another school shooting in U.S. of A. :(

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

Statements such as 'I'll tell you what the bottom line is: that my country is a unique one' would seem to suggest that you feel this applies solely to the USA. Certainly, it's very much implied in your tone.

---

Sure, pull the quote out of its context. Nice try.

"The bottom line" (presumably where you read my tone) was mocking ioan, who used the exact phrase in the post I replied to.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Starter

The intent of the writers of our Constitution is further explained in the 'Federalist Papers', as has been noted before. Those documents go at length to talk about many of our basic freedoms and not just the second amendment. They are relied upon by the Supreme Court when interpretations of the Constitution are in question.

---

The Federalist Papers though are not law, do not hold the weight of law and as legal opinion hold zero weight. Second to that, the right to self-defence as applied to defending one's self against other citizens is never discussed not even once in all 85 of them. Thirdly, even Hamilton warned about including the Bill of Rights in No.84 on the grounds that they would lead to a dangerous outcome which is precisely what you have now.

The Avalon Project : Federalist No 84
I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted.
- The Federalist Papers : No. 84, -Andrew Hamilton

Is discussion relating to events 236 years ago, useful of helpful in relation to a set of conditions never envisaged? If law is to remain static, then are you still in favour of a man with a red flag walking in front of motor cars? How far down the rabbit hole do you want to go?

Meh... :dozey:

My name will not appear on this "award"... see ya! :wave:


http://img272.imagevenue.com/loc415/..._122_415lo.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by anthonyvop

What I have said about you is Factual. What you have stated about me is based on your fascist opinion.


BIG DIFFERENCE.

---

Great stuff, Tony! Keep it up!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jag_Warrior

There's certainly a correlation, as without the firearm, there cannot be a firearm related crime. But a correlation does not prove causation. If that were the case, then communities with very high per capita firearms ownership should have higher than average firearms related crimes. But that is not the case. The area where I live has extremely high per capita firearms ownership, yet I don't believe there was a firearms related homicide in this area (so far) in 2012. I used to live near Washington, D.C. Handgun ownership (legal) was all but banned there when I lived in that area, yet Washington had one of the highest firearms related murder rates in North America back then. So that's why I would say that firearms ownership (in itself) is not a root cause. Firearms don't cause people to kill each other. They do assist in that endeavor though.

IMO, too often we continue to tip-toe around what the data shows us. That's why I posted that link. Finding better ways to keep firearms out of the hands of criminals (those who have already been convicted of violent crimes) is the low hanging fruit on this issue. And while I'm sure there is a wide variety of socio-economic reasons and explanations for how and why people commit crimes, the data points to criminals (and mental defectives) possessing firearms as the primary area that should be addressed. I would say that the root cause in their case is their complete and selfish disregard for the property and lives of others and their willingness to take or steal what they want. Why did you rob the bank? I wanted the money. Why did you rape the girl? I wanted her. Why did you jack the car? I wanted to see how it drove and then sell it. Why did you shoot and kill Jose and Pookie? I didn't like them. So on and so forth...

And while an examination and study of American culture would probably be interesting, I'm not sure that that would assist in getting firearms away from criminals. Maybe it would. And if so, I'd be all for that too. BTW, based on what I saw this weekend at a gunshow, I now feel that open gunshows may also be an area that needs to be re-examined - and that's not a position that most NRA members or gun owners would want to hear.

---

I am far from in agreement with much of what you say, but at least you put it in an educated, sensible manner.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by keysersoze

Sure, pull the quote out of its context. Nice try.

---

His stock in trade, thought you knew that?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

I am far from in agreement with much of what you say, but at least you put it in an educated, sensible manner.

---

Thank you. And (unlike some here), I'm not insulted or threatened when someone doesn't agree with me. In fact, when done in a constructive manner, that's precisely how solutions to a complex issue can be found.

I'd say that most of the European members and quite a few from the U.S. may not share my views on this topic. And I have some views that some of the gun owners on here probably wouldn't care for either. But if we want to discuss realistic, practical solutions, that can actually come to fruition, then trading ideas and relying on data (and not emotion!) is how we could accomplish that.

It's the holidays and I've already had enough emotional discussions (in real life) to last the rest of the new year... so if the thread can't progress, then (to me) it's a pointless exercise. Maybe a few of us can take it up a notch though and we can have a good discussion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Starter

His stock in trade, thought you knew that?

---

To be fair, I am very clearly not the only one to have reached the same conclusion here.

As of Dec. 7, Stars and Stripes reports that 212 soldiers have died in combat-related deaths in Afghanistan. The ENTIRE country of Afghanistan is MUCH safer than the CITY of Chicago with its draconian, anti-gun laws.

Chicago police confirm 'tragic number' of 500 homicides - chicagotribune.com

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by anthonyvop

as of dec. 7, stars and stripes reports that 212 soldiers have died in combat-related deaths in afghanistan. The entire country of afghanistan is much safer than the city of chicago with its draconian, anti-gun laws.

---

Nurse!

Any Liberal, Euro-Weenie types who read this will no doubt scream “Eeeeek! Facts!” and run. So tell us again why we need more gun control regulations? Oh right, it’s touchy-feely time and we feel we need to outlaw all those nasty guns regardless of reality.

http://www.americanthinker.com/artic...urders%201.bmp


http://www.americanthinker.com/artic...Murder%202.bmp


Articles: Murder by Numbers

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by anthonyvop

http://www.americanthinker.com/artic...Murder%202.bmp

---

What a fantastic selection of countries to come in behind.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by keysersoze

Your first comment is spectacularly naive. If civilians are not allowed to own a handgun for protection in this fairy tale land of your imagination, how do you propose to ensure the bad guys don't get them? Oh yes, I get it--everyone will start to behave and the bad guys will just stop being bad. :rolleyes:

---

It worked in other countries, so no fairy tale there, the one living in LaLa land is you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by keysersoze

Is there any other country that values gun ownership, and the right to protect one's self, like the U.S.A.?

---

Nope, you're unique with these levels of paranoia.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by D-Type

This reads rather like "Who will bell the cat?" It's all very well to say that the US Authorities should pass legislation to ban gun ownership, but how can they imlement it and tackle the issue of the very large number of guns in circulation, both legally held and not legally held?

---

If they do not even try then can not know if it works or not.
Or are we going by the saying: The only way not to fail is by not giving it a try.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The American Thinker

Articles: Murder by Numbers
Here is the list of European countries whose most recent murder rates exceeded the U.S.'s.
• Greenland (19.2)
• Russia (10.2)
• Moldova (7.5)
• Lithuania (6.6)
• Ukraine (5.2)
• Estonia (5.2)
• Belarus (4.9)

Read more: Articles: Murder by Numbers
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

"Take out the black underclass from the statistics, and even American murder rates fall to European levels."

Read more: Articles: Murder by Numbers
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

---

nice "facts" you read vop :dozey:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jag_Warrior

Thank you. And (unlike some here), I'm not insulted or threatened when someone doesn't agree with me. In fact, when done in a constructive manner, that's precisely how solutions to a complex issue can be found.

I'd say that most of the European members and quite a few from the U.S. may not share my views on this topic. And I have some views that some of the gun owners on here probably wouldn't care for either. But if we want to discuss realistic, practical solutions, that can actually come to fruition, then trading ideas and relying on data (and not emotion!) is how we could accomplish that.

It's the holidays and I've already had enough emotional discussions (in real life) to last the rest of the new year... so if the thread can't progress, then (to me) it's a pointless exercise. Maybe a few of us can take it up a notch though and we can have a good discussion.

---

Contrary to the opinions of some, I'll be the first to agree that we (the US) have a problem with mass murder. Where we differ is the cause. I do not believe that ownership of firearms is a prime cause, else there would be many, many more of them (mass murders). Further, any attempt to restrict ordinary citizens from ownership is doomed to failure for several reasons mentioned in this thread already. I do believe that our attitudes toward mental health and complete failure to take action to remedy the situation are much more of an issue. Perhaps we can look at some suggestions in that line?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

I hate to say so, but in none of this is the USA unique.

---

But the mix is a special one, mostly because of the gun related culture that no other civilized country developed to such perfection.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by anthonyvop

The truth hurts you so much that you have to resort to infantile personal insults?

You are for a Centrally, government controlled economy, You are for the Government control and support of Industry, You are for the state over the rights of individual.(don't even try to deny that one. You call for Gun control is Clear evidence). You oppose freedom of speech and expression and gladly support any government action to squash any "speech" you find unacceptable.


Soooooooooooooo please explain to us how you beliefs aren't fascist!

---

You obviously do not know what fascist means.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Starter

Contrary to the opinions of some, I'll be the first to agree that we (the US) have a problem with mass murder. Where we differ is the cause. I do not believe that ownership of firearms is a prime cause, else there would be many, many more of them (mass murders). Further, any attempt to restrict ordinary citizens from ownership is doomed to failure for several reasons mentioned in this thread already. I do believe that our attitudes toward mental health and complete failure to take action to remedy the situation are much more of an issue. Perhaps we can look at some suggestions in that line?

---

I believe this to be skirting around the edges of the problem.

As regards mental illness, in making comments about the state of mind of a couple of people in this thread I have done so not out of a desire to seem cheap or insulting, but because to me it genuinely proves a point about some of the most vehement gun enthusiasts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by keysersoze

Sure, pull the quote out of its context. Nice try.

"The bottom line" (presumably where you read my tone) was mocking ioan, who used the exact phrase in the post I replied to.

---

And you think that was great and unique, huh?!
Not sure why it starts to look that all the pro gun ownership people posting around here a re a bit infantile?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ioan

You obviously do not know what fascist means.

---

Quite. I have been called both a Communist and a fascist by anthonyvop, which suggests a degree of confusion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ioan

And you think that was great and unique, huh?!
Not sure why it starts to look that all the pro gun ownership people posting around here a re a bit infantile?

---

Not all, as I said above. Let's be fair — some are much more palatable and educated than others.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by anthonyvop

Any Liberal, Euro-Weenie types who read this will no doubt scream “Eeeeek! Facts!” and run. So tell us again why we need more gun control regulations? Oh right, it’s touchy-feely time and we feel we need to outlaw all those nasty guns regardless of reality.

http://www.americanthinker.com/artic...Murder%202.bmp

---

Hey, look, the US is doing better then a bunch of 3rd world countries like for example Zimbabwe and Sudan! :s
And worse then Turkmenistan, Sri Lanka, Fiji! Good reason to use it as a pro-gun argument.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

I believe this to be skirting around the edges of the problem.

As regards mental illness, in making comments about the state of mind of a couple of people in this thread I have done so not out of a desire to seem cheap or insulting, but because to me it genuinely proves a point about some of the most vehement gun enthusiasts.

---

The best part is that the pro-gun people are also the people who mostly oppose Obama's push for a free access to medical services in the USA.
Whichever way you try they will be against it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

Not all, as I said above. Let's be fair — some are much more palatable and educated than others.

---

My bad, some are better than avop.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ioan

The best part is that the pro-gun people are also the people who mostly oppose Obama's push for a free access to medical services in the USA.
Whichever way you try they will be against it.

---

Let me explain it to you.

Being able to protect yourself is a right.

Free stuff isn't.

Simple huh?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by anthonyvop

Let me explain it to you.

Being able to protect yourself is a right.

Free stuff isn't.

Simple huh?

---

Your explanation is certainly simplistic. Not quite the same thing, I know. Your definition of what constitutes a right is not, I have to tell you, gospel.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by anthonyvop

Let me explain it to you.

Being able to protect yourself is a right.

---

In the US, it is not.

Link please :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

I believe this to be skirting around the edges of the problem.

As regards mental illness, in making comments about the state of mind of a couple of people in this thread I have done so not out of a desire to seem cheap or insulting, but because to me it genuinely proves a point about some of the most vehement gun enthusiasts.

---

There is nothing wrong with being a gun enthusiast, vehement or otherwise. It's what you DO with the gun that counts. Using it to hunt, target shoot, for personal protection, or having one just because the law says you can harms no one. It's those who use a gun to steal, maim or kill without any provocation that is the issue. The gun is only the instrument of choice which the criminal uses in their crime. I do not believe that taking guns from millions of law abiding owners, who have committed no crime, in order to address a couple of dozen mentally deranged individuals is a reasonable solution. So I say again, what about addressing what causes those very few people to commit such crimes?

Well, I can now appreciate why all this gun toting is exciting. I just watched the film "COWBOY" starring Glenn Ford, and I have decided to go down to the pubs in Richmond tonight and buy a gun, then drive around Melbourne in my Volvo Cross Country tonight and start shooting up the town. YIPEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Starter

There is nothing wrong with being a gun enthusiast, vehement or otherwise. It's what you DO with the gun that counts. Using it to hunt, target shoot, for personal protection, or having one just because the law says you can harms no one. It's those who use a gun to steal, maim or kill without any provocation that is the issue. The gun is only the instrument of choice which the criminal uses in their crime. I do not believe that taking guns from millions of law abiding owners, who have committed no crime, in order to address a couple of dozen mentally deranged individuals is a reasonable solution. So I say again, what about addressing what causes those very few people to commit such crimes?

---

If it is those "who use a gun to steal, maim or kill without any provocation that is the issue" then it is not "a couple of dozen mentally deranged individuals" who you need to address but the most basic building block of society itself - the family:

FBI
53.0 percent were killed by someone they knew (acquaintance, neighbor, friend, boyfriend, etc.); 24.8 percent of victims were slain by family members
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr...elatesmall.gif

The "random" attacker isn't the one you need to address as first priority, rather the people in your own household. By providing guns for "self-defence" you also provide the necessary means for people who live under the same roof to kill each other.
What's next? A husband and wife to have separate guns on either side of the bed so that they can defend themselves against each other? Sure the picture is stretched to incredulity with hyperbole but it illustrates the bulk of the problem.

You don't believe that it's a reasonable solution because you accept people being slain as a necessary trade-off to your "freedom".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ioan

You obviously do not know what fascist means.

---

Do you?

Not the Left wing, knee Jerk insult but the actual political and economic philosophy of Fascism?

Fascism: The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics | Library of Economics and Liberty Read this and tell me who's political leanings is closer to real fascism.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rollo

In the US, it is not.

Link please :D

---

Second Amendment | U.S. Constitution | LII / Legal Information Institute

And

http://www.lectlaw.com/def/d030.htm

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

Your explanation is certainly simplistic. Not quite the same thing, I know. Your definition of what constitutes a right is not, I have to tell you, gospel.

---

You cannot grasp that concept? Seriously?

Let me try again. Even simpler.

Healthcare costs money. If it costs money it ain't a right.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by anthonyvop

You cannot grasp that concept? Seriously?

Let me try again. Even simpler.

Healthcare costs money. If it costs money it ain't a right.

---

Guns cost money, don't they?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by anthonyvop

Second Amendment | U.S. Constitution | LII / Legal Information Institute

And

Legal Definition of Self-Defense Defense

---

The Second Amendment contains no such wording. Second, the link from Lect Law contains neither case law nor legal citation and is therefore merely opinion.

Fail and Fail.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by anthonyvop

You cannot grasp that concept? Seriously?

Let me try again. Even simpler.

Healthcare costs money. If it costs money it ain't a right.

---

So do guns, Tony. So does ammunition. Your definition is blatantly nonsensical, but what else would we expect?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by anthonyvop

Do you?

Not the Left wing, knee Jerk insult but the actual political and economic philosophy of Fascism?

Fascism: The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics | Library of Economics and Liberty Read this and tell me who's political leanings is closer to real fascism.

---

How do you square with calling me a fascist the fact that you've called me a Communist in the past?

I hugely enjoy the fact that you expect me to be somehow offended by your comments, when in fact they are enormously hilarious.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rollo

If it is those "who use a gun to steal, maim or kill without any provocation that is the issue" then it is not "a couple of dozen mentally deranged individuals" who you need to address but the most basic building block of society itself - the family:

FBI
53.0 percent were killed by someone they knew (acquaintance, neighbor, friend, boyfriend, etc.); 24.8 percent of victims were slain by family members
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr...elatesmall.gif

The "random" attacker isn't the one you need to address as first priority, rather the people in your own household. By providing guns for "self-defence" you also provide the necessary means for people who live under the same roof to kill each other.
What's next? A husband and wife to have separate guns on either side of the bed so that they can defend themselves against each other? Sure the picture is stretched to incredulity with hyperbole but it illustrates the bulk of the problem.

You don't believe that it's a reasonable solution because you accept people being slain as a necessary trade-off to your "freedom".

---

First, I'd like to thank you for providing some data and not just relying on an emotion based argument. Whether we agree or disagree on the issue, the only way (IMO) to have any sort of mature, constructive dialog is by relying on valid data... not emotions. I am a little bit confused by the bar chart/table vs. the pie chart though. Either I'm not reading something right or they don't agree with each other. By the pie chart, the combination of "Family" and "Other Known" seems to equal 43.6%, while the combination of "Stranger" and "Unknown" equals 56.4% - giving a total distribution of 100%. I'm not sure where the "53.0 percent were killed by someone they knew (acquaintance, neighbor, friend, boyfriend, etc.); 24.8 percent of victims were slain by family members" is coming from.

But whatever the correct figures are, it doesn't seem that any of the categories is statistically insignificant. And comparing this data to the Dept. of Justice data that I linked previously, I wonder how many of these "known" or "family member" incidents involved people who were legally prohibited from owning firearms because of prior criminal convictions or being judged mentally defective? In the United States, it is illegal for a person convicted of even misdemeanor domestic assault to own or possess a firearm. So going a bit deeper into the two data sets, I just wonder what we're truly seeing. I'm not arguing that it's worse (or better) to be shot by a stranger vs. a family member. But if in either case, the shooter is already under a legal prohibition from owning a firearm, I'm not quite clear on how a new law could prevent that shooting - I mean, there's already a "ban" that applies to those people, yes? From the standpoint of what is realistic, reasonable and practical, what new legal mechanism would be instituted that would find and confiscate firearms that would be any better than what we have now?

With all due respect to those who are opposed to or don't understand private firearms ownership in the United States, I have yet to hear anything plausible and practical on how whatever plan they have would be executed and accomplished. How would new words on new pieces of paper work any better than the old words on the old pieces of paper... that apparently aren't effective enough now??? With these new words on new pieces of paper, will all of the criminals, strangers, as well as violent family members, suddenly turn in their firearms? That seems to be a rather fantastic expectation, IMO. So... what would be the practical mechanism for confiscating firearms if this proposed ban on private firearms ownership was enacted in the United States? Honest question... really.

Something else I want to look at when I have some time: from something I read years ago, a large percentage of rapes, assaults and property crimes are also committed by people known to the victim. Not that it really affects what we're talking about here (in general), but the issue of crime seems to not just be one of "stranger danger". If the point being made relates to (true) spontaneous "crimes of passion," then I understand. But the data presented here doesn't give us any read on how frequent that is. And if the victim/assailant relationship matters here, if compared to other crimes, would we consider say, a marital or date rape as not being as bad (or worse) as a rape committed by a stranger? Maybe some would. In my state, up until the 1980's (I believe) there was no such (legal) thing as "marital rape" - a husband had the right to have sex with his wife whenever he wanted to. Though most don't, some people still believe that. So without a deeper dive into the data, I'm not sure what the relationship of the victim to the assailant really tells us. We just need to know more about the data to arrive at any sort of conclusion, IMO.