[MP-Ryan]

You have yet to argue why we "need" to have strict gun laws at any level of government. Especially seeing as violent crime rates have been on the decline for decades and all of the data shows that firearms are used for self-defense up to ten times more than they are used to commit crimes.

Really?  You haven't posted that data.  Yes, violent crime is on a long-term downward trend, but firearms-related crimes are still at exceedingly high levels in the US versus all other democracies.  (And yes, that is a valid comparison because we're not talking about high ownership = less crime).

But I wasn't comparing intentional homicide or any other violent crime statistic between different countries, I was comparing the United Kingdom's intentional homicide rate before and after the 1968, 1988 and 1977 gun control laws.

And you still didn't go back and look at the WHO and WHERE like I suggested, nor have you addressed the evolving definitions of certain criminal acts (you started off talking about violent crime in the UK, FYI).

That would create a de facto gun registry of every law abiding gun owner.

So?  What does that matter?  You have a Constitutional right in the mix; a registry is not a bad thing, nor can it be legally used to seize guns.  And before you trot out Nazi Germany, I have heard quite possibly every nutbar objection to firearms registries ever conceived and written in the English language, and there is no compelling rational argument against them, though I have no doubt you're going to try to come up with one anyway.  If the words "seizure," "confiscate," "Germany," "Nazi," "freedom," or "overthrow" or any of their synonyms appear, I won't respond to it anyway.  If that sounds condescending, it's because I hate conspiracy theory and this realm of discussion is always in that realm.  Nothing personal.

We have background checks on gun ownership as well. No amount of registration, background checks or licensing can stop someone from becoming depressed, gun owner or otherwise. Okay, so you're on board with my earlier proposal to improve mental health services then?

I never said I wasn't.  And in fact, registration, background checks, and licensing do reduce the numbers of suicides by firearm and reduce the overall suicide rate.  I already provided the source earlier.

Guns don't kill anyone, Ryan, people do. Imposing restrictions on law abiding gun owners isn't going to stop a gang war in Chicago. You seem to think that strict gun regulations is the only way to get lower crime rates, when in fact, it's not even a way to get them at all. Gun control correlates with higher crime rates, whereas gun freedom correlates with lower crime rates. You keep saying that we have a higher homicide rate than Europe, and while that is true in some cases, there are industrialized European countries that have higher homicide rates thane we do, such as Estonia, Lithuania and Moldova. Estonia and Lithuania are very telling, as their neighbor, Latvia, has an extremely low homicide rate (3.1, which is lower than that of Taiwan) and yet one in five people in Latvia is a gun owner; compared to less than one in ten in Estonia and less than one in one-hundred in Lithuania. It should be noted that Lithuania has the highest homicide rate of the Baltic States, by far, while simultaneously having the lowest gun ownership rates.
http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/estonia http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/latvia http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/lithuania

****, I knew I forgot to ban another catchphrase.

OK, we already talked about why that correlation is bull****.  I'm not repeating myself for the third time.

I keep saying the US has a way higher homicide rate that its comparators.  That is, demographically-similar, economically-similar, politically-similar nations of relatively close levels on the HDI.  Which it does.  See link provided earlier.  Also, the correlation is a T-test between two variables and is statistically invalid in this context.  ANOVA or multi-variable analysis is the appropriate test.

You brought up demographics earlier, so I'm going to say this. The white homicide rate in the United States is 2.6, which is the same as South Korea and Luxembourg. Obviously I'm not saying that race has anything to do with crime, but the black homicide rate is nearly 20%, which skews crime statistics in the United States. This is because many in the black community live below the poverty and are engaged in gang wars.

Oh thank God, you aren't missing the demographic point.  OK, this is a valid point.  It doesn't justify no firearms regulations, but you're starting to at least look at the issue with some critical analysis.

Look, Nakura, this quotewall is getting out of hand.  The point I've been making since the first page is that this issue is a hell of a lot more complex than what either side of the American debate wants it to be.  Neither side has a monopoly on rational argument, or statistics, or facts, or patriotism, or love of liberty, or whatever the hell else Americans want to accuse each other of not having when they argue this issue.  Both sides make some legitimate points.  The problem with this debate is that it is immensely oversimplified into a two-position issue:  "gun control" or "FRRRREEEEEEDDOOOOOOOOMMMMMMMMMM!"  Neither is accurate.  Put aside the ideological arguments for a moment and look at the actual raw data - all of it, not just what suits your personal position (you do have a tendency to cherrypick, but we all suffer from confirmation bias, even me )

What we see when we just look at data is a few things:
1.  Firearms and their relationship to crime is confounded by demographics and social factors.  None of these can be separated from each other as policy matters.
2.  Comparable[/i] countries on social indices which have implemented similar regulatory regimes around firearms have seen reductions in deaths - be they criminal, suicide, or accidental - as a result.  The magnitude of this reduction ranges.
3.  Those same comparable countries have much lower homicide rates than other comparable countries that have not implemented similar regulatory regimes around firearms.
4.  Firearms death and injury rates attributable to all causes are highly related to demographics, and therefore regionally vary within countries.
5.  Accurate and valid (the stats terms, not colloquial) statistical analysis of correlative and causative relationships between variables related to this issue is extremely difficult.

If this looks like I'm framing this as a concluding post, it's because I am.  While you still fundamentally disagree with me on a number of points, you are definitely looking at this in a more comprehensive way than you were in your OP.  Good on you for that.  I don't expect you to change your position entirely, but I strongly suggest you cease approaching it in the "us versus them" fashion that you've taken to date, and you are starting to do that.

I'm pretty sure I've sourced all the relevant points at this juncture, but if I've missed anything I'm sure someone will let me know.  I may chime in again if anything else piques my interest, but it's time to go attend to real world matters =)

[deathfun]

Not to go back to a previous statement made about suicide, but I have to put in my two cents about the following:

2. If someone wants to kill themselves, they can do it just as easily with a knife or overdosing on aspirin or jumping off a bridge or countless other means.

No, they can't. Putting a knife to your throat, overdosing on drugs or jumping of a bridge are *not* as easy as putting a muzzle to your head and pulling a trigger. The end results for all are the same, but shooting yourself is infinitely less of a scary thought than putting a knife across your throat

It's a psychological thing. You look over a bridge and you see this insane height. The body naturally goes "oh **** me" and your brain throws a red flag (perhaps the thought of what happens if you survive crosses the mind). You consume profuse amounts of drugs, but realize that you didn't actually want to and start to panic the **** out. You slit your throat but realize that it takes a significantly longer time to die than you originally hoped for. None of these are easy to go through even if you're willing to go through it to the end. The thoughts behind each of them are less pleasant, and undergoing through it isn't a nice way to go either

A bullet on the other hand, is a pull of the trigger, and done. Your brain matter ends up all over the room. One tends to think less about the process, and more of what happens afterwards



Just a question though:
Why do you own a gun? Be it pistol or rifle. I'd like to know

[Ghostavo]

I love how gun registration is such a hot issue when it's done with a lot of other, even more widespread items.

How come we never hear about car registry conspiracies?

[Grizzly]

Guns don't kill anyone, Ryan, people do

They sure as hell make it easier.

They also make it harder. Guns are called the 'great equalizer' for a reason. A 60 year old woman can defend herself with a gun every bit as well as a 20 year old MMA fighter.

I vehemently disagree - If you are not packing a gun, you are in huge trouble (thus forcing everyone to carry a gun - wasn't this whole thing about freedom?). Additionally, good luck defending yourself against someone armed with a gun - the best you can do is return fire, which tends to get you shot before you are able to pull the trigger - someone threatening you with a gun usually has the drop on you.

[Nakura]

I love how gun registration is such a hot issue when it's done with a lot of other, even more widespread items.

How come we never hear about car registry conspiracies?

How in the world is it a conspiracy? You had Ryan in this very thread advocating for such a thing.

I hate to be the one to break this to you, but there is a car registry (in the United States anyway).

[Nakura]

Guns don't kill anyone, Ryan, people do

They sure as hell make it easier.

They also make it harder. Guns are called the 'great equalizer' for a reason. A 60 year old woman can defend herself with a gun every bit as well as a 20 year old MMA fighter.

I vehemently disagree - If you are not packing a gun, you are in huge trouble (thus forcing everyone to carry a gun - wasn't this whole thing about freedom?). Additionally, good luck defending yourself against someone armed with a gun - the best you can do is return fire, which tends to get you shot before you are able to pull the trigger - someone threatening you with a gun usually has the drop on you.

Apparently not, the CDC rules that handguns are incredibly effective for self-defense and save up to three million lives a year.

[Mongoose]

I love how gun registration is such a hot issue when it's done with a lot of other, even more widespread items.

How come we never hear about car registry conspiracies?

Gun-rights advocates would respond to that with the fact that firearms ownership is a constitutionally-protected right, whereas car ownership isn't.  Your mileage may vary on whether or not that means anything.

[NGTM-1R]

Gun-rights advocates would respond to that with the fact that firearms ownership is a constitutionally-protected right, whereas car ownership isn't.  Your mileage may vary on whether or not that means anything.

Ironically the actual legal interpretation of the Second Amendment as providing a right to individual gun ownership dates to the '90s.

[deathfun]

I'll reask since Nakura didn't even bother with it

Just a question though:
Why do you own a gun? Be it pistol or rifle. I'd like to know

Apparently not, the CDC rules that handguns are incredibly effective for self-defense and save up to three million lives a year.

Why is the Center for Disease Control ruling that sort of thing? Or am I confusing that with something else

And basically what that tells me, is that three millions lives were in peril and had no other option other than to use their gun
I'd like to say that's bull****, but do enlighten me on the second question I have

In these three millions lives that were saved, what were their respective situations for having used the handgun for self defense?

Ironically the actual legal interpretation of the Second Amendment as providing a right to individual gun ownership dates to the '90s.

But not according to all of dem quotes from dem founding fathers which may or may not have actually happened and/or been meant in such a context!

[Ghostavo]

I love how gun registration is such a hot issue when it's done with a lot of other, even more widespread items.

How come we never hear about car registry conspiracies?

How in the world is it a conspiracy? You had Ryan in this very thread advocating for such a thing.

I hate to be the one to break this to you, but there is a car registry (in the United States anyway).

Maybe I should have spiced the sentence with more commas, but it seems the swooshing sound you heard was the point going over your head.

You accept things such as car registration without batting an eye, but when it comes to guns, oh noes...

I love how gun registration is such a hot issue when it's done with a lot of other, even more widespread items.

How come we never hear about car registry conspiracies?

Gun-rights advocates would respond to that with the fact that firearms ownership is a constitutionally-protected right, whereas car ownership isn't.  Your mileage may vary on whether or not that means anything.

But a registry doesn't impact in any way ownership.

[Mongoose]

Except that in this train of thought, it does, because a registry implies a government database of all current gun owners, which would make it far easier for said government to (theoretically) disarm said owners in the future, which undermines the (presumed) anti-tyranny function of private firearms ownership in the first place.  I'm not saying I agree with that myself, but that's pretty much how you'll see it argued.

[MP-Ryan]

Except that in this train of thought, it does, because a registry implies a government database of all current gun owners, which would make it far easier for said government to (theoretically) disarm said owners in the future, which undermines the (presumed) anti-tyranny function of private firearms ownership in the first place.  I'm not saying I agree with that myself, but that's pretty much how you'll see it argued.

 

*BOOM!headshot*

* MP-Ryan summarily executes Mongoose for using a synonym of confiscation and tyranny in reference to a gun registry argument.

Oh crap.  I said I would ignore Nakura, not summarily execute anyone doing it.

* MP-Ryan commences CPR on Mongoose.

Apologies for the inconvenience caused by your death, sir.

[Mongoose]

Well that'll be an interesting scar.

[deathfun]

Hey Ryan, remember that Long Gun Registry Canada had?
Yeah
That was fun

[Darien]

No, but it certainly makes you more likely to kill yourself.

If you ban guns, people will just kill themselves by other means.

Actually, no they won't. They address that in the article. Did you even read it?

Here's one by Cracked, if that helps. You want #3.

For defense of themselves and of freedom, from enemies both foreign and domestic. Every citizen should also serve society in some manner (such as military service) before making decisions for society (voting or running for office). The only people who deserve freedom are those willing to defend and die for it.

So you're in favour of reintroducing conscription then?

It was a study from the Center for Disease Control: http://www.iom.edu/Reports/2013/Priorities-for-Research-to-Reduce-the-Threat-of-Firearm-Related-Violence.aspx

Yes, and the upper bound numbers are the Kleck figures. We simply don't know what the actual figures are, because the NRA sponsored legislation called the Tiahrt Amendment, along with the ban on gun violence research, prevented anyone from actually collecting accurate statistics on defensive gun use.

Correlation doesn't equal causation, but it certainly can paint such a picture.

And what a pretty picture it paints...

Firearm availability and homicide rates across 26 high-income countries
The association between the purchase of a handgun and homicide or suicide.
Firearm availability and suicide, homicide, and unintentional firearm deaths among women
Firearm availability and female homicide victimization rates among 25 populous high-income countries

lso take a look at the United Kingdom, which has seen higher violent crime rates since it implemented strict restrictions on gun ownership in the 1960s. Violent crime rates rose even sharper in the United Kingdom after the gun bans in 1987 and 1997. In addition, countries that have higher gun ownership rates (Austria, Canada, Finland, France, Germany, Iceland, Latvia, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, etc.) have lower violent crime rates than those with very few gun owners (Belarus, Lithuania, Taiwan, Turkey, the United Kingdom, etc.).

Let me re-iterate: Firearm availability and homicide rates across 26 high-income countries

[MP-Ryan]

Hey Ryan, remember that Long Gun Registry Canada had?
Yeah
That was fun

Much as I disagreed with the non-restricted registry, it never led to the seizure of legal weapons from owners who followed the law, which is the primary objection of registry opponents in the US.

Furthermore, what Nakura mentioned was a de facto reigstry of OWNERS, which we still have and which remains excellent public policy.  I have always been an advocate of regulating the owners rather than the weapons themselves.  In fact, that's what the majority of Canadian gun owners said about the non-restricted registry - you already have all our information, why do we have to go through an expensive bureaucratic step for an ordinary rifle or shotgun?

Truth be told, if the non-restricted registry was free to register firearms in from the beginning and it was easy to do so (rather than the PITA validation process etc it had) I probably would have been OK with it.  It wasn't so much that the idea of the registry was inherently flawed - other than it being a duplicated step with ownership requirements - it's that the implementation was botched from day one.

However, I reiterate for the Americans in our audience - despite that historical bureaucratic mess, it never led to this confiscation idea that some of your countrymen get so worked up about.

[Nakura]

Gun-rights advocates would respond to that with the fact that firearms ownership is a constitutionally-protected right, whereas car ownership isn't.  Your mileage may vary on whether or not that means anything.

Ironically the actual legal interpretation of the Second Amendment as providing a right to individual gun ownership dates to the '90s.

I guess you didn't read page two, where I went over this in detail.

This is generally where I stop in gun related topics

http://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3295&context=wmlr
http://www.english.illinois.edu/-people-/faculty/debaron/essays/guns.pdf

Every legal reference in history to the right to keep and bear arms has referred to it as an individual right. The first recorded use of the 'right to keep and bear arms' comes from the English Bill of Rights of 1689, which referred explicitly to an individual right. Fourty-four of the fifty states protect the right to keep in their state constitutions and this right refers to an individual right in all fourty-four of them. The right to keep and bear arms has always referred to an individual right in the constitutions of other nations as well. Islamic law also calls for governments to respect for the individual right of the people to bear arms, though this right is not generally respected by Muslim countries in practice. The ancient religion of Zoroastrianism also called for the people to take up arms against unjust governments. The Second Amendment does not create any new rights, it only protects a pre-existing natural right that all sapient beings have. This has been proven time and time again by the Founding Fathers, the United States Supreme Court, John Locke and countless classical liberal philosophers.

Now lets look at United States case law and legal precedent for the Second Amendment and the right to bear arms in general. As previously mentioned, the first recorded legal usage of the right to keep and bear arms comes from the English Bill of Rights of 1689. Prior to the formation of the United States, the Thirteen Colonies also had a long-standing history of having a right to bear arms, which included the right to self-defense. Prior to the United States Constitution being formed, states that had declared their independence from Great Britain had protected the right to bear arms in their state constitutions and it included the right to self-defense. For instance, the 1776 Constitution of Pennsylvania states that "the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state." When the United States Constitution was being drafted and ratified, the Founding Fathers stated explicitly that the right to bear arms was a right of the people, not a "right of the militia" as some gun control advocates claim. In fact, many of the Founding Fathers wanted to require every free citizen to own a gun, viewing it as a civic duty. I will provide a list of these quotes from the Founding Fathers towards the end of this post.

Interpretation of the Second Amendment has always been that of recognizing it as an individual right. In fact, it was most commonly interpreted as a right that cannot under any circumstances be restricted or limited. Even foreigners held this view, including William Blackstone, who wrote about it in his Commentaries on the Laws of England. The Second Amendment uses the term "shall not be infringed," which not only states that the right to keep and bear arms is a pre-existing natural right, but also that it shall not be infringed upon. In fact, the only real criticism levied against the Second Amendment, was by those who thought it didn't provide enough protection to the right to bear arms. St. George Tucker and William Rawle, two lawyers and abolitionists (and in the case of Tucker, a Virginia Supreme Court justice) were among those who criticized the Second Amendment for not protecting the rights of gun owners enough. Tucker and Rawle argued that the Second Amendment needed to have provisions in order to help the poor be able to exercise their right to bear arms; they viewed this as difficult under the current laws, seeing as how many poor people couldn't afford firearms. Joseph Story, an early federal Supreme Court justice wrote in his work, Commentaries on the Constitution, that: "The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them." Story also wrote that the right to bear arms is a natural right. The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution states that all restrictions placed on the federal government also apply to state and local governments. One of the main reasons this amendment was added to the Constitution was because former slave states would often times refuse to allow freed slaves to bear arms, which violated their rights as protected under the Second Amendment.

It wasn't until the late 20th and early 19th century that racist Democrats tried to re-interpret the Second Amendment to mean a collective right to form state militias, in order to prevent blacks from owning guns. Dred Scott v. Sandford ruled that the Second Amendment is an individual right, however it also ruled that the Second Amendment did not apply to slaves. United States v. Cruikshank, Presser v. Illinois and Miller v. Texas ruled that the Second Amendment is an individual right, however, it also ruled that the First and Second Amendments only limit the federal government. United States v. Miller ruled that that: "These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense," which is to say that the people consist of the militia. United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez ruled that the Second Amendment (and the Bill of Rights in general) was an individual right that also applied to non-citizen aliens. United States v. Lopez ruled that the so-called "Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990" violated the Second Amendment and was unconstitutional. United States v. Emerson, District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago reaffirmed that the Second Amendment refers to an individual right that applies to state and local governments, as well as the federal government. Moore v. Madigan ruled that the ban on concealed carry in Illinois violated the Second Amendment and was thus unconstitutional, requiring Illinois to adopt concealed carry.

Lets also take a look at what the Founding Fathers had to say about the Second Amendment and right to bear arms:
"A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks." -Thomas Jefferson

"One loves to possess arms, though they hope never to have occasion for them." -Thomas Jefferson

"We established however some, although not all its [self-government] important principles . The constitutions of most of our States assert, that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves, in all cases to which they think themselves competent, (as in electing their functionaries executive and legislative, and deciding by a jury of themselves, in all judiciary cases in which any fact is involved,) or they may act by representatives, freely and equally chosen; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed;" -Thomas Jefferson

"No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -Thomas Jefferson

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -Benjamin Franklin

"To model our political system upon speculations of lasting tranquility, is to calculate on the weaker springs of the human character." -Alexander Hamilton

"[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." -James Madison

"To suppose arms in the hands of citizens, to be used at individual discretion, except in private self-defense, or by partial orders of towns, countries or districts of a state, is to demolish every constitution, and lay the laws prostrate, so that liberty can be enjoyed by no man; it is a dissolution of the government. The fundamental law of the militia is, that it be created, directed and commanded by the laws, and ever for the support of the laws." -John Adams

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive. " -Noah Webster

"Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man gainst his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American...[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people." -Tenche Coxe

"[The new government] shall be too firmly fixed in the saddle to be overthrown by anything but a general insurrection." -William Symmes

"[A standing army] if raised, whether they could subdue a nation of freemen, who know how to prize liberty, and who have arms in their hands?" -Theodore Sedwick

"[W]hereas, to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them; nor does it follow from this, that all promiscuously must go into actual service on every occasion. The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle; and when we see many men disposed to practice upon it, whenever they can prevail, no wonder true republicans are for carefully guarding against it." -Richard Henry Lee

"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined." -Patrick Henry

"O sir, we should have fine times, indeed, if, to punish tyrants, it were only sufficient to assemble the people! Your arms, wherewith you could defend yourselves, are gone...Did you ever read of any revolution in a nation...inflicted by those who had no power at all?" -Patrick Henry

"[W]hen the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man, who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually...I ask, who are the militia? They consist of now of the whole people, except a few public officers. But I cannot say who will be the militia of the future day. If that paper on the table gets no alteration, the militia of the future day may not consist of all classes, high and low, and rich and poor..." -George Mason

"[T]he people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full possession of them." -Zacharia Johnson

"That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and therefore ought to be avoided as far as the circumstances and protection of the community will admit; and that, in all cases, the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power." -Virginia delegation to the constitutional convention

"The whole of that Bill [of Rights] is a declaration of the right of the people at large or considered as individuals...t establishes some rights of the individual as unalienable and which consequently, no majority has a right to deprive them of." -Albert Gallatin

"[C]onceived it to be the privilege of every citizen, and one of his most essential rights, to bear arms, and to resist every attack upon his liberty or property, by whomsoever made. The particular states, like private citizens, have a right to be armed, and to defend, by force of arms, their rights, when invaded." -Roger Sherman

Sources
http://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/beararms/statecon.htm
https://supreme.justia.com/us/92/542/case.html
https://supreme.justia.com/us/116/252/case.html
https://supreme.justia.com/us/307/174/case.html
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1521.pdf
https://supreme.justia.com/us/60/393/case.html
http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/153/535/case.html
http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/publishing/preview/publiced_preview_briefs_pdfs_09_10_08_1521_PetitionerAmCuHeartlandInst.authcheckdam.pdf
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Bill_of_Rights_1689
http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndfqu.html

[Nakura]

Hey Ryan, remember that Long Gun Registry Canada had?
Yeah
That was fun

Much as I disagreed with the non-restricted registry, it never led to the seizure of legal weapons from owners who followed the law, which is the primary objection of registry opponents in the US.

Actually, there have been numerous cases of firearms confiscation after registration. Obviously during the Holocaust and Armenian Genocide, but also in modern times. Take a look at Australia and the United Kingdom, which have banned and confiscated firearms. "It can't happen here" is a poor argument, especially when we have politicians and bureaucrats who are openly advocating banning and confiscating guns (such as Dianne Feinstein, Michael Bloomberg, etc.).

[Nakura]

Just a question though:
Why do you own a gun? Be it pistol or rifle. I'd like to know

Sorry, I didn't see your original post where you asked this. I'm only 20, so I can't legally purchase a handgun yet. I own and use firearms predominately for target shooting. Once I'm old enough to own a handgun, I'm going to carry for self-defense. In philosophy though, every citizen should be educated, armed and informed.

Why is the Center for Disease Control ruling that sort of thing? Or am I confusing that with something else

And basically what that tells me, is that three millions lives were in peril and had no other option other than to use their gun
I'd like to say that's bull****, but do enlighten me on the second question I have

In these three millions lives that were saved, what were their respective situations for having used the handgun for self defense?

Obama forced the CDC to treat gun ownership as a disease (without clearing it with Congress first), hoping it would support his anti-gun agenda. They released a report that backfired, showing that handguns are useful for self-defense and the ownership of semi-automatic rifles isn't a problem. Oddly enough, the mainstream media completely ignored the report, since it didn't fit their agenda.

In some of those cases, there may have been other means, but there's no way of knowing how many. Also, the vast majority of self-defense cases involving handguns don't involve anyone being shot. The criminal almost always surrenders or runs away upon learning that their would-be victim is armed.

[MP-Ryan]

confiscation  Holocaust  Genocide banned confiscated banning confiscating guns

 

*BOOM!*

I did warn you.