[quote author=Adron link=topic=9197.msg86773#msg86773 date=1099227063]
[quote author=Hazard link=topic=9197.msg86613#msg86613 date=1099145832]
You're making the assumption he is wrong. I call you arrogant, because I believe you are wrong. I call myself confident, because I believe I am right.
[/quote]

I call you arrogant because you're so convinced about things that when you are wrong you never change your mind about them anyway.
[/quote]

You haven't proven me wrong on anything, so how can you assume such things?

In fact, Adron, the only thing that you have managed to prove is that I don't agree with almost anything you say. You've proven I don't share your opinions.

[quote author=Hazard link=topic=9197.msg86779#msg86779 date=1099228875]
[quote author=Adron link=topic=9197.msg86773#msg86773 date=1099227063]
I call you arrogant because you're so convinced about things that when you are wrong you never change your mind about them anyway.
[/quote]

You haven't proven me wrong on anything, so how can you assume such things?

In fact, Adron, the only thing that you have managed to prove is that I don't agree with almost anything you say. You've proven I don't share your opinions.
[/quote]

Actually, I believe I have proven you wrong on things, you've just never admitted it.

I concur. The guns debate comes to mind.

The debate on guns is totally opinionated. If you want to talk about not being able to admit when one is wrong, you should consider it yourself. You haven't proven anything to me, ever. You think you have. All you have done is proven that there are some facts that support your opinions and refuse to accept facts that support mine.

On top of all of that, Adron refuses to accept the fact that when you outlaw firearms, criminals will not only still have them but it will and has in the past emboldened them to commit violent crimes with them. Its not my fault that Adron is a idealistic moron that can't accept the reality of the human condition.

[quote author=Hazard link=topic=9197.msg86839#msg86839 date=1099254086]
On top of all of that, Adron refuses to accept the fact that when you outlaw firearms, criminals will not only still have them but it will and has in the past emboldened them to commit violent crimes with them. Its not my fault that Adron is a idealistic moron that can't accept the reality of the human condition.
[/quote]

I've always accepted the fact that a few criminals will still have guns after they're outlawed. We've debated the numbers endlessly, and you seem reluctant to realize that criminals are more likely to get guns and commit violent crimes with them when guns are "freely" available.

[quote author=Adron link=topic=9197.msg86850#msg86850 date=1099259167]
[quote author=Hazard link=topic=9197.msg86839#msg86839 date=1099254086]
On top of all of that, Adron refuses to accept the fact that when you outlaw firearms, criminals will not only still have them but it will and has in the past emboldened them to commit violent crimes with them. Its not my fault that Adron is a idealistic moron that can't accept the reality of the human condition.
[/quote]

I've always accepted the fact that a few criminals will still have guns after they're outlawed. We've debated the numbers endlessly, and you seem reluctant to realize that criminals are more likely to get guns and commit violent crimes with them when guns are "freely" available.
[/quote]

But they are not "freely" available as you suggest. I posed the question before and I'll pose it again, would you attack somebody if you were unaware whether or not they had a gun? Guns must be had by the public for protection, and thats the end of it. It would be no more difficult for a criminal to get a gun in a society with total gun contral than in a society with our current laws.

Adron, whenever we post links to things that are in our favor you say it is biased... like the links you provide are not.

[quote author=quasi-modo link=topic=9197.msg86867#msg86867 date=1099262245]
Adron, whenever we post links to things that are in our favor you say it is biased... like the links you provide are not.
[/quote]

If you post links to articles by an association of gun owners (NRA) or something similar, I'll say it's biased. If you post links to some .gov site like FBI or to other organizations that don't proclaim a strong standpoint for or against guns I won't say they're biased.

[quote author=Hazard link=topic=9197.msg86862#msg86862 date=1099261666]
But they are not "freely" available as you suggest. I posed the question before and I'll pose it again, would you attack somebody if you were unaware whether or not they had a gun? Guns must be had by the public for protection, and thats the end of it. It would be no more difficult for a criminal to get a gun in a society with total gun contral than in a society with our current laws.
[/quote]

They are "freelier" available than here :)  And yes, it's more difficult for a criminal to get a gun in a society with total gun control. And finally, a criminal who thinks his victim might have a gun will have to get a gun for himself.

If I needed money bad enough and was of the type that I'd try to steal it from someone, I'd attack somebody even if I was unaware whether or not they had a gun. If I thought they'd probably have a gun, I'd make sure I had a gun myself, and that I had it pointed at them before arousing them. If they tried to pull their gun, I'd have to kill them in self-defence. If I'm in a place where people in general don't have guns, I might settle for a knife or some similar weapon.

The worst possible situation for me would be if my victim had a gun and I didn't, but this isn't likely to happen anywhere. The worst possible situation for my victim would be if I had a gun and thought they had a gun, and this is likely to happen in America.

You have to realize that if it gets to shooting, someone will be hurt. That's a bad thing. And it's much more likely the victim getting hurt than the robber.

[quote author=Adron link=topic=9197.msg86910#msg86910 date=1099268108]
[quote author=quasi-modo link=topic=9197.msg86867#msg86867 date=1099262245]
Adron, whenever we post links to things that are in our favor you say it is biased... like the links you provide are not.
[/quote]

If you post links to articles by an association of gun owners (NRA) or something similar, I'll say it's biased. If you post links to some .gov site like FBI or to other organizations that don't proclaim a strong standpoint for or against guns I won't say they're biased.
[/quote]

I gave you statistics from the FBI and the ATF and you dismissed them with your own opinions.

[quote author=Adron link=topic=9197.msg86911#msg86911 date=1099268568]
[quote author=Hazard link=topic=9197.msg86862#msg86862 date=1099261666]
But they are not "freely" available as you suggest. I posed the question before and I'll pose it again, would you attack somebody if you were unaware whether or not they had a gun? Guns must be had by the public for protection, and thats the end of it. It would be no more difficult for a criminal to get a gun in a society with total gun contral than in a society with our current laws.
[/quote]

They are "freelier" available than here :)   And yes, it's more difficult for a criminal to get a gun in a society with total gun control. And finally, a criminal who thinks his victim might have a gun will have to get a gun for himself.

If I needed money bad enough and was of the type that I'd try to steal it from someone, I'd attack somebody even if I was unaware whether or not they had a gun. If I thought they'd probably have a gun, I'd make sure I had a gun myself, and that I had it pointed at them before arousing them. If they tried to pull their gun, I'd have to kill them in self-defence. If I'm in a place where people in general don't have guns, I might settle for a knife or some similar weapon.

The worst possible situation for me would be if my victim had a gun and I didn't, but this isn't likely to happen anywhere. The worst possible situation for my victim would be if I had a gun and thought they had a gun, and this is likely to happen in America.

You have to realize that if it gets to shooting, someone will be hurt. That's a bad thing. And it's much more likely the victim getting hurt than the robber.

[/quote]

-It will be no more difficult for a criminal to go out and illegally buy a gun in a "gun-free" society than in the current society, and thats a fact.

-Criminals will always have weapons Adron. The fact is that the people have the right to protect themselves. If you don't agree with that, then you're just stupid and thats all there is to it. This is not a debatable fact.

-You might have that weapon traned on me, but what happens when a witness who is carrying a concealed weapon gets the jump on you and plants two in your chest and one in your skull before you knew he was there?

-Not everybody has the time to train themselves in the art of knives, and I'm sure you haven't.

-Well, I can tell you for sure that if I am ever a victim, I'll be packing the heater.

-The point is that a criminal will have to keep guessing. Consider this, a rapist on the streets of New York sees an intended victim. If he knows that woman is unarmed, what are the odds that he backs off in fear for his safety? If there is a chance that woman is carrying a Sig-Sauer .9mm handgun, do you think that maybe he might consider that? If criminals know for a fact that their victims aren't carrying guns, all hell will break loose because all the victims in the world will be completely unarmed and totally defenseless. Thats right Adron, your plan is to render us all defenseless.

-Sure people getting hurt is a bad thing, but who should it happen to? The innocent victim, or the violent criminal? If you can't answer that question in favor of the victim, you are a hopeless bleeding-heart liberal and overbearing idealist so out of touch with reality that you don't even deserve the right to express your opinions.

-I'd like to see your EVIDENCE to back up your "most likely to be the armed victim" statement. Because according to the Hillsborough County Sherriff, that is surely not the case.

[quote author=Hazard link=topic=9197.msg86934#msg86934 date=1099274297]It will be no more difficult for a criminal to go out and illegally buy a gun in a "gun-free" society than in the current society, and thats a fact.[/quote]

This is not a fact. Not only do I see no proof to back up your statement, BOTH real world evidence and logic say otherwise. I believe Adron has already explained this to you, but you refuse to accept it.

[quote author=Hazard link=topic=9197.msg86934#msg86934 date=1099274297]
-It will be no more difficult for a criminal to go out and illegally buy a gun in a "gun-free" society than in the current society, and thats a fact.

-Criminals will always have weapons Adron. The fact is that the people have the right to protect themselves. If you don't agree with that, then you're just stupid and thats all there is to it. This is not a debatable fact.

-You might have that weapon traned on me, but what happens when a witness who is carrying a concealed weapon gets the jump on you and plants two in your chest and one in your skull before you knew he was there?

-Not everybody has the time to train themselves in the art of knives, and I'm sure you haven't.

-Well, I can tell you for sure that if I am ever a victim, I'll be packing the heater.

-The point is that a criminal will have to keep guessing. Consider this, a rapist on the streets of New York sees an intended victim. If he knows that woman is unarmed, what are the odds that he backs off in fear for his safety? If there is a chance that woman is carrying a Sig-Sauer .9mm handgun, do you think that maybe he might consider that? If criminals know for a fact that their victims aren't carrying guns, all hell will break loose because all the victims in the world will be completely unarmed and totally defenseless. Thats right Adron, your plan is to render us all defenseless.

-Sure people getting hurt is a bad thing, but who should it happen to? The innocent victim, or the violent criminal? If you can't answer that question in favor of the victim, you are a hopeless bleeding-heart liberal and overbearing idealist so out of touch with reality that you don't even deserve the right to express your opinions.

-I'd like to see your EVIDENCE to back up your "most likely to be the armed victim" statement. Because according to the Hillsborough County Sherriff, that is surely not the case.
[/quote]

#1: I don't agree with you, and I'd like to hear why you believe what you say is true. Unless you've defined what a "gun-free" society is exactly, it could be defined as a society where there exist no handguns anywhere, in which case your statement is obviously false.

#2: It follows from #1 that criminals may not always have handguns. Yes, they will virtually always have weapons, since fists are weapons. You make the simple claim "people have the right to protect themselves". It needs more qualification. If what you're saying is: "people have the right to protect themselves at any cost", I dispute it, and that doesn't make me stupid.

#3: If that happens, I lose. But if you want to bring in more people into the equation, you'll also have to consider my gang who's hiding out in the shadows around and nails your witness as soon as he moves.....

#4: No, not everybody does, just like not everybody has the time to train themselves in the art of handguns. Relevance?

#5: That's something that remains to be seen. You cannot make such a claim, so I'd suggest you don't.

#6: You're wrong because other countries have laws against guns and all hell hasn't broken loose. Please don't make that claim again unless you can first counter that argument.

#7: Of course it'd be better if the criminal gets hurt than the victim. However, reason implies that a robbery victim will be more likely to get hurt if there are guns involved. I invite you to some expansion on this - perhaps you'd care to picture yourself as an armed robber facing a victim you know is unarmed vs an armed robber facing a victim that may have a gun, and consider how you might act when the victim makes a sudden move for a pocket?

#8: That's just reasoning from the situation I had detailed. Sequence: a) Robber with gun in hand, pointed at victim. b) Robber knowing that victim will kill robber if victim manages to get gun out. c) Victim reaching for gun. d) Robber pulling trigger. e) Victim falling to the ground.



Edit: I had missed a point!

Uh oh, this thread is turning into an older one... moving right along.

[quote author=quasi-modo link=topic=9197.msg86961#msg86961 date=1099275845]
Uh oh, this thread is turning into an older one... moving right along.
[/quote]

I'm hoping Arta will split off the gun parts to somewhere else. Perhaps the stupid people arguing about stupid things forum.

I really hope you're not going to make me find statistics to support the obvious, but here's what my argument boils down to:

Countries with gun control: less gun deaths/injuries
Countries without gun control: more gun deaths/injuries

Increased gun control in the US would undoubtedly make things worse in the short term, but would far improve things in the long term.

[quote author=Arta[vL] link=topic=9390.msg87023#msg87023 date=1099320971]
I really hope you're not going to make me find statistics to support the obvious, but here's what my argument boils down to:

Countries with gun control: less gun deaths/injuries
Countries without gun control: more gun deaths/injuries

Increased gun control in the US would undoubtedly make things worse in the short term, but would far improve things in the long term.
[/quote]

Find your proof.

Facist Germany and Italy had total gun control in the late 1930's and early 1940's... and I think its safe to say that those countries weren't much safer.

So the common man was killing his fellow man in fascist Germany? I think it was the soldiers killing the commoners so how does that support your arguement. Do you really have to stretch that far to counter his point?

[quote author=muert0 link=topic=9390.msg87051#msg87051 date=1099343816]
So the common man was killing his fellow man in fascist Germany? I think it was the soldiers killing the commoners so how does that support your arguement. Do you really have to stretch that far to counter his point?
[/quote]

No, I was referring to the violent crime of the citizen anti-semites against the Jews, their fellow German citizens. Look it up.

[quote]
Gun deaths per 100,000 population (for the year indicated):

                            Homicide                Suicide            Unintentional

USA                      4.08 (1999)              6.08 (1999)        0.42 (1999)
Canada                  0.54 (1999)              2.65 (1997)        0.15 (1997)
Switzerland          0.50 (1999)              5.78 (1998)          -
Scotland                0.12 (1999)              0.27 (1999)          -
England/Wales      0.12 (1999/00)          0.22 (1999)        0.01 (1999)
Japan                    0.04* (1998)              0.04 (1995)      <0.01 (1997)

* Homicide & attempted homicide by handgun

Data collected by Philip Alpers, Harvard Injury Control Research Center, and HELP Network
[/quote]

[quote author=Arta[vL] link=topic=9390.msg87079#msg87079 date=1099361105]
[quote]
Gun deaths per 100,000 population (for the year indicated):

                             Homicide                Suicide            Unintentional

USA                       4.08 (1999)               6.08 (1999)         0.42 (1999)
Canada                  0.54 (1999)              2.65 (1997)         0.15 (1997)
Switzerland           0.50 (1999)               5.78 (1998)          -
Scotland                0.12 (1999)               0.27 (1999)           -
England/Wales      0.12 (1999/00)           0.22 (1999)        0.01 (1999)
Japan                    0.04* (1998)              0.04 (1995)       <0.01 (1997)

* Homicide & attempted homicide by handgun

Data collected by Philip Alpers, Harvard Injury Control Research Center, and HELP Network
[/quote]
[/quote]

What are we comparing the data to? What were the stats for those countries before the gun bans?

AFAIK, the UK has had gun control laws since the 19th century, so I don't know if meaningful statistics even exist on that point.

Either way, I will now leave the majority of this debate to Adron. I find it patently obvious that gun control is better than no gun control, and, to be honest: I don't care if you agree with me or not, and I can't really be bothered to dig around for more statistics anyway. Let's just agree to disagree. I'll leave this debate now for people who are more interested in it.

[quote author=Hazard link=topic=9390.msg87071#msg87071 date=1099356569]
[quote author=muert0 link=topic=9390.msg87051#msg87051 date=1099343816]
So the common man was killing his fellow man in fascist Germany? I think it was the soldiers killing the commoners so how does that support your arguement. Do you really have to stretch that far to counter his point?
[/quote]

No, I was referring to the violent crime of the citizen anti-semites against the Jews, their fellow German citizens. Look it up.
[/quote]

Not relevant. The state wanted to do that against jews. That would be like referring to the violent "crimes" committed by white slave-owners against slaves in old America as a reason for gun control laws.

Everything that could fracture your argument you call irrelevant.

[quote author=Hazard link=topic=9390.msg87139#msg87139 date=1099429737]
Everything that could fracture your argument you call irrelevant.
[/quote]

That was actually Arta's post you'd replied to. You haven't replied to my numbered listing. But I really can't see how damage done to jews in nazi germany is relevant to the question of whether guns increase or reduce crime? It seems just like counting the number of killed or injured slaves in America..

Still, the crime level in nazi germany would be interesting to know more about. Do you have any link to numbers for say, people killed per year in armed robberies in nazi germany?

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/americas/11/05/mexico.priest.reut/index.html
[quote]Gallegos is wildly popular with parishioners but has angered his Catholic superiors with his habit of wearing a shiny pistol beneath his robes, despite strict laws in Mexico banning private citizens from carrying guns.

Also known for his love of cowboy boots and country music, Gallegos says he only carries a gun for protection, noting several of his friends have been killed over the years.[/quote]

If Mexico has strict anti-gun laws, why are guns freely available?  Adron?  Apparently death by gun is prevelant enough that a priest has to carry a weapon because several of his friends were shot.  Doesn't sound too isolated.

[me="hismajesty[yL]"]notes the size of the US compared to countries such as Switzerland[/me]

Isn't the statistic like 90% of the time or so that if a criminal invades your home and you try to use a gun to defend yourself that it's 90% likely to be turned against you?

I'm not sure if those numbers are right but the principle is. Also that a gun bought for self-defence is 22 times more likely to be used to injure or kill a family member than to fend of an invader:

[quote]

A 1998 study from the Journal of Trauma, Injury and Critical Care shows that guns kept in the home are 22 times more likely to be involved in a fatal or nonfatal accidental shooting than be used for self defense.

Kellerman AL, Somes G, Rivara FP, et al. "Injuries and Deaths Due To Firearms in the Home." Journal of Trauma, Injury, Infection and Critical Care. August 1998. 45:263
[/quote]

I also read something interesting today. There have been 2 cases, Presser v Illinois and United States v Miller, that have established that the 2nd amendment does not enshrine the right for individuals to bear arms. Apparently, these and subsequent federal rulings have established that the right to bear arms is linked to a state milita and that it doesn't confer rights upon individuals. This is the precident that allows the federal government to ban certain firearms without those laws being unconsitutional. It seems to me, given this information, that there is no consitutional basis for objecting to gun control, as long as the rights of an organised militia are preserved...

Note that I haven't read these rulings, I'm just trusting that the American Academy of Pediatrics to tell me the truth.

[me="Arta[vL]"]goes back to lurking[/me]

[quote author=Arta[vL] link=topic=9390.msg87647#msg87647 date=1099761205]
I also read something interesting today. There have been 2 cases, Presser v Illinois and United States v Miller, that have established that the 2nd amendment does not enshrine the right for individuals to bear arms. Apparently, these and subsequent federal rulings have established that the right to bear arms is linked to a state milita and that it doesn't confer rights upon individuals. This is the precident that allows the federal government to ban certain firearms without those laws being unconsitutional. It seems to me, given this information, that there is no consitutional basis for objecting to gun control, as long as the rights of an organised militia are preserved...[/quote]

I'd like to point out that Americans own all rights not granted to the federal government by the Constitution.  That is to say any rights we do not give control of to our government are by default retained by American citizens.  We rule by law, not by government.  No right is given up unless we vote to give it up.

Sure, but the consitution grants the federal government the right to pass (ie, have congress approve) any constitutional law... My point was that gun control (or even a ban, with the right exemptions) is not necessarily unconstitutional.

[quote author=Grok link=topic=9390.msg87626#msg87626 date=1099753931]
If Mexico has strict anti-gun laws, why are guns freely available?  Adron?  Apparently death by gun is prevelant enough that a priest has to carry a weapon because several of his friends were shot.  Doesn't sound too isolated.
[/quote]

Probably because of the USA spreading guns all around, and insufficient border controls between Mexico and USA. Which is also the reason gun control in a single state in the USA is inefficient.

[quote author=Adron link=topic=9390.msg87682#msg87682 date=1099771924]
[quote author=Grok link=topic=9390.msg87626#msg87626 date=1099753931]
If Mexico has strict anti-gun laws, why are guns freely available?  Adron?  Apparently death by gun is prevelant enough that a priest has to carry a weapon because several of his friends were shot.  Doesn't sound too isolated.
[/quote]

Probably because of the USA spreading guns all around, and insufficient border controls between Mexico and USA. Which is also the reason gun control in a single state in the USA is inefficient.
[/quote]

Once again, you have no evidence to support something as ridiculous as that Adron.

[quote author=Arta[vL] link=topic=9390.msg87668#msg87668 date=1099767817]
Sure, but the consitution grants the federal government the right to pass (ie, have congress approve) any constitutional law... My point was that gun control (or even a ban, with the right exemptions) is not necessarily unconstitutional.
[/quote]

Read and re-interpret the consitiution, then get back to me.

What does that even mean?

[quote author=Arta[vL] link=topic=9390.msg88029#msg88029 date=1099972033]
What does that even mean?
[/quote]

It means read and re-interpret the constitution before you start talking about how a gun ban could be constitutional.

You mean the interpretation of a federal court is not sufficient?

It is our right as americans to own firearms... This is no way contributes to increased crime in my opinion, (as stated in bowling for columbine).  I believe that each househole should have a gun as protection in a defensive situation.  I own many guns... would I ever get angry and shoot someone? No. That is my take... people kill people. not guns.

[quote]
people kill people. not guns.
[/quote]

I agree, but guns make it exceptionally easy to kill someone. They are an excellent abstraction.

I find the defence argument strange: The statistics, which I hope I won't have to find *again*, pretty much all state that the risks associated with gun ownership for protection outweigh the benefits.

[quote]
It is our right as americans to own firearms
[/quote]

That's very subjective. Whether that right is enshrined in the constitution is by no means clear-cut, and if it's not, that leaves it open to legislation like anything else.

One question I find interesting is where to draw the line - should citizens be able to own any arms? Some people say an M-16, for example, is an appropriate form of home-defence. Is a grenade? How about a landmine? Where is the limit drawn? What is the definition of 'arms'? If the Consitution confers upon anyone the right to bear arms, how is 'arms' defined? Is it reasonable for someone to own a warplane? A missile system? Those are armaments, after all. Does the constitution give citizens the right to own weapons of mass destruction, which are also, undeniably, arms?

I don't think there are any easy answers in this debate.

No easy answers.  But, I have read statistics in the past... on both sides of the fence, stating whatever that person wants it to state, if you catch my drift.  Granades, and landmines... well sure, if they are on your property - then feel free put a mine on your lawn. I don't recommend it.  But as a person it is our right to do what we want, on your property which you own.  I beleive in civil liberties and freedom.  Its hard to say "use common sense" I mean an M-16 it's an automatic rifle obviously not for civilian use.  Me for instance, I enjoy range shooting for a hobby... I don't shoot to kill, but if it came down to me defending my home and family, I could easily disable a person without killing them intentionally.  If guns were outlawed, criminals would still have them, and if guns didnt exist, they would have another form of weaponry, and most likely have an edge.  But to wrap this up, I beleive that the gun safety laws, background checks, waiting periods... they are extensive... but they are appropriate. 

This may be a bad example... but here it goes.  Prohibition in the USA in the 20's... most civilians didnt own alcohol, or drink it. But the few folks who wanted it made speak-easy's and such and still distributed / consumed it.  The point is, people are people by nature obviously and they will do whatever they feel fit especially if they are a criminal.  There is no clear cut right/wrong answer. But since we have these amendments we need to live by them and support them, and I sure like the fact that I can own guns,... I enjoy them, as some people enjoy cars or computers , etc...

Oh and Arta, my avatar vagina will gobble you up if you come back with some retarded socialist point of view again :P

[quote author=Arta[vL] link=topic=9390.msg88032#msg88032 date=1099972178]
You mean the interpretation of a federal court is not sufficient?
[/quote]

Which federal court might that be? Site your source?

Read back:

[quote author=Arta[vL] link=topic=9390.msg87647#msg87647 date=1099761205]
I'm not sure if those numbers are right but the principle is. Also that a gun bought for self-defence is 22 times more likely to be used to injure or kill a family member than to fend of an invader:

[quote]

A 1998 study from the Journal of Trauma, Injury and Critical Care shows that guns kept in the home are 22 times more likely to be involved in a fatal or nonfatal accidental shooting than be used for self defense.

Kellerman AL, Somes G, Rivara FP, et al. "Injuries and Deaths Due To Firearms in the Home." Journal of Trauma, Injury, Infection and Critical Care. August 1998. 45:263
[/quote]

I also read something interesting today. There have been 2 cases, Presser v Illinois and United States v Miller, that have established that the 2nd amendment does not enshrine the right for individuals to bear arms. Apparently, these and subsequent federal rulings have established that the right to bear arms is linked to a state milita and that it doesn't confer rights upon individuals. This is the precident that allows the federal government to ban certain firearms without those laws being unconsitutional. It seems to me, given this information, that there is no consitutional basis for objecting to gun control, as long as the rights of an organised militia are preserved...

Note that I haven't read these rulings, I'm just trusting that the American Academy of Pediatrics to tell me the truth.

[me="Arta[vL]"]goes back to lurking[/me]
[/quote]

[quote author=jigsaw link=topic=9390.msg88051#msg88051 date=1099981888]
No easy answers.  But, I have read statistics in the past... on both sides of the fence, stating whatever that person wants it to state, if you catch my drift.  Granades, and landmines... well sure, if they are on your property - then feel free put a mine on your lawn. I don't recommend it.  But as a person it is our right to do what we want, on your property which you own.  I beleive in civil liberties and freedom.  Its hard to say "use common sense" I mean an M-16 it's an automatic rifle obviously not for civilian use.
[/quote]

I don't think that's so obvious.. If the idea is that you be able to defend yourself and your state (think militia was mentioned?), you should probably be allowed regular infantry weaponry. Don't the police get automatic weapons? Why do they need them if you don't need them to defend yourself from criminals?


[quote author=jigsaw link=topic=9390.msg88051#msg88051 date=1099981888]
If guns were outlawed, criminals would still have them, and if guns didnt exist, they would have another form of weaponry, and most likely have an edge.
[/quote]

They would always have some form of weaponry, and people who want to hurt other people and train to be able to do so will always have an edge. We can agree on that I think. Then what remains is how seriously you want people to be hurt. If you want the innocent victims to come out with gunshot wounds, or if you want them to come out with bruises. The criminals will always have the edge...


[quote author=jigsaw link=topic=9390.msg88051#msg88051 date=1099981888]
This may be a bad example... but here it goes.  Prohibition in the USA in the 20's... most civilians didnt own alcohol, or drink it. But the few folks who wanted it made speak-easy's and such and still distributed / consumed it.  The point is, people are people by nature obviously and they will do whatever they feel fit especially if they are a criminal. 
[/quote]

That's true. Alcohol is unfortunately simple for anyone to create. All you need is some sugar, water and yeast. It's harder for criminals to set up their own gun factory. Not just anyone can produce guns, bullets, cartridges, etc. Prohibition also caused a reduction in overall availability of alcohol, right?



[quote author=jigsaw link=topic=9390.msg88051#msg88051 date=1099981888]
There is no clear cut right/wrong answer. But since we have these amendments we need to live by them and support them, and I sure like the fact that I can own guns,... I enjoy them, as some people enjoy cars or computers , etc...
[/quote]

Since you have those amendments you have to live with them for now, but you don't have to support them, and you can change them some time in the future. I understand that some people like guns, just like others enjoy other things.

That's not a reason to keep guns available though. Some people like incest. Some people like burning down houses. Things are forbidden when they cause others hurt. Besides, if guns weren't around, those people who like guns today would've most probably channeled their interests somewhere else and been happy anyway.

[quote author=Adron link=topic=9390.msg88229#msg88229 date=1100105256]

I don't think that's so obvious.. If the idea is that you be able to defend yourself and your state (think militia was mentioned?), you should probably be allowed regular infantry weaponry. Don't the police get automatic weapons? Why do they need them if you don't need them to defend yourself from criminals?[/quote]

If a criminal can attack me with automatic weapons, should I not be able to defend myself to the extreme?

[quote author=Adron link=topic=9390.msg88229#msg88229 date=1100105256]
They would always have some form of weaponry, and people who want to hurt other people and train to be able to do so will always have an edge. We can agree on that I think. Then what remains is how seriously you want people to be hurt. If you want the innocent victims to come out with gunshot wounds, or if you want them to come out with bruises. The criminals will always have the edge...[/quote]

If somebody is trying to kill me, I want them dead and its that simple. Better them than me, and thats the truth. Lets assume we go your way. They will no longer have gunshot wounds, fine. Is it better for all these criminals to take up knives, and then they'd be coming out with stab wounds?

[quote author=Adron link=topic=9390.msg88229#msg88229 date=1100105256]

Since you have those amendments you have to live with them for now, but you don't have to support them, and you can change them some time in the future. I understand that some people like guns, just like others enjoy other things.[/quote]

You'd never get one of the original amendments in the Bill of Rights changed. Good luck with that one slugger.

[quote author=Adron link=topic=9390.msg88229#msg88229 date=1100105256]

That's not a reason to keep guns available though. Some people like incest. Some people like burning down houses. Things are forbidden when they cause others hurt. Besides, if guns weren't around, those people who like guns today would've most probably channeled their interests somewhere else and been happy anyway.[/quote]

Adron you aren't thinking logically here. Cars, alcohol, cigarettes, airplanes, knives, boats, gas grills, sharp corners, etc. all cause others hurt. Keeping guns available for your personal safety is a damn good reason to keep them around. If you're not safe, you're screwed. Your conclusion about focusing their energies on things other than guns is another example of spewing something that has no backing whatsoever, its just your misguided conclusion based on no information.

[quote author=Hazard link=topic=9390.msg88256#msg88256 date=1100121882]
If a criminal can attack me with automatic weapons, should I not be able to defend myself to the extreme?
[/quote]

Maybe you should. Are you moving to allow citizens to carry fully automatic weapons?


[quote author=Hazard link=topic=9390.msg88256#msg88256 date=1100121882]
If somebody is trying to kill me, I want them dead and its that simple. Better them than me, and thats the truth. Lets assume we go your way. They will no longer have gunshot wounds, fine. Is it better for all these criminals to take up knives, and then they'd be coming out with stab wounds?
[/quote]

Yes, that'd be better. Even better would be not to allow knives outside homes either.


[quote author=Hazard link=topic=9390.msg88256#msg88256 date=1100121882]
[quote author=Adron link=topic=9390.msg88229#msg88229 date=1100105256]
Since you have those amendments you have to live with them for now, but you don't have to support them, and you can change them some time in the future. I understand that some people like guns, just like others enjoy other things.[/quote]

You'd never get one of the original amendments in the Bill of Rights changed. Good luck with that one slugger.
[/quote]

Ah, of course you can. Maybe not right at this time, but nothing lasts forever.


[quote author=Hazard link=topic=9390.msg88256#msg88256 date=1100121882]
[quote author=Adron link=topic=9390.msg88229#msg88229 date=1100105256]
That's not a reason to keep guns available though. Some people like incest. Some people like burning down houses. Things are forbidden when they cause others hurt. Besides, if guns weren't around, those people who like guns today would've most probably channeled their interests somewhere else and been happy anyway.[/quote]

Adron you aren't thinking logically here. Cars, alcohol, cigarettes, airplanes, knives, boats, gas grills, sharp corners, etc. all cause others hurt. Keeping guns available for your personal safety is a damn good reason to keep them around. If you're not safe, you're screwed. Your conclusion about focusing their energies on things other than guns is another example of spewing something that has no backing whatsoever, its just your misguided conclusion based on no information.
[/quote]

Not at all. You just ignore parts when you reply. You tend to do that when you're losing, close your eyes and pretend the bad things will go away. I have explained in previous posts why keeping guns available for your personal safety is not a valid reason to keep them around, and you always just closed your eyes, covered your ears and went lalalalalalala.....

What jigsaw was talking about, and which my reply applied to wasn't that though. It was for those who like guns, just like others like cars or computers. If you had read what was written, you would've seen that. My response was perfectly relevant to that. Now, if you'd stop spewing out those really stupid comments, and think, maybe this discussion could get somewhere?

[quote author=Adron link=topic=9390.msg88269#msg88269 date=1100125263]

Maybe you should. Are you moving to allow citizens to carry fully automatic weapons?[/quote]

Law abiding and responsible citizens should have the option.

[quote author=Adron link=topic=9390.msg88269#msg88269 date=1100125263]

Yes, that'd be better. Even better would be not to allow knives outside homes either.[/quote]

You should do some research. A kinfe wound is much more ugly and dangerous than a bullet wound in the same location.


[quote author=Adron link=topic=9390.msg88269#msg88269 date=1100125263]

Ah, of course you can. Maybe not right at this time, but nothing lasts forever.[/quote]

Won't happen. Guranteed.

[quote author=Adron link=topic=9390.msg88269#msg88269 date=1100125263]

You tend to do that when you're losing, close your eyes and pretend the bad things will go away.[/quote]

And when you come to conclusions that the world will be safe when no civilians have guns, you do the same thing.

[quote author=Adron link=topic=9390.msg88269#msg88269 date=1100125263]

Now, if you'd stop spewing out those really stupid comments, and think, maybe this discussion could get somewhere?
[/quote]

If you would offer any sort of evidence to back up anything that you say, we could move forward.

[quote author=Hazard link=topic=9390.msg88278#msg88278 date=1100126574]
[quote author=Adron link=topic=9390.msg88269#msg88269 date=1100125263]
Maybe you should. Are you moving to allow citizens to carry fully automatic weapons?[/quote]

Law abiding and responsible citizens should have the option.
[/quote]

Ah. But that's not allowed today, unless I've missed something?


[quote author=Hazard link=topic=9390.msg88278#msg88278 date=1100126574]
[quote author=Adron link=topic=9390.msg88269#msg88269 date=1100125263]

Yes, that'd be better. Even better would be not to allow knives outside homes either.[/quote]

You should do some research. A kinfe wound is much more ugly and dangerous than a bullet wound in the same location.
[/quote]

Ah, I didn't know that, but it's quite possible. Still, both can kill. And a knife is easier to outrun than a bullet. And it'd be harder to rob a bank with a knife.


[quote author=Hazard link=topic=9390.msg88278#msg88278 date=1100126574]
[quote author=Adron link=topic=9390.msg88269#msg88269 date=1100125263]
Ah, of course you can. Maybe not right at this time, but nothing lasts forever.[/quote]

Won't happen. Guranteed.
[/quote]

That's a stupid statement. How can you guarantee what will happen a million years from now? Or just two hundred years from now? Or even just fifty years from now? Things do change, and if you think you can guarantee that your little constitution will remain as is in a million years, I don't know what to say about you...


[quote author=Hazard link=topic=9390.msg88278#msg88278 date=1100126574]
And when you come to conclusions that the world will be safe when no civilians have guns, you do the same thing.
[/quote]

The world will never be completely safe, but actually, if I'm allowed the assumption that no civilians have guns, I can safely say that the world will be much safer than today.



[quote author=Hazard link=topic=9390.msg88278#msg88278 date=1100126574]
[quote author=Adron link=topic=9390.msg88269#msg88269 date=1100125263]
Now, if you'd stop spewing out those really stupid comments, and think, maybe this discussion could get somewhere?
[/quote]

If you would offer any sort of evidence to back up anything that you say, we could move forward.
[/quote]

What is there that you'd like evidence for? That your constitution will be gone and forgotten before infinite time has passed? Would you like me to look up the size of the fireball the sun will make when it starts to run out of fuel? I don't see how this is ever going to get anywhere if you don't even accept the most obvious?

[quote author=Adron link=topic=9390.msg88304#msg88304 date=1100129357]

Ah. But that's not allowed today, unless I've missed something?[/quote]

You missed something.

[quote author=Adron link=topic=9390.msg88304#msg88304 date=1100129357]

Ah, I didn't know that, but it's quite possible. Still, both can kill. And a knife is easier to outrun than a bullet. And it'd be harder to rob a bank with a knife.[/quote]

Harder, but not impossible. Wouldn't it just lead to a new breed of more highly trained and possibly violent criminals?

[quote author=Adron link=topic=9390.msg88304#msg88304 date=1100129357]

That's a stupid statement. How can you guarantee what will happen a million years from now? Or just two hundred years from now? Or even just fifty years from now? Things do change, and if you think you can guarantee that your little constitution will remain as is in a million years, I don't know what to say about you...[/quote]

Little consitution? If that wasn't such a stupid statement, it would be hillarious.

[quote author=Adron link=topic=9390.msg88304#msg88304 date=1100129357]

The world will never be completely safe, but actually, if I'm allowed the assumption that no civilians have guns, I can safely say that the world will be much safer than today. [/quote]

But civilians will always have guns, the criminals anyway. How will only the criminals having guns make the general public safer again Adron? Or is that another one of your "miniscule" weaknesses in your argument, the fact that people would not be able to defend themselves?

[quote author=Adron link=topic=9390.msg88304#msg88304 date=1100129357]

What is there that you'd like evidence for? That your constitution will be gone and forgotten before infinite time has passed? Would you like me to look up the size of the fireball the sun will make when it starts to run out of fuel? I don't see how this is ever going to get anywhere if you don't even accept the most obvious?
[/quote]

Another one of your irrelevant facts. At that point, life ceases to exist and the problem of war and peace is solved for good. Unless you are going to try and argue some retarded point about how it wont "all" be over.

[quote author=Hazard link=topic=9390.msg88278#msg88278 date=1100126574]
You should do some research. A kinfe wound is much more ugly and dangerous than a bullet wound in the same location.
[/quote]

Support that please? Sounds like nonsense to me. Guns are much more effective at killing people than knives, which is, apparently, why you advocate owning them.

[quote author=Hazard link=topic=9390.msg88321#msg88321 date=1100136792]
[quote author=Adron link=topic=9390.msg88304#msg88304 date=1100129357]

Ah. But that's not allowed today, unless I've missed something?[/quote]

You missed something.
[/quote]

And what was that? I would think they'd be covered by "Since the Firearms Owners' Protection Act of May 19, 1986, ownership of newly manufactured machine guns has been prohibited to civilians. Machine guns which were manufactured prior to the Act's passage are regulated under the National Firearms Act, but those manufactured after the ban cannot ordinarily be sold to or owned by civilians. "


[quote author=Hazard link=topic=9390.msg88321#msg88321 date=1100136792]
[quote author=Adron link=topic=9390.msg88304#msg88304 date=1100129357]

Ah, I didn't know that, but it's quite possible. Still, both can kill. And a knife is easier to outrun than a bullet. And it'd be harder to rob a bank with a knife.[/quote]

Harder, but not impossible. Wouldn't it just lead to a new breed of more highly trained and possibly violent criminals?
[/quote]

It'd probably lead to a new breed of less dangerous criminals.


[quote author=Hazard link=topic=9390.msg88321#msg88321 date=1100136792]
[quote author=Adron link=topic=9390.msg88304#msg88304 date=1100129357]

That's a stupid statement. How can you guarantee what will happen a million years from now? Or just two hundred years from now? Or even just fifty years from now? Things do change, and if you think you can guarantee that your little constitution will remain as is in a million years, I don't know what to say about you...[/quote]

Little consitution? If that wasn't such a stupid statement, it would be hillarious.
[/quote]

It is "your little constitution". It applies to a small part of the world's population.


[quote author=Hazard link=topic=9390.msg88321#msg88321 date=1100136792]
[quote author=Adron link=topic=9390.msg88304#msg88304 date=1100129357]

The world will never be completely safe, but actually, if I'm allowed the assumption that no civilians have guns, I can safely say that the world will be much safer than today. [/quote]

But civilians will always have guns, the criminals anyway. How will only the criminals having guns make the general public safer again Adron? Or is that another one of your "miniscule" weaknesses in your argument, the fact that people would not be able to defend themselves?
[/quote]

No. It's that thing about how it will keep the general public safer, due to the reasons presented earlier, which you failed to respond to. If you seriously want to respond, I'll present it again, but it both seems a bit wasted on you, and you could just as well read back in this thread to find it.


[quote author=Hazard link=topic=9390.msg88321#msg88321 date=1100136792]
[quote author=Adron link=topic=9390.msg88304#msg88304 date=1100129357]
What is there that you'd like evidence for? That your constitution will be gone and forgotten before infinite time has passed? Would you like me to look up the size of the fireball the sun will make when it starts to run out of fuel? I don't see how this is ever going to get anywhere if you don't even accept the most obvious?
[/quote]

Another one of your irrelevant facts. At that point, life ceases to exist and the problem of war and peace is solved for good. Unless you are going to try and argue some retarded point about how it wont "all" be over.
[/quote]

Yes, the problem of war and peace is solved permanently then. And my comment applies to your statement "Won't happen. Guranteed.". You make such broad absolute statements about things when you really need to qualify them much much better.

[quote author=Adron link=topic=9390.msg88392#msg88392 date=1100174680]

And what was that? I would think they'd be covered by "Since the Firearms Owners' Protection Act of May 19, 1986, ownership of newly manufactured machine guns has been prohibited to civilians. Machine guns which were manufactured prior to the Act's passage are regulated under the National Firearms Act, but those manufactured after the ban cannot ordinarily be sold to or owned by civilians. "[/quote]

Did you miss the repeal of the assault weapons ban? Fully automatic assault weapons are once again available, the way it should be.

[quote author=Adron link=topic=9390.msg88392#msg88392 date=1100174680]

It'd probably lead to a new breed of less dangerous criminals.[/quote]

No, it would lead to more brutal criminals willing to gut you with a trench knife if you don't give them what they ask for. Or, in the case of bank robberies, it would spawn the use of explosives and bombs instead of guns.

[quote author=Adron link=topic=9390.msg88392#msg88392 date=1100174680]

No. It's that thing about how it will keep the general public safer, due to the reasons presented earlier, which you failed to respond to. If you seriously want to respond, I'll present it again, but it both seems a bit wasted on you, and you could just as well read back in this thread to find it.[/quote]

You never offer a valid argument with any kind of evidence whatsoever to back it up. If you can do that, go ahead. If you can't, stop wasting our time.


[quote author=Adron link=topic=9390.msg88392#msg88392 date=1100174680]

Yes, the problem of war and peace is solved permanently then. And my comment applies to your statement "Won't happen. Guranteed.". You make such broad absolute statements about things when you really need to qualify them much much better.[/quote]

Fine? Wanna be a pain in the ass? "The 2nd Amendment of the United States consitution as it appears in the National Archives in Washington, D.C., United States of America shall never, until the sun runs out of fuel and produces a mass fireball that will undoubtly whipe out the solar system, be changed to hinder the ability of law-abiding citizens to legally obtain and keep a firearm." Qualified. Anything you think I missed Adron? You really are quite a prick.

Your personal attacks are inappropriate. If you cannot restrain yourself to civilised behaviour, then refrain from posting here.

I'm locking this thread but Adron is of course free to unlock it if he chooses.

[quote author=Arta[vL] link=topic=9390.msg88048#msg88048 date=1099978646]
[quote]
It is our right as americans to own firearms
[/quote]

That's very subjective. Whether that right is enshrined in the constitution is by no means clear-cut, and if it's not, that leaves it open to legislation like anything else.

(snip)

If the Consitution confers upon anyone the right to bear arms, how is 'arms' defined?[/quote]

Arta, without myself stating an opinion on guns, I will take this chance to address a perception.  In the United States, all rights belong to Americans except those we specifically enumerate to our servant government by the Constitution.  That means if there is a right not granted to be controlled, then Americans own that right.

I think this is what Hazard and Jigsaw know and believe, but are not stating (thinking you know it too).  The right to bear arms is addressed for states raising militias.  It does not address individuals bearing arms, and by ommission, such rights are owned by Americans.  Good?  Bad?  That's another issue.  But our rights belong to us until we vote to give them up.  The government cannot take away rights (save your Patriot Act arguments -- we're working on that), without our consent.

[quote author=Hazard link=topic=9390.msg88407#msg88407 date=1100178704]
Did you miss the repeal of the assault weapons ban? Fully automatic assault weapons are once again available, the way it should be.
[/quote]

Yes, I don't follow details of American legislation. If you'd mentioned that repeal right away, it might've saved some time?


[quote author=Hazard link=topic=9390.msg88407#msg88407 date=1100178704]
No, it would lead to more brutal criminals willing to gut you with a trench knife if you don't give them what they ask for. Or, in the case of bank robberies, it would spawn the use of explosives and bombs instead of guns.
[/quote]

There's no reason to think those criminals would be any worse than the ones willing to blow your head off if you don't give them what they ask for. And in the case of bank robberies, it'd be easier for the police to deal with the criminals.


[quote author=Hazard link=topic=9390.msg88407#msg88407 date=1100178704]
You never offer a valid argument with any kind of evidence whatsoever to back it up. If you can do that, go ahead. If you can't, stop wasting our time.
[/quote]

There is no possible certain evidence for either side of the argument. We're speaking about possibilities in the future. It's unfortunate that you seem unable to just reason about something.


[quote author=Hazard link=topic=9390.msg88407#msg88407 date=1100178704]
Fine? Wanna be a pain in the ass? "The 2nd Amendment of the United States consitution as it appears in the National Archives in Washington, D.C., United States of America shall never, until the sun runs out of fuel and produces a mass fireball that will undoubtly whipe out the solar system, be changed to hinder the ability of law-abiding citizens to legally obtain and keep a firearm." Qualified. Anything you think I missed Adron? You really are quite a prick.
[/quote]

Ah, qualified... But your statement can't be proven true, and I don't see the reasoning to make it believable. We're debating whether guns should be allowed or not. If the conclusion of the debate (and eventually of a 99% majority of the American people) is that guns should be banned, there's no reason there couldn't be another amendment made. Times change, people change, opinions change.

[quote author=Arta[vL] link=topic=9390.msg88412#msg88412 date=1100180372]
I'm locking this thread but Adron is of course free to unlock it if he chooses.
[/quote]

Hmm. If you think the discussion should end, I'll let it. You're the moderator. Besides, Grok and me can still post when it's locked :P

[quote author=Grok link=topic=9390.msg88450#msg88450 date=1100194986]
I think this is what Hazard and Jigsaw know and believe, but are not stating (thinking you know it too).  The right to bear arms is addressed for states raising militias.  It does not address individuals bearing arms, and by ommission, such rights are owned by Americans.  Good?  Bad?  That's another issue.  But our rights belong to us until we vote to give them up.  The government cannot take away rights (save your Patriot Act arguments -- we're working on that), without our consent.
[/quote]

Grok, that's agreeable. I'd just like to point details out:

You don't need the consent of all people, just of a majority, since this is a democracy, right?

If a large majority were to conclude that guns are bad, it would then be possible to take that right away, with that majority's consent, from all Americans?

In this case, no, and yes.  The people have made the right to bear arms unalienable by Constitution, such that the government could not take away that right.  Only the people can give up the right, first by amending the Constitution to repeal the 2nd amendment, then by creating a new amendment that grants the federal (or each state) government the right to set gun control policy as they view the people's will to be consented.

Highly unlikely that even one of those amendments could pass, much less two.  It is still political suicide to go very much anti-gun, in most states.  For a politician to take the position that the 2nd amendment should be repealed is to say the people cannot govern themselves.  At least, that's the spin that could be easily applied.

May as well continue.

Grok, I do realise that. The point of my thread was to point out exactly what you have clarified: the 2nd amendment doesn't necessarily protect the right for individuals to bear arms. Thus, this is not necessarily a constitutional issue -- a lot of people seem to assume it is.

Read the words: "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Where is the grey area?

The gray area is in the first half of the amendment that you didn't include in your post.

[quote author=Hazard link=topic=9390.msg88542#msg88542 date=1100217822]
Read the words: "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Where is the grey area?
[/quote]

If I am reading correctlly, I see what Arta is saying here, and what you posted confirms it.  The right of the people to bear arms is not granted in the Constitution.  Rather, the right of the government to remove that right IS specifically removed by the 2nd amendment.  It's a big distinction, not at all subtle.  The 2nd amendment implies that the right to bear arms is a given, and that even if the government were thinking about it, "let's add this amendment to make sure the government never trods on our arms bearing rights".

Amendment X of the United States Constituion:

[quote]The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constiitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.[/quote]

No state has banned guns, the people have no banned guns. Why? Because they're an integral part of American culture.

(This was the first time I've used my pocket Constitution in a debate. :D)

[quote author=Arta[vL] link=topic=9390.msg88593#msg88593 date=1100247843]
The gray area is in the first half of the amendment that you didn't include in your post.
[/quote]

The other part is a statement about the state's rights to have and mantain a guard.

[quote author=Grok link=topic=9390.msg88605#msg88605 date=1100252814]
[quote author=Hazard link=topic=9390.msg88542#msg88542 date=1100217822]
Read the words: "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Where is the grey area?
[/quote]

If I am reading correctlly, I see what Arta is saying here, and what you posted confirms it.  The right of the people to bear arms is not granted in the Constitution.  Rather, the right of the government to remove that right IS specifically removed by the 2nd amendment.  It's a big distinction, not at all subtle.  The 2nd amendment implies that the right to bear arms is a given, and that even if the government were thinking about it, "let's add this amendment to make sure the government never trods on our arms bearing rights".
[/quote]

And when I, and when Chief Justice Rehnquist read it, we see that the people a) have the right and b) that it cannot be infringed upon by the government.

Five hunters shot, apparently by another hunter.

This has nothing to do with gun control, since these are likely hunting rifles, but it goes to show that no matter how armed you are, the aggressor can assume you are armed and kill you before you can defend yourself with your weapon.

Totally unrelated to the discussion.

The thing is, if people really, really want guns, they will get them, whether or not they are legally allowed into the country, and whether or not people can legally own them.

Prohibition is a great example.  What happened when people could no longer legally buy alcohol?  An entire black market of alcohol production and sales popped up.  It's a good reason to legalize narcotics (legal -> supply increases -> street value decreases -> no motivation to sell for street dealers -> large companies sell -> harmful effects reduced to avoid liability).

[quote author=MyndFyre link=topic=9390.msg89753#msg89753 date=1101164213]
The thing is, if people really, really want guns, they will get them, whether or not they are legally allowed into the country, and whether or not people can legally own them.
[/quote]

Ah, yes. That's true about everything. But there's a balance between how difficult it is to get something and how much you must desire it to go to the trouble of obtaining it. If that wasn't true, why not allow everyone to have their own nuke, or other WMD?


[quote author=MyndFyre link=topic=9390.msg89753#msg89753 date=1101164213]
Prohibition is a great example.  What happened when people could no longer legally buy alcohol?  An entire black market of alcohol production and sales popped up.  It's a good reason to legalize narcotics (legal -> supply increases -> street value decreases -> no motivation to sell for street dealers -> large companies sell -> harmful effects reduced to avoid liability).
[/quote]

Following this could lead to an interesting discussion... What was the narcotics market like when alcohol was prohibited? Do the resources just move around? If we legalize some drugs, will there be new illegal drugs taking up the same market share?

We have a "black market" for tobacco here, untaxed tobacco...