Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 88 (8987 total)
36 online now:
AZPaul3, PaulK, Straggler, Tangle (4 members, 32 visitors)
Newest Member: Robert Smith
Upcoming Birthdays: Theodoric
Post Volume: Total: 877,941 Year: 9,689/23,288 Month: 704/1,544 Week: 96/322 Day: 16/80 Hour: 0/5


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Guns
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 1048 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 1 of 301 (397454)
04-26-2007 12:30 AM


Here's the 2nd amendment

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.

Here's a definition of "arms"

A weapon, especially a firearm

So, from a very literally stand point, any and every firearm imaginable from a .22 to an M2 to a gatling gun should all be perfectly legal in these United States.

But, as we've seen recently, easy access to guns yields massive casualties.

Where do we draw the line?

Did the founding fathers, in the days of muzzle loaders with bad range and worse aim, honestly intend for the events of VT to happen? Remember he got his perfectly legal gun perfectly legally.

Edited by Nuggin, : No reason given.


Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Adminnemooseus, posted 04-26-2007 12:58 AM Nuggin has not yet responded
 Message 3 by Adminnemooseus, posted 04-27-2007 10:10 PM Nuggin has responded
 Message 6 by One_Charred_Wing, posted 04-28-2007 1:55 AM Nuggin has responded
 Message 12 by nator, posted 04-28-2007 7:44 AM Nuggin has not yet responded
 Message 15 by Modulous, posted 04-28-2007 11:56 AM Nuggin has responded
 Message 64 by macaroniandcheese, posted 04-29-2007 1:00 AM Nuggin has responded
 Message 109 by Hyroglyphx, posted 04-29-2007 11:34 AM Nuggin has responded
 Message 252 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-30-2007 5:32 PM Nuggin has responded

Nuggin
Member (Idle past 1048 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 4 of 301 (397842)
04-27-2007 10:47 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Adminnemooseus
04-27-2007 10:10 PM


Re: Bump - Potentially good topic
Completely changed my post, but not my opinions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Adminnemooseus, posted 04-27-2007 10:10 PM Adminnemooseus has not yet responded

Nuggin
Member (Idle past 1048 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 16 of 301 (397939)
04-28-2007 12:16 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by One_Charred_Wing
04-28-2007 1:55 AM


Lies on top of lies
due to assault weapons bans

This would be the assaul weapons ban with the giant loop holes which the NRA is actively trying to dismantle, and which, if memory serves, the Republican Congress didn't extend.

In New York City it's illegal for a private citizen to own a gun

False. It may be illegal to own an "unregistered" handgun. But owning a gun in NYC remains legal.

people have been killing people millenia before the muzzle loader. In HUGE numbers.

Also false, with the exceptions of heads of state there are no individuals capable of wracking up the numbers we see at VT by themselves. Not the best swordsman in the world. Not the best spear thrower. Not the best muzzle-loading rifleman. It just doesn't happen.

The CLOSEST you can come is Jack the Ripper who's 5 victims (add another 12 if you wanna include everyone who died during the period) were killed over a couple of years, not a couple of minutes.

despite the fact that it won't take them out of the hands of criminals

Your monumental assumption here is that there is no gun crime save repeat gun crime. That is massively in error.

There are plenty of deaths via gun (accidental and deliberate) in which the person pulling the trigger is shooting another person for the very first time.

If those people had not had those guns lying around, it's extremely unlikely they would have accidently shot someone with a knife.

Or in their moment of passion, gotten their keys, gotten in their car, driven into the city, found a guy on a street corner, asked him who they could buy a gun from, follow his directions to another guy, hand over the cash, pick up the gun, go to another guy to get some bullets, then drive all the way home, rush in and blow away their cheating husband.

Would a career criminal, for whom it's already illegal for him to have a handgun, continue to use a handgun? Yes. Do they do that now under this system? Yes. This is not a valid counterargument against me.

how do households defend themselves against criminals who have firearms

This is one of those ridiculous statements the conservative shock troops like to parade around.

How many gun weilding maniac home invasion cases happen? Is it more or less than accidental shootings. And to use your own glib bs (hint: the vice president SHOT A MAN IN THE FACE!)

Please answer the question 'yes or no' directly

Or.

Now you answer one. How many people were beaten to death by the first of enraged students at VT over the last, let's say 50 years?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by One_Charred_Wing, posted 04-28-2007 1:55 AM One_Charred_Wing has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by One_Charred_Wing, posted 04-28-2007 2:20 PM Nuggin has responded

Nuggin
Member (Idle past 1048 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 18 of 301 (397941)
04-28-2007 12:18 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by One_Charred_Wing
04-28-2007 2:25 AM


Re: You, on the other hand, are right.
removing it (or tacking one more restriction on) would make VT look like a drop in the bucket within weeks.

So you hold to the belief that EVERYONE is a homocidal maniac waiting to kill as many people as they can, but the ONLY thing holding them in check is the thought that MAYBE one of the people they are intending to kill MIGHT have a gun.

You are EXACTLY the type of person who should not have a gun.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by One_Charred_Wing, posted 04-28-2007 2:25 AM One_Charred_Wing has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by AdminQuetzal, posted 04-28-2007 12:23 PM Nuggin has not yet responded
 Message 25 by One_Charred_Wing, posted 04-28-2007 2:27 PM Nuggin has responded

Nuggin
Member (Idle past 1048 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 20 of 301 (397944)
04-28-2007 12:25 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Quetzal
04-28-2007 11:33 AM


Fingerprinting
I am opposed to fingerprinting, however - but for other reasons than gun-nuttery. You can conduct an effective background check without that.

I think that fingerprinting is less about background check than it is about preparing to solve the upcoming criminal case when the gun nut kills someone.

Coming from a state that takes a fingerprint when you get your drivers license, I find it hard to imagine an objection to fingerprints for gun (particularly hand gun) purchases.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Quetzal, posted 04-28-2007 11:33 AM Quetzal has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by Quetzal, posted 04-28-2007 1:00 PM Nuggin has responded

Nuggin
Member (Idle past 1048 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 21 of 301 (397946)
04-28-2007 12:28 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by Modulous
04-28-2007 11:56 AM


EZ access
Those students were not allowed to carry weapons - they did not have easy access to guns.

Choo obtained his hand gun without having to go through much of a hassle. That's easy access. It's not like he had to take a mental exam, or wait six months for a background check.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Modulous, posted 04-28-2007 11:56 AM Modulous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by Modulous, posted 04-28-2007 1:12 PM Nuggin has not yet responded

Nuggin
Member (Idle past 1048 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 28 of 301 (397962)
04-28-2007 2:52 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by Quetzal
04-28-2007 1:00 PM


Re: Fingerprinting
you seem to be implying that anyone who purchases a weapon is automatically going to go out and commit mass murder.

Not my intent. Unlike One_wing I don't believe that everyone who has a gun is hellbent on mass murder. I do believe that everyone hellbent on mass murder, however, is very likely to go out and get a gun.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Quetzal, posted 04-28-2007 1:00 PM Quetzal has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by Quetzal, posted 04-28-2007 6:18 PM Nuggin has not yet responded
 Message 38 by One_Charred_Wing, posted 04-28-2007 7:07 PM Nuggin has not yet responded

Nuggin
Member (Idle past 1048 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 29 of 301 (397965)
04-28-2007 3:09 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by One_Charred_Wing
04-28-2007 2:20 PM


Re: Lies on top of lies
I believe that they would be accidently stabbed

Yeah, we here this so much it's a cliche. "I don't know what happened officer, I was holding the knife and all of the sudden it just went off."

Gun safety won't protect us from lousy parents who don't teach their kids that weapons aren't toys.

Right. But preventing those same lousy parents from stockpiling assualt rifles and glocks will.

You can only shoot as many bullets as you've got

And I'm suggesting that she not have bullets.

Guess what. If a housewife goes after her husband with a knife he stands a chance to get away. Believe it or not, you can outrun a knife. You can not outrun a bullet.

the death toll from this has been less than 32

I don't know where you are getting your numbers, but believe me the deathtoll from accidental shootings in the US is WAY higher than 32 this year. And you are claiming it's been less than 32 over the 200+ year history of the country? come on.

Because nobody wants to invade a home and get in a shootout!

Wait, you are contradicting yourself. You say this type of crime happens now, when people have easy access to guns, but also say that criminals wouldn't do it because we have easy access to guns. Pick a side and stay on it. Either the criminals are afraid of hte guns and therefore this type of crime doesn't happen, or the criminals aren't afraid of the guns and this type of crime does happen.

That's due to human error, not guns.

Again, pure insanity. You are suggesting that if someone were simply in error but NOT holding a gun, there is a equal chance of an innocent victim being shot in the head. False. If there is no gun, there is no accidental shooting.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by One_Charred_Wing, posted 04-28-2007 2:20 PM One_Charred_Wing has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by One_Charred_Wing, posted 04-28-2007 5:59 PM Nuggin has responded
 Message 65 by macaroniandcheese, posted 04-29-2007 1:08 AM Nuggin has responded

Nuggin
Member (Idle past 1048 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 30 of 301 (397966)
04-28-2007 3:11 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by One_Charred_Wing
04-28-2007 2:27 PM


Re: You, on the other hand, are right.
Why? Because I feel the need to defend myself against very real threats?

No, because you feel the need to defend yourself against IMAGINED threats. You are suggesting that the only thing keeping criminals from instituting a nationwide killing spree is the off chance that someone might have an assault rifle under their trenchcoat.

That's ridiculous!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by One_Charred_Wing, posted 04-28-2007 2:27 PM One_Charred_Wing has not yet responded

Nuggin
Member (Idle past 1048 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 31 of 301 (397967)
04-28-2007 3:16 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by One_Charred_Wing
04-28-2007 2:40 PM


Re: So, what does the 2nd amendment mean to you?
in California, we have 8-gauges and handguns above .357s banned. I don't see the point; you can kill someone with a .22.

This right here is the major disconnect.

Yes, you CAN kill someone with a .22. you CAN kill someone with a #2 pencil.

However, it's a LOT harder to kill someone with a .22 than it is to kill someone with a 9mm.

In fact, I saw a cops episode where a fat kid in jeans was running away from a guy who shot at him with a .22 and it didn't break his skin. I kid you not. It left a hell of a welt, but no penatration.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by One_Charred_Wing, posted 04-28-2007 2:40 PM One_Charred_Wing has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by Jon, posted 04-28-2007 5:08 PM Nuggin has not yet responded
 Message 176 by crashfrog, posted 04-29-2007 9:16 PM Nuggin has responded

Nuggin
Member (Idle past 1048 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 45 of 301 (397996)
04-28-2007 7:56 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by One_Charred_Wing
04-28-2007 5:59 PM


Re: Lies on top of lies
yes or no

OR

I've already answered that.

I remember in highschool when this drunk idiot...slashed some kid down his arm by 'accident'.

And the kid died right? Or did he just have to get stitches? Do you think the kid would have just needed stitches of this same drunk idiot accidently put a 9mm round between the guys eyes?

a 3-6 month background check prior to buying a gun's a great idea

The would be a good start. But a 3 month wait period so that Joe Schmo can have a fully automatic M-16 isn't gonna cut it.

Additionally, that same Schmo buying a 9mm in 1980 and still having it today means that 27 years of crazy could have happened since the 3 month wait period.

Or him have a 9mm and then 10 years later having a crazy kid, means that there's nothing stopping that kid from getting his hands on the gun and bringing it to school today.

A criminal breaks into the house of a sane housewife...

You scenario still holds to this theory you have that the only thing keeping criminals from running amok us the potential threat of handguns.

Ask yourself this: Was gun violence more common or less common in the wild west? Just about everyone had easy access to guns. If your theory is correct, the percentage of the population exposed to gun violence in Tombstone, AZ should be MUCH lower than in modern Phx.

I was saying that, in the course of history in America, the number of innocent people who were killed by somebody breaking in with a gun was higher than 32.

Yes, that's what you were saying. And what you were implying is that the number of people killed by accidental shootings was less than 32, as you were answering my question about home invasions as a comparison to accidental shootings in the home.

Don't accuse me for misleading people just because you made an unsupportable claim.

this number will probably rise because there would be NO WAY for us to defend ourselves in this scenario whereas if we weild guns of our own, we've got a fighting chance.

Do you have ANY figures showing the number of houses not broken into because the owners owned guns? Do you have ANY figures on the number of criminals actually fought off by gun owners as opposed to gun owners killed by their own hand guns? Do you have any figures at all?

You are trying to push this wild theory that somehow it is safer to have a hand gun in the home because of the "crime menace" lurking out there waiting to break in and rape your women. But there's NO evidence that supports the theory. It's just regurgitated NRA crap.

Yes, it happening the movies. Guess what, movies aren't real life.

The prospect of a shootout scares some away from homes that they think/know have guns in them

Any evidence of this? Any figures? Is it MORE or LESS criminals than are scared away by "ADT" stickers or big dogs? You THINK that this is true, but you don't have any evidence to prove that it's true.

lots of people get killed by drunk drivers

I'm surprised it took you this long to fall back on this old standby.

Yup, people are killed by drunk drivers. But cars are not manufactures specifically to kill people. There is no reason to own a hand gun other than to shoot a human with it.

I'm saying that the fair chance that a household has a gun for home defense will keep a good number of potential robbers away from said household, and allow the home owners to defend themselves adequately from invaders who may or may not have a firearm of their own.

And how exactly does the criminal know which house has an uzi vs which house has a shotgun vs which house has a karate expert vs which house has a big dogs in it. They don't.

You scenario relies on psychic criminals hellbent on mayhem held in check by the specter of gun ownership. It's pure fantasy.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by One_Charred_Wing, posted 04-28-2007 5:59 PM One_Charred_Wing has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by One_Charred_Wing, posted 04-28-2007 11:11 PM Nuggin has responded
 Message 68 by macaroniandcheese, posted 04-29-2007 1:19 AM Nuggin has responded

Nuggin
Member (Idle past 1048 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 46 of 301 (397997)
04-28-2007 8:04 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by One_Charred_Wing
04-28-2007 7:37 PM


Re: You, on the other hand, are right.
So I guess that sucks for the now defenseless housewife when a homocidal maniac breaks into her house

Guess what? This really doesn't happen with the kind of regularity you think it does.

The VAST majority of the women killed in handgun violence are killed by people they KNOW. Like abusive husbands, spurned lovers, etc. These people aren't breaking in. They are already in.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by One_Charred_Wing, posted 04-28-2007 7:37 PM One_Charred_Wing has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by One_Charred_Wing, posted 04-28-2007 10:34 PM Nuggin has responded

Nuggin
Member (Idle past 1048 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 48 of 301 (397999)
04-28-2007 8:08 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by One_Charred_Wing
04-28-2007 7:48 PM


Re: Lies on top of lies
Without guns, the stat might read more like 0 to 302.

Or 0 to 200 or 0 to 20.

Either way, you are saying you'll happily have over 300 women killed so that one woman can shoot a criminal. Fantastic. either you are sick or very very bad at math


This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by One_Charred_Wing, posted 04-28-2007 7:48 PM One_Charred_Wing has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by Jon, posted 04-28-2007 8:26 PM Nuggin has not yet responded

Nuggin
Member (Idle past 1048 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 59 of 301 (398033)
04-28-2007 11:23 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by One_Charred_Wing
04-28-2007 10:34 PM


Re: You, on the other hand, are right.
You really have a pretty big fantasy about how easy it is to kill someone with a knife.

Guess what, the victim is unlikely to cooperate with the stabbing, and even a small woman can scream.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by One_Charred_Wing, posted 04-28-2007 10:34 PM One_Charred_Wing has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by One_Charred_Wing, posted 04-28-2007 11:32 PM Nuggin has not yet responded

Nuggin
Member (Idle past 1048 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 62 of 301 (398036)
04-28-2007 11:42 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by One_Charred_Wing
04-28-2007 11:11 PM


Re: Lies on top of lies
How was life in ancient Aztec times even before Cortez?

Yes, and yet even though they had a lack of guns, there was not a sudden increase in "Home invasion" robberies.

And further, no matter how violent the Aztec's were, do you think they lost more people before or after Cortez showed up with his guns?

Says the guy who claims that disarming this nation will somehow erase the vast majority of violence in it.

Where did I EVER imply that disarming people would reduce violence? I make no claims about the number of violent incidents, I do however claim that a crazy person with a pointy stick is LESS dangerous than a crazy person with a gatling gun. A claim which you continue to attempt to refute with no success.

Please explain to me how in the world you can get a stat on how many houses WERENT broken into?

So, now it's my fault that you can't substantiate your claims. Very nice. How about you stop making stuff up if even you can support the stuff you are saying.

the only one giving them was nator, and all of hers were quite vague and misleading.

There's nothing misleading about Nator's posts. Just because they COMPLETELY disagree with your crazy theories doesn't mean they are misleading. It means that you are very very wrong.

You can go to shooting ranges. You can exterminate yard rodents on large property

Can you please explain why you can only kill rodents with a hand gun and not with a shotgun or rifle.

Hand guns are made to kill people - plain and simple. You don't need to conceal guns from the target at the range. You don't need to conceal them from the rats in the backyard.

Is your beef with guns in general, or just handguns?

I have a particular beef with hand guns and automatic rifles. I have an even bigger beef with the mid-west redneck mentality of shooting up rusted out cars with fully automatic machine guns cuz "loud noises and stuff blowing up is cool."

Nah, they just want to steal some crap to get a fix.

Criminals stealing for a fix are much more likely to steal from an empty house than an occupied one. Guns or no guns - it's simply easier to steal from people who aren't home.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by One_Charred_Wing, posted 04-28-2007 11:11 PM One_Charred_Wing has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by One_Charred_Wing, posted 04-29-2007 2:16 AM Nuggin has responded

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020