Summations Only

Yes, this is true and the world has remained exactly the same, with zero differences in society, in the last 200+ years... I am hoping you caught that sarcasm, we no longer live in the world that existed when the Constitution was written. Times change and, if we would like to join the modern world, interpretations of statements must do so as well. Again, I must state that I am not for taking away all of your guns. However, if ten rounds in a magazine can help an individual mount just as effective of a defense as 30 rounds than the right to bear arms is not being "infringed"A 10 round magazine can help an individual mount an effective defense of his or her home from criminal activity just as much as a thirty round magazine. Also, a 10 round magazine will get an individual just as far against an invading army or the US government as a 30 round magazine(namely nowhere), so still the right is not being "infringed". Each individual is still capable of putting forth the same level of defense. I fully agree...however, what I do not agree with is the amount of firepower necessary to mount an effective home defense. If someone breaks into your home and you require 30 rounds of ammunition to effectively defend your home, then you have actually made your neighborhood a less safe location for every other homeowner. Why? Because not all of those 30 rounds are going to find their mark, meaning there will be collateral damage. 10 round magazines are more than enough for effective home defense. So, according to your argument, I will say that 30 round magazines should not be legal because they do not make sense when thinking of defending home and family.Now, about whether it makes sense to offer these items in the off chance that we are invaded or the government decides to run over its citizens...would the extra 20 rounds make any difference against the force of a government operated and supplied military? No, this group can simply destroy whomever it wants to from a distance away. Never even need to see the whites of their eyes. So, it does not make sense to allow 30 round magazines because they would not make an individual any more effective against an invading military.So, effectively, we have that it does not make sense in either home defense or country defense to allow individuals to load 30 rounds into single magazines. One is overkill, one is underkill. So, if we want to do something that makes sense, one thing would be to limit magazine capacity. This would not be infringement on the right to bear arms because each gun owner can still mount an equal defense to what they could were they allowed 30 rounds. The government has not removed their ability to effectively defend their home. Exactly my point... Not my argument to fully disarm the population, so I feel no need to even say anything about this.

Hi Tempe,I agree with this comment, and in fact have said this several times in this thread alone: But we can apply this to more than just antiquated statements, so when you go on to say this: My reaction is that we hold life much more precious today than a couple centuries ago. For example, the more civilized the country the less likely is capital punishment. We do have to start taking away people's guns because we hold life far too precious to leave life or death decisions up to self appointed individuals.--Percy

I agree that we have definitely changed our viewpoint on the preciousness of life in recent years. Perhaps the mass killing ability of the new tools of war have made us slightly more aware of how quickly life can be extinguished. However, I do not think that an all out gun ban is the way to go to prevent death. I am absolutely sure that the number of gun deaths will be reduced with a ban, but I can see many of these crimes of passion, gang-related murders, mental health related murders and suicides still taking place. We will merely shift the cause from one method to another.Now, I am not saying that every single one of the murders that would have taken place with a gun available will still take place without a gun. It is simply that a large portion of these crimes will continue with different weapons as long as we continue to do nothing about individuals using violence as the first reaction.Instead of going with an all-out ban, I am for far more regulation of firearms. The magazine limit makes complete sense, as I explained earlier, closing the gun-show loophole, increasing the efforts made to help those with mental health issues, stronger support for suicide prevention efforts, requiring gun safes for gun owners, registration of all firearms, and a gun owner is held liable for crimes committed with his or her firearm. A gun owner is liable (whether this is civil or criminal can be decided at a legislative level) for a stolen firearm, unless it was reported to the police within a set amount of time.The biggest problem we have is that it will extremely difficult, if not impossible, to remove all firearms, including those criminals have. The drug war has shown us that there are so many possible routes into this country that if we stopped manufacturing guns, another group in another country will and they will be smuggled in. Perhaps if we could slowly remove the gunslinger mentality that Americans have through regulation, some day in the future no guns may actually be a feasible option.

But what do you think it is going to accomplish? I think there might be something better for you to focus on. I had a revelation over the weekend:We were going out to a friend's farm and wanted to do some outdoor target shooting while we were there. So I went to the store to pick up some ammo and shit: they were completely sold out of the bullets I needed. I even drove over to the god-damned Wal*Mart and thier shelves were empty too. Neither store knew when they were getting more in. I couldn't go target shooting because I didn't have the ammo. My gun was useless.

Tempe, the differences you all keep focusing on have to do with reasons to curtail the right to keep and bear arms, as if somehow we don't have as much need for self defense now as we did then. You are simply devaluing our need for self defense while valuing protection from dangers from gun ownership. In my opinion these dangers are at least partly the product of moral decline in our world, which makes the need for self defense even MORE important if anything.

The only benefit to this limitation on magazine capacity is to force more reload moments in the case of a mass shooting. While this does not effect a large quantity of gun crime, it also does not effect the capacity of a responsible gun owner to provide sufficient defense of home and family. This means it only has the effect of limiting someone out to do maximum damage. So, is it your suggestion that limits should be placed on the amount of ammunition that any individual can purchase? This is another idea that I can definitely agree with. However, the problem is that all of the ammo is sold out because individuals are stockpiling it in fear of regulations or bans not because of people limiting themselves.

However, as a society our morality would exceed that of our ancestors. In many countries we no longer feel it allowable to own other human beings, people are not killed for differing beliefs nearly as often, individuals do what they can to help their fellow human beings...all in all, we care more for society as a whole now then we ever did in the past. The tribe of humans continues to expand and the borders are beginning to blur.Now, if you are referring to Biblical morality then yes, we have moved away from that because that morality forces individuals to treat others as if they are damned and to attempt to remove rights from specific classes of people. Hence, why there is such a moral problem in the theocracies in the Middle East.And, I agree with self defense...now, Faith, could you please point out one time when it could possibly be necessary for home/family defense for an individual to require 30 bullets otherwise they cannot stage an effective defense?

Yeah, that's totally not worth the time and effort and cost. Well, it also limits how much fun I can have shooting recreationally. My suggestion is to stop wasting any time on gun control at all and start focusing on stuff that actually matters. Like economic disparity, low education, practically non-existent mental health programs, etc.Not only will gun control not accomplish anything, you're actually taking time and resources away from other things that could really help people. Focusing on gun control becomes immoral, in that sense. What a waste! The point was that you can stop people from shooting their guns better if you prevent them from getting the ammo rather than trying to take their guns from them.

Any life saved is worth the time, effort and cost when it is feasible. While mass shootings only comprise a tenth of 1 percent of shooting deaths, these horrific tragedies do deserve to be addressed in some manner. In fact, the cost of these events (particularly Sandy Hook) will never be known. Who knows what problems a child who is now dead could have solved, because we cannot know this, the cost is really unknowable. Please explain how it affects your recreational shooting, other than making you reload a few more times. I have gone shooting many times (Arizona, remember. Lol) and have shot an AK47, a .22, a Riot Control Shotgun, an AR15, an HK97, a .45 Glock, and a .357 snubnose. We had multiple magazines loaded and ready, so reload time was extremely minimal and would not ruin your enjoyment of the day, even if you had to do it three times as often. It is still a great day of shooting targets and BSing with friends! How is your fun limited exactly? I would agree that all of these areas need to be worked on as well, but I do not think it is gun control we should sacrifice for them. Rather, we should find the places where the distribution of money is warped. 800 billion in military spending seems slightly excessive (Lol on the slightly), perhaps this money could be redistributed and we can work on both the social issues and the gun control issue. Gun control and regulation can have a large effect by limiting the access to guns for those who should not have them.Required safes=less guns stolen per year=less guns getting into criminal handsLimited magazines=less mass murdersClose gun-show loophole=Less guns making it into hands without checking background.Gun registration-Knowledge of owners of specific gun types in the event of crime.While they can help, I do agree that we must also hit the social issues as well, but I definitely cannot agree with your statement that gun control will not accomplish anything. Agreed and I would be for methods of controlling ammunition as well, even though this would (as it did) affect your ability to go target shooting more than the magazine capacity...

I really did mean that we have to *start* taking people's guns away. We start now with the assault weapons. What the next step is and how far it goes beyond that is hard to say, but we start there. My reasoning for giving those priority is because they are most often used for what to me feels like the worst kind of murder, namely indiscriminate killing of multiple innocent people unknown to the murderer and who have done him no harm.--Percy

You could always have stabbed the targets with a knife.

Of course I disagree with you about Biblical morality. Seems very odd to me that people object to the rules to honor parents, not murder, not lie, not steal, not commit adultery, not covet, not mistreat your servants and set them free after a certain number of years, not mistreat animals and other Biblical moral laws.But I guess it's just the punishment for disobeying them that you object to?The punishments in the Bible are indeed severe. I take them as a picture of the punishments that we DO face at death if we don't repent and stop violating all those rules I just listed and turn to Christ for salvation etc.It also strikes me as odd that people object to being told they face damnation for violating those laws, like they couldn't care less if they REALLY face damnation they just don't want to HEAR about it.Of course there is NOTHING in the Bible that has us "TREAT" others as if they are damned unless by that you mean pleading with them to be saved from damnation by turning to Christ. I can't think of another way we "treat" anyone as damned. I know I was damned myself once, rightly so, and am grateful I got saved. That's all I want for others too.Anyway I think it IS because the Biblical moral law has been overthrown in the modern world that there may be a greater need for self defense than back when the moral law was more generally honored. Which really wasn't too long ago, a matter of decades perhaps.People these days seem to have much less impulse control, much less conscience nagging at them about their impulses. If they get furious it seems some may more easily go straight from the fury to killing. Seems to me anyway. And there are more provocations such as people committing adultery with less conscience and so on.But I guess this is getting off topic. I don't get into that level of detail on this subject, I leave that to those who own and use guns, they know what they need.Edited by Faith, : close quote codeEdited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

And, of course, the point goes RIGHT over your head. The point being that you are much more likely to die from someone in your own household murdering you than your life being saved from self defense. Did you know that women are 5 times more likely to get murdered by abusive husbands/boy friends if guns are in the house? Even if the woman got the gun for self defense.

I don't care, that's what YOU don't get. I consider that danger to be far far less than the danger of disarming the nation.

This is completely off topic, but I will have some on topic stuff at the end as well. I simply cannot let your gross misunderstanding of Biblical Morality go... So, let's see, according to you the main morals are:Honor Parents, Don't murder, don't lie, don't steal, don't commit adultery, don't covet, don't mistreat your servants and set them free, and don't mistreat animals...Let's look at a few of these "morals".Honor Parents - Yes we know the commandment states you should honor your father and your mother. However, I believe there are situations happening every day where either the Father or the Mother do not deserve to be honored. Should a child who is beaten by his Father honor that same man? Well, according to everything in the Bible, yes. So, no I cannot agree with this blanket morality being better than our ability now to determine whether or not the person is deserving of honor.Do not Murder - The Bible is extremely wishy-washy on this one and this causes a lot of moral dilemmas. We could just stick with the commandment of "Thou shalt not kill", but we are talking about Biblical morals, not ten commandment morals. What else does the Bible have to say about murder?"Anyone arrogant enough to reject the verdict of the judge or of the priest who represents the LORD your God must be put to death. Such evil must be purged from Israel." (Deuteronomy 17:12 NLT)"You should not let a sorceress live." (Exodus 22:17 NAB)"Whoever sacrifices to any god, except the Lord alone, shall be doomed." (Exodus 22:19 NAB)So, it seems that murder is only frowned upon when done to those who follow the Bible. Outside of that, it is fair game because they are vicious sinners and deserve it. Again, not the best moral standards being set here and we have moved well beyond this idea, except where religious zealotry still holds sway.Do not lie - This one is a little tougher to see the inconsistencies, since lying is mentioned far less than murder. However, there are a couple sections that show that lying is not enough to damn someone, in fact they may still be saved. Take the story of Rahab for example. Joshua sends spies into Jericho and they take refuge with the Prostitute Rahab. When Rahab is questioned if the spies are there, she replies that she did not know where they were. However, she was currently hiding them, so this is a blatant lie...which should be punished by death. How is Rahab treated? She is spared destruction with the rest of Jericho because she told a lie. Seems to me to be an example of someone lying and being rewarded for it, not exactly consistent. So, according to this the moral is "Don't Lie" except when God wants you to. This idea is also currently frowned upon in most areas of society, people value honesty in all things nowadays.The last one I want to point out for your biblical morality is the slavery one. You said that it was required to release servants after a set amount of time, but what you did not clarify was that this was only for Hebrew slaves. According to the text:"However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way." (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)The key words in that one are "permanent inheritance". These slaves were not given freedom after a certain amount of time!However, for Hebrew Slaves:
"If you buy a Hebrew slave, he is to serve for only six years. Set him free in the seventh year, and he will owe you nothing for his freedom. If he was single when he became your slave and then married afterward, only he will go free in the seventh year. But if he was married before he became a slave, then his wife will be freed with him. If his master gave him a wife while he was a slave, and they had sons or daughters, then the man will be free in the seventh year, but his wife and children will still belong to his master. But the slave may plainly declare, 'I love my master, my wife, and my children. I would rather not go free.' If he does this, his master must present him before God. Then his master must take him to the door and publicly pierce his ear with an awl. After that, the slave will belong to his master forever." (Exodus 21:2-6 NLT)Also, this states that a Hebrew Slave's family can be held captive until he decides to ask to remain a slave. The deck seems rather stacked against him.So, again I state, these are the Biblical Morals because they are things that individuals in the Bible are instructed to do and I cannot agree with these morals. Also, we have definitely moved beyond these terrible moral codes and into a much more intellectual time of morality where we recognize shades of grey and attempt to look for the morality in individual cases. I do not disagree with punishment for breaching ethical protocol. However, answering to a mysterious higher power is not an ethical question because it has largely zero effect on my morality. If you mean do I disagree with it being moral to punish sinners, then yes I definitely disagree. I think that rehabilitation is the method that should be used, instead of punishment. Yes, we do not want Christians constantly telling us that we're damned. Why? Simply because it is rude (another way we are better morally than our ancestors). It is similar to the way Christians react when I tell them that there is zero evidence for an invisible authority figure in the sky outside of one book and a bunch of subjective experience. So, as an atheist what do I do? (Outside the context of a debate board intended for this purpose) I don't go pissing in people's religious cheerios in my daily life, so Christians should take a cue and think what you want, but it is a waste of time and rude to tell someone who thinks that death is the end that they will be punished after death.Now, finally onto the point of the thread: So, have you considered all of the variables in this equation? You are laying the increase in murders solely on the lack of morality? The increase could have nothing to do with population density, wealth distribution, availability of weapons? No, it is all due to declining morality you say.I have heard of plenty of terrible murders taking place throughout history. Some used weapons and some did not, but to claim that the morality is declining, while at the same time we are attempting to better feed an ever-growing population, trying to help with inhumane treatment around the globe, working with third world countries to attempt to bring their standard of living a little higher, allowing individuals to hold their own beliefs, and slowly removing the walls and borders that exist between countries to face problems more as a world is ridiculous. We have made leaps and bounds in morality since the writing of the Bible and should not be held to the barbaric standard which that text sets forth.The problem with gun violence is not because of some moral decline, but rather because of readily accessible firearms giving individuals a quick and simple solution to a temporary problem. There have always been people with short fuses, but now they can gain a very efficient weapon to cause damage to release aggression.This is why I say sweeping gun bans won't solve the problem. Rather, we must regulate what we can (legally under the second amendment) and begin to work on the socio-economic problems that are the underlying cause of the violence. Stop blaming some moral decline and start looking for the real world solutions. Mental health care in the United States is abyssmal, and there are loopholes present that allow those with mental disorders to obtain weaponry. Let us try and fix that!!! Fine, if you refuse to answer a simple question, ask one of your gun-toting friends for an example of a situation where a ten round magazine would not be sufficient for home/family defense and get back to me.