[Hellstryker]

It might be caused by a more degerenate cultural change which spreads bad influences and ways of thinking like wild fire, more drug use influencing the actions of others, and maybe the weird preservatives and chemicals they put in certain foods making people act differently. Who knows?

Humans are, by nature, a destructive species. As for "Drugs" Please, PLEASE don't tell me you're talking about weed here, for gods sake it mellows people out.  As for other things, My old man has done meth and crack, and I can tell you it does NOT make you go insane and run around killing people. I'm not saying it's good, it's an addictive habit which drains your money, detaches you from the world and possibly shortens your life span, but it's not going to make you want to start killing people.

Now, as for the "weird preservatives" I have never heard anything like this before, although I can't say it would surprise me.

[General Battuta]

It might be caused by a more degerenate cultural change which spreads bad influences and ways of thinking like wild fire, more drug use influencing the actions of others, and maybe the weird preservatives and chemicals they put in certain foods making people act differently. Who knows?

But, um, 'bad influences and thinking' are down across the board, along with all sorts of negative indicators...

[Knight Templar]

Guns don't kill people. People do.

What America has failed to realise that they are a nation of people who do kill. The pro-gun lobby constantly point to Canada and Switzerland as examples of countries where gun ownership is high and say "See! Guns != death"

The problem is that as a nation America can't be trusted with  guns. And I say that as someone from a nation that also can't be trusted with them. Which is why the UK outlawed them. The UK is a nation full of belligerent people. Give everyone in the UK guns and we'd have as much gun crime as the US. Maybe more. People who otherwise wouldn't commit any crime would probably be shooting each other in the street over things that they'd simply get angry about and then walk away from as things are now.
 Fortunately the people of the UK seem to by and large realise this and as a result there are no big arguments in favour of gun ownership from the general public.

The true cowardice in the situation is that pro-gun America refuses to accept this fact about themselves.

That's all well and fine in the UK, except in America, there is a Constitution that says the population is allowed the right to bare arms. The reasoning behind the desire is pretty sound, so I won't touch that, but any social libertarian or right-thereof is going to tell you that you punish the act, not the potential.

That's the problem here with too much freedom and a rude culture; more violent crimes. Funny thing about this country (USA) is you don't have the freedom to drive and ride in a vehicle without a seat belt (at least here in Oregon) and they have strict rules about what you can burn or certain other things on your own property, yet some of the bigger things like being sexually crazy and fighting in bars and carrying guns around is just fine. Now they are even debating on whether or not it is ok for a person with a permit to carry a gun on college campuses and some person was upset about not being allowed to even though he had a permit.

The only thing comparable in your list is seat belts. (You can't burn whatever you want because certain things have certain toxicities to them, and you can't confine smoke to your own ground property.) They instituted seat belts as a mostly nationwide law because people would get into minor car accidents and end up severely injured, or heavier accidents and end up dead when they'd otherwise be fine. This is a problem not only in itself, but financially as well. Think of insurance, lost labor, accrued post-mortem debt, etc. You could shallowly compare gun violence to pre-mandatory seat belt-era driving in terms bodily harm, but there's a key difference. The difference namely being that possessing firearms is an inherent right of self-defense. Not wearing your seat belt in your car is the anti-thesis of self defense. Being seat belt free is also not Constitutionally assured.

Also bare in mind that you're subjecting yourself to the popular government's rules whenever you choose to drive on the open road. They paved it, policed it, and set rules to it that you democratically (or your ancestors) approved when the bill passed in your respective State or National Congress. Part of the deal of them doing all that is you playing by the rules that you and/or your peers set up for the game. If you don't like the rules, you're free to start a popular referendum (depending on your State's legislative progress - otherwise lobby your congressman) to change them anytime.




TLDR: the 2nd Ammendment in its purest form is the right to self-defense equal in power of the government. This is a power balancing philosophy ingrained in the psyche of the United States as a nation and is not likely to ever truly go away. Also, stay away from Oakland, S. Central LA, New Orleans and Suburban DC and you'll be fine.

[Liberator]

KT, the only thing I'd correct you on is the implied meaning of the Second Amendment.

At the time, the fledgling USA had just won a war of independence from British Empire, which had been started over said governments unfair taxation and overall heavy handedness toward her citizens in the colonies.  The second amendment was put in place to placate(and rightly so IMO) the fear that the same thing would start up under a more local governance.  By guaranteeing the right of citizens to bear arms in they're own defense, they were guaranteeing that the people would be able to revolt against bad government when such government became too overbearing to be dealt with any more.

Unfortunately, this power was severely weakened by subsequent governmental actions, including the Civil War, also known to some as the War Between the States.  It was at that time, that the loose grouping of separate entities known as the United States of America became the United States of America.  I put emphasis on that because up until the end of the war, each state had the right to individual action up to and including secession from the Union if they felt that the, until then, fairly weak Federal Government had begun to act not in they're best interest.

Regardless, the 2nd Amendment remains as a guarantee of the citizen's right to protect themselves from both criminal agressors and they're own government.

[redsniper]

Please list the toxins that "they" put in my food.

[BS403]

Like I wouldn't reply to this....

Ok, here are some examples of why gun ownership is a good thing.*NOTE* These are likely to be subjective.

Most people that I have run into that are licensed for open or concealed carry, particularly the open carry, are some of the most in-control, balanced individuals I have ever had the pleasure to running into.  They tend to be soft spoken, but never unassertive, or "weak".

Something I have noticed historically in the last 45 years or so, from watching old news and historical recordings, is that as "family" gun ownership and the culture of gun ownership has been attacked and beaten back like supposed rabid dog, gun related crime has gone up.  Teaching a young person to responsibly hold and maintain a pistol or rifle teaches them to be confident and respectful in general.  Going further back, despite popularization to the contrary, the "Wild West" was rather more civilized than what it is portrayed as.  Gun ownership was and is an essential right, both for protection and survival.

Over all I think gun ownership is a positive thing.

Something to bear in mind about guns.  If you make them illegal and take them away from citizens, the criminals who use such weapons will find a way to get them.  Murderers will still kill people, just with knives or axes or ball bats, or they're bare hands.

Guns are like any other tool, albeit one which is designed for a particular purpose.  The potential for harm lies not in the tool, but in the heart and mind of the wielder.

One thing that I think should happen is this, remove the growing stigma from gun ownership.  Replace it with public awareness that gun owners are taking a responsibility onto themselves to handle and maintain they're weapons with public safety foremost in they're minds.  Require basic maintenance and handling courses be taken BEFORE a license is issued.

In short, the only real way to reduce gun violence and crime, is to embrace gun ownership more than we do.

I mean really, if I'm gonna rob a bank at gun point, am I gonna go charging in as readily as when several, many or all the persons in the bank could be packing heat?

QFT

[Scotty]

In a lot of ways, by not wearing a seat belt, I think many are just hurting themselves

Kind of irrelevant.  The point came up as an attempted refutation of gun crime statistics speculation.

And yet they put toxins in your food and it is always being emitted 24/7 from coal and oil.

Which also doesn't matter.

See the hypocricy of the rules?

Who cares?  We were talking about gun rights/laws.

Guns help to ensure the safety of the citizens of the United States (on a side note, it is still perfectly legal for a state to seceed from the union).  Granted, it was used to ensure that in the event of government oppression the people would be able to reinstate their freedoms.  However, it also served the purpose of providing a semi-trained militia.  Right now, I'm gonna say that the National Guard does not qualify, as it's a government institution.  We're America ever to be invaded, people would still be able to defend themselves in the absence of military aid (Red Dawn).  There is a reason people are allowed to have guns, and gun laws restrict that.

I am the anti-threadjack! 

[Warlock]

Sooooo how many ppl realize that it's known that one of the reasons Japan didn't press on to Cali and a land invasion of the US after Pearl Harbor was the fact they knew they'd not only have to fight the military but also every single civilian as even those that didn't own a weapon could gain easy access to one?

And I do like the random jump from Gun Rights to "The Gov. doesn't make since and is trying to kill you"  lol Good debate defense there, change topic.

[General Battuta]

Sooooo how many ppl realize that it's known that one of the reasons Japan didn't press on to Cali and a land invasion of the US after Pearl Harbor was the fact they knew they'd not only have to fight the military but also every single civilian as even those that didn't own a weapon could gain easy access to one?

And I do like the random jump from Gun Rights to "The Gov. doesn't make since and is trying to kill you"  lol Good debate defense there, change topic.

Boy, this sounds exactly like the reason the US didn't want to invade Japan.

[redsniper]

World Natural Health Organization
Holistic Medicine
Natural News

[Warlock]

@Scotty: I don't care if it matters to you or not. Isn't the gun talk getting boring to you yet? Also, since you are Christian, I would think that you would try to do whatever you could to avoid killing, but your talk and actions seem to contradict Christian nature and the peaceful nature it talks about.

One word for you: Crusades

[General Battuta]

@Scotty: I don't care if it matters to you or not. Isn't the gun talk getting boring to you yet? Also, since you are Christian, I would think that you would try to do whatever you could to avoid killing, but your talk and actions seem to contradict Christian nature and the peaceful nature it talks about.

One word for you: Crusades

That was, um, pretty un-Christian too. Kind of like everything else in that general millennium.

[Nuclear1]

In short, the only real way to reduce gun violence and crime, is to embrace gun ownership more than we do.

I really hope you never become a doctor, because if a patient gets rolled into the ER with an open gash, I only see you prescribing bandages and telling them to get out.

Except, what you don't realize is that open wound was probably infected by something before the patient got into the ER.  Instead of going in and sanitizing the wound and prescribing medicine to keep the infection down, you just stopped the bleeding and assumed that solved the problem. That patient is going to suffer now from whatever is in his wound.

Same with gun violence in the US.  The country obviously suffers from violent crime (the aforementioned open gash), and you did put a cap on crime temporarily with allowing people to carry guns (or bandages), but the country is just going to die from the inside from escalation and even higher levels of crime (the infection).

So instead of just assuming guns are the panacea for the crime problem in the United States, something has to be done to treat the problem at its source.  Improving the education system to keep kids in school and get them on to well-paying jobs after getting a degree keeps gang violence low.  Decriminalizing drugs and not enforcing morality on the country eliminates the illegal drug trade and turns it instead into a legitimate enterprise with no need for exposing innocent people to criminal activities.  Providing assistance for the poor and underdeveloped areas in the country raises people out of the need to resort to violence, as will reducing or eliminating the costs of healthcare.

Unfortunately, the people in the US that are very pro-bandage are typically very anti-medicine.  

The Second Amendment provided for a means of the people to revolt against the government should its corruption become unbearable.  They had a right to fear it too, with their experiences under the British.  Yet, Thomas Jefferson, the archetypal anti-Federalist who demanded a Bill of Rights, saw the US electoral process as the exact revolution the country needed, not a bloodbath.

Unfortunately, most of the same people who are very pro-gun for the sake that it protects the country against tyranny, are the same people who reelected Bush and most Republicans in 2004.  You know, the architects of the Patriot Act, the Military Commissions Act, the ones who wiretapped and spied on Americans, the ones who actually ran the aforementioned corrupt government?  Where was the armed revolution then?  Guns do nothing to protect a people from tyranny when the gunowners themselves are too blind to see tyranny right on their doorstep.

So, in truth, one purpose of the Second Amendment was outdated just a little over ten years after its ratification.

Let's move onto the second purpose.  Warlock claimed that the armed American populace deterred a Japanese invasion of the US mainland.  Comparing the US populace fighting off an army armed with 1920, 1930, or 1940s weaponry and technology to the US populace armed with shotguns, hunting rifles, and pistols fighting off an army armed with modern weaponry is unimaginable.  It's not the same thing by a long shot.  At that, American citizens don't have access to the same types of arms that reasonably effective insurgencies around the world have access to in large numbers--RPGs, assault rifles--to be an effective insurgency themselves.  

So, summed up:  most world militaries are far better armed than the average American citizen who has a gun.  Second Amendment will protect Americans against invasion?  No.  That might have been true two hundred or even seventy years ago, but not anymore.  The militias the Second Amendment provided for have been absorbed into the National Guard and the US military.

So, there you go: all three major purposes of owning guns in the US (besides for sport) are ineffective, outdated, and/or useless.  Most of the rest of the developed world has realized this, why can't we?

@Scotty: I don't care if it matters to you or not. Isn't the gun talk getting boring to you yet? Also, since you are Christian, I would think that you would try to do whatever you could to avoid killing, but your talk and actions seem to contradict Christian nature and the peaceful nature it talks about.

One word for you: Crusades

Word of advice:  the Roman Catholic Church of the Middle Ages was one of the most corrupt and unchristian organizations the world has ever known.  Also, the Crusades had little other purpose than to stop the members of their own religion from squabbling with and killing each other and to instead focus their rage on killing the infidels.

Replace "Crusades" with "jihad" there and I think it'll start sounding familiar...

[esarai]

I just want to point this out: Snyder makes the comment that gun control laws are ineffectual in preventing crime, without addressing the part of the argument that gun control makes crime easier to solve. If guns are registered, the markings they leave on the shell will be more readily matched to the gun and the gun to the owner. How willing do you think people would be to shoot or kill someone if they knew the round could be matched back to the firearm?

There is a general paranoia in assuming that 'gun control' means violating the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution.  Gun control does not mean banning/confiscating guns. It means knowing who owns which gun, who is stable enough to own a gun, and which guns are too destructive to be distributed to the general populace. Things get messier when automatics and psychologically unstable people are involved, and controlling those is for the general benefit of the population.

And equating not owning a gun to not taking responsibility for yourself is arrogant. Having a firearm to return fire with does not always work. If someone pulls a gun on you in a dark alley, you will not be able to draw your own firearm without inciting preemptive fire from your aggressor. In the few seconds it would take for you to raise the gun to a ready position and load (assuming you're being safe and carrying it unarmed), the opposing weapon would already be fired, and the bullet passing through your skull.  And even if your aggressor wielded a knife, if they were within twenty feet of you, by the time you are ready and loaded they will have buried the blade in your chest. Firearms are not the answer to every problem, and owning one does not instantly make you self-responsible or brave.  It makes you foolish for thinking you can deal with anything that is thrown at you. By owning a firearm, you have more responsibility for others around you. From a psychological standpoint, carrying a firearm means that you are more afraid--you feel threatened to the point of being willing to kill.

This presents an interesting predicament. Assume people start having good Sumeritan vibes and pull guns on muggers holding people at gunpoint. The best logical response is to commit crimes in pairs or packs, with someone to watch your back while you fulfill your immoral and barbaric desires, and thus what used to be small crimes can escalate into massive battles extremely fast, with high cost in health, property and life. Nuclear1's argument is entirely valid, America would suffer more from raising weapon ownership without addressing the core of the problem. The core is that people who do not have enough to survive in our culture may need to engage in crime to survive, and as such we should be focused on the causes of crime rather than the gun crime branch of it.

The nature of the situation is more fluid and complex than politics or most people have yet comprehended, and the problem of gun violence cannot be addressed in broad strokes as "more guns" or "less guns," and calling people cowards for not siding with the "more guns means less crime" argument is arrogant.  What of martial artists capable of defending themselves without resorting to firearms?  The fact of the matter is that "smarter guns" is a more appropriate solution, but no one will realize this while they are convinced that gun control means a blanket ban on firearms.

[karajorma]

Rather long post

Thanks, you've basically summed up what I was going for in my first post on this thread. America needs to treat what causes the violence in the first place. Simply sticking more guns on the street won't help.

[Liberator]

I'll agree to that Kara.  Wholeheartedly.

Unfortunately, mental health is a four letter word to most everyone.  Misunderstood and misinterpreted.  The big problem with mental disorders and diseases is that the treatments for such as schizophrenia and manic/depressive disorder are almost as bad as the actual disorder itself.  Powerful psychogenics that virtually shut down certain parts of the brain.  A lot of Manic/Depressives especially have a very hard time staying on they're meds while they're in a manic phase.

In general, people need to feel that there is place for them. 
I myself have been struggling with that very feeling for a while now. 

The socialization of people outside the "mainstream" from a mental health perspective is arguably more beneficial than dosing folk up with amphetamines.  I'm not saying it's a cure-all and  socialization doesn't mean sitting in a ****ing circle talking about my feelings.  But people are less prone to act on they're fears and darker impulses if they have friends and family to help them and counsel them.

[TrashMan]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Wxi3VyqHHI

[Scotty]

I don't care if it matters to you or not. Isn't the gun talk getting boring to you yet?

No 

It isn't up to you to remove them to be so-called responsible to the community.

Okay, so I should just let them kill me and possibly two-six other people before they are apprehended?  No.  Besides, I wasn't talking about being a vigilante.  I was saying that if an armed robber barges into my house and threatens the safety of my famility, I will remove him, possibly in a lethal manner.  Secondly, you seeming interpretation of Christian morality makes the military just about an abomination to that, yet no one seems to think of that.  Notice that the Commandments only say not to commit murder (except King James).  Killing in self-defense, or the defense of others is not condemned.

For the rest of you:  I have a forensics tourney to go to, won't be back for a while.  Just you wait.

[Scotty]

The country obviously suffers from violent crime (the aforementioned open gash), and you did put a cap on crime temporarily with allowing people to carry guns (or bandages), but the country is just going to die from the inside from escalation and even higher levels of crime (the infection).

And how the hell do you intend to remove the infection?  Besides, why can't guns be an anti-septic bandage .

Improving the education system to keep kids in school and get them on to well-paying jobs after getting a degree keeps gang violence low.

I claim ^{[citation needed]}

Decriminalizing drugs and not enforcing morality on the country eliminates the illegal drug trade and turns it instead into a legitimate enterprise with no need for exposing innocent people to criminal activities.  Providing assistance for the poor and underdeveloped areas in the country raises people out of the need to resort to violence, as will reducing or eliminating the costs of healthcare.

I'll address this in the order it appears.

1)  Which people will resent the newfound taxes on, besides which, some drugs should never be legalized (crack/cocaine for instance).  Also, legalizing something does not remove the root of that problem.  Harmful, addictive drugs will still be entering the country. 
2) There is no such thing as the need to resort to violence simply because someone is poor.
3) The costs of healthcare are what keep it running.  If you eliminate the costs, where does the money come from?

*snip* the ones who actually ran the aforementioned corrupt government?

I suppose just because you don't agree with them you call them corrupt.  Otherwise, you would also reference WWII, and the Japanese Internment Camps.

most world militaries are far better armed than the average American citizen who has a gun.

That would be because they are actually government funded militaries  .

Second Amendment will protect Americans against invasion?  No.

Yes, it will, or rather, has the capacity to.  Gun laws precisely are the reason that it doesn't at this moment.

I just want to point this out: Snyder makes the comment that gun control laws are ineffectual in preventing crime, without addressing the part of the argument that gun control makes crime easier to solve. If guns are registered, the markings they leave on the shell will be more readily matched to the gun and the gun to the owner. How willing do you think people would be to shoot or kill someone if they knew the round could be matched back to the firearm?

Good point.  Thank you.

In the few seconds it would take for you to raise the gun to a ready position and load (assuming you're being safe and carrying it unarmed), the opposing weapon would already be fired, and the bullet passing through your skull.

Only if the poor bloody idiot just stands there and brings his gun up.  Besides, a gun can be loaded and still safe, as long as there is no bullet in the chamber.  Going for speed, I can have a Walther .380 PPKS jacked and aimed in less than two seconds.

The best logical response is to commit crimes in pairs or packs, with someone to watch your back while you fulfill your immoral and barbaric desires

   The best 'logical' response in occasions like this is to not commit crimes at all.  I will give you that it will 'protect' the first one.

and calling people cowards for not siding with the "more guns means less crime" argument is arrogant.

And vice versa.  Calling someone a coward for using firearms is arrogant as well.

What of martial artists capable of defending themselves without resorting to firearms?

What of them?  At 20 feet, a criminal has time to fire two shots before anyone could get to him.  Makes martial arts pretty useless pretty fast.

Firearms are not the answer to every problem

Conversely, there are also not never an answer.

It makes you foolish for thinking you can deal with anything that is thrown at you.

A gun is a tool.  By the same reasoning, carrying a hammer makes you foolish for thinking you can construct anything.  A gun makes no one foolish.  Granted, lots of people would be, but only if they carry and will try to use guns without proper training.

It shows more mental strength for one to control their emotions

You truly are a stoic.  Sometimes, people are forced to act on their emotions, with no impartial observation.  Would you sit there and watch someone get shot just because you were angry and had to objectively think about it before disabling the shooter?

And that can been seen as the cowardice I mentioned before and weak-mindedness.

Different things to different people.  You continue to indirectly call me a coward, whether you realize it or not.

[Nuclear1]

And how the hell do you intend to remove the infection?

Read the whole rest of my post.

1)  Which people will resent the newfound taxes on, besides which, some drugs should never be legalized (crack/cocaine for instance).  Also, legalizing something does not remove the root of that problem.  Harmful, addictive drugs will still be entering the country. 
2) There is no such thing as the need to resort to violence simply because someone is poor.
3) The costs of healthcare are what keep it running.  If you eliminate the costs, where does the money come from?

1. People already resent taxes on tobacco.  There's one harmful addictive drug we're already selling and making tax revenue off of.
2. Why do you think people rob banks?  For the fun of it?  People get desperate and do desperate things.  Not saying all bank robbers are poor and have that as their primary reason, but the need for money can drive anyone to do anything, especially crime.
3. Your aforementioned taxes on drugs.  By not spending billions of dollars every month on unpopular, unnecessary wars. 

I suppose just because you don't agree with them you call them corrupt.

Actually, I call them corrupt because they repeatedly violated our personal freedoms to an unprecedented extent in the US.  The Internment Camps were wrong, yes, and I was never defending them.  But never at any time did FDR repeal the writ of habeas corpus or order spying on Americans.

That would be because they are actually government funded militaries.

This point makes no sense.  What other military to expect us to be invaded by?  It's also why we have our own military--not to police the world and enforce a Pax Americana but to defend our homeland.

Gun laws precisely are the reason that it doesn't at this moment.

We have:
1) a vast nuclear force
2) one of the largest militaries in the world
3) a large military alliance with some of the other world's largest militaries
4) two oceans surrounding us

Do you really need gun ownership to be another reason?  This isn't the War of 1812 anymore.