Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[NullForceOmega]

It was never a good reason.  The police here in the U.S. were frankly better able to handle this shit just a few decades ago, and the nation was just as heavily armed then.

@Reelya: The U.S. is 87th in homicide rates, almost every single nation in Africa rates higher.  And they individually have fewer citizens.  Guns are not the problem here.  The problem is social, and that is what needs to be addressed.

[Reelya]

Really? The peak US gun homicides were in 1992-1993 just before the Brady Bill was introduced that made it hard to obtain handguns.

I'd say that did in fact work given the huge decline that started right after the law was changed - and the fact that the decline only occured for handguns, which were the sole type of weapon regulated by the Brady Bill. Other types of guns (ones not included in the control legislation) didn't see any change whatsoever, so it's hard to claim that the gun deaths would have decreased even without the bill.

 That shit does work, and you probably know only half the number of friends killed in gun crime than you would if the Brady Bill hadn't been in place. So think about that before slamming all gun control - you have a non-zero amount of friends alive today who wouldn't be if they didn't enact handgun control in the 1990s.

[NullForceOmega]

I said 'a few', but I guess I really meant several decades.  Go back to the fifties or earlier, hell even the sixties.  There is no question that there has been impact, but you also need to realize that the U.S. also reports gun suicides in it's death by firearm listings, and most other nations do not.

edit: There is a period from before WWII to about '60 (so I suppose my statement of a 'few' decades ago is incorrect) where the rates bottomed out, which we are only now getting back to.

Also, don't throw hyperbole at me about whether or not my friends would still be alive, you have absolutely no way to know that, and I don't appreciate you trying to use that kind of emotional tactic on me.  It won't work.

[hector13]

snip'd

Don't give a damn.  We have a right to bear arms, and you will have to kill us to take it away.  Shocker, because we have guns, that is exponentially more difficult.

Having guns would make it exponentially easier, methinks. School shooters certainly seem to think so.

Also, until relatively recently you had the right to own a person. Swings and roundabouts though, eh.

It was never a good reason.  The police here in the U.S. were frankly better able to handle this shit just a few decades ago, and the nation was just as heavily armed then.

@Reelya: The U.S. is 87th in homicide rates, almost every single nation in Africa rates higher.  And they individually have fewer citizens.  Guns are not the problem here.  The problem is social, and that is what needs to be addressed.

In homicide.

In gun violence, you’re thirty-first, alongside countries like Thailand and Iraq. Statistics to be proud of, fo’ sho.

Read my edit Reelya.  I have been shot at.  I have had friends die to gun crime.  I. DO. NOT. CARE. And what someone in a disarmed country thinks is completely meaningless to me.

*star spangled banner blares as people shoot guns in the air*

I CAN’T HEAR YOU OVER THE SOUND OF MY FREEDOM, PEASANT.

AMERICAFUCKYEAH

[ChairmanPoo]

@Reelya: The U.S. is 87th in homicide rates, almost every single nation in Africa rates higher. 

 And Afghanistan and Syria too. Forgot to mention those 

[NullForceOmega]

snip'd

Yes, the fact that over a hundred and fifty years ago slavery existed in the U.S. has any meaning in a discussion regarding firearm deaths, well reasoned.  There is no person living in the U.S. who has direct memory of slavery.  Further, 'gun violence' is pretty vaguely defined, would you care to source that, with references?

As a U.S. citizen and former U.S. soldier, I do have pride in my country.  That pride does not overcome my pragmatism however, and in the balance of available evidence my pragmatism says that disarming is a bad idea and should be opposed.

Further, I would kill to know why people from other nations seem to think that they should have a voice in U.S. policy when they (rightly) aggressively oppose our involvement in theirs.  Bluntly, our nation, our problems.  We'll either sort them out or we won't.

[ChairmanPoo]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qLC48ljmZ78

[NullForceOmega]

I haven't watched The Simpsons in well over a decade, and I really don't see any relation to my argument.  Tho' I suppose that could have been a sad that you were sharing without further context, if so I apologize for my misunderstanding.

[Rowanas]

I hold the equally reasonable view that people in favour of slavery ought to be enslaved, people in favour of firearms ought to be shot, and people in favour of icecream ought to be stuffed with icecream until they explode in a goopy mess.

I am most bothered by the eternal misinterpretation of "the right to bear arms" meaning individual citizens rather than state militias, and that some Americans will defend to the death their right to have firearms, while ignoring the elements of the constitution that they don't like, like the separation of church and state, the 12th Amendment etc etc.

I'm probably the most Anti-American person on this site, or indeed, within a mile radius of myself at any given time, and you can pry my hatred out of my cold, dead fingers (just like a gun!)

[NullForceOmega]

The Supreme Court itself has upheld the interpretation that the right to bear arms extends to all citizens, quite recently in fact.  Whether or not you agree with that is fundamentally irrelevant in the face of the single highest authority on constitutional law's ruling.

Further, I support the Constitution in it's totality (especially the separation of church and state, they have no business interfering with each other), and if that document is ever altered to remove the right to bear arms, I will support that as well.  But unless it is, I will oppose that idea violently.

And you are completely welcome to your hatred of America (most days I do too), and from the sounds of it anything that is in opposition to your personal worldviews. Hell, I won't even get upset over it, because it is meaningless, just as my own views are.

[Rowanas]

The Supreme Court itself has upheld the interpretation that the right to bear arms extends to all citizens, quite recently in fact.  Whether or not you agree with that is fundamentally irrelevant in the face of the single highest authority on constitutional law's ruling.

Further, I support the Constitution in it's totality, and if that document is ever altered to remove the right to bear arms, I will support that as well.  But unless it is, I will oppose that idea violently.

And you are completely welcome to your hatred of America, and from the sounds of it anything that is in opposition to your personal worldviews. Hell, I won't even get upset over it, because it is meaningless, just as my own views are.

My god!  The Americans voted in favour of the ruling that doesn't cause a total riot and royally piss off thousands of angry gun owners? Well then, the issue is settled.

Making out that I hate anything I don't personally agree with is a little bit of a dick move, eh?  And no, my hatred of America is unique and derived from an examination of your culture.

[Maximum Spin]

I am most bothered by the eternal misinterpretation of "the right to bear arms" meaning individual citizens rather than state militias

This is a popular meme, but historically wrong. There is ample documentation proving that the phrase was always interpreted, in the founding era, as referring to individual citizens; in fact there was no such thing as "state militias" separate from "individual citizens with guns willing to use them in the service of their state" at the time.

[NullForceOmega]

There was no vote involved.  The Supreme Court is a judicial body that arbitrates interpretation of law according to the Constitution.  They are appointed and hold their positions for life (or retirement).  I'm not going to claim that they aren't politically biased, but they are by no means involved in the popularity contest that is U.S. politics.  Edit: also, what Maximum Spin said^^, there is staggering evidence that the intention was always to allow for an armed populace, right there in the Declaration of Independence in fact.

And directly from your own words: "people in favour of slavery ought to be enslaved, people in favour of firearms ought to be shot, and people in favour of icecream ought to be stuffed with icecream until they explode in a goopy mess".  That certainly sounds like you apply your hatred in a pretty equal manner to anything you disagree with.  But if I misunderstood I apologize, I tend to be extremely bad at interpersonal communication.

You can hate the U.S. forever, for whatever reasons you desire, it still doesn't mean anything.

[Kagus]

Personally I'm fine with the personal ownership of firearms, so long as due process is observed and the person in question can prove that they're capable of handling the things with the respect they deserve.

Even the licensing and tests regulating the driving of self-powered vehicles don't remove the risk of some drunk, daft (or homicidally-inclined) idiot getting their hands on the steering wheel and killing or severely injuring several people, but at least it's something to block the worst offenders.

And... wait a minute, why are we talking about this in here? This is starting to look like a thread hijacking.

[NullForceOmega]

And yet, motor vehicles kill more U.S. citizens every year than firearms.  Interesting (and sad), isn't it?

And while the right to bear arms stuff is pretty off-topic, the entire gun debate and violent crime thing certainly qualifies as a sad, I think.