh, at least 7 times. Are you going to admit defeat yet? You've gone well beyond the point where everything you say is just bullshit words strung together with no real meaning.
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: charles bloomington on December 04, 2015, 11:33:20 AM
Charles, everything you say at this point is irrelevant. I've now ripped you apart, let's see... Oh, at least 7 times. Are you going to admit defeat yet? You've gone well beyond the point where everything you say is just bullshit words strung together with no real meaning.

Sounds more  like your having. a panick attack & trying to convince your self  that your lies & treasonous conduct is not going to catch up with you.
Well I can assure you millions of Americans ,Australians & New Zealand are going to make sure it does.
Question for you .How do you sign a non binding agreement , when a signature on an agreement is a legally binding contract.
Question for you .Why would anyone need to sign a "non binding" agreement. If its not binding.
Oh & the only bullshiter here is you & your not a very good one at that.
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: charles bloomington on December 04, 2015, 11:42:35 AM
Honourable Ann Bressington Exposes UN Agenda 21 CÖ: (http://)
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: TheEarthIsASphere. on December 04, 2015, 11:50:52 AM
Charles, everything you say at this point is irrelevant. I've now ripped you apart, let's see... Oh, at least 7 times. Are you going to admit defeat yet? You've gone well beyond the point where everything you say is just bullshit words strung together with no real meaning.

Sounds more  like your having. a panick attack & trying to convince your self  that your lies & treasonous conduct is not going to catch up with you.
Well I can assure you millions of Americans ,Australians & New Zealand are going to make sure it does.
Question for you .How do you sign a non binding agreement , when a signature on an agreement is a legally binding contract.
Question for you .Why would anyone need to sign a "non binding" agreement. If its not binding.
Oh & the only bullshiter here is you & your not a very good one at that.

"Treasonous conduct"? "Lies"? Never, have I ever done either of those things in this discussion. I'm not having a panic attack either, I'm simply pointing out that you're nothing but a blithering idiot.

Those last two questions you asked are completely irrelevant. You're simply trying to derail this because you've been destroyed beyond recognition. If I were you, I'd stop. Oh, and this:

Quote
Oh & the only bullshiter here is you & your not a very good one at that.

I'm not a very good bullshitter? That's good. By this statement, you're saying that I don't spew shit. In all actuality though, you're the one spewing shit here. Let's review why:

1. You don't know squat about the bullshit claims you make.
2. You continue to make claims about things you don't know squat about, even though you had been disproved, and destroyed entirely.
3. You, have the grammatical, spelling, and orthographic skills of a six-year-old child. On second though... the age of six may have been a little generous.
4. You continue to make yourself look like a fool by derailing the topic and spewing more of all of the above.

Give. Up. Chrales. I have destroyed every statement you continue to spew. Go back to your conservative hellhole from the 1960s.
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: charles bloomington on December 04, 2015, 12:14:26 PM
Charles, everything you say at this point is irrelevant. I've now ripped you apart, let's see... Oh, at least 7 times. Are you going to admit defeat yet? You've gone well beyond the point where everything you say is just bullshit words strung together with no real meaning.

Sounds more  like your having. a panick attack & trying to convince your self  that your lies & treasonous conduct is not going to catch up with you.
Well I can assure you millions of Americans ,Australians & New Zealand are going to make sure it does.
Question for you .How do you sign a non binding agreement , when a signature on an agreement is a legally binding contract.
Question for you .Why would anyone need to sign a "non binding" agreement. If its not binding.
Oh & the only bullshiter here is you & your not a very good one at that.

"Treasonous conduct"? "Lies"? Never, have I ever done either of those things in this discussion. I'm not having a panic attack either, I'm simply pointing out that you're nothing but a blithering idiot.

Those last two questions you asked are completely irrelevant. You're simply trying to derail this because you've been destroyed beyond recognition. If I were you, I'd stop. Oh, and this:

Quote
Oh & the only bullshiter here is you & your not a very good one at that.

I'm not a very good bullshitter? That's good. By this statement, you're saying that I don't spew shit. In all actuality though, you're the one spewing shit here. Let's review why:

1. You don't know squat about the bullshit claims you make.
2. You continue to make claims about things you don't know squat about, even though you had been disproved, and destroyed entirely.
3. You, have the grammatical, spelling, and orthographic skills of a six-year-old child. On second though... the age of six may have been a little generous.
4. You continue to make yourself look like a fool by derailing the topic and spewing more of all of the above.

Give. Up. Chrales. I have destroyed every statement you continue to spew. Go back to your conservative hellhole from the 1960s.
No derailing on my part . Agenda 21, false flags & disarming the citizens go hand in hand .
I will ask you again Question .How do you sign a non binding agreement , when a signature on an agreement is a legally binding contract.
Question .Why would anyone need to sign a "non binding" agreement. If its not binding.
Third question for you. Why are you unwilling to answer those two previous basic questions. 
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: TheEarthIsASphere. on December 04, 2015, 12:36:47 PM
Charles, everything you say at this point is irrelevant. I've now ripped you apart, let's see... Oh, at least 7 times. Are you going to admit defeat yet? You've gone well beyond the point where everything you say is just bullshit words strung together with no real meaning.

Sounds more  like your having. a panick attack & trying to convince your self  that your lies & treasonous conduct is not going to catch up with you.
Well I can assure you millions of Americans ,Australians & New Zealand are going to make sure it does.
Question for you .How do you sign a non binding agreement , when a signature on an agreement is a legally binding contract.
Question for you .Why would anyone need to sign a "non binding" agreement. If its not binding.
Oh & the only bullshiter here is you & your not a very good one at that.

"Treasonous conduct"? "Lies"? Never, have I ever done either of those things in this discussion. I'm not having a panic attack either, I'm simply pointing out that you're nothing but a blithering idiot.

Those last two questions you asked are completely irrelevant. You're simply trying to derail this because you've been destroyed beyond recognition. If I were you, I'd stop. Oh, and this:

Quote
Oh & the only bullshiter here is you & your not a very good one at that.

I'm not a very good bullshitter? That's good. By this statement, you're saying that I don't spew shit. In all actuality though, you're the one spewing shit here. Let's review why:

1. You don't know squat about the bullshit claims you make.
2. You continue to make claims about things you don't know squat about, even though you had been disproved, and destroyed entirely.
3. You, have the grammatical, spelling, and orthographic skills of a six-year-old child. On second though... the age of six may have been a little generous.
4. You continue to make yourself look like a fool by derailing the topic and spewing more of all of the above.

Give. Up. Chrales. I have destroyed every statement you continue to spew. Go back to your conservative hellhole from the 1960s.
No derailing on my part . Agenda 21, false flags & disarming the citizens go hand in hand .
I will ask you again Question .How do you sign a non binding agreement , when a signature on an agreement is a legally binding contract.
Question .Why would anyone need to sign a "non binding" agreement. If its not binding.
Third question for you. Why are you unwilling to answer those two previous basic questions.

I'm not answering them because they're not related to the topic on hand. And again, stop misusing the Agenda 21 program. It's not related.

It's also worn nothing that the purpose of gun control is to simply prevent the following kinds of people from misusing dangerous weapons to incite violence:

1. People with mental illnesses.
2. Those who have been convicted of certain crimes.
3. Those with violent intentions.

The purpose of gun control is not to "disarm the citizens".
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: Luke 22:35-38 on December 04, 2015, 12:42:08 PM
Pretty much every gun control measure has done little if any thing to stem crimes with guns and almost always hurt the law abiding citizen who didnt do any crimes.
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: TheEarthIsASphere. on December 04, 2015, 12:43:31 PM
Pretty much every gun control measure has done little if any thing to stem crimes with guns and almost always hurt the law abiding citizen who didnt do any crimes.

[citation needed]
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: Luke 22:35-38 on December 04, 2015, 01:36:30 PM
Pretty much every gun control measure has done little if any thing to stem crimes with guns and almost always hurt the law abiding citizen who didnt do any crimes.

[citation needed]
Http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp (http://Http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp)
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: Scroto Gaggins on December 04, 2015, 02:53:02 PM
Again, though, burden of proof says that the Founding Fathers, and by proxy you, must show how the existence of reservists is necessary to national security.

I see.  Argumentum ad Logicam is no more useful than your other logical fallacies.  Something is not proven false simply because it has not been proven true, or in this case, perceived to have not been proven true.  Please, try again.
So who does the burden of proof lie on?
The burden of proof lies with the claimant, with the asserter.
In this case, the claim being asserted is that militias are necessary to the security of a free state.
I should not have to prove that it isn't, as you haven't shown that it is.
The debater who offers the argument must show that it is valid in order for it to be accepted.

My counter-argument could be as simple as "No, they're not necessary."
Because you haven't given any proof, neither do I.
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: charles bloomington on December 04, 2015, 04:23:32 PM
Charles, everything you say at this point is irrelevant. I've now ripped you apart, let's see... Oh, at least 7 times. Are you going to admit defeat yet? You've gone well beyond the point where everything you say is just bullshit words strung together with no real meaning.

Sounds more  like your having. a panick attack & trying to convince your self  that your lies & treasonous conduct is not going to catch up with you.
Well I can assure you millions of Americans ,Australians & New Zealand are going to make sure it does.
Question for you .How do you sign a non binding agreement , when a signature on an agreement is a legally binding contract.
Question for you .Why would anyone need to sign a "non binding" agreement. If its not binding.
Oh & the only bullshiter here is you & your not a very good one at that.

"Treasonous conduct"? "Lies"? Never, have I ever done either of those things in this discussion. I'm not having a panic attack either, I'm simply pointing out that you're nothing but a blithering idiot.

Those last two questions you asked are completely irrelevant. You're simply trying to derail this because you've been destroyed beyond recognition. If I were you, I'd stop. Oh, and this:

Quote
Oh & the only bullshiter here is you & your not a very good one at that.

I'm not a very good bullshitter? That's good. By this statement, you're saying that I don't spew shit. In all actuality though, you're the one spewing shit here. Let's review why:

1. You don't know squat about the bullshit claims you make.
2. You continue to make claims about things you don't know squat about, even though you had been disproved, and destroyed entirely.
3. You, have the grammatical, spelling, and orthographic skills of a six-year-old child. On second though... the age of six may have been a little generous.
4. You continue to make yourself look like a fool by derailing the topic and spewing more of all of the above.

Give. Up. Chrales. I have destroyed every statement you continue to spew. Go back to your conservative hellhole from the 1960s.
No derailing on my part . Agenda 21, false flags & disarming the citizens go hand in hand .
I will ask you again Question .How do you sign a non binding agreement , when a signature on an agreement is a legally binding contract.
Question .Why would anyone need to sign a "non binding" agreement. If its not binding.
Third question for you. Why are you unwilling to answer those two previous basic questions.

I'm not answering them because they're not related to the topic on hand. And again, stop misusing the Agenda 21 program. It's not related.

It's also worn nothing that the purpose of gun control is to simply prevent the following kinds of people from misusing dangerous weapons to incite violence:

1. People with mental illnesses.
2. Those who have been convicted of certain crimes.
3. Those with violent intentions.

The purpose of gun control is not to "disarm the citizens".
People with mental illnesses .  So anyone who questions anything the fiat  government, banksters or the  agenda are conspiring in . Could see them self  labeled as  mentally ill & lose their firearms?
Certain crimes , what are they ? You can get a crimminal conviction for failing to buckle your seat belt theses days on hear say with no evidence. Whats to say a year down the track , certain is not replaced with any crime & lets face it you can make anything a crime with any number of introduced crazzy made up laws.
Those with violent intentions. You could claim anyone  owning a firearm had violent intention because they had a gun on their person.
The purpose of gun control is not to "disarm the citizens". Then what is the purpose,  if not wanting to disarm citizens .? Is there more then one type of citizen ?Are there  first class & second class citizens, seen as your implying your not disarming citizens , when your intention is to disarm citizens .
 Which citizens are you talking about not disarming ? The comunity communist agenda 21treasonous scum ?
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: TheEarthIsASphere. on December 04, 2015, 05:12:46 PM
Charles, everything you say at this point is irrelevant. I've now ripped you apart, let's see... Oh, at least 7 times. Are you going to admit defeat yet? You've gone well beyond the point where everything you say is just bullshit words strung together with no real meaning.

Sounds more  like your having. a panick attack & trying to convince your self  that your lies & treasonous conduct is not going to catch up with you.
Well I can assure you millions of Americans ,Australians & New Zealand are going to make sure it does.
Question for you .How do you sign a non binding agreement , when a signature on an agreement is a legally binding contract.
Question for you .Why would anyone need to sign a "non binding" agreement. If its not binding.
Oh & the only bullshiter here is you & your not a very good one at that.

"Treasonous conduct"? "Lies"? Never, have I ever done either of those things in this discussion. I'm not having a panic attack either, I'm simply pointing out that you're nothing but a blithering idiot.

Those last two questions you asked are completely irrelevant. You're simply trying to derail this because you've been destroyed beyond recognition. If I were you, I'd stop. Oh, and this:

Quote
Oh & the only bullshiter here is you & your not a very good one at that.

I'm not a very good bullshitter? That's good. By this statement, you're saying that I don't spew shit. In all actuality though, you're the one spewing shit here. Let's review why:

1. You don't know squat about the bullshit claims you make.
2. You continue to make claims about things you don't know squat about, even though you had been disproved, and destroyed entirely.
3. You, have the grammatical, spelling, and orthographic skills of a six-year-old child. On second though... the age of six may have been a little generous.
4. You continue to make yourself look like a fool by derailing the topic and spewing more of all of the above.

Give. Up. Chrales. I have destroyed every statement you continue to spew. Go back to your conservative hellhole from the 1960s.
No derailing on my part . Agenda 21, false flags & disarming the citizens go hand in hand .
I will ask you again Question .How do you sign a non binding agreement , when a signature on an agreement is a legally binding contract.
Question .Why would anyone need to sign a "non binding" agreement. If its not binding.
Third question for you. Why are you unwilling to answer those two previous basic questions.

I'm not answering them because they're not related to the topic on hand. And again, stop misusing the Agenda 21 program. It's not related.

It's also worn nothing that the purpose of gun control is to simply prevent the following kinds of people from misusing dangerous weapons to incite violence:

1. People with mental illnesses.
2. Those who have been convicted of certain crimes.
3. Those with violent intentions.

The purpose of gun control is not to "disarm the citizens".
People with mental illnesses .  So anyone who questions anything the fiat  government, banksters or the  agenda are conspiring in . Could see them self  labeled as  mentally ill & lose their firearms?
Certain crimes , what are they ? You can get a crimminal conviction for failing to buckle your seat belt theses days on hear say with no evidence. Whats to say a year down the track , certain is not replaced with any crime & lets face it you can make anything a crime with any number of introduced crazzy made up laws.
Those with violent intentions. You could claim anyone  owning a firearm had violent intention because they had a gun on their person.
The purpose of gun control is not to "disarm the citizens". Then what is the purpose,  if not wanting to disarm citizens .? Is there more then one type of citizen ?Are there  first class & second class citizens, seen as your implying your not disarming citizens , when your intention is to disarm citizens .
 Which citizens are you talking about not disarming ? The comunity communist agenda 21treasonous scum ?

The goal of gun control is to keep those who may cause harm to things, and others from obtaining guns. Anyone who uses their guns responsibly, and don't misuse them get to keep their guns. Is that clear now?
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: Son of Orospu on December 04, 2015, 06:51:19 PM
Again, though, burden of proof says that the Founding Fathers, and by proxy you, must show how the existence of reservists is necessary to national security.

I see.  Argumentum ad Logicam is no more useful than your other logical fallacies.  Something is not proven false simply because it has not been proven true, or in this case, perceived to have not been proven true.  Please, try again.
So who does the burden of proof lie on?
The burden of proof lies with the claimant, with the asserter.
In this case, the claim being asserted is that militias are necessary to the security of a free state.
I should not have to prove that it isn't, as you haven't shown that it is.
The debater who offers the argument must show that it is valid in order for it to be accepted.

My counter-argument could be as simple as "No, they're not necessary."
Because you haven't given any proof, neither do I.

What are you talking about?  The designers of the constitution had their debate on the subject 250 years ago.  As there are no written records of their debate points other than the finished document, how the hell can you claim that they have the burden of proof of people who died over 200 years ago?  Now, you are demanding for me to speak for the these dead people, like I am a psychic clairvoyant or something.  I know you are struggling with this whole debate thing, but perhaps you should rethink your strategy and start making reasonable points.  The Burden of Proof Fallacy (https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof) does not help your argument at all.  You are making the claim that, "Militias are not necessary for a free state."  Then, you are demanding proof from me that they are necessary.  Argumentum ad Ignorantiam here at its best.
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: charles bloomington on December 05, 2015, 05:14:57 AM
Charles, everything you say at this point is irrelevant. I've now ripped you apart, let's see... Oh, at least 7 times. Are you going to admit defeat yet? You've gone well beyond the point where everything you say is just bullshit words strung together with no real meaning.

Sounds more  like your having. a panick attack & trying to convince your self  that your lies & treasonous conduct is not going to catch up with you.
Well I can assure you millions of Americans ,Australians & New Zealand are going to make sure it does.
Question for you .How do you sign a non binding agreement , when a signature on an agreement is a legally binding contract.
Question for you .Why would anyone need to sign a "non binding" agreement. If its not binding.
Oh & the only bullshiter here is you & your not a very good one at that.

"Treasonous conduct"? "Lies"? Never, have I ever done either of those things in this discussion. I'm not having a panic attack either, I'm simply pointing out that you're nothing but a blithering idiot.

Those last two questions you asked are completely irrelevant. You're simply trying to derail this because you've been destroyed beyond recognition. If I were you, I'd stop. Oh, and this:

Quote
Oh & the only bullshiter here is you & your not a very good one at that.

I'm not a very good bullshitter? That's good. By this statement, you're saying that I don't spew shit. In all actuality though, you're the one spewing shit here. Let's review why:

1. You don't know squat about the bullshit claims you make.
2. You continue to make claims about things you don't know squat about, even though you had been disproved, and destroyed entirely.
3. You, have the grammatical, spelling, and orthographic skills of a six-year-old child. On second though... the age of six may have been a little generous.
4. You continue to make yourself look like a fool by derailing the topic and spewing more of all of the above.

Give. Up. Chrales. I have destroyed every statement you continue to spew. Go back to your conservative hellhole from the 1960s.
No derailing on my part . Agenda 21, false flags & disarming the citizens go hand in hand .
I will ask you again Question .How do you sign a non binding agreement , when a signature on an agreement is a legally binding contract.
Question .Why would anyone need to sign a "non binding" agreement. If its not binding.
Third question for you. Why are you unwilling to answer those two previous basic questions.

I'm not answering them because they're not related to the topic on hand. And again, stop misusing the Agenda 21 program. It's not related.

It's also worn nothing that the purpose of gun control is to simply prevent the following kinds of people from misusing dangerous weapons to incite violence:

1. People with mental illnesses.
2. Those who have been convicted of certain crimes.
3. Those with violent intentions.

The purpose of gun control is not to "disarm the citizens".
People with mental illnesses .  So anyone who questions anything the fiat  government, banksters or the  agenda are conspiring in . Could see them self  labeled as  mentally ill & lose their firearms?
Certain crimes , what are they ? You can get a crimminal conviction for failing to buckle your seat belt theses days on hear say with no evidence. Whats to say a year down the track , certain is not replaced with any crime & lets face it you can make anything a crime with any number of introduced crazzy made up laws.
Those with violent intentions. You could claim anyone  owning a firearm had violent intention because they had a gun on their person.
The purpose of gun control is not to "disarm the citizens". Then what is the purpose,  if not wanting to disarm citizens .? Is there more then one type of citizen ?Are there  first class & second class citizens, seen as your implying your not disarming citizens , when your intention is to disarm citizens .
 Which citizens are you talking about not disarming ? The comunity communist agenda 21treasonous scum ?

The goal of gun control is to keep those who may cause harm to things, and others from obtaining guns. Anyone who uses their guns responsibly, and don't misuse them get to keep their guns. Is that clear now?
Thats not true, in Australia  your gun licence can  be canceled at anytime . No reason needed , its the licence issuers prerogative. Its part of the licencing agreement in every state over here & correct me if I'm wrong , but isn't hillary clinton promoting the Australian model for gun control .
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: TheEarthIsASphere. on December 05, 2015, 07:36:35 AM
Charles, everything you say at this point is irrelevant. I've now ripped you apart, let's see... Oh, at least 7 times. Are you going to admit defeat yet? You've gone well beyond the point where everything you say is just bullshit words strung together with no real meaning.

Sounds more  like your having. a panick attack & trying to convince your self  that your lies & treasonous conduct is not going to catch up with you.
Well I can assure you millions of Americans ,Australians & New Zealand are going to make sure it does.
Question for you .How do you sign a non binding agreement , when a signature on an agreement is a legally binding contract.
Question for you .Why would anyone need to sign a "non binding" agreement. If its not binding.
Oh & the only bullshiter here is you & your not a very good one at that.

"Treasonous conduct"? "Lies"? Never, have I ever done either of those things in this discussion. I'm not having a panic attack either, I'm simply pointing out that you're nothing but a blithering idiot.

Those last two questions you asked are completely irrelevant. You're simply trying to derail this because you've been destroyed beyond recognition. If I were you, I'd stop. Oh, and this:

Quote
Oh & the only bullshiter here is you & your not a very good one at that.

I'm not a very good bullshitter? That's good. By this statement, you're saying that I don't spew shit. In all actuality though, you're the one spewing shit here. Let's review why:

1. You don't know squat about the bullshit claims you make.
2. You continue to make claims about things you don't know squat about, even though you had been disproved, and destroyed entirely.
3. You, have the grammatical, spelling, and orthographic skills of a six-year-old child. On second though... the age of six may have been a little generous.
4. You continue to make yourself look like a fool by derailing the topic and spewing more of all of the above.

Give. Up. Chrales. I have destroyed every statement you continue to spew. Go back to your conservative hellhole from the 1960s.
No derailing on my part . Agenda 21, false flags & disarming the citizens go hand in hand .
I will ask you again Question .How do you sign a non binding agreement , when a signature on an agreement is a legally binding contract.
Question .Why would anyone need to sign a "non binding" agreement. If its not binding.
Third question for you. Why are you unwilling to answer those two previous basic questions.

I'm not answering them because they're not related to the topic on hand. And again, stop misusing the Agenda 21 program. It's not related.

It's also worn nothing that the purpose of gun control is to simply prevent the following kinds of people from misusing dangerous weapons to incite violence:

1. People with mental illnesses.
2. Those who have been convicted of certain crimes.
3. Those with violent intentions.

The purpose of gun control is not to "disarm the citizens".
People with mental illnesses .  So anyone who questions anything the fiat  government, banksters or the  agenda are conspiring in . Could see them self  labeled as  mentally ill & lose their firearms?
Certain crimes , what are they ? You can get a crimminal conviction for failing to buckle your seat belt theses days on hear say with no evidence. Whats to say a year down the track , certain is not replaced with any crime & lets face it you can make anything a crime with any number of introduced crazzy made up laws.
Those with violent intentions. You could claim anyone  owning a firearm had violent intention because they had a gun on their person.
The purpose of gun control is not to "disarm the citizens". Then what is the purpose,  if not wanting to disarm citizens .? Is there more then one type of citizen ?Are there  first class & second class citizens, seen as your implying your not disarming citizens , when your intention is to disarm citizens .
 Which citizens are you talking about not disarming ? The comunity communist agenda 21treasonous scum ?

The goal of gun control is to keep those who may cause harm to things, and others from obtaining guns. Anyone who uses their guns responsibly, and don't misuse them get to keep their guns. Is that clear now?
Thats not true, in Australia  your gun licence can  be canceled at anytime . No reason needed , its the licence issuers prerogative. Its part of the licencing agreement in every state over here & correct me if I'm wrong , but isn't hillary clinton promoting the Australian model for gun control .

No.
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: Son of Orospu on December 05, 2015, 07:50:05 AM
but isn't hillary clinton promoting the Australian model for gun control .

No.

::)  Do you ever do any research before you open your pie hole?

Quote from: Hillary Clinton
I donít know enough details to tell you how we would do it or how it would work, but certainly the Australia example [of gun control] is worth looking at.
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: TheEarthIsASphere. on December 05, 2015, 07:51:48 AM
but isn't hillary clinton promoting the Australian model for gun control .

No.

::)  Do you ever do any research before you open your pie hole?

Quote from: Hillary Clinton
I donít know enough details to tell you how we would do it or how it would work, but certainly the Australia example [of gun control] is worth looking at.

There's a difference between "worth looking at" and "wanting to implement" oajr.  ::)
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: Son of Orospu on December 05, 2015, 07:59:37 AM
but isn't hillary clinton promoting the Australian model for gun control .

No.

::)  Do you ever do any research before you open your pie hole?

Quote from: Hillary Clinton
I donít know enough details to tell you how we would do it or how it would work, but certainly the Australia example [of gun control] is worth looking at.

There's a difference between "worth looking at" and "wanting to implement" oajr.  ::)

You forget that this is a politician speaking.  The vermin do not use definitive statements when they don't have to.  ::)

Quote from: Hillary
I think it would be worth considering doing it on the national level if that could be arranged.
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: TheEarthIsASphere. on December 05, 2015, 08:02:49 AM
but isn't hillary clinton promoting the Australian model for gun control .

No.

::)  Do you ever do any research before you open your pie hole?

Quote from: Hillary Clinton
I donít know enough details to tell you how we would do it or how it would work, but certainly the Australia example [of gun control] is worth looking at.

There's a difference between "worth looking at" and "wanting to implement" oajr.  ::)

You forget that this is a politician speaking.  The vermin do not use definitive statements when they don't have to.  ::)

Quote from: Hillary
I think it would be worth considering doing it on the national level if that could be arranged.

Yikes. I didn't see that quote.

I'm going to be completely honest. If Hillary does actually think that implementing something like that is going to happen, then I'd rather not have her as the next president of the United States. I'm all for gun control, but if it comes to the point where people's guns can simply be taken away, I'd rather not have it. Then, I'd hope they implement gun control in the correct way.
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: Scroto Gaggins on December 06, 2015, 04:12:50 AM
Again, though, burden of proof says that the Founding Fathers, and by proxy you, must show how the existence of reservists is necessary to national security.

I see.  Argumentum ad Logicam is no more useful than your other logical fallacies.  Something is not proven false simply because it has not been proven true, or in this case, perceived to have not been proven true.  Please, try again.
So who does the burden of proof lie on?
The burden of proof lies with the claimant, with the asserter.
In this case, the claim being asserted is that militias are necessary to the security of a free state.
I should not have to prove that it isn't, as you haven't shown that it is.
The debater who offers the argument must show that it is valid in order for it to be accepted.

My counter-argument could be as simple as "No, they're not necessary."
Because you haven't given any proof, neither do I.

What are you talking about?  The designers of the constitution had their debate on the subject 250 years ago.  As there are no written records of their debate points other than the finished document, how the hell can you claim that they have the burden of proof of people who died over 200 years ago?  Now, you are demanding for me to speak for the these dead people, like I am a psychic clairvoyant or something.  I know you are struggling with this whole debate thing, but perhaps you should rethink your strategy and start making reasonable points.  The Burden of Proof Fallacy (https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof) does not help your argument at all.  You are making the claim that, "Militias are not necessary for a free state."  Then, you are demanding proof from me that they are necessary.  Argumentum ad Ignorantiam here at its best.
OK.
Who has the burden of proof, then?
We are both making claims, sure.
But shouldn't the default position on something like necessity be that of non-existence?
I think it is, while you probably think, or at least will claim, that it's not. That's fine.
A quote from USA today; "... if a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, then it follows that a state without such a militia is either insecure, or unfree, or possibly both."

Now, I gave you a list of countries that don't have army reserves or paramilitaries, which should then, therefore, be insecure, or indeed unfree, or both.
But, before we talk about those countries, let's examine whether or not the army reserves count as 'militia'.

Militia means, basically, non-professional fighters.
Now, without a doubt, one can be in the army reserve and not be a professional soldier.
Technically, though, it does count as part-time employment, but for the sake of your argument, let's say that that doesn't count.
There are, however, differing levels in the reserve military.
These of course depend on the country, but the example I'll bring up is that of Canada.
In the Primary Reserve, there are 3 tiers of service.
The first is that of part-time non-operational service
The second is that of full-time, but non-operational service.
The third is that of full-time, and operational service.
It is fair to say that for the 2nd and 3rd tiers, that they would count as professionals.
My point is that the army reserve as a whole cannot be counted as militia, as there are different levels of participation and employment within the system.
Note, also, that the only reservists actively deployed are those who are professionals, i.e. not militia.

On to the example of Bosnia.
The state of Bosnia and Herzegovina is currently nationally secure.
They also have democracy, and hence can be considered a 'free state'.
The military of Bosnia does not include any non-professional fighters.
Ergo, a militia is not involved in national defence.
If the founding fathers' logic is to hold true, then the Bosnian situation cannot arise.
A free state cannot exist securely if not for the presence of a well-regulated militia, so the 2nd Amend. states.

There.
There's my evidence given to support my 'claim' that a militia is not necessary to the security of a free state.
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: Luke 22:35-38 on December 06, 2015, 07:47:50 AM
The benifit of the doubt goes to the text because it can't defend itself. It's up to you to prove it wrong beyond a shadow of a doubt or at least reasonable doubt.
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: Son of Orospu on December 06, 2015, 01:15:50 PM
Again, though, burden of proof says that the Founding Fathers, and by proxy you, must show how the existence of reservists is necessary to national security.

I see.  Argumentum ad Logicam is no more useful than your other logical fallacies.  Something is not proven false simply because it has not been proven true, or in this case, perceived to have not been proven true.  Please, try again.
So who does the burden of proof lie on?
The burden of proof lies with the claimant, with the asserter.
In this case, the claim being asserted is that militias are necessary to the security of a free state.
I should not have to prove that it isn't, as you haven't shown that it is.
The debater who offers the argument must show that it is valid in order for it to be accepted.

My counter-argument could be as simple as "No, they're not necessary."
Because you haven't given any proof, neither do I.

What are you talking about?  The designers of the constitution had their debate on the subject 250 years ago.  As there are no written records of their debate points other than the finished document, how the hell can you claim that they have the burden of proof of people who died over 200 years ago?  Now, you are demanding for me to speak for the these dead people, like I am a psychic clairvoyant or something.  I know you are struggling with this whole debate thing, but perhaps you should rethink your strategy and start making reasonable points.  The Burden of Proof Fallacy (https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof) does not help your argument at all.  You are making the claim that, "Militias are not necessary for a free state."  Then, you are demanding proof from me that they are necessary.  Argumentum ad Ignorantiam here at its best.
OK.
Who has the burden of proof, then?
We are both making claims, sure.
But shouldn't the default position on something like necessity be that of non-existence?
I think it is, while you probably think, or at least will claim, that it's not. That's fine.
A quote from USA today; "... if a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, then it follows that a state without such a militia is either insecure, or unfree, or possibly both."

Now, I gave you a list of countries that don't have army reserves or paramilitaries, which should then, therefore, be insecure, or indeed unfree, or both.
But, before we talk about those countries, let's examine whether or not the army reserves count as 'militia'.

Militia means, basically, non-professional fighters.
Now, without a doubt, one can be in the army reserve and not be a professional soldier.
Technically, though, it does count as part-time employment, but for the sake of your argument, let's say that that doesn't count.
There are, however, differing levels in the reserve military.
These of course depend on the country, but the example I'll bring up is that of Canada.
In the Primary Reserve, there are 3 tiers of service.
The first is that of part-time non-operational service
The second is that of full-time, but non-operational service.
The third is that of full-time, and operational service.
It is fair to say that for the 2nd and 3rd tiers, that they would count as professionals.
My point is that the army reserve as a whole cannot be counted as militia, as there are different levels of participation and employment within the system.
Note, also, that the only reservists actively deployed are those who are professionals, i.e. not militia.

On to the example of Bosnia.
The state of Bosnia and Herzegovina is currently nationally secure.
They also have democracy, and hence can be considered a 'free state'.
The military of Bosnia does not include any non-professional fighters.
Ergo, a militia is not involved in national defence.
If the founding fathers' logic is to hold true, then the Bosnian situation cannot arise.
A free state cannot exist securely if not for the presence of a well-regulated militia, so the 2nd Amend. states.

There.
There's my evidence given to support my 'claim' that a militia is not necessary to the security of a free state.

Scrotum, I can't speak for the Canadians, as I have never been a member of their military in any form or fashion.  However, I can speak in regards to the United States Marine Corps.  There are several different statuses for reservists of the USMC, and these probably correlate to some degree with the Canadian's reserve corps.  The most basic status of reserves is the Individual Ready Reserves, or IRR.  These reservists are only obligated to maintain their uniforms in serviceable condition and keep their contact information up to date.  They are generally called up once per year to make sure they are fulfilling these very basic requirements.  They do not train, and while they may be compensated for their time during the annual inspection, I would hardly call this their profession. 

The next component of the Marine Corps Ready Reserve Force is the Selected Marine Reserves.  These are the ones most people are familiar with.  They typically train 2 days per month and 2 weeks per year.  I have not been in this status for around 15 years, but back then, we got compensated fairly well for those 2 days of training, but I would hardly call this status professional in the sense that it is not their profession.  These people are butchers and bakers and candlestick makers for 28 days and train for 2 days.

In addition to these part time Marines, there are a few active duty personnel attached to the reserve units.  In a rifle company of around 200 Marines, there will be around 6 or 8 active duty individuals who run the reserve centers the other 28 days per month.  These are the only ones whom I would consider professionals, as this is typically their full time job. 

There are other forms of reservists, like members of the retired reserves and state level militias, such as a State Naval Militia (which includes members who were previously in the US Navy and Marine Corps) and National Guards. 

I am at work right now, but I will comment on the Bosnia portion of your post when time permits. 
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: charles bloomington on December 06, 2015, 01:50:29 PM
Again, though, burden of proof says that the Founding Fathers, and by proxy you, must show how the existence of reservists is necessary to national security.

I see.  Argumentum ad Logicam is no more useful than your other logical fallacies.  Something is not proven false simply because it has not been proven true, or in this case, perceived to have not been proven true.  Please, try again.
So who does the burden of proof lie on?
The burden of proof lies with the claimant, with the asserter.
In this case, the claim being asserted is that militias are necessary to the security of a free state.
I should not have to prove that it isn't, as you haven't shown that it is.
The debater who offers the argument must show that it is valid in order for it to be accepted.

My counter-argument could be as simple as "No, they're not necessary."
Because you haven't given any proof, neither do I.

What are you talking about?  The designers of the constitution had their debate on the subject 250 years ago.  As there are no written records of their debate points other than the finished document, how the hell can you claim that they have the burden of proof of people who died over 200 years ago?  Now, you are demanding for me to speak for the these dead people, like I am a psychic clairvoyant or something.  I know you are struggling with this whole debate thing, but perhaps you should rethink your strategy and start making reasonable points.  The Burden of Proof Fallacy (https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof) does not help your argument at all.  You are making the claim that, "Militias are not necessary for a free state."  Then, you are demanding proof from me that they are necessary.  Argumentum ad Ignorantiam here at its best.
OK.
Who has the burden of proof, then?
We are both making claims, sure.
But shouldn't the default position on something like necessity be that of non-existence?
I think it is, while you probably think, or at least will claim, that it's not. That's fine.
A quote from USA today; "... if a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, then it follows that a state without such a militia is either insecure, or unfree, or possibly both."

Now, I gave you a list of countries that don't have army reserves or paramilitaries, which should then, therefore, be insecure, or indeed unfree, or both.
But, before we talk about those countries, let's examine whether or not the army reserves count as 'militia'.

Militia means, basically, non-professional fighters.
Now, without a doubt, one can be in the army reserve and not be a professional soldier.
Technically, though, it does count as part-time employment, but for the sake of your argument, let's say that that doesn't count.
There are, however, differing levels in the reserve military.
These of course depend on the country, but the example I'll bring up is that of Canada.
In the Primary Reserve, there are 3 tiers of service.
The first is that of part-time non-operational service
The second is that of full-time, but non-operational service.
The third is that of full-time, and operational service.
It is fair to say that for the 2nd and 3rd tiers, that they would count as professionals.
My point is that the army reserve as a whole cannot be counted as militia, as there are different levels of participation and employment within the system.
Note, also, that the only reservists actively deployed are those who are professionals, i.e. not militia.

On to the example of Bosnia.
The state of Bosnia and Herzegovina is currently nationally secure.
They also have democracy, and hence can be considered a 'free state'.
The military of Bosnia does not include any non-professional fighters.
Ergo, a militia is not involved in national defence.
If the founding fathers' logic is to hold true, then the Bosnian situation cannot arise.
A free state cannot exist securely if not for the presence of a well-regulated militia, so the 2nd Amend. states.

There.
There's my evidence given to support my 'claim' that a militia is not necessary to the security of a free state.
Have you allways been a deceptive grub. A manipulating nugget of exscrument. Lets cut to the chase. What entity are you referring to ? Natural or fictional ? Once this has been established / determined. Then the second amendments interpretation can be ascertained. You cant murder a fictional person, its already a body corp. Its not living or breathing . Its a corpse.
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: charles bloomington on December 06, 2015, 02:20:36 PM
The second amendment is an exclusion of privet possession & owned fire arms. Being delt with under commercial law. No contract required to be entered in to with the government , to possess & own a firearm. Its that simple.  If your a citizen that constatution applies to in that territory. All the deceptive talk on  your part scrotum Gaggins. Is an attempt by you to have persons waver that right of exclusion .
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: Scroto Gaggins on December 06, 2015, 03:28:07 PM
OK.
Who has the burden of proof, then?
We are both making claims, sure.
But shouldn't the default position on something like necessity be that of non-existence?
I think it is, while you probably think, or at least will claim, that it's not. That's fine.
A quote from USA today; "... if a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, then it follows that a state without such a militia is either insecure, or unfree, or possibly both."

Now, I gave you a list of countries that don't have army reserves or paramilitaries, which should then, therefore, be insecure, or indeed unfree, or both.
But, before we talk about those countries, let's examine whether or not the army reserves count as 'militia'.

Militia means, basically, non-professional fighters.
Now, without a doubt, one can be in the army reserve and not be a professional soldier.
Technically, though, it does count as part-time employment, but for the sake of your argument, let's say that that doesn't count.
There are, however, differing levels in the reserve military.
These of course depend on the country, but the example I'll bring up is that of Canada.
In the Primary Reserve, there are 3 tiers of service.
The first is that of part-time non-operational service
The second is that of full-time, but non-operational service.
The third is that of full-time, and operational service.
It is fair to say that for the 2nd and 3rd tiers, that they would count as professionals.
My point is that the army reserve as a whole cannot be counted as militia, as there are different levels of participation and employment within the system.
Note, also, that the only reservists actively deployed are those who are professionals, i.e. not militia.

On to the example of Bosnia.
The state of Bosnia and Herzegovina is currently nationally secure.
They also have democracy, and hence can be considered a 'free state'.
The military of Bosnia does not include any non-professional fighters.
Ergo, a militia is not involved in national defence.
If the founding fathers' logic is to hold true, then the Bosnian situation cannot arise.
A free state cannot exist securely if not for the presence of a well-regulated militia, so the 2nd Amend. states.

There.
There's my evidence given to support my 'claim' that a militia is not necessary to the security of a free state.

Scrotum, I can't speak for the Canadians, as I have never been a member of their military in any form or fashion.  However, I can speak in regards to the United States Marine Corps.  There are several different statuses for reservists of the USMC, and these probably correlate to some degree with the Canadian's reserve corps.  The most basic status of reserves is the Individual Ready Reserves, or IRR.  These reservists are only obligated to maintain their uniforms in serviceable condition and keep their contact information up to date.  They are generally called up once per year to make sure they are fulfilling these very basic requirements.  They do not train, and while they may be compensated for their time during the annual inspection, I would hardly call this their profession. 

The next component of the Marine Corps Ready Reserve Force is the Selected Marine Reserves.  These are the ones most people are familiar with.  They typically train 2 days per month and 2 weeks per year.  I have not been in this status for around 15 years, but back then, we got compensated fairly well for those 2 days of training, but I would hardly call this status professional in the sense that it is not their profession.  These people are butchers and bakers and candlestick makers for 28 days and train for 2 days.

In addition to these part time Marines, there are a few active duty personnel attached to the reserve units.  In a rifle company of around 200 Marines, there will be around 6 or 8 active duty individuals who run the reserve centers the other 28 days per month.  These are the only ones whom I would consider professionals, as this is typically their full time job. 

There are other forms of reservists, like members of the retired reserves and state level militias, such as a State Naval Militia (which includes members who were previously in the US Navy and Marine Corps) and National Guards. 

I am at work right now, but I will comment on the Bosnia portion of your post when time permits.
My point when talking about the reserves, is that they can hardly be considered militia on the whole.
Certainly, there are sizeable portions who do fit the description, but not all do.
Also worth noting is that to actively serve, one must usually be a professional.
Again, this doesn't apply in all cases, though.
That whole segment was me basically wondering whether reserves would count as militia.

The Bosnia section is what is really important, though.
I look forward to your reply.
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: Son of Orospu on December 06, 2015, 03:36:13 PM
Alright, Scrotum.  I finally had a little time to sit at the computer, although I am still at work.  I looked up the Armed Forces of Bosnia and Herzegovina in google, and the first hit that I clicked on said that the current active duty membership is almost 15,000 and the reserve membership is 7,000.  I am not sure where you found your source that says that they do not have any reservists, but apparently, your source is wrong.  Nice try, but I believe you have failed, once again, to prove any point what so ever.    :-\
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: Son of Orospu on December 06, 2015, 03:50:46 PM
Also worth noting is that to actively serve, one must usually be a professional.

Acting in a professional manner is not the same as having something as a profession.  The vast majority of individuals attached to reserve units are doctors, lawyers, police officers, electricians, etc. in their every day life.  Only a minimal amount have full time military jobs, and this is out of necessity.  Reserve centers house weapons, classified documents, and military equipment that need to be guarded 24 hours per day, 365 days per year, and this is what that small force of people on active duty status do. 
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: charles bloomington on December 06, 2015, 05:31:09 PM
Questions for scrotum Gaggins.  Do you hold a firearms licence. Do you own registered fire arms.
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: TheEarthIsASphere. on December 06, 2015, 05:34:09 PM
Questions for scrotum Gaggins.  Do you hold a firearms licence. Do you own registered fire arms.

Question for Cahrles Boolmignton. How are these questions relevant? Why did you feel the need to ask these questions.

I have the answers:

1. They aren't.
2. You like to spew random, absurd shit.
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: charles bloomington on December 06, 2015, 06:01:16 PM
Questions for scrotum Gaggins.  Do you hold a firearms licence. Do you own registered fire arms.

Question for Cahrles Boolmignton. How are these questions relevant? Why did you feel the need to ask these questions.

I have the answers:

1. They aren't.
2. You like to spew random, absurd shit.
Sucking on hilery bosom again are you. Must be like sucking on a wet smelly  gym  sock.
The question was for scrotum Gaggins , so butt out  ducky boy.
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: TheEarthIsASphere. on December 06, 2015, 06:10:20 PM
Questions for scrotum Gaggins.  Do you hold a firearms licence. Do you own registered fire arms.

Question for Cahrles Boolmignton. How are these questions relevant? Why did you feel the need to ask these questions.

I have the answers:

1. They aren't.
2. You like to spew random, absurd shit.
Sucking on hilery bosom again are you. Must be like sucking on a wet smelly  gym  sock.
The question was for scrotum Gaggins , so butt out  ducky boy.

The questions aren't relevant. It doesn't matter who you're asking them to.
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: charles bloomington on December 06, 2015, 06:57:06 PM
Questions for scrotum Gaggins.  Do you hold a firearms licence. Do you own registered fire arms.

Question for Cahrles Boolmignton. How are these questions relevant? Why did you feel the need to ask these questions.

I have the answers:

1. They aren't.
2. You like to spew random, absurd shit.
Sucking on hilery bosom again are you. Must be like sucking on a wet smelly  gym  sock.
The question was for scrotum Gaggins , so butt out  ducky boy.

The questions aren't relevant. It doesn't matter who you're asking them to.
Of course its relevent , if he has a firearms licence & gun registered.  Then he will be able to confirm for  him self the deception that is taking place.
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: TheEarthIsASphere. on December 06, 2015, 07:04:17 PM
Questions for scrotum Gaggins.  Do you hold a firearms licence. Do you own registered fire arms.

Question for Cahrles Boolmignton. How are these questions relevant? Why did you feel the need to ask these questions.

I have the answers:

1. They aren't.
2. You like to spew random, absurd shit.
Sucking on hilery bosom again are you. Must be like sucking on a wet smelly  gym  sock.
The question was for scrotum Gaggins , so butt out  ducky boy.

The questions aren't relevant. It doesn't matter who you're asking them to.
Of course its relevent , if he has a firearms licence & gun registered.  Then he will be able to confirm for  him self the deception that is taking place.

Just because someone owns a gun, it doesn't mean that they're automatically informed about gun control dumbass.
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: Scroto Gaggins on December 07, 2015, 12:22:29 AM
Alright, Scrotum.  I finally had a little time to sit at the computer, although I am still at work.  I looked up the Armed Forces of Bosnia and Herzegovina in google, and the first hit that I clicked on said that the current active duty membership is almost 15,000 and the reserve membership is 7,000.  I am not sure where you found your source that says that they do not have any reservists, but apparently, your source is wrong.  Nice try, but I believe you have failed, once again, to prove any point what so ever.    :-\
Boy, is my face red.
The armed forces of Bosnia do indeed have a reserve component.
No matter, there are several countries which assuredly (touch wood  ;D) do not.
Trinidad and Tobago.
Slovakia.
UAE.
Qatar.
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: charles bloomington on December 07, 2015, 02:45:28 AM
Questions for scrotum Gaggins.  Do you hold a firearms licence. Do you own registered fire arms.

Question for Cahrles Boolmignton. How are these questions relevant? Why did you feel the need to ask these questions.

I have the answers:

1. They aren't.
2. You like to spew random, absurd shit.
Sucking on hilery bosom again are you. Must be like sucking on a wet smelly  gym  sock.
The question was for scrotum Gaggins , so butt out  ducky boy.

The questions aren't relevant. It doesn't matter who you're asking them to.
Of course its relevent , if he has a firearms licence & gun registered.  Then he will be able to confirm for  him self the deception that is taking place.

Just because someone owns a gun, it doesn't mean that they're automatically informed about gun control dumbass.
You dont own a gun . I dont think you have ever fired one,Its that blatantly obvious .
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: Scroto Gaggins on December 07, 2015, 03:37:05 AM
Questions for scrotum Gaggins.  Do you hold a firearms licence. Do you own registered fire arms.
No, I do not currently hold a firearms licence.
Therefore, I do not own registered firearms.
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: Son of Orospu on December 07, 2015, 04:19:05 AM
Alright, Scrotum.  I finally had a little time to sit at the computer, although I am still at work.  I looked up the Armed Forces of Bosnia and Herzegovina in google, and the first hit that I clicked on said that the current active duty membership is almost 15,000 and the reserve membership is 7,000.  I am not sure where you found your source that says that they do not have any reservists, but apparently, your source is wrong.  Nice try, but I believe you have failed, once again, to prove any point what so ever.    :-\
Boy, is my face red.
The armed forces of Bosnia do indeed have a reserve component.
No matter, there are several countries which assuredly (touch wood  ;D) do not.
Trinidad and Tobago.
Slovakia.
UAE.
Qatar.


I am sorry, Scrotum, but I refuse to do more research every time you present an example of a free state that does not have a militia.  You either give examples of countries which are not free states, or that do in fact, have a militia.  I have shown this several times, and you seem to be trying to wear me out by doing it over and over.  If you can't have a proper debate, perhaps this is not the forum for you.

Now, if you can give a reasonable argument that supports your side, I will be happy to debate with you.  If you are going to waste my time by having to research your failed attempt at nit-picking the Constitution of the United States of America, then I think I am done.  I am sorry, but I just do not have the fortitude to do this over and over again. 
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: Scroto Gaggins on December 07, 2015, 04:49:22 AM
Alright, Scrotum.  I finally had a little time to sit at the computer, although I am still at work.  I looked up the Armed Forces of Bosnia and Herzegovina in google, and the first hit that I clicked on said that the current active duty membership is almost 15,000 and the reserve membership is 7,000.  I am not sure where you found your source that says that they do not have any reservists, but apparently, your source is wrong.  Nice try, but I believe you have failed, once again, to prove any point what so ever.    :-\
Boy, is my face red.
The armed forces of Bosnia do indeed have a reserve component.
No matter, there are several countries which assuredly (touch wood  ;D) do not.
Trinidad and Tobago.
Slovakia.
UAE.
Qatar.


I am sorry, Scrotum, but I refuse to do more research every time you present an example of a free state that does not have a militia.  You either give examples of countries which are not free states, or that do in fact, have a militia.  I have shown this several times, and you seem to be trying to wear me out by doing it over and over.  If you can't have a proper debate, perhaps this is not the forum for you.

Now, if you can give a reasonable argument that supports your side, I will be happy to debate with you.  If you are going to waste my time by having to research your failed attempt at nit-picking the Constitution of the United States of America, then I think I am done.  I am sorry, but I just do not have the fortitude to do this over and over again.
OK then.
Slovakia, according to two separate sites, has no reserve component to their military.
You don't have to research this, I've done that for you.
Seeing as they don't have any militia involvement in their nation's defence, they should therefore by unfree, or insecure, or both, if the 2nd Amend. is correct.
They are a democratic nation, and not insecure.
Ergo, the logic contained within the 2nd Amend. is flawed.
Ergo, it is wrong.
Ergo, the main point of opposition to gun control is illogical and fundamentally flawed.
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: Son of Orospu on December 07, 2015, 04:54:31 AM
Quote from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_Slovakia
The Armed Forces of the Slovak Republic number 12,542 uniformed personnel and 3,761 civilians.

Seems that might be wrong again, good friend. 
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: charles bloomington on December 07, 2015, 04:56:26 AM
Questions for scrotum Gaggins.  Do you hold a firearms licence. Do you own registered fire arms.
No, I do not currently hold a firearms licence.
Therefore, I do not own registered firearms.
Typical , we have  two asswipes from bumfuck nowhere,  that don't own firearms . Telling  the rest of the responsible firearm owners of the world they should be forced to have a licence .you two asslickers are as bad as the anti smoking council trying  to ban toobaco , because  they might keel over  dead if they got a whiff. From someone lighting up 50ft away. The same group of people who pimp millions in taxes each year for their council  from smokers. The nerve of you two closet clowns.👬
Title: Re: Gun Violence in the United States
Post by: TheEarthIsASphere. on December 07, 2015, 05:12:24 AM
Questions for scrotum Gaggins.  Do you hold a firearms licence. Do you own registered fire arms.

Question for Cahrles Boolmignton. How are these questions relevant? Why did you feel the need to ask these questions.

I have the answers: