The thread in which you discuss Obama and current American .politics. ...

[abstractApathist]

All these topics turn out the exact same way.

Every one of you use the exact same arguments as you did the last time, and everyone is on or around generally the same stance as they were before.

It peeves me a little.

I will ring in on one thing though.

Murder and self defense.
Generally what everyone seems to get all mixed up and in debate over isn't general murder, but MASS murder.

And generally speaking it takes a semi/automatic rifle or handgun of sorts or other means to kill as many people as possible in the shortest amount of time.

And banning all guns will prevent this??

What!? No... These are isolated incidents, conceived most of the time with obscene calculation.

Murder is completely separate and usually has a personal motive, and for whatever reason they do what they do, they will pick the best tool available to them at the time, be it gun, bat, knife etc.. Generally handguns. Same could be said for self defense. I carry concealed so if someone were to choose me to be a murder victim, at least I have the option of matching with equal force.

Mass murder isn't a target of personal agenda.
Mass murder is based on a psychopathic attempt to realize some sort of statement or sheer insanity. The method will be used on whatever means is most appropriate, be that bomb, gun, leading a cult to drink poison.
^but these incidents will happen no matter what you take away.

Or perhaps we should ban planes so no one can crash them into any other large buildings...

Mass murder is not the major problem, although it clearly sticks out as a sign that gun violence is rampant. Single victim homicide with a gun accounts for over 60% of all homicides in the U.S. Banning guns would make it significantly harder to simply murder someone and easier to prevent.

http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=4863

On mass murder, buying a gun is an easy and surefire way to be able to injure and/or kill loads of people, but acquiring lethal poison or explosive materials is not. The latter are conspicuous and hard to come by.

[DrEggman789]

All these topics turn out the exact same way.

Every one of you use the exact same arguments as you did the last time, and everyone is on or around generally the same stance as they were before.

It peeves me a little.

I will ring in on one thing though.

Murder and self defense.
Generally what everyone seems to get all mixed up and in debate over isn't general murder, but MASS murder.

And generally speaking it takes a semi/automatic rifle or handgun of sorts or other means to kill as many people as possible in the shortest amount of time.

And banning all guns will prevent this??

What!? No... These are isolated incidents, conceived most of the time with obscene calculation.

Murder is completely separate and usually has a personal motive, and for whatever reason they do what they do, they will pick the best tool available to them at the time, be it gun, bat, knife etc.. Generally handguns. Same could be said for self defense. I carry concealed so if someone were to choose me to be a murder victim, at least I have the option of matching with equal force.

Mass murder isn't a target of personal agenda.
Mass murder is based on a psychopathic attempt to realize some sort of statement or sheer insanity. The method will be used on whatever means is most appropriate, be that bomb, gun, leading a cult to drink poison.
^but these incidents will happen no matter what you take away.

Or perhaps we should ban planes so no one can crash them into any other large buildings...

Mass murder is not the major problem, although it clearly sticks out as a sign that gun violence is rampant. Single victim homicide with a gun accounts for over 60% of all homicides in the U.S. Banning guns would make it significantly harder to simply murder someone and easier to prevent.

http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=4863

On mass murder, buying a gun is an easy and surefire way to be able to injure and/or kill loads of people, but acquiring lethal poison or explosive materials is not. The latter are conspicuous and hard to come by.

Here's my thing.

Let's say guns get the ban. Sure, some will have issues getting ahold of them and give up on it. However, and here's the important bit, the criminals who want guns will not care in the least. They'll just find a black market if they're determined enough.

It's as I said, when owning guns becomes criminal, only the criminals will own guns

Worth mentioning that most illegal weapons started as legal. For example, in urban centers (NYC, Chicago) where firearms are harder to acquire, most seized weapons were purchased in other states that are much more lax on gun control (Texas and Georgia), then transported. Take away the ability to easily acquire guns anywhere in the country, and where would they get them?

Also, lots of weapons in the hands of criminals are stolen from legal (and law abiding) citizens. If those citizens don't have guns, criminals can't steal guns from them.

That phrase, "When owning guns becomes criminal, only criminals will have them" makes for great rhetoric, but doesn't stand up to much scrutiny.

[Wingnut]

All these topics turn out the exact same way.

Every one of you use the exact same arguments as you did the last time, and everyone is on or around generally the same stance as they were before.

It peeves me a little.

I will ring in on one thing though.

Murder and self defense.
Generally what everyone seems to get all mixed up and in debate over isn't general murder, but MASS murder.

And generally speaking it takes a semi/automatic rifle or handgun of sorts or other means to kill as many people as possible in the shortest amount of time.

And banning all guns will prevent this??

What!? No... These are isolated incidents, conceived most of the time with obscene calculation.

Murder is completely separate and usually has a personal motive, and for whatever reason they do what they do, they will pick the best tool available to them at the time, be it gun, bat, knife etc.. Generally handguns. Same could be said for self defense. I carry concealed so if someone were to choose me to be a murder victim, at least I have the option of matching with equal force.

Mass murder isn't a target of personal agenda.
Mass murder is based on a psychopathic attempt to realize some sort of statement or sheer insanity. The method will be used on whatever means is most appropriate, be that bomb, gun, leading a cult to drink poison.
^but these incidents will happen no matter what you take away.

Or perhaps we should ban planes so no one can crash them into any other large buildings...

Mass murder is not the major problem, although it clearly sticks out as a sign that gun violence is rampant. Single victim homicide with a gun accounts for over 60% of all homicides in the U.S. Banning guns would make it significantly harder to simply murder someone and easier to prevent.

http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=4863

On mass murder, buying a gun is an easy and surefire way to be able to injure and/or kill loads of people, but acquiring lethal poison or explosive materials is not. The latter are conspicuous and hard to come by.

Here's my thing.

Let's say guns get the ban. Sure, some will have issues getting ahold of them and give up on it. However, and here's the important bit, the criminals who want guns will not care in the least. They'll just find a black market if they're determined enough.

It's as I said, when owning guns becomes criminal, only the criminals will own guns

Worth mentioning that most illegal weapons started as legal. For example, in urban centers (NYC, Chicago) where firearms are harder to acquire, most seized weapons were purchased in other states that are much more lax on gun control (Texas and Georgia), then transported. Take away the ability to easily acquire guns anywhere in the country, and where would they get them?

Also, lots of weapons in the hands of criminals are stolen from legal (and law abiding) citizens. If those citizens don't have guns, criminals can't steal guns from them.

That phrase, "When owning guns becomes criminal, only criminals will have them" makes for great rhetoric, but doesn't stand up to much scrutiny.

It worked for drugs.

[DrEggman789]

All these topics turn out the exact same way.

Every one of you use the exact same arguments as you did the last time, and everyone is on or around generally the same stance as they were before.

It peeves me a little.

I will ring in on one thing though.

Murder and self defense.
Generally what everyone seems to get all mixed up and in debate over isn't general murder, but MASS murder.

And generally speaking it takes a semi/automatic rifle or handgun of sorts or other means to kill as many people as possible in the shortest amount of time.

And banning all guns will prevent this??

What!? No... These are isolated incidents, conceived most of the time with obscene calculation.

Murder is completely separate and usually has a personal motive, and for whatever reason they do what they do, they will pick the best tool available to them at the time, be it gun, bat, knife etc.. Generally handguns. Same could be said for self defense. I carry concealed so if someone were to choose me to be a murder victim, at least I have the option of matching with equal force.

Mass murder isn't a target of personal agenda.
Mass murder is based on a psychopathic attempt to realize some sort of statement or sheer insanity. The method will be used on whatever means is most appropriate, be that bomb, gun, leading a cult to drink poison.
^but these incidents will happen no matter what you take away.

Or perhaps we should ban planes so no one can crash them into any other large buildings...

Mass murder is not the major problem, although it clearly sticks out as a sign that gun violence is rampant. Single victim homicide with a gun accounts for over 60% of all homicides in the U.S. Banning guns would make it significantly harder to simply murder someone and easier to prevent.

http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=4863

On mass murder, buying a gun is an easy and surefire way to be able to injure and/or kill loads of people, but acquiring lethal poison or explosive materials is not. The latter are conspicuous and hard to come by.

Here's my thing.

Let's say guns get the ban. Sure, some will have issues getting ahold of them and give up on it. However, and here's the important bit, the criminals who want guns will not care in the least. They'll just find a black market if they're determined enough.

It's as I said, when owning guns becomes criminal, only the criminals will own guns

Worth mentioning that most illegal weapons started as legal. For example, in urban centers (NYC, Chicago) where firearms are harder to acquire, most seized weapons were purchased in other states that are much more lax on gun control (Texas and Georgia), then transported. Take away the ability to easily acquire guns anywhere in the country, and where would they get them?

Also, lots of weapons in the hands of criminals are stolen from legal (and law abiding) citizens. If those citizens don't have guns, criminals can't steal guns from them.

That phrase, "When owning guns becomes criminal, only criminals will have them" makes for great rhetoric, but doesn't stand up to much scrutiny.

It worked for drugs.

Drugs and guns are different problems. Drugs are recreational. I would guess, conservatively, that around half of drug users are (otherwise) law abiding citizens. Almost everyone in the town I live in smokes pot, from my real estate agent, to my lawyer, to my cashier at the gas station. "Normal" people want drugs for their own use. Guns are a totally different story. The only people who would try to purchase guns if they were illegal would be criminals, who, in the grand scheme of things, make up what? 1% of the population? Less? Drugs are available because large numbers of people want them. Guns would not be available, because the people that would want them account for a tiny minority.

What kind of criminal entrepreneur would sit on the corner selling 9mm's and 12gauges when he might sell one a week, and risk going to prison for 10 years? Whereas a guy selling pot sells a few ounces a day to average people for much less risk, and higher volume.

[DrEggman789]

People would want them to protect their family, have fun, etc.  if they were illegal, I'd try and buy one illegally.

Because this current debate isn't going anywhere, let's try to change it.

One of the reasons the founding fathers gave us the 2nd amendment was to protect us from a tyrannical government.  If the government is afraid of making the public angry because of their guns, they won't take away rights, or do other bad things.

Another reason is to prevent invasions.  Other countries would think twice about invading America because if they managed to get past the military, they'd still have to fight a vast majority of the population because they have weapons to defend themselves.

You would spend 10-15 thousand dollars and risk prison to shoot targets?

The government isn't afraid of private guns. The second amendment was written in a time where
A. There was no federal military
B. There was no permanent state militia
And most importantly,
C. Both the military and private citizens owned the same weapons, flint-locks.

Now, our military could destroy the entire population if necessary (not that they ever would). Private weapons don't compare. An SKS vs an M1A1 Abrams? A .357 vs an F-35? It was a noble idea for its time, but it's present day application is irrelevant. Also, remember not to put the founding fathers on too much of a pedestal. They were a group of racist, sexist, rich, white men who had a couple of good ideas.

As for the second point, I'll concede that it is a fair point. But even if every single private weapon didn't exist, who would invade the United States? We spend more on "defense" spending than the next 26 countries combined. 25 of them are our allies. China? Yeah there are a lot of them, but they're using hardware from the 70s and 80s. Not only do they not have training or hardware, but the US is so large, how would they hold off on all fronts? Plus, the second we are invaded, not only would the invader have to deal with all five branches, but all of Europe and others would be on the way in less than 48 hours. The UK, Germany, France, Canada, Mexico, Israel, Italy, Mongolia, and so on. Hell, Japan would probably throw in their police force and coast guard.

All of that is not to say that private weapons aren't a factor to consider when invading the US, but I think our military and the militaries of our allies are enough of a deterrent.

+1 for civility.

[DrEggman789]

Most countries aren't our allies out of fear. Europe, for example, knows we would never invade any country there, (eastern bloc aside), Israel isn't afraid of all of the Middle East so I don't think they'd be afraid of us invading. The primary reason no one would invade is not the conflict itself, but economically. If any EU member attacked us, the EU would be forced to condemn them and assist the US in crushing them, because if they didn't back us up, they just lost the ability to export to the largest economy on earth. So that rules outany European country attacking. China, same story, we are the primary destination for their exports. Not only that, but they know that if an invasion fails (which is 99% sure to happen), we will invade them after they have exhausted their resources trying to go on the offensive, leaving their home country weakly defended. We wipe their government out unless they forgive our debt (which is not as high as people say it is, but still a hefty sum), pay us what we spent on the war, and agree to multiple new trade policies (all in our favor). I could go on, but you see that no country would invade us, with or without private guns.

[Kaworu, the Fifth Child]

Plus we have enough large bombs to destroy most of the land on earth 26 times over, I think.

[DrEggman789]

Plus we have enough large bombs to destroy most of the land on earth 26 times over, I think.

We won't truly know anymore because the Atomic Energy Act allows the government to deny FoIA requests for nuclear weapons now. Last time they released numbers in 2010, experts estimated between 15-50 times, if I recall correctly.

[Kaworu, the Fifth Child]

Plus we have enough large bombs to destroy most of the land on earth 26 times over, I think.

We won't truly know anymore because the Atomic Energy Act allows the government to deny FoIA requests for nuclear weapons now. Last time they released numbers in 2010, experts estimated between 15-50 times, if I recall correctly.

That's a big range

[DrEggman789]

No one would invade Norway, either. Norway has the backing of the EU and NATO, not to mention us. I sincerely doubt that war will occur between two first world countries any time in the near future. The primary reasons, like i said, are not the prospect of military defeat. If that were the case, China would have invaded Japan. They can easily defeat the Japanese military (what little there is), without significant harm to the civilian population.

The reason no first world nation ever would invade another is because of the economic fall out, even in the event of an easy victory. If China or anyone else invaded Norway, for example, all EU, NATO, and in all probably, most of the UN member states would cease doing any kind of business with the aggressor. This would mean that any potential positives of the war are heavily outweighed by the negative consequences.

The same goes for if someone invaded the US. Even if there were no private weapons.

The Second Ammendment is a piece of dated legislation that has, ultimately, caused more harm than good. At least in my opinion.

[rant]
But we are free to disagree on that, and that is  why the United States is where I still live. Our system is supposed to thrive on differing opinions, but recently, it has become encumbered by it. Too many conservatives screaming at gun control advocates, saying they are "un-American", and liberals screaming at War on Terror supporters, saying they are fascists. Disagreement is fine, disgust and petty name calling is not.

If only our leaders and society could discuss, as you and I have, rather than argue...

[/rant]

[MuggyWuggy]

If you look at the state of the world right now we have several nations attempting to overthrow their current government.

Very unlikely invading the USA ala Red Dawn will happen, as many countries need to just get their own 💩 together. Venezuela, brazil, Syria and Egypt are just a few off the top of my head, these are the worst, we also have many countries that are now facing economic turmoil in the EU. Right now if anything it's the people vs "the system" itself

[Apathy Reactor]

Taking away guns = unconstitutional
Honestly if you dislike civillian access to guns so much, why not move to Norway? I here they have nice schools...

[abstractApathist]

Taking away guns = unconstitutional
Honestly if you dislike civillian access to guns so much, why not move to Norway? I here they have nice schools...

The point of the constitution is that it can and does change to suit the needs of the time. Back when we were in constant danger of raids out of Canada, it made sense to have small civilian militias. Nowadays, there is no risk of invasion, so owning guns simply leads to lots of senseless civilian deaths. If everybody moved when they didn't like a policy in a country, nobody would have anywhere to live.

[DirtyMustachio]

You don't "invade" a country with f-16's

You invade a "country" by foot and instituting your own military command forcefully.

Which is constantly berated in other countries by opposing forces by small civilian guerrilla factions.

So don't assume everything.


Like every gun owner or pro guns civilian is a redneck ready to shoot down aggressors. 


No one has once proven any point to me why guns should be banned over "premeditated murder"

PREMEDITATED
priˈmedəˌtāt,prē-/
verb
past tense: premeditated; past participle: premeditated
1.
think out or plan (an action, esp. a crime) beforehand.
"premeditated murder"

Assuming guns were banned.
And a murderer is still a murderer.
Do you not think the wouldn't premeditate something else.

[abstractApathist]

No one has once proven any point to me why guns should be banned over "premeditated murder"

PREMEDITATED
priˈmedəˌtāt,prē-/
verb
past tense: premeditated; past participle: premeditated
1.
think out or plan (an action, esp. a crime) beforehand.
"premeditated murder"

Assuming guns were banned.
And a murderer is still a murderer.
Do you not think the wouldn't premeditate something else.

Guns are an efficient and easy to use method of murder. Handguns can have over 30-round magazines, so you can easily injure or kill scores of people without even reloading. Unlike bombs, the only other popular method of mass murder, guns are inconspicuous and don't carry the inherently large risk that the criminal will simply blow themself up. Trying to kill someone with a gun is also significantly easier and more effective than with, say, a knife, or any other weapon of single-victim homicide.

As for lots of meaningless deaths, do I need to pull the argument of how many crimes have been prevented and lives saved due to good guys with guns?  I can give you a gagillion examples if you need me to.

"Good guys with guns" tend to get shot 4.5 times more often because they're carrying a gun. Owning a gun is linked much more to homicide and suicide than self-defense.

http://www.motherjones.com/.politics./2013/01/pro-gun-myths-fact-check