Possibly the most retarded anti-gun ad I've ever seen...

[1ViciousGSX]

Finally found some time to think about this and sit down to reply.

While guns are far simpler mechanically as well as operationally than cars, I would argue that they are just as complex when it comes to safety and awareness. In Minnesota, a three hour course is all that’s needed training wise to get a carry permit. It seems unrealistic to me to prepare any person to carry a gun and truly understand the situation they’re potentially preparing to deal with in that short of a time let alone be aware of how the situation might affect their own abilities once if they find themselves in that position. If the conservative argument is such that the best crime prevention is an armed public, why is there not rigorous training and testing required to ensure a civilian is trained well enough to actually do the deed if it comes to that?

I don't have data to back this up, but I don't think I'm going out on a limb here by saying that the number of guns being operated per day on an annual basis is several orders of magnitude smaller than the number of vehicles being operated. The 4-1 argument will likely look much different if considered based on deaths by a percentage of use.

Using the top 7 causes of death you provided, firearm homicide is the only event where another human being is actively violating another person’s right to exist without being injured and/or killed (I saw abortion in the other data set and I’m not going to touch that one.) Everything else is bad self care, negligence, or bad luck. It’s a different type of event to be actively killed by another person versus not. It’s more traumatic to survivors at the least.

I guess I just think more can be done to prevent things like school shootings and the like. If you leave your gun accessible and your child picks it up and shoots up the school, there should be some significant jail time for not properly locking your shit up and securing it. I would assume the authors of the 2nd amendment implied personal responsibility.


Not sure where you're coming from with a world without police. I'm not for that and not sure who is.

I agree a 3 hour course is not enough. But I doubt even a 3 day course would be enough to mentally prepare somebody for a life threatening situation should it spontaneously arise without warning. Maybe 3 months of military training might, but thats unrealistic for the general populous.
But the Bill of Rights guarantees you and me the right to keeps and bare arms. Notice its a "Right" and not "Permit" which really makes the CCP a farse anyway. Now I will say that anybody found guilty in a court of law of commiting a crime using a gun should have their rights to own or possess a firearm stripped away and severe consequences if found with a firearm later.
The conservative argument has facts and data on its side showing that when a city/town/municipality allows it citizens CCP gun ownership, crime rates drop by a good margine because criminals are less likely to go after a victim if there is a strong possibility that they are carrying. I'm sure that if your life was threatened you'd rather be armed than not.

I agree that the number of guns fired daily vs cars driven is much lower, so where was the problem with guns again? Not trying to be funny with that statement, just trying to put it into perspective. I can't think of a gun owner I know that doesn't either shoot their guns at ranges or outdoors on some type of regular basis. They get plenty of trigger time and live to tell the tale.

Sure it takes a human being with a gun to kill another human being. Same as a baseball bat, knife, hammer, crowbar, etc. So why do we keep blaming the gun? And that goes for school shootings too. Take away the gun and it would be school knifings (we have those), school bombings (we have those) school beheadings (we have those) and so on. That's where my statement about teaching the value of life comes in, its not the gun, its the individual.

Alan addressed the child and gun issue very well, so I won't touch on that.

My comment about a world without police revolves around whats happening with police getting turned into targets these days by race baiters, protestors, politicians, etc. And those same groups are doing the same thing to gun owners. Sure there are some bad cops out there, just as there are bad criminals with guns. But we can't say all cops are bad because thats just not reality, the same as saying all gun owners are dangerous. So do you want all cops gone because of a few bad apples? Same thing goes for gun owners. Either one could save your life at any given time.

Alan's point about getting guns out of criminals hands leads me back to this pic I posted earlier,....

http://www.mitsustyle.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=14908&d=1420758795

And if you really get pass the emotion and think about it, why go after lawful gun ownership and not criminals? Seriously think about that.

[jeremy1375]

But the Bill of Rights guarantees you and me the right to keeps and bare arms. Notice its a "Right" and not "Permit" which really makes the CCP a farse anyway.

This discussion is causing me to hit the limits of my thoughts and knowledge on 2nd amendment rights, so I'm doing some research into what the 2nd amendment actually means. The first legal case I've come across that set a precedent for the 2nd amendment was United States v. Cruikshank on March 27, 1876. Relating to the 2nd amendment, in a nutshell the Supreme Court interpreted it as limiting the federal government's powers on our right to bear arms. According to the ruling, it does not affect states rights to restrict gun rights.


The conservative argument has facts and data on its side showing that when a city/town/municipality allows it citizens CCP gun ownership, crime rates drop by a good margine because criminals are less likely to go after a victim if there is a strong possibility that they are carrying. I'm sure that if your life was threatened you'd rather be armed than not.

I'll look into the CCP crime rate data to see what I can find. I'm open to
shift my opinion if I can find solid data.


Sure it takes a human being with a gun to kill another human being. Same as a baseball bat, knife, hammer, crowbar, etc. So why do we keep blaming the gun? And that goes for school shootings too. Take away the gun and it would be school knifings (we have those), school bombings (we have those) school beheadings (we have those) and so on. That's where my statement about teaching the value of life comes in, its not the gun, its the individual.

Guns came into existence as a result of a drive to win wars with a more efficient weapon. They are more efficient, with the exception of bombs. But, guns are much more readily available and usable than bombs. Nobody is arguing for the right to carry bombs.

I just randomly pulled up the 2011 CDC Homicide data and firearm homicides accounted for 68% of all homicides that year.

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/homicide.htm



My comment about a world without police revolves around whats happening with police getting turned into targets these days by race baiters, protestors, politicians, etc. And those same groups are doing the same thing to gun owners. Sure there are some bad cops out there, just as there are bad criminals with guns. But we can't say all cops are bad because thats just not reality, the same as saying all gun owners are dangerous. So do you want all cops gone because of a few bad apples? Same thing goes for gun owners. Either one could save your life at any given time.


To get into what is happening with the protests and race, we should probably start a different thread lol. On your other point though, I am not for having all guns banned, but I still believe in some level of gun control that is above the current levels.




http://www.mitsustyle.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=14908&d=1420758795

Gun control laws will not get guns out of the hands of criminals. The idea is to minimize opportunities for criminals to get guns that are not currently in their hands while allowing the lawful public to still have guns. The idea of disarming the public is a scare tactic to get people fired up.


And if you really get pass the emotion and think about it, why go after lawful gun ownership and not criminals? Seriously think about that.

I will give it serious thought. I haven't quite figured out yet whether you are for no gun control whatsoever though, or for no more than there already is.

I understand your argument about punishing lawful folks for a few bad apples. I'm not even unsympathetic to the argument. I just don't believe there's a cut and dry answer.

On the subject, Japan has one of the lowest homicide rates in the world along with strict gun control laws.

[Trogdor]

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-Y-xDnJUaAsM/VAt5d61yq5I/AAAAAAAAZG0/6IfDnWLS0iQ/s1600/I%2Bjust%2Bcame%2Bby%2Bto%2Bsee.jpg

[1ViciousGSX]

First off, thank you for being open minded and civil. I love these kinds of discussions.

This discussion is causing me to hit the limits of my thoughts and knowledge on 2nd amendment rights, so I'm doing some research into what the 2nd amendment actually means.

And that's understandable considering all the mis-information flying around about the subject. Knowledge is power.


The first legal case I've come across that set a precedent for the 2nd amendment was United States v. Cruikshank on March 27, 1876. Relating to the 2nd amendment, in a nutshell the Supreme Court interpreted it as limiting the federal government's powers on our right to bear arms. According to the ruling, it does not affect states rights to restrict gun rights.

This is a fine example of politics as we know it today. “Interpretation” is code for “We know it says one thing, but we want it to mean another”. It’s a purposeful manipulation to make you believe it means something else. The 2nd Amendment is really very clear. It reads exactly as follows:

“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.”
Notice it doesn't say "A well regulated military".

So what is to “Interpret”? It’s really very clear, don’t you think? It doesn’t give the states additional rights does it? Nowhere does it say, “Unless you’re a state government, then you can do as you please”. The Bill of Rights is the document all laws for the people are supposed to be checked against.

Origins of the 2nd Amendment:
“Having been oppressed by a professional army, the founding fathers of the United States had no use for establishing one of their own. Instead, they decided that an armed citizenry makes the best army of all. General George Washington created regulation for the aforementioned "well-regulated militia," which would consist of every able-bodied man in the country”.

Just to be clear, you and I are the militia.


I'll look into the CCP crime rate data to see what I can find. I'm open to
shift my opinion if I can find solid data.

Please do let us know what you find.


Guns came into existence as a result of a drive to win wars with a more efficient weapon. They are more efficient, with the exception of bombs.

True and they’re also your best weapon for self defense from an attacker because you can take down a threat before it enters your “dead zone”. Dead zone referring to the 5-ft radius around your body that is close enough for an attacker to physically harm or kill you before you can react.


But, guns are much more readily available and usable than bombs. Nobody is arguing for the right to carry bombs.

Of course nobody would call for the right to carry bombs. Bombs are considered weapons of mass destruction. Add to that, bombs can be placed by an individual that can be long gone before it detonates.

As far as "readily available" goes, you can buy everything you need to build a pipe bomb at your local hardware store, with no background checks. Not that I'm promoting it either, just in case you were wondering, LoL.


I just randomly pulled up the 2011 CDC Homicide data and firearm homicides accounted for 68% of all homicides that year.
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/homicide.htm

So if we took away your and my right to a firearm, would that stop 68% of all homicides or would the stat move to other items like baseball bats, hammers, knives, pipe bombs, etc.?


To get into what is happening with the protests and race, we should probably start a different thread lol.

Agreed. But I’m making the point that if only law enforcement should have guns, why are we allowing race baiters to stir up the populous about police using guns when justified?


On your other point though, I am not for having all guns banned, but I still believe in some level of gun control that is above the current levels.

So where do you draw the line that allows infringing on a law abiding citizen’s protected rights?


Gun control laws will not get guns out of the hands of criminals.

So what were we talking about again? Not trying to be funny, just trying to make a point.


The idea is to minimize opportunities for criminals to get guns that are not currently in their hands while allowing the lawful public to still have guns. The idea of disarming the public is a scare tactic to get people fired up.

So how does infringing on a law abiding citizen’s rights achieve that goal? Why should the law abiding citizen be made to jump through hoops and undergo all kinds of back ground checks and scrutiny? When does it go from “innocent until proven guilty” to “guilty until proven innocent”?

In the end, how will that stop criminals from getting guns?


I will give it serious thought. I haven't quite figured out yet whether you are for no gun control whatsoever though, or for no more than there already is.

Here’s my thought on the whole situation:
If we want to live in a free society that believes you are innocent until proven guilty, we’re going to have to put trust in our fellow man until given reason not to trust him anymore, but on an individual basis. I believe that if you’re convicted of a felony in this country that involved the use of a firearm you should lose you right to vote and possess firearms because you have proven that you can’t be trusted to uphold your end of the deal.


I understand your argument about punishing lawful folks for a few bad apples. I'm not even unsympathetic to the argument. I just don't believe there's a cut and dry answer.

There is a cut and dry answer; you come down as hard as possible on the bad apples making examples of them for the rest to see.


On the subject, Japan has one of the lowest homicide rates in the world along with strict gun control laws.

In looking at Japan, is the low homicide rate due to strict guns laws? Or a citizenship brought up to believe in respect for another person's well being, and personal property, along with the value of human life?

[1ViciousGSX]

Here are some stats to think about.

pELwCqz2JfE

This is gonna piss a lot of progressive gun control nuts off!

[jeremy1375]

Here are some stats to think about.
...

This is gonna piss a lot of progressive gun control nuts off!

I find it interesting that they chose homicide death rate instead of firearm homicide death rate. We are 19th on the second list. Notice there are no other first world countries above us either. In terms of first world countries, we're #1!

When compared to first world countries, we have nearly 3x the death rate at 2.83 per 100000. Our closest neighbor, Israel is 0.94. Everyone else is below that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate

(I'm still working on a reply to your other response...)

[1ViciousGSX]

I find it interesting that they chose homicide death rate instead of firearm homicide death rate. We are 19th on the second list. Notice there are no other first world countries above us either. In terms of first world countries, we're #1!

So the only death rates that should matter are those commited with guns?

The point he's making is that even with ALL homicides included in the calculations we are still very low on the list while countries that have the strictest gun laws also have the highest homicide rates per capita.

Oddly enough in looking at the link you provided, suicides with firearms is about 2.5 times higher than the homicide rate with firearms.

[jeremy1375]

We're arguing gun control, not homicide control. How is our country even remotely similar in any way to El Salvador or Honduras.

Look at the list upside down and you'll see a lot of first world countries with strict gun control that have very little homicide.

[1ViciousGSX]

We're arguing gun control, not homicide control. How is our country even remotely similar in any way to El Salvador or Honduras.

Look at the list upside down and you'll see a lot of first world countries with strict gun control that have very little homicide.

I understand what we're arguing. Why are we arguing a moot point when it's clear the United States by way of comparison has a very low homicide rate regardless of gun or no gun. Really, if guns are the problem, the stats should show that right?

[jeremy1375]

The "very low" firearm homicide rate you are talking about is much higher than our first world neighbors. Your odds of being gunned down in any other first world country are roughly 1/3 of what they are here. The countries at the top of the list have much higher levels of poverty than the U.S... The only thing those statistics suggest is that people kill each other more when they have less to lose.

The evidence in the stats suggest that first world countries, of which we are one, that have strict gun control laws also have lower homicide rates, firearm and otherwise.