for the record (re: guns thread)

no. no. no. not weapons in general. nuggin never asserted that weapons are solely designed to kill humans.what he did claim was that guns specifically (especially the likes of handguns) are meant for killing (and killing other humans specifically).To claim he made the general statement that the only point of weapons was to kill other humans is to present his argument falsely.

I am curious why the experience of the Swiss is considered off limits.My understanding is that all Swiss men between 18 and 45 are issued a machine gun and lots of rounds of ammo, and that they go through two weeks of military training per year.This appeared to have kept them from being invaded since the Napoleonic Wars.So if it is all about defense, if it is all about community, if it is all about fear, if it is all about responsibility, is this not an appropriate response?Or are the Swiss somehow superior or more grown up than other societies?

Which represents a threefold decrease in murder rates if memory serves. Wouldn't that be great? I doubt you want a sociology lesson or even a short essay. Needless to say, it is nobody's position that the only factor that goes into murder rates is gun ownership. Economic considerations, age distribution and so on and so forth obviously play an important role as well. And of course invasion by foriegn entities. Did you think that this was under dispute? Is this relevant to the point that rights have restrictions placed upon them? Indeed - weapons can be used to facilitate hunting, target shooting, celebration, suicide, murder, robbery, rape, self defense, war, opening locked doors, as a pointing device, paper weight...The dispute is whether the prevalence of guns in civillian hands actually costs more lives than it saves. The dispute in this thread is trying to get both sides to understand what the dispute is. If you want to try catching up to where the debate is at, you're going to need to do a little bit of reading I'm afraid. Your post sounds like you missed Acts I and II, but we recorded them for your viewing pleasure.

Look, I am starting to think that you are just making us jump through hoops, then pretending that you don't understand why we are leaping through those silly things, to get your jollies or something.Read the OP.Say something substantive about it.

quote:

---

There are thousands of people in the US that could kill you with their bare hands before you could pull a revolver from your purse and shoot them. Our armed forces teach people how to do this all the time.

---

Right. Through years and years of disciplined training.On the other hand, someone with no training at all can buy a gun in a store and aquire the even more deadly ability to kill instantly, from a distance, instantly.The point there, though, is someone with a gun can kill many people in a few seconds, even if the potential victims are running away. Even the best martial artist can't do that. Not even close.This has got to be the eighth or ninth time I've said this over the course of two threads.Why is this so incredibly difficult for pro-gunners to understand?I am truly mystified.

quote:

---

The US ranks 8th and Switzerland ranks 19th murders per capita with a gun.

---

It is clearly not comparing the US with other rich, western industrialized nations with stable governments, so you will get misleading results, which you did.The US has five times the rate of gun murders than the Swiss, and three times the Swiss overall gun deaths.

quote:

---

The Constitution grantees my rights to own and bear arms so that I can protect myself from my government and criminals of any type if it becomes necessary.

---

That's not what the Constitution says for WHY we should have that right.It says: There is nothing in there about "protecting yourself against criminals". And it says that gun ownership should be connected to being part of a well-regulated militia.How many current gun owners are part of a well-regulated militia, do you think? Edited by nator, : No reason given.Edited by nator, : No reason given.

Too many ninja flicks, they think everyone wanders around with a pocket full of shuriken.TTFN,WK

Jon,You're doing more flip flops than an acrobat.People are trying to respond to your posts, but you seem oblivious as to why they are responding in the manner that they are.Your lack of focus is causing tension in this thread and you don't seem to be addressing their points.Jon, I suggest that you make a post that clearly states your position concerning what was addressed in Message 1.Please direct any comments concerning this Admin msg to the Moderation Thread.

​

Any response in this thread will receive a 24 hour timeout.Thank you

Can I just interject something real quick?1) The 'anti-gunners' in this thread are NOT trying to ban guns, just suggesting a reinforcement of the background checking process in order to acquire one. They're NOT saying that having a gun for home defense is a stupid concept. Scraf? Wounded King? Am I right on this, or have you guys changed gears since the last thread?2)The 'pro-gunners' in this thread aren't suggesting that, as it's been falsely portrayed, that the only thing holding a mass criminal uprising of apocalyptic proportions is the thought that someone might be walking around with a nine millimeter in their pocket. They're saying that disarming the nation completely (which, again, the 'other side' is NOT proposing, but STILL debating against this 'pro-gunner' arguement as if they are) would put a lot of people in more dangerous parts at risk, as criminals will always have guns, no matter what. If you disagree with the italics, you need to get out of your shell. I hope that the comparison of a deadly pair of human hands to guns is saying only that they can concievably kill the same number of people, but in all practical intents and purposes the gun can much more easily reach such a massive potential a lot faster. Jon? ICANT? Am I right on this?I hope so, because both sides don't seem to get eachother very well on this one.

---

I'm bent, bruised, broken, and a little lost. But you know what? I'm not so afraid as you are, who has never ventured away from the trail.

Sure, but only if that's your original intent, which, if it is, makes you a pretty evil person, and I'd see no reason why a really evil person would not just go get an easy illegal gun if they couldn't get access to a legal one. I mean, they're sinister to commit mass murder, what's breaking a little gun law to them?Jon

OCW tried to clarify your position and you go and muck it up again.Your response doesn't make any sense in relation to the part you quoted, but seems to deal with the italicized portion of his post. So from your post, you are saying that you agree with the italicized portion of his post. Right?In regards to OCW's presentation of your position, is it your position that disarming the nation completely would put a lot of people in more dangerous parts (of the nation) at risk?Do you feel that the anti-gunners want to disarm the nation completely?Simple yes or no responses are all I need.

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

quote:

---

The 'anti-gunners' in this thread are NOT trying to ban guns,

---

Correct.

quote:

---

just suggesting a reinforcement of the background checking process in order to acquire one.

---

And much more stringent requirements for how gun owners secure their weapons, requiring training, licensing and registration of all firearms, requiring a paper trail of all guns sold to anyone, anywhere, requiring child safety locks on all guns commonly sold for "personal protection", etc., but basically, yes, that's right.

quote:

---

They're NOT saying that having a gun for home defense is a stupid concept.

---

The statistics report that the legitimate use of a gun in self-defense is very rare, and that having guns in a home greatly increases the chances that someone in that household will be injured or killed by it.Statistically, it is a stupid concept.

quote:

---

as criminals will always have guns, no matter what.

---

Says who?Most criminals in Japan, the UK, and other nations comparable to the US don't have guns.OTOH, given the money that the gun manufacturers make and the lobbying power that the insane people at the NRA have, we are not likely to see that change for the better.Edited by nator, : No reason given.

Actually Jon, I am still waiting on a few answers regarding post 98. With all the debate going on I was going to just leave it. I would like to see the pro-gun position get right to the point however.I stated: And you responded: I am not sure if this is any sort of solution to the issues involved. I gather that you do support gun control as much as you support guard rails near dangerous areas on the nations highways. This does not seem to support your position, nor does it create a solution.I do have an argument against your position.You stated in message 99 to Modulous: How do you propose to do this? You say its the same as not letting a three year old have matches? Its not even close! From day to day how can you, or anyone else begin to predict who is going to wake up and decide to go mental? This hardly seems like a solution, more like a statement of the obvious. Why then are landmines illegal if they can simply get them on the black market? What is the difference? Why is it nessesary to defend one weapon capable of multiple casualties, but not another?Why does the government monitor and track large purchaces of fertilizer? Do I not have the right to buy as much as I want without having to worry about goverment involvement? I am not a criminal, its not my fault crazy people may decide to use it to start leveling buildings. I do not see protests defending fertilizer purchaces. Landmines, anthrax, rpg's, plastic explosives - none of these bans have resulted in your ire. Why does talking about banning an ak-47 get peoples blood pressure up?A proposed solution is all I am asking for. Once its in the works then I see no reason why all weapons could not be legalized. Edited by Vacate, : Clarity

Vacate:First, let me just thank you for your cool, calm, and non-hostile reply to my arguments. It's very much appreciated when one can debate his/her points without worry of being insulted and/or viciously verbally attacked As I've said before in regards to other things, buying fertilizer is not a right guaranteed to us by the Constitution. If you want to propose an amendment be made, go ahead, until then, your right to buy fertilizer remains restricted under the law and/or current government practices. My reply was in response to your seeming misinterpretation of my position. Unless it is you who do not feel taking away their ak-47 is an option, then you've somewhere inadvertently mistook my position. Hence my reply of: "I have never said that isn't an option. " It was not meant to offer a solution, just to clear things up. However, since you've asked for a solution... Instant background checks which simply use a national database that has information in it that is there anyway”hospital visits, criminal history, etc.”to assign a 'threat level' number to each person. That threat level number can then be used to determine to which types of weaponry an individual has access. Now, I realize this would require that the separate divisions of the government actually got along, or even spoke for that manner, but that's somewhat an issue that needs to be just fixed all around. No, I did not say that. What I said was: "It's the same way that we wouldn't let a 3 year old play with matches." In other words, the logic for not letting a 3 year old play with matches is also applicable to not letting violent criminals have access to guns. I never said, nor meant to imply, that both methods could be implemented in the same fashion; that, after all, would've just been silly . Landmines are not a right guaranteed to us by the 2nd Amendment. It's okay to restrict their use, but not the use of guns. Unless you can show me that landmines and guns are both equally "necessary to the security of a free state," then your argument is sunk. Because landmines would be destructive to the U.S. if detonated on an invading force, I believe the same logic applies here as to nukes, that is, they are more detrimental to the security of a free state than they are necessary. Let's not get too hasty, here. For starters, humans have been looking for ways to keep murderous people out of society for thousands of years. We still have not found an answer on how to do that without also infringing upon their rights, and I doubt we will find one any time some. Furthermore, I don't want all weapons legalized”nukes, landmines, etc.-just the ones necessary to the security of a free state will be fine for now. However, I would not oppose any amendments to the Constitution that somewhat increased the array of weaponry available to the public.Let me know if any parts were unclear ,
Jon

That is possible The solutions you proposed in that same paragraph, to me, sound like a valid method at reducing the number of *ahem* nutjobs with uzi's. This is the bottom line of the problem however. We can easily assume that a 3 year old does not have the knowledge to stay safe, as a result persons of higher (more stable?) brain development steps in to ensure his or her safety. Your example works for both sides of this issue - as I propose to also limit what less stable people should be able to possess.To make things clear on my side, I don't think that people should be disarmed of hunting rifles; and due to crime rates in the U.S. I can also grudgingly accept the need for handguns. All that I wish to put down on the table is the banning of fully automatic weapons, stockpiles of weapons, and use of armor piercing rounds. I cant directly show you, I can however assure you that if every citizen of the United States possessed 10 ak-47's, 2 apache helicopters, and 4 cruise missles they would still not have the power to overthrow the U.S. military. As an example I point to Afganistan, where the Taliban has had little success in overthrowing the U.S.Though I cannot show that landmines and guns are both equal in securing a free state, I do not think that citizens with fully automatic rifles are equal (not even comparable) to the training and technology available to the strongest military in the world. Have you watched the movie "blackhawk down"? The numbers of casualties from both sides reflect the importance of training.The second amendment may protect the possesion of firearms, but why is it so hard to see that perhaps some things are meant to be changed with time? The reality of the situation is there is no difference in the ease of a landmine and an ak-47 to take lives - one just happens to be called a "gun" and therefore protected under the amendment. In the future what will fit within the category of "gun"? With the progress of military technology who can say what kind of devastation may be created from a handheld device that your forefathers never would have imagined.When is enough going to be enough? I wont spew a bunch of hypotheticals about what the future may hold for guns. Take a look at what they where shooting at the time the constitution was drafted - and then think where it might be in the next hundred years.This thread, and the one that came before show that there is already a great debate about this very topic. I wonder what examples our grandchildren may have on the "anti-gun" side?*cut short - have to go*

Fully automatic weapons are already restricted in the US and have been for many, many decades.What is a stockpile of weapons?What is armor piercing rounds?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion