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

[GamenDork]

I have no real opinion to state here, but I do have this to say: Constitutional Amendments have been nullified before; the 18th Amendment (prohibition) was nullified by the 21st Amendment. This means that guns could possibly be taken away legally, but only with an Amendment to the Constitution.

[DirtyMustachio]

That is not a logical argument for premeditated murder.

Murder intended to kill someone for personal reason or conviction.

I'm not talking about killing scores of people.

If someone were going to kill their wife and guns were banned they'd be just as easy to handle with a knife while sleeping with less noise to attract attention.

My point stands.
If it's premeditated the means is irrelevant because the ends will be fulfilled through the plan.

[abstractApathist]

Maby next time you should not quote a SO obviously biased source.  Having guns increases gun crime rates.  Well DUH!  But does it increase the crime rate in general?  Your site doesn't say that.  People use guns to kill themselves because it's faster than stabbing them self.  They would kill the self anyways, they just choose to use a gun

And about the home safety issue with the kids.  Why would it not be in a safe?!  If you have a gun, it should be in a safe!  It's already illegal to not have it in a safe.

That source is a piece of crap written by die hard democrats who would love to take away all your guns (due to all of the regulation)

It even admits that no one knows how many guns there are, so if you impose gun control, all that will happen is the responsible people lose their privelidge and the bad guys still have them.

I chose to use that article because every single point has multiple external sources. Maybe you should check to see if those were written by "die hard democrats" before you should assume that the site is a piece of crap.

Also, if you think currently gun laws are being enforced well enough that most people bother to do background checks or put guns in safes, then you're sorely mistaken. One reason we don't have data on how well gun banning works is that we haven't been able to properly test it.

[abstractApathist]

Dc isn't proof?  Detroit isn't proof?

I didn't say the site wasn't good, I was saying the article wasn't good.  If you just look at it, you can see how bad it is.  I was also making an assumption that they were democrats because I didn't want to do a bunch of research for a pointless argument.

How do people get out of doing  background Checks where it's required?  Businesses don't want to get cited.  It would take a complete idiot (who I think should get their guns taken away, just FYI) to leave both guns and ammo within grasp of children.

If they want to redo background checks correctly, (currently it isn't) I'm fine with that.  I don't want murderers and crazies to have guns.  I'm of the opinion that you can have your toys unless you abuse them.


And what all this of providing a source, and when I use it against you, you're best argument is "hey, laws aren't enforced and check who wrote it"?  You must know I'm right but not want to Admit it...

Again, the article is written with links to over 40 sources, so no I'm not just saying, "Look who wrote it" as a justification as using it for a source. I agree with redoing background checks, and no, they and other parts of gun safety laws are not often followed (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=113594508). The problem with idiots getting guns is you can't reliably test for idiocy

[abstractApathist]

Actually, they are following the law.  They don't have to do background checks at gun shows.  Assuming the background check gets fixed, I'd be fine with changing it so they have to check no matter who/where the sale is happening.

And once again, you ignore the main points I had and focused on the small irrelevant things.

Thank you for having sources and being civil.  +1

+1 to you as well for a well-argued case.

I know you can't test for idiocy, but it will eventually show.  You can test for crazy and felonies though.

The problem is people who snap and suddenly go crazy without having anything on their record beforehand. :/

Dc isn't proof?  Detroit isn't proof?

I assume this was a point I missed. The problem with using individual cities is the same one we had during prohibition: the vice bleeds in from outside sources (although prohibition was stupid).

[DirtyMustachio]

Both of those are good points, but it isn't big enough to make a large difference.  Detroit and do both are very strict on guns, yet they have extremely high crime rates.  Leakage might explain some, but the rest is still a lot.

Let's not forget the father of them all Chicago

[Piotr]

Lol

[abstractApathist]

Comparing statistics of crime rate of one country to another is impossible or at best difficult, because crime is affected by plethora of different factors, not only access to guns.

It is far easier to compare crime rates of the same country or state which changed their gun ownership laws, as most of the other relevant factors remain the same. Statistics confirm that when a state such as Florida relaxes their gun control laws, crime rate goes down.

One of logical explanations of this scientifically proven real life phenomenon is that in general, guns in hands of criminals increase crime rate, guns in hands of law obeying citizens decrease crime rate, obviously. When you ban guns you only ban them for law obeying citizens, thus the ratio of legal vs. illegal guns changes, making it easier for the criminals to commit crimes.


For me, this discussion is pointless as I observe 'no victim, no crime' and 'do not punish people for crimes you are afraid they may commit'. Do not break law in prevention of lawbreaking: interfering with free trade of any tools is prohibited under iMtG Law.

The American Journal of Public Health has released a study which shows that the idea of gun ownership leading to decreased crime rates is false: http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/abs/10.2105/AJPH.2013.301409?journalCode=ajph&

As does the KFF: http://kff.org/other/state-indicator/firearms-death-rate-per-100000/

And numerous FBI reports: http://m.deathpenaltyinfo.org/node/236

I agree that this conversation isn't getting anywhere, however. As I see it, guns are weapons which make victims out of our entire society by putting is all at higher risk of dying by homicide. More often than not, the citizens who we hope will defend people from murderers don't (can you name any mass shooters stopped by an armed citizen?).

[Wingnut]

Comparing statistics of crime rate of one country to another is impossible or at best difficult, because crime is affected by plethora of different factors, not only access to guns.

It is far easier to compare crime rates of the same country or state which changed their gun ownership laws, as most of the other relevant factors remain the same. Statistics confirm that when a state such as Florida relaxes their gun control laws, crime rate goes down.

One of logical explanations of this scientifically proven real life phenomenon is that in general, guns in hands of criminals increase crime rate, guns in hands of law obeying citizens decrease crime rate, obviously. When you ban guns you only ban them for law obeying citizens, thus the ratio of legal vs. illegal guns changes, making it easier for the criminals to commit crimes.


For me, this discussion is pointless as I observe 'no victim, no crime' and 'do not punish people for crimes you are afraid they may commit'. Do not break law in prevention of lawbreaking: interfering with free trade of any tools is prohibited under iMtG Law.

More often than not, the citizens who we hope will defend people from murderers don't (can you name any mass shooters stopped by an armed citizen?).

No we cannot because those situations do not get publicized by the media like the mass murders do. Publicizing things like this would not help "the cause".

[Piotr]

Lol

[Piotr]

Lol

[Piotr]

Lol

[abstractApathist]

Gun is the best personal defence tool known to women, given no more than 2h training. True or false?


It is unknown how many rape crimes could be prevented if women were not denied this very easy to use, safe and powerful tool of self defence.


I must think of the children, I have two daughters myself and I want them to be able to defend themselves against sexual offenders.

False! While it may seem like it would help a woman defend herself, a woman is thrice as likely to be murdered by her intimate acquaintance if she owns a gun than if she doesn't. Intimate partners kill by far more women than strangers (16x more). http://www.vpc.org/studies/wmmw2012.pdf

Rates of forcible rape are also highest in states with the most guns and least gun control:  http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s0308.pdf

[GamenDork]

Gun is the best personal defence tool known to women, given no more than 2h training. True or false?


It is unknown how many rape crimes could be prevented if women were not denied this very easy to use, safe and powerful tool of self defence.


I must think of the children, I have two daughters myself and I want them to be able to defend themselves against sexual offenders.

False! While it may seem like it would help a woman defend herself, a woman is thrice as likely to be murdered by her intimate acquaintance if she owns a gun than if she doesn't. Intimate partners kill by far more women than strangers (16x more). http://www.vpc.org/studies/wmmw2012.pdf

Rates of forcible rape are also highest in states with the most guns and least gun control:  http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s0308.pdf

Great point; too bad I can't give +1's yet... Only 13 posts to go!

However, I interpret Piotr's point as women carrying a gun on them with a permit, and not letting an intimate partner use the weapon (ex: not telling the combination to the gun safe). With guns, they may feel safer regardless if they are in a violent relationship or not.

But, what do I know, I'm just a 'punk teenager' with an opinion to a complicated question with a complicated answer.

[DrEggman789]

I bowed out of this cause I got a couple karma pings and barely have any to begin with, but I've been reading.

I like that everybody for the most part is civil. The iMTG community is beast.