Anyone like to shoot?

[sanantone]

I don't agree with Ironheadjack or Peter. Sorry. There are some issues I have with Peter's argument, but it would take more time than I have to explain. The problem with Ironheadjack is his comparison of states. When conducting research, you always have to control for demographic differences. California is very different from Vermont. One thing Peter is right about is that there are fundamental questions that have to be examined. Are some cities and states more violent because they have gun control laws, or are did they pass gun control laws because they are more violent? One would have to examine the crime trends for that particular state or city after the change in law and control for overall historical trends in crime, increase or decrease of police presence, changes in demographics over time, etc. Answering these questions is not a simple process. These problems also apply when comparing the U.S. to other countries.

[ironheadjack]

I don't agree with Ironheadjack or Peter. Sorry. There are some issues I have with Peter's argument, but it would take more time than I have to explain. The problem with Ironheadjack is his comparison of states. When conducting research, you always have to control for demographic differences. California is very different from Vermont. One thing Peter is right about is that there are fundamental questions that have to be examined. Are some cities and states more violent because they have gun control laws, or are did they pass gun control laws because they are more violent? One would have to examine the crime trends for that particular state or city after the change in law and control for overall historical trends in crime, increase or decrease of police presence, changes in demographics over time, etc. Answering these questions is not a simple process. These problems also apply when comparing the U.S. to other countries.

Sigh. I had a few paragraphs written but it disappeared somehow.


I meant to conclude my last post with a point, but I wrote so much I got all scrambled.


There are underlying causes to gun violence in the inner city and within the minds of spree killers. We have to confront those issues and figure out why certain people can kill others with no regard for the consequences. Getting rid of guns doesn't stop murderers from murdering, it just takes one option out of their toolbag. We need to address the deeper issues that create murderers. But no one wants to have that discussion because it is hard, it's much easier to say lets just ban guns and you can feel good about yourself for "doing something".

[bluebooger]

video - with sound
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XRItUMbuRLQ

gif -- no sound
Star Trek Animated GIF

[merolpn]

Wow, there was much written on this thread in the past day or so.

One thing that seems to have been missed or maybe I didn't read it while trying to catch up is that:

1) The founding fathers were terrified of standing armies in times of peace. There was significant hesitation by some in creating a "Federal" government due to the fear that military power could be concentrated in too few men. James Madison addressed this in the Federalist papers by saying something like the largest standing army the federal government could realistically keep would be something like 10,000 troops. He went on to say that opposed to those "Federal" troops would be 500,000 citizens with THEIR arms and they would be led by men they choose. Basically because the American people were armed, NO army could be turned against them.

That to me, does not sound like the "National Guard" which is commonly used by anti gun people to say that the Guard IS the "Militia." It is not. The Militia reference in the second amendment is any able bodied male. The original wording was probably more specific to "White" or "Free" able bodied males. I would have to reread. The 14th amendment settled that to mean everyone born or naturalized in the United States.

2) The words "well regulated" in the 2nd amendment DO NOT mean regulations or laws. "A well regulated militia" really means a properly organized, equipped and lead group of citizens. George Washington spoke of this in a letter to his wife (or possibly Abigail Adams) that he needed to explain to one of his men (Isreal Putnam) what it means to properly "regulate his army" after a poor job of leading it. (The exact wording escapes me now.)

The 2nd Amendment was NEVER about hunting, target shooting or collecting firearms. (So called 'Sporting Purposes') It was SOLELY meant as an ARMED response by the PEOPLE to any future regime that may come into power and misuse military power. Just because the military hasn't really been used against the people doesn't mean that we should just give it up because our elections are peaceful. I think of the 2nd amendment as more of an insurance policy that they do go peacefully. There was an instance in Tennessee (I think) of armed citizens contesting a corrupt election. In the end they won. I may be wrong on the state.

The Supreme Court (I think in Heller) stated that modern firearms were protected by the 2nd amendment just as modern forms of communication were protected by the 1st. So the whole "They only meant muskets" goes out the window. The founding fathers never wanted to see government troops more well armed than the "People." Personally when I hear some politician saying that certain firearms should "only" be in the hands of law enforcement or the military, it really bothers me and I think we have forgotten our history.

[Hunter91]

video - with sound
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XRItUMbuRLQ

gif -- no sound
Star Trek Animated GIF

This is the greatest thing I've ever seen, and it clearly solves all debates about everything lol.

[Peter123456789]

Sigh. I had a few paragraphs written but it disappeared somehow.


I meant to conclude my last post with a point, but I wrote so much I got all scrambled.


There are underlying causes to gun violence in the inner city and within the minds of spree killers. We have to confront those issues and figure out why certain people can kill others with no regard for the consequences. Getting rid of guns doesn't stop murderers from murdering, it just takes one option out of their toolbag. We need to address the deeper issues that create murderers. But no one wants to have that discussion because it is hard, it's much easier to say lets just ban guns and you can feel good about yourself for "doing something".

I too just wrote a lengthy response and it disappeared. This forum can be frustrating.

Agreed: To really get my point across would require a very long exposition and it wouldn't fit this forum.. But here's a snippet, anyway.

But I'm afraid you're giving the human species too much credit in your approach to solving this problem. We are essentially animals; animals who have mastered tools- one being the gun, or ''hand cannon'', which was invented for warfare. I agree that there are underlying causes for gun violence- self control being one of them. But do you really think that as a species we are capable of such perfection where everyone will own a killing tool and use it only in the rare perfect situation? The bottom line is that we don't need guns for anything beside sport shooting and we shouldn't have them at home. I suppose it's advanced thinking to understand that guns have no place in a forward thinking society. Nobody is trying to ''feel good about themselves for doing something'' - people are trying to take guns off the streets to cut back on gun murders. So far, the NRA has succeeded in not letting this happen.
[In case you are reverting to the old argument about the use of the tool, I provided damning evidence that it is harder to kill someone with a knife than with a gun.] -see previous post

Ironheadjack, are you really comparing VT with NJ? This logic will get shot down every time as demographics are different. Present me with real evidence which supports your belief that guns make you safer. Having such a machine in your home puts you, your family, whoever is in your home, at a risk. I'm not sure why this needs explaining? Perhaps you should have your head examined. Possessing a gun makes you less safe not more safe - Tulsa FBI | Examiner.com
Your concluding logic implies a fundamental belief that we essentially live in a lawless society, where evil dwells. This foundation of thought is the root problem, I suppose. How do you expect change to occur with this ideology?
My original post stated my belief that guns kill people - as seen last week in Chapel Hill, North Carolina. Try to tell me that the killings would have taken place if this mentally ill person did not have access to this killing machine that he was itching to use.
We don't need guns folks - they cause situations like above and end lives.

The best answer to this problem is to explain to people that owning a gun contributes to the problem. But I guess everyone thinks they are an exception. We need to spread more research, develop an education plan for guns, and develop an effective gun control plan.

[Peter123456789]

Wow, there was much written on this thread in the past day or so.

One thing that seems to have been missed or maybe I didn't read it while trying to catch up is that:

1) The founding fathers were terrified of standing armies in times of peace. There was significant hesitation by some in creating a "Federal" government due to the fear that military power could be concentrated in too few men. James Madison addressed this in the Federalist papers by saying something like the largest standing army the federal government could realistically keep would be something like 10,000 troops. He went on to say that opposed to those "Federal" troops would be 500,000 citizens with THEIR arms and they would be led by men they choose. Basically because the American people were armed, NO army could be turned against them.

That to me, does not sound like the "National Guard" which is commonly used by anti gun people to say that the Guard IS the "Militia." It is not. The Militia reference in the second amendment is any able bodied male. The original wording was probably more specific to "White" or "Free" able bodied males. I would have to reread. The 14th amendment settled that to mean everyone born or naturalized in the United States.

2) The words "well regulated" in the 2nd amendment DO NOT mean regulations or laws. "A well regulated militia" really means a properly organized, equipped and lead group of citizens. George Washington spoke of this in a letter to his wife (or possibly Abigail Adams) that he needed to explain to one of his men (Isreal Putnam) what it means to properly "regulate his army" after a poor job of leading it. (The exact wording escapes me now.)

The 2nd Amendment was NEVER about hunting, target shooting or collecting firearms. (So called 'Sporting Purposes') It was SOLEY meant as an ARMED response by the PEOPLE to any future regime that may come into power and misuse military power. Just because the military hasn't really been used against the people doesn't mean that we should just give it up because our elections are peaceful. I think of the 2nd amendment as more of an insurance police that they do go peafeully. There was an instance in Tennesee (I think) of armed citezens contesting a corrupt election. In the end they won. I may be wrong on the state.

The Supreme Court (I think in Heller) stated that modern firearms were protected by the 2nd amendment just as modern forms of communication were protected by the 1st. So the whole "They only meant muskets" goes out the window. The founding fathers never wanted to see government troops more well armed than the "People." Personally when I hear some politician saying that certain firearms should "only" be in the hands of law enforcement or the military, it really bothers me and I think we have forgotten our history.

This is a nice post about constitutional rights. Sadly they don't apply anymore as times and circumstances have changed for everyone.

[Peter123456789]

I too just wrote a lengthy response and it disappeared. This forum can be frustrating.

Agreed: To really get my point across would require a very long exposition and it wouldn't fit this forum.. But here's a snippet, anyway.

But I'm afraid you're giving the human species too much credit in your approach to solving this problem. We are essentially animals; animals who have mastered tools- one being the gun, or ''hand cannon'', which was invented for warfare. I agree that there are underlying causes for gun violence- self control being one of them. But do you really think that as a species we are capable of such perfection where everyone will own a killing tool and use it only in the rare perfect situation? The bottom line is that we don't need guns for anything beside sport shooting and we shouldn't have them at home. I suppose it's advanced thinking to understand that guns have no place in a forward thinking society. Nobody is trying to ''feel good about themselves for doing something'' - people are trying to take guns off the streets to cut back on gun murders. So far, the NRA has succeeded in not letting this happen.
[In case you are reverting to the old argument about the use of the tool, I provided damning evidence that it is harder to kill someone with a knife than with a gun.] -see previous post

Ironheadjack, are you really comparing VT with NJ? This logic will get shot down every time as demographics are different. Present me with real evidence which supports your belief that guns make you safer. Having such a machine in your home puts you, your family, whoever is in your home, at a risk. I'm not sure why this needs explaining? Perhaps you should have your head examined. Possessing a gun makes you less safe not more safe - Tulsa FBI | Examiner.com
Your concluding logic implies a fundamental belief that we essentially live in a lawless society, where evil dwells. This foundation of thought is the root problem, I suppose. How do you expect change to occur with this ideology?
My original post stated my belief that guns kill people - as seen last week in Chapel Hill, North Carolina. Try to tell me that the killings would not have taken place if this mentally ill person did not have access to this killing machine that he was itching to use.
We don't need guns folks - they cause situations like above and end lives.

The best answer to this problem is to explain to people that owning a gun contributes to the problem. But I guess everyone thinks they are an exception. We need to spread more research, develop an education plan for guns, and develop an effective gun control plan.

To echo my previous post: Researchers scared away from studying gun violence - HT Health

[bluebooger]

This is a nice post about constitutional rights. Sadly they don't apply anymore as times and circumstances have changed for everyone.

exactly

not having a standing army in this day and age would be ridiculous

limiting the standing army to 10000 troops would be ridiculous

"The founding fathers never wanted to see government troops more well armed than the 'People.' "

the founding fathers had no concept of 50 caliber machine guns or grenades

I'm all for the 2nd amendment
I think every school should have a shooting range and every student should be required to learn how to use a rifle and use them safely,
but there is no way the general public should have access to the same weapons as the military

[SteveFoerster]

But do you really think that as a species we are capable of such perfection where everyone will own a killing tool and use it only in the rare perfect situation? The bottom line is that we don't need guns for anything beside sport shooting and we shouldn't have them at home. I suppose it's advanced thinking to understand that guns have no place in a forward thinking society.

In that case, would your disarmament legislation apply just as readily to police and military? They're essentially imperfect animals too, right?