U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 09-11-2008, 05:59 PM
 
37 posts, read 57,843 times
Reputation: 15

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by amyalta View Post
The facts speak for themselves - if you have a gun in your home, you are 250 times more likely to shoot either yourself or a loved one, than you are to be able to 'defend yourself!'

For every one householder who has succeeded in using a gun against an intruder, there are 200 who have had their own weapon used against them.

The easy availability of automatic weapons makes school mass shootings almost an annual event.

You are not living on some kind of treacherous frontier!

As for the stuff about 'right to bear arms,' it's fascinating that gun lovers always omit the crucial part about a well regulated militia! You have militia!

I live in the UK where we have strict gun control laws, thank God - sure, some 35 low-lifes a a year or thereabouts die in gun killings, but that's about 00000.3 of the number in the US.
Bravo especially the part on the school mass shootings. A lot of this happens because of bullying & that will never be controlled unfortunately so something needs to be put in place to prevent these. Which is what happened in Australia & since the Port Arthur massacre & the banning & destruction of automatic & semi automatic firearms there has not been another massacre since. Yet gun lovers seem to be ok with unnecessary & avoidable massacre & loss of 100's of innocent lives occurring annually as long as they can still have 100 guns in there home if they so please because apparently you need more than 1 firearm to protect yourself.
I'm sorry if I offend but those people who claim they own firearms for protection but say they want as many guns as they can get their hands on for said protection & will shoot until you run out of bullets & so what if you kill them instead of dispensing one bullet to wound the criminal enough to stop them are just as bad & I'm sorry but yes as heartless as the criminals who go around shooting people just for the fun of it.
Constitutional right or no constitutional right if you want the right to bare arms & do so for protection then why can't you be happy with a limited amount (1-2 per person) & a limited type (no semi automatic or automatic firearms).
We sent our troops off to war because of the amount of innocent lives lost with the 911 attack, yet you are not happy to take steps to prevent innocent lives being lost through mass shootings due to the ease & availability of accessing firearms as amyalta said.

 
Old 09-11-2008, 06:09 PM
 
Location: southern california
55,237 posts, read 72,402,860 times
Reputation: 47449
there is one thing i like about NRA types. despite their affluence, they have not lost contact with reality. many of them are military and/or police background. i must say my fellow liberals, often in their affluence, their gated communities and their private schools, they have lost the notion of why anybody would want a weapon. there is a reason ms silver spoon in the mouth, you would need and want a weapon. those of us who have grown up in poverty and the wrong side of town grasp this, others living outside of reality, just dont get it. for the beautiful people having a weapon is meaningless.
 
Old 09-11-2008, 06:23 PM
 
Location: Northglenn, Colorado
3,689 posts, read 9,251,619 times
Reputation: 944
Quote:
Originally Posted by amyalta View Post
The facts speak for themselves - if you have a gun in your home, you are 250 times more likely to shoot either yourself or a loved one, than you are to be able to 'defend yourself!'

For every one householder who has succeeded in using a gun against an intruder, there are 200 who have had their own weapon used against them.

The easy availability of automatic weapons makes school mass shootings almost an annual event.

You are not living on some kind of treacherous frontier!

As for the stuff about 'right to bear arms,' it's fascinating that gun lovers always omit the crucial part about a well regulated militia! You have militia!

I live in the UK where we have strict gun control laws, thank God - sure, some 35 low-lifes a a year or thereabouts die in gun killings, but that's about 00000.3 of the number in the US.

Can you please post some facts as to the assertions you are making in the first part of your statement?

here is your answer to the above bold.

GunCite-Second Amendment-Original intent and purpose of the Second Amendment

the militia is made up of any persons between the ages of 18 and 45, therefore when speaking of the militia you are speaking the whole of American citizens.

The school shootings are happening in areas that are deemed "gun free zones" do you think these crimes would still be committing them at this rate if they had any idea that some in the crowd of people may be armed?

"There is no contrary evidence from the writings of the Founding Fathers, early American legal commentators, or pre-twentieth century Supreme Court decisions, indicating that the Second Amendment was intended to apply solely to active militia members. "

"Who are the militia? are they not ourselves. Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American...The 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. "
-The Federalist Papers


Meaning of the words in the Second Amendment

"The word "militia" has several meanings. It can be a body of citizens (no longer exclusively male) enrolled for military service where full time duty is required only in emergencies. The term also refers to the eligible pool of citizens callable into military service. (dictionary.com)
The federal government can use the militia for the following purposes as stated in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution:


To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;
Is today's National Guard the militia? It is a part of the well-regulated militia.[1] (As mentioned in GunCite's, The Original Intent and Purpose of the Second Amendment, it was not the intent of the framers to restrict the right to keep arms to only those serving active militia duty.) "
 
Old 09-11-2008, 06:29 PM
 
Location: Northglenn, Colorado
3,689 posts, read 9,251,619 times
Reputation: 944
Quote:
Originally Posted by ParkTwain View Post
Ask the victims who got shot up in the mall in Missouri by the teenager (already under doctor's care for psychiatric disorders) who took his step-uncle's M-16 to perpetrate both mass murder and "suicide by police." (He succeeded only in the former.) These incidents are reported in the national news practically every month. Do you not notice them?

In that situation, what contributed to the end result (shooting innocent members of the public in a shopping mall):

* There were no metal detectors to prevent entry into the mall by a person carrying a large dangerous firearm.
* The teenager's parents weren't successful at impressing upon the teenager's mind that it is unacceptable to perpetrate mass murder with a powerful firearm.
* The teenager's step-uncle wasn't successful at securing, if he in fact tried, the M-16 rifle and its ammo from the teenager.
* The step-uncle owned and kept an M-16 at his residence.
First of all I have to correct you, the M-16 is a fully automatic weapon, and it is currently covered under the 1980's ban on automatic weapons. The civilian version is called the AR-15, it is a semi automatic weapon. It houses a very small caliber round compared to other types of weapons that are readily available.

second.

Malls are "gun free zones" why should these malls require metal detectors if everyone is not allowed go carry guns? He was a criminal first, by not only stealing his uncles firearm, but for carrying in an area that is deemed "gun free"
 
Old 09-11-2008, 08:55 PM
 
Location: Duncan, OK
2,919 posts, read 5,984,028 times
Reputation: 3117
Just a reminder: Rules for The Great Debate

Debate the topic...

Carry on...
 
Old 09-12-2008, 08:40 AM
 
Location: Montrose, CA
3,031 posts, read 7,863,957 times
Reputation: 1925
Quote:
Originally Posted by ParkTwain View Post
Please calm down. Whom you would shoot was your own contribution to this topic. You seemed to say that this is somehow germane to the topic of gun control. I am responding to your attempt to relate shooting intruders to the issues relating to the legitimate use of firearms and therefore the bases for arguing for their regulation.
Calm down? I'm completely calm and comfortable about my decisions regarding gun use. If you'd read all my posts, you wouldn't have felt the need to keep asking the same question over and over, since I clearly answered it before it was asked.

In any case, the USA has plenty of gun control laws already in place. We don't need any more. Your choice is to not own a weapon. Mine is different, and I'm grateful that the law sees fit to allow me to own my gun.
 
Old 09-12-2008, 11:11 AM
 
Location: Santa Monica
4,708 posts, read 7,561,052 times
Reputation: 1023
"In any case, the USA has plenty of gun control laws already in place. We don't need any more."

Right, but the Commonwealth of Virginia didn't agree with you after the Va. Tech shooting, so they changed their laws regarding restrictions on allowing those under mental health care to qualify to get a gun.

Keep trying.
 
Old 09-12-2008, 12:40 PM
 
Location: vagabond
2,631 posts, read 4,831,584 times
Reputation: 1300
Quote:
Originally Posted by ParkTwain View Post
Ask the victims who got shot up in the mall in Missouri by the teenager (already under doctor's care for psychiatric disorders) who took his step-uncle's M-16 to perpetrate both mass murder and "suicide by police." (He succeeded only in the former.) These incidents are reported in the national news practically every month. Do you not notice them?

In that situation, what contributed to the end result (shooting innocent members of the public in a shopping mall):

* There were no metal detectors to prevent entry into the mall by a person carrying a large dangerous firearm.
* The teenager's parents weren't successful at impressing upon the teenager's mind that it is unacceptable to perpetrate mass murder with a powerful firearm.
* The teenager's step-uncle wasn't successful at securing, if he in fact tried, the M-16 rifle and its ammo from the teenager.
* The step-uncle owned and kept an M-16 at his residence.
first of all, note the difference between semi autos and automatics when you are making a point. second, try to keep the conversation civil, as this is supposedly a forum reserved for higher standards of discussion. i merely asked a question; that and the comments of the others hardly necessitates the haughty attitude that some of us are reading into your posts.

yes, i do notice them, along with all of the rest of violent crimes, and the weapons used.

now, crimes are committed with semi automatic weapons. ok. crimes are also committed with revolvers, knives, baseball bats, rocket launchers, full automatic weapons, and any other number of the criminals' favorites.

trying to put a ban on semi automatic weapons is not going to lower crime. we already have the results of trying to do something like this, and it in no way contributed to a safer society.

how is banning semi automatic weapons going to keep criminals from getting them? do they now conform to gun laws? if not, then what is going to urge them to suddenly begin?

getting rid of the guns of those that obey the laws is certainly one way to lower the number of accidental deaths of overly curious children. but there are other ways, and in the end, merely getting rid of the weapons of those citizens that abide by the laws in the first place is going to do nothing but make them easier targets.

i reiterate the idea that what we need is better education regarding the use of weapons, and better enforcement, and stricter penalties of the laws in place. more laws are not going to do anything that the current laws don't already, except further punish those that are already using their weapons responsibly.

your conclusions about susu criminally shooting a home intruder are tangential, and consist wholly of your opinion, and nothing more. i may have heard of two or three cases in my life where the homeowner was actually even charged, and fewer than that where he was convicted, in the case of the shooting of a burglar/robber. the majority of home invasion shootings, the home owner was completely justified.

one of the largest reasons for that phenomenon is because there is no time in a tactical situation liek that to try to determine whether the invader is armed and hostile, or merely delinquent. expecting that you will be able to determine such intent even a fraction of the time is hopeful, but not realistic. cops don't wait to see whether the gun you are pointing at them fires a steel-jacketed round, or a plastic bb. therefore, anyone dumb enough to point a weapon at a police officer can hardly complain (assuming that they survive the incident) that the cop was unjustified in his use of force.
 
Old 09-12-2008, 12:50 PM
 
Location: Summerville
7,934 posts, read 14,702,964 times
Reputation: 1347
Ok, I just spent two hours reading every post as covered by the TOS.

The right to keep and bear arms has nothing to do with hunting target shooting or even defending youself from home invasion from a criminal.

"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."

I love my country, it is the government I do not trust.....

As for all of the other posts as to who I would shoot or not shoot, I am with SuSu I am not going to wait to see what they intend to do, I am going to stop them. As defined in the law of SC you only have to retreat from an attacker in the curtlage (area imediately suroundings) of your home, you are allowed to defend yourself in your vehicle, in your home and most everywhere else where you may be attacked.

The current laws on the books do not stop criminals from getting guns, they are criminals therefore they don't obey the law. Just like making drugs illegal do not stop drug addicts from getting drugs.

Now for education to own a gun: You do not need a license to own a vehicle just to drive it on public highways, just ask a farmer he has lots of them unlicensed and unregistered on his farm. When he takes his produce to market and puts his truck on the public highway he has to have license registration and insurance. The same thing goes for guns, if you have them at home you do not need to have any training (by the government, you should have it from you parents or whom ever sold you the weapon) if you want to carry them in the public you need to have the proper training (Hunters Ed, Concealed Weapons) and in some places you need to be bonded.
 
Old 09-12-2008, 02:28 PM
 
27,903 posts, read 33,419,281 times
Reputation: 4016
Quote:
Originally Posted by ParkTwain View Post
"In any case, the USA has plenty of gun control laws already in place. We don't need any more."

Right, but the Commonwealth of Virginia didn't agree with you after the Va. Tech shooting, so they changed their laws regarding restrictions on allowing those under mental health care to qualify to get a gun.

Keep trying.

Please explain?

Japan-Japanese Knife Attack Killer May Have Posted Warnings

Japan has one of the most strict gun control laws and for that matter weapons control laws in the world.

At some point you just have to realize the people that commit crimes like that will do it with a spoon......you can't put rational thinking on irrational people.

Last edited by BigJon3475; 09-12-2008 at 03:02 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top