Gun Control is Completely Useless.

JamesBondo

House Member
Mar 3, 2012
4,158
37
48
I don't envy you one bit, what you are trying to do is truly an uphill battle. To observe issues and characteristics of the .0022% , then project it as set of conclusions on the other 99.99% is truly a difficult challenge. Statistics, logic, and correlation are not on your side.


We are talking about drunk drivers here, and you want to impose vehicle restrictions on non-drinking demographics.
 

L Gilbert

Winterized
Nov 30, 2006
23,738
107
63
71
50 acres in Kootenays BC
the-brights.net
The UK has some of the tightest gun control laws in the world and one of the lowest rates of gun homicides.
uhuh Everything's so nice and peaceful in the UK these days, yep.
"April 17, 2013
A teenage girl on her way to school has been stabbed and killed aboard a bus in the UK, media reports said today.
The death of the 16-year-old schoolgirl in the morning rush hour in Birmingham adds another victim to the disturbing list of knifing fatalities in Britain, totaling 200. That's nearly one killing a day.
Knife crimes continue to be a persistent problem in Britain.
Data presented to lawmakers in November show that in the year to June 2012 there were 29,613 recorded offenses involving knives or other sharp instruments.
There were 200 murders using a sharp instrument in 2011-2012, accounting for 39 percent of all murders.
Police have launched a hunt for the attacker of the 16-year-old, the Guardian reports. Officers are looking for a suspect described as a black male in his late teens or early twenties wearing a jacket with a tiger, or similar, large motif on the back and dark colored trousers."

That's not including injuries.
 

Cobalt_Kid

Council Member
Feb 3, 2007
1,760
17
38
The topic is gun control and whether or not it's useless, not about stopping all forms of violence, which almost certainly is impossible.

It should be obvious to anyone that guns present a hazard that most other common weapons don't.

For instance about 30 years ago while visiting relatives in the US my dad had a disturbing encounter. He went to a grocery store and upon returning to his vehicle looked into the car parked beside his. In the drivers seat there was a complete stranger pointing a pistol at my dad. Now if that had been a knife or some other weapon that would be intimidating enough, but if the guy had just put a little pressure on the trigger my dad could have died that day. Guns give violent capabilities that many other weapons don't.
 

L Gilbert

Winterized
Nov 30, 2006
23,738
107
63
71
50 acres in Kootenays BC
the-brights.net
According to Feldman the NRA is closer to a religion than anything else. I enjoy shooting and I respect people's freedoms in America, it's what the country is all about. But there has to be some way to de-escalate the constant gun violence.
Yeah, keep the things out of the hands of nutbars and incompetents.

The topic is gun control and whether or not it's useless, not about stopping all forms of violence, which almost certainly is impossible.

It should be obvious to anyone that guns present a hazard that most other common weapons don't.

For instance about 30 years while visiting relatives in the US my dad had a disturbing encounter. He went to a grocery store and upon returning to his vehicle looked into the car parked beside his. In the drivers seat there was a complete stranger pointing a pistol at my dad. Now if that had been a knife or some other weapon that would be intimidating enough, but if the guy had just put a little pressure on the trigger my dad could have died that day. Guns give violent capabilities that many other weapons don't.
Hey, you were the one that was inferring that all is peaceful and calm in the UK.
 

Colpy

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 5, 2005
21,887
848
113
70
Saint John, N.B.
The basic purpose of firearms since their inception has been the projection of deadly force, whether against game or other people, ?

Yep.

Which is EXACTLY why they belong in the hands of the people. They are power.

And whether or not millions of Americans use that ability yearly isn't the issue I think, the issue is those thousands of Americas who do use it each year.

?

A million Americans a year use them in self-defense. That according to a CLINTON era Dep't of Justice study.

Pretending there is no problem and therefore no reason for discussion and possible compromise is going to create a political and social tension that could have a more negative effect on 2nd Amendment rights in the long run than finding a middle ground now. Many people in the US aren't deeply concerned about the potential of firearms being used to kill and maim large numbers of citizens a year, they're concerned about the actual killing and wounding going on constantly. How can anyone seriously argue there is no chronic problem when the facts show there is?

There is no middle ground on the classification of firearms, large capacity magazines, or registration.

Compromise on these, and you are done. The gov't will never get out of your gun locker until you have no more firearms.
 

Cobalt_Kid

Council Member
Feb 3, 2007
1,760
17
38
Yep.

Which is EXACTLY why they belong in the hands of the people. They are power.

The intent of the 2nd Amendment wasn't to give the citizens of the US political power through the possession of firearms, it was to ensure the security of the state. Able bodied men were actually required to belong to militias in the early days and one of the requirements of being in a militia was owning a military grade weapon.

Access to the political system is supposed to give power to Americans, not the ability to bump off the president or other officials that some people might not like.

A million Americans a year use them in self-defense. That according to a CLINTON era Dep't of Justice study.

There are better ways to create public safety than forcing citizens to defend themselves, how about some sane drug policies to start with as much of crime is driven by the drug trade and people needing constant fixes.

There is no middle ground on the classification of firearms, large capacity magazines, or registration.

Compromise on these, and you are done. The gov't will never get out of your gun locker until you have no more firearms.

There's a lot of room on developing much more effective gun laws and policies, for one thing the gun industry shouldn't be in the drivers seat when it comes to them.
 

CDNBear

Custom Troll
Sep 24, 2006
43,839
207
63
Ontario
The intent of the 2nd Amendment wasn't to give the citizens of the US political power through the possession of firearms, it was to ensure the security of the state. Able bodied men were actually required to belong to militias in the early days and one of the requirements of being in a militia was owning a military grade weapon.

Access to the political system is supposed to give power to Americans, not the ability to bump off the president or other officials that some people might not like.
Would explaining the errors in that including your obvious ignorance of the Declaration of Independence help at all?
 

Cobalt_Kid

Council Member
Feb 3, 2007
1,760
17
38
Would explaining the errors in that including your obvious ignorance of the Declaration of Independence help at all?

The 2nd Amendment isn't in the Declaration of Independence, it's not even in the original Constitution, it's in the Bill of Rights that came later that was produced due to the actions of people like Patrick Henry.
 

CDNBear

Custom Troll
Sep 24, 2006
43,839
207
63
Ontario
The 2nd Amendment isn't in the Declaration of Independence, it's not even in the Constitution, it's in the Bill of Rights that came later that was produced due to the actions of people like Patrick Henry.
I'm aware of all that thanks.

Thanks for inadvertently answering my question too.
 

JamesBondo

House Member
Mar 3, 2012
4,158
37
48
The intent of the 2nd Amendment wasn't to give the citizens of the US political power through the possession of firearms, it was to ensure the security of the state. Able bodied men were actually required to belong to militias in the early days and one of the requirements of being in a militia was owning a military grade weapon.

Access to the political system is supposed to give power to Americans, not the ability to bump off the president or other officials that some people might not like.



There are better ways to create public safety than forcing citizens to defend themselves, how about some sane drug policies to start with as much of crime is driven by the drug trade and people needing constant fixes.



There's a lot of room on developing much more effective gun laws and policies, for one thing the gun industry shouldn't be in the drivers seat when it comes to them.
The historical link between the English Bill of Rights and the Second Amendment,which both codify an existing right and do not create a new one,has been acknowledged by the U.S. Supreme Court. In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the Supreme Court did not accept this view, remarking that the English right at the time of the passing of the English Bill of Rights was "clearly an individual right, having nothing whatsoever to do with service in the militia" and that it was a right not to be disarmed by the Crown and was not the granting of a new right to have arms. [21
 

Cobalt_Kid

Council Member
Feb 3, 2007
1,760
17
38
The historical link between the English Bill of Rights and the Second Amendment,which both codify an existing right and do not create a new one,has been acknowledged by the U.S. Supreme Court. In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the Supreme Court did not accept this view, remarking that the English right at the time of the passing of the English Bill of Rights was "clearly an individual right, having nothing whatsoever to do with service in the militia" and that it was a right not to be disarmed by the Crown and was not the granting of a new right to have arms. [21

The 2nd Amendment as written starts by declaring the intent was the security of the state through the right to have armed militias. As that's obviously no longer the situation with the large US standing military the issue now becomes one of public safety and the threat posed by constant chronic gun violence.
 

JamesBondo

House Member
Mar 3, 2012
4,158
37
48
John Locke argued that "moral principles and obligations existed before the creation of the State, so that men could change the State if it failed to uphold these principles .... " THE Declaration of Independence a right to change government. In that document Americans forthrightly proclaimed the Lockean philosophy that governments were formed to secure "certain unalienable rights" and that "whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government."
 

CDNBear

Custom Troll
Sep 24, 2006
43,839
207
63
Ontario
The 2nd Amendment as written starts by declaring the intent was the security of the state through the right to have armed militias. As that's obviously no longer the situation with the large US standing military the issue now becomes one of public safety and the threat posed by constant chronic gun violence.
Ummm, you really should pay attention to what James posted below...

John Locke argued that "moral principles and obligations existed before the creation of the State, so that men could change the State if it failed to uphold these principles .... " THE Declaration of Independence a right to change government. In that document Americans forthrightly proclaimed the Lockean philosophy that governments were formed to secure "certain unalienable rights" and that "whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government."
I bet he still won't get it.
 

Cobalt_Kid

Council Member
Feb 3, 2007
1,760
17
38
John Locke argued that "moral principles and obligations existed before the creation of the State, so that men could change the State if it failed to uphold these principles .... " THE Declaration of Independence a right to change government. In that document Americans forthrightly proclaimed the Lockean philosophy that governments were formed to secure "certain unalienable rights" and that "whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government."

Right, so if the gun industry and its allies in the NRA are creating a threat to peoples rights by introducing harmful weapons into US society then the people should be able to change laws to protect themselves.

At the very least there should be a meaningful debate on the place of firearms in US society, cities like Chicago have had bans for a long time which haven't been ineffective due to outside access to arms.
 

CDNBear

Custom Troll
Sep 24, 2006
43,839
207
63
Ontario
Do you have anything cogent to add to this debate?
I tried, you got all confused and desided to babble about how the 2nd Amendment isn't in the Declaration, and then went on to babble about Patrick Henry. Then I read your silly response to James and realized you aren't capable of any meaningful debate.