Guns and paranoid citizens.

[QUOTE=bboymute]Except for the questionable usage of [I]militia[/I].

I tried to look for clear answer but everyone seems confused as well.[/QUOTE]

people need guns IN CASE the people need to form a militia IN CASE they need to protect themselves from their government.

read the Federalist Papers by jefferson, and if you're still confused, try another topic. i've explained it down as far as it can go.

Right.

oh yeah, 4 loads of laundry thank you very much and at least the music they had playing was cool - should've seen the pair of jugs on the red head - any hoo, back to brass tacks my man from the garden state.

just imagine what a tremendous failure the american revolution would have been had it not been for the fact that local militias existed and people could own weapons. the british and their allies would have handed our asses to us and we'd all be taking order from tony blair. clearer than clearasil now?

This is analogous to "Should we're put devices on cars so they can only go 75MPH since the highest speed limit in the US is 75MPH?" Funking retarded, if I want a gun that can shoot a 100 bullets a second I should be able to have one. I have no need for one or want either, but still.

[QUOTE=trypdwyre]the full text of the 2nd amendment states:

it's not just talking about owning, but carrying. one is allowed to openly carry a weapon (as long as it's in a manner not calculated to cause alarm; ie holding it aimed at someone). many states also have provisions for conceal carry weapons. so we do have the right to bear arms.

what else are you basing your information on? the trailer to spy kids? heh ;)[/QUOTE]

Frankly, you can dig into the constitution all you want. The thing is 200 years old. It was made for another world. Take whoever wrote your constitution to our times and he would go apeshit.

[QUOTE=bassplr19]This is analogous to "Should we're put devices on cars so they can only go 75MPH since the highest speed limit in the US is 75MPH?" Funking retarded, if I want a gun that can shoot a 100 bullets a second I should be able to have one. I have no need for one or want either, but still.[/QUOTE]

that sir, is american stupidity at its finest. It aint about you. The world does not revolve around you. And if everyone else gets assault weapons and all that bullshit all you're getting is a society that shoots at anything that moves. Why stop at 100 bullets? why not a nuclear weapon?. You live in a society. You cant have whatever the hell you want.

[CENTER][QUOTE=Fake Plstic Trees]Frankly, you can dig into the constitution all you want. The thing is 200 years old. It was made for another world. Take whoever wrote your constitution to our times and he would go apeshit.
true it's old. the constitution serves us well. it's the muddled area of the lower courts that screws things up for us, that and the legislation idiots try to pass to protect us from ourselves...

trypd, if he uses the race card again you beat the crap out of him while i hold him down and sing the battle hymn of the republic, ok?

[QUOTE=trypdwyre]you're obscuring the point, not to mention confusing the text of the constitution. lemme break it down now...

with me yet? the sentence is set up so that the first part of the sentence is MODIFYING not BEING MODIFIED byt the second part.

paraphrased in today's language: [I] "The people need the right to own and bear weapons should there be a need for a well regulated militia to protect the citizens from the government. In no case should this amendment be overturned."[/I]

since the police and the military are under control of the government, this doesn't apply to them, but rather the citizens.

fire marshals are authorized to carry a firearm because they are authorized to conduct investigations, carry out investigation interviews, interrogations, and MAKE ARRESTS among other things. they are basically the fire station's liason with the police.[/QUOTE]
trypdwyre - you are close about the fire marshal and arson investigators.
They have all those abilities but are not a 'liason' to the police. They work with the police but in arson cases the investigator or firemarshal actually makes the arrest.
Most arson investigators go through a POST academy and under most state laws have the ability to make arrests- and not just for arson!
But good job on knowing what firefighters actually do!

[QUOTE=rossthefireman]trypdwyre - you are close about the fire marshal and arson investigators.
They have all those abilities but are not a 'liason' to the police. They work with the police but in arson cases the investigator or firemarshal actually makes the arrest.
Most arson investigators go through a POST academy and under most state laws have the ability to make arrests- and not just for arson!
But good job on knowing what firefighters actually do![/QUOTE]
sweet, thanks for clarifying that for me. i've had the opportunity to talk with some fire marshals before, seems like a pretty interesting job. most of my answer came from what the one guy told me when i asked him a similar question.

I am not afraid of guns, but i find them useless. Completely unnecesary. If a burglar comes into my house i wouldnt shoot him. Id yell at him. yell at the neighbors for attention. Yell through the phone to the cops. I wouldnt shoot him. Killing someone over a few material possesions? fuck it. Take all my shit if you want, i still aint shooting you. Why would he shoot me? there's just no reason why a burglar would shoot me or kill me.
The risk of me getting killed is just too low for making a gun be worth it.

[QUOTE=Fake Plstic Trees]I am not afraid of guns, but i find them useless. Completely unnecesary. If a burglar comes into my house i wouldnt shoot him. Id yell at him. yell at the neighbors for attention. Yell through the phone to the cops. I wouldnt shoot him. Killing someone over a few material possesions? fuck it. Take all my shit if you want, i still aint shooting you. Why would he shoot me? there's just no reason why a burglar would shoot me or kill me.
The risk of me getting killed is just too low for making a gun be worth it.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, um, you'd yell at him. Reminds me of the time my dad got attacked by the neighbor's Rotweiller and he shot it. I had about ten people come up to me at school and say things like "if a dog attacked [i]me[/i] I'd pat it on the head and say 'nice doggie'." No you fucking wouldn't. You say that a robber wouldn't shoot and kill you, well, I'm sorry, you're wrong. You may not think a life is more important than your material possessions, but what guarentee do you have that he feels the same way? He could be robbing you for drug money, or just for the hell of it, you could startle him and he could shoot you. If you were a woman, he could be breaking into your house to rape you. Forgive me, but I'd rather shoot some moron in the face than get raped, but maybe that's just me and my gun lovin' American mentality...

Seriously jane, think about it. Burglars just want your shit. Why would they shoot you? it seriously doesnt go that way. I've had my house robbed. My neighbour has been robbed too. The guy yelled at him and he ran away. Burglars dont wanna get caught or go to prison. Attacking the owner of the house or not going away are two sure ways of getting caught and having huge prison time.

[QUOTE=Fake Plstic Trees]Seriously jane, think about it. Burglars just want your shit. Why would they shoot you? it seriously doesnt go that way. I've had my house robbed. My neighbour has been robbed too. The guy yelled at him and he ran away. Burglars dont wanna get caught or go to prison. Attacking the owner of the house or not going away are two sure ways of getting caught and having huge prison time.[/QUOTE]
that just depends on the burglar. if you get confrontational with them, and they are already in your house, with a weapon, i really doubt they'll just walk out of there. and since when does shooting someone always equate with their death? if you're educated on weapon handling, you'd know to go for their legs first, wound them, disarm them, and have them collected by the local police.

I seriously doubt you'll think about all that when you're in a panic inducing situation such as a burlgar is. You're just gonna shoot.

[QUOTE=Fake Plstic Trees]I seriously doubt you'll think about all that when you're in a panic inducing situation such as a burlgar is. You're just gonna shoot.[/QUOTE]
as i said, if you're educated on weapons handling, you WILL think of that.

and you ignored the bit where i asked "and since when does shooting someone always equate with their death?"

Hmm, guns. I can think of quite a few industrialised nations other than America where gun ownership is legal. the difference that they don't have a problem with gun deaths in those countries. Maybe the question is why are American's shootinbg each other, not why can't they have guns.

I'm anxious to see your list.
And Colombia doesn't count as an industrialised country to me.

Fair enough, it doesn't count to me either. Name an industrialised nation, and I'll bring the stats about gun deaths, I'll even quote official sources if you trust them. Anything to keep a good debate going.

[QUOTE=joeyjojojrshabadoo]Fair enough, it doesn't count to me either. Name an industrialised nation, and I'll bring the stats about gun deaths, I'll even quote official sources if you trust them. Anything to keep a good debate going.[/QUOTE]

- United States
- Canada
- Australia
- England
- China
- Japan

How much research would like me to skew in favour (favor?) of my argument? Should I conduct interviews, or is the plethora of "unbiased" information on the web sufficient?

[QUOTE=joeyjojojrshabadoo]How much research would like me to skew in favour (favor?) of my argument? Should I conduct interviews, or is the plethora of "unbiased" information on the web sufficient?[/QUOTE]
since you're offering to do the research, might i suggest you go direct to the source. try the world almanac 2004 ed (i don't think 2005 has come out yet).

[QUOTE=trypdwyre]as i said, if you're educated on weapons handling, you WILL think of that.

and you ignored the bit where i asked "and since when does shooting someone always equate with their death?"[/QUOTE]

about 30% die without exception. Then there's like a 40% more than die because they didnt have a doc nearby before 20 minutes. The rest live i think.

O.k here's some quick stats because I've been spending way too much time on this site the past three days. I went with Mungkay's list and found some interestingg stuff. this is a U.N report, but it's from the mid nineties.

First, gun murders per capita (100,000 people)
U.S - 5.7
Can - 2.1
Australia - 1.8
England/Wales = 1.4
China - N/A (communists like their secrets I guess)
Japan - 0.6

Some interesting ones I wasn't actually expecting:

Isreal = 2.3 So Canada is barely beating the world's foremost terrorist hotspot for gun related murders per capita.

For franc tirieur.... France 1.1 not bad guys!

For just plain old gun related deaths the figurers change dramatically. Still per 100,00

U.S - 18.5 ( 30% of deaths are murders)
Can - 15.6 ( 13 % of deaths are murders)
Australia - (12 % of deaths are murders)
England = 9.5 (14 % of deaths are murders)
China = you guessed it, no info
Japan = 17.3 (!) (3 % of deaths are murders)

So there's some interesting stuff there. So of this list, the U.S seems to have the worst gun "problem". Although, people in Japan don't tend to murder one another with guns, it looks like they have a major problem engaging the safety. Most of the Nations I looked at displayed similar numbers. I.E what everyone would think. Europe doesn't appear to have a gun problem. The only places on the the U.N list I saw ahead of the States were places like, Mexico, Venezuela and the like. I agree with franc tirieur though, and don't really consider them industrialised nations.

See you cats in a week or so... gotta go record and an album.

guns should stay legal. if they are needed for self defense or a revolution, if its needed, what are you going to do if your enemies have guns and you dont?

True revolutions don't need guns.

*takes the cigar out of his mouth and sets his fully automatic assault rifle on his lap. Takes a swig of beer* Well obviously you've never been in a real revolution then, son.

Well, we had enough of our beloved leaders' heads cut off and rolling in the gutters of history.

What's dangerous is not the armament in the hands of police or army, it's the support of a good portion of the population. The soviet system, Hitler's regime, all the dictatorships of the world lasted because a substantial minority benefitted from them. They maintained a climate in which dissenting was against general morality and justified repression. Dictators know very well that as long as the illusion of their power lasts they have nothing to fear, but no army or police can oppose decisive force to a population taking over, armed or not.

Portugal, East Germany, Tchekoslovakia, Romania are good examples of what I am demonstrating.

[QUOTE=franc tireur]Well, we had enough of our beloved leaders' heads cut off and rolling in the gutters of history.

What's dangerous is not the armament in the hands of police or army, it's the support of a good portion of the population. The soviet system, Hitler's regime, all the dictatorships of the world lasted because a substantial minority benefitted from them. They maintained a climate in which dissenting was against general morality and justified repression. Dictators know very well that as long as the illusion of their power lasts they have nothing to fear, but no army or police can oppose decisive force to a population taking over, armed or not.

Portugal, East Germany, Tchekoslovakia, Romania are good examples of what I am demonstrating.[/QUOTE]
I can't remember which eastern block country it was, but I remember a short lived report on the news about like a million people marching on their government and ousting it without a shot fired. Admirable. It shows what can be accomplished without guns. This was last year I believe.

Exactly. Cant remember which country it was though.

I am all for getting rid of guns but with the one condition that EVERYONE has to get rid of guns. The police, the government, other governments. Everyone. If anyone gets to keep guns then I don't think it's fair to take away my rights to them. I don't like the idea of a government that is stronger than we can be. I think education should go along with gun ownership, just like it goes along with owning a car. Anything that can easily kill another person should require certification.

[QUOTE=alene]I am all for getting rid of guns but with the one condition that EVERYONE has to get rid of guns. The police, the government, other governments. Everyone. If anyone gets to keep guns then I don't think it's fair to take away my rights to them. I don't like the idea of a government that is stronger than we can be. I think education should go along with gun ownership, just like it goes along with owning a car. Anything that can easily kill another person should require certification.[/QUOTE]
Although a very good idea... Thats all it can be, an idea, because someone somewhere is smart enough to make another gun or bunch of guns. Then what do you do when the law breakers get guns and no one else has any to defend themselves or their families? And even if guns weren't the case anyone can make home-made bombs, its all over the internet... We as humans have created the gun and simply cannot just wipe it out...

It's easy, from a Euro standpoint, for us to look at the US and say you should get rid of your guns - we like having a murder rate four times lower - but it's a lot harder (if even possible) to remove guns once they are present as a flood in society, than it is to control them before they become available... It may be that there is no going back for the US. That isn't to say that the types of gun available shouldn't be restricted.

I've heard a few myths from US gun enthusiasts (among whom I count members of my own family) - saying things like: we need guns to hunt, it's part of our way of life. Well, do you think people don't hunt in Europe? Of course they do. But the type of gun is restricted and gun ownership is carefully monitored and controlled.

Less guns = less likely to get a bullet in yo ass.

"Well... that's the way I see it anyway."
- CASINO

[QUOTE=Mr. Brown]Less guns = less likely to get a bullet in yo ass.

"Well... that's the way I see it anyway."
- CASINO[/QUOTE]
Less guns will never happen. So many guns out there now and you know what, most are not even registered. I would say a mjaority are ot and were purchased or received illegally. It is a stupid argument to say that there is no need for guns. I havent read all the posts here, but Im sure someone said that guns should be banned. All this will do is increase the already large number of illegal guns out in the street. It will accomplish nothing to ban guns just like it did not accomplish anything during the alcohol prohibition. People will always find a way around things.....
*gets off soapbox*

[QUOTE=Smartazboy]Less guns will never happen. So many guns out there now and you know what, most are not even registered. I would say a mjaority are ot and were purchased or received illegally. It is a stupid argument to say that there is no need for guns. I havent read all the posts here, but Im sure someone said that guns should be banned. All this will do is increase the already large number of illegal guns out in the street. It will accomplish nothing to ban guns just like it did not accomplish anything during the alcohol prohibition. People will always find a way around things.....
*gets off soapbox*[/QUOTE]

And pretty soon someone will shoot that soapbox and then where will you be?

But you're right, there's too much of them and it's already too much in the American blood. You can't just take them all away and think the problem will just dissapear.

[QUOTE=gobo_fraggle_uk]It's easy, from a Euro standpoint, for us to look at the US and say you should get rid of your guns - we like having a murder rate four times lower - but it's a lot harder (if even possible) to remove guns once they are present as a flood in society, than it is to control them before they become available... It may be that there is no going back for the US. That isn't to say that the types of gun available shouldn't be restricted.

I've heard a few myths from US gun enthusiasts (among whom I count members of my own family) - saying things like: we need guns to hunt, it's part of our way of life. Well, do you think people don't hunt in Europe? Of course they do. But the type of gun is restricted and gun ownership is carefully monitored and controlled.[/QUOTE]
and i've heard many myths from those who are in favor of gun restrictions. the main one being "if you take away certain types of guns, there will be fewer gun related deaths". this has been proven wrong many times. stop blaming the gun for humanity's want for death.

[QUOTE=Smartazboy] It will accomplish nothing to ban guns just like it did not accomplish anything during the alcohol prohibition. People will always find a way around things.....
*gets off soapbox*[/QUOTE]

...which is also an argument for the legalisation of drugs and prostitution.

...anyway, this is what I meant about not necessarily being able to remove them once they are present in society - everybody will worry that they are 'out there' as illegal weapons and in the hands of criminals. It's so much easier when they aren't 'out there' in the first place.
Personally, I like it that each murder makes national news here and that there is 95% clear-up rate - but it's a totally different culture.

[QUOTE=trypdwyre] stop blaming the gun for humanity's want for death.[/QUOTE]

humanity? don't include all of us, please... your murder rate is 4 times higher.

[QUOTE=Mr. Brown]And pretty soon someone will shoot that soapbox and then where will you be? [/QUOTE]
"'Now the politicians are sayin', "Send in the marines to secure the area" 'cause they don't give a shit. It won't be their kid over there, gettin' shot. Just like it wasn't them when their number was called, 'cause they were pullin' a tour in the National Guard. It'll be some guy from Southie takin' shrapnel in the ass.'" (Good Will Hunting)
[QUOTE=Mr. Brown]But you're right, there's too much of them and it's already too much in the American blood. You can't just take them all away and think the problem will just dissapear.[/QUOTE]
The whole point of the doomsday machine is lost . . . if you keep it a secret! Why didn't you tell the world, ay?! (Dr Strangelove)

[QUOTE=gobo_fraggle_uk]humanity? don't include all of us, please... your murder rate is 4 times higher.[/QUOTE]
The fact remains there is still murder everywhere due to firearms.... no matter who has a higher rate.

[QUOTE=gobo_fraggle_uk]humanity? don't include all of us, please... your murder rate is 4 times higher.[/QUOTE]

We also have over 4 times more people than you tiny lil foggy island.

[QUOTE=DillingerEscape]We also have over 4 times more people than you tiny lil foggy island.[/QUOTE]
exactly

282.3 million us (in 2001)
59.6 million uk (in 2003)

and i was being more than fair there, i gave you an extra 2 years to beef up your population. the fact remains that stricter gun control has no correlation to decreased homicide, nor decreased use in gun related crimes.

i said murder 'rate'...
i studied these stats for a masters degree, so don't get clever
i find it odd that you would think the murder rate in the US is comparable to another western country...

so, there is actually a very strong correlation between gun control and decreased homicide. The only developed country worse than the US is South Africa, and we know their problems...

Let's not argue - I was agreeing (above) that removing guns from the US may not be an option, that the cultures are different... but it is truly amazing that you think the homicide rate in the US isn't a multiple of those in other countries.

[QUOTE=Smartazboy]The fact remains there is still murder everywhere due to firearms.... no matter who has a higher rate.[/QUOTE]

It's rarely due to firearms in countries where people don't have access to them.

Welcome to the wonderful gun industry-sponsored world.

[QUOTE=DillingerEscape]We also have over 4 times more people than you tiny lil foggy island.[/QUOTE]

Spoken with the confidence of someone who's never been outside his own country.

Do you know what the word 'rate' means? Maybe look it up.

[QUOTE=trypdwyre] the fact remains that stricter gun control has no correlation to decreased homicide, nor decreased use in gun related crimes.[/QUOTE]

The homicide rate per 100,000 of population is just under four times higher in the US than it is here – about 5.6 compared to 1.6. The UK had 1048 homicides in 2001, but 172 of those have been attributed to Harold Shipman (I don’t know if it made the US news, but he was a doctor who has turned out to be our biggest-ever serial killer) and the Northern Ireland murder rate is higher than that of the rest of the UK because of the paramilitary groups.

[QUOTE=gobo_fraggle_uk]The homicide rate per 100,000 of population is just under four times higher in the US than it is here – about 5.6 compared to 1.6. The UK had 1048 homicides in 2001, but 172 of those have been attributed to Harold Shipman (I don’t know if it made the US news, but he was a doctor who has turned out to be our biggest-ever serial killer) and the Northern Ireland murder rate is higher than that of the rest of the UK because of the paramilitary groups.[/QUOTE]
good for you guys. now look at new zealand, who doesn't necessarily have fewer guns, but a better application process. or look at the swiss or look at finland.

so now that you've offered a scenario, and i've offered one, realize that just one case doesn't prove that revocation of gun ownership should be allowed. new zealand is a prime example as they have boasted several times to have no intentional firearm-related deaths. the answer is not to revoke weapons, but to educate people on weapons.

[QUOTE=Mr. Brown]And pretty soon someone will shoot that soapbox and then where will you be?

But you're right, there's too much of them and it's already too much in the American blood. You can't just take them all away and think the problem will just dissapear.[/QUOTE]
Rebellion is also in American blood and telling someone, expessially here, that they can't do something will only make them want to to do it more... Its a lose-lose situation if you ask me...

[QUOTE=trypdwyre]
so now that you've offered a scenario, and i've offered one, realize that just one case doesn't prove that revocation of gun ownership should be allowed. .[/QUOTE]

if you'd read my posts (above), you'd know that I didn't argue for the removal of guns from US society, and I also pointed out that guns are allowed in other countries for hunting etc. but are more strictly controlled... what you're doing is called a 'straw man' argument - fighting a false opponent...
so: good for you too, but this is not related to anything i said.

In logic, If A then B, A, therefore B, is a valid argument. i.e. If there are no guns then the homicide rate is lower, there are no guns, therefore the homicide rate is lower - this is a valid argument. But you're saying If A then B, B, therefore A, is invalid - that having a low homicide rate does not require no guns (e.g. Switzerland) - and you're right. But you're necessarily right, in a mundane and logically obvious sense - and this in no way refutes the claim that 'if there are no guns then the homicide rate is lower'... because the term used was 'if' and not 'if and only if'. All you did was point out that a logically invalid form of argument (which you came up with) doesn't work - which is true by definition.

i had responded to trypdwyre saying that 'humanity' has a need for death by pointing out that other countries have lower murder rates and that it isn't a 'humanity' issue - you responded by falsely claiming that the US rate is not higher than those of other countries.
Your NZ example (if correct) reinforces my point, re. homicide rates in US (that they are atypically high).

On this we can agree. Let's enjoy a cocktail and contemplate the sunrise.