bbauska wrote:Since I will not be dissuaded from my opinion either, I would like to submit the following:

If you do not like guns, then don't have them. The 2nd Amendment in not saying that it is a mandatory carry provision. That is the great thing about choice. You don't have to partake. But that is not good enough for some. They not only want to ensure that they don't have guns, but want to make sure that everyone (except for those who choose to not follow the laws) don't have guns either.

Submit away, but seems to me that you are willfully ignoring the evidence from around the world that shows a more restricted and responsible attitude to firearms leads to a lot fewer deaths of innocent people from firearms.

It might also explain why your rate of death-by-cop is so high.

I do not consider you a member of the extreme left.

Cigarettes: CA is passing many laws prohibiting the smoking of tobacco (but not marijuana) because of 2nd hand smoke.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_smoking_bans_in_the_United_States#.C2.A0California

Guns : Self explanatory... There are those who wish to ban guns for the public completely (I think we agree this is true)
http://americablog.com/2012/12/its-time-to-ban-guns-completely.html

School Selection: People are not able to select the schools they choose. Poor people cannot move their children to another school that may be doing better, because of cost issues. A voucher system with the finances set to the student, not the school would allow poor parents to find options to better their child's chances at success.

Alternative opinions: I use the Firefox CEO (Eich) as an example here. He was a CEO, and a darn good one. He had an opinion about what marriage meant to him, and paid money to a campaign that supported his opinion. The board forced him out because of his opinion that did not agree with his. Imagine, if you will, what would have happened if a single mother got pregnant and said she had an abortion to "solve the problem" and her employer terminated her because he did not agree with her choices. That employer would be railed against! The extreme left does not tolerate alternative views

Religious Freedoms: A San Diego school allows consideratiojn for the needs of Muslim children to pray, but schools do not allow a student to pray to the Judeo-Christian God without causing a large uproar or the ACLU gets involved. I see this as an issue of discrimination against Christianity.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0712/p01s03-ussc.html

It would be so much easier to just allow people to make the choices they would like to have in their own lives, and not worry about others. I always thought pro-choice was a very important.

Perhaps that is choices for some, and more choices for others. (To loosely quote Orwell)

Cross posting from Danivon:
I do not ignore those facts. If you carry a weapon, and you get into an altercation with a police officer, you:
DO NOT DRAW YOUR WEAPON
PLACE THE WEAPON ON THE GROUND
PLACE YOUR HANDS IN THE UPRIGHT AND LOCKED POSITION
SUBMIT COMPLETELY TO THE OFFICER
BRING ANY COMPLAINT TO THE OFFICERS SUPERVISOR

As for deaths of innocents, let us compare gun deaths to abortion and check the totals.

Innocent gun deaths are sad, yes, but it does not overrule the importance of the choice of gun ownership. In either case, a person has a choice as to own or not own a weapon. That comes with risks and responsibilities. If you choose to not have those risks or responsibilities, then please, do not own a weapon.

fate

The problem with the "it makes us safer" argument is that it does . . . until it doesn't.

Is this an argument for or against an armed public?
Having armed citizens in a public space makes us safer from bad people, until it doesn't. And shots ring out?


Fate

In situations where a person's life is in peril, a gun can make the difference.

Usually its the presence of a gun that genuinely imperils the people in the first place...

Fate

There are hundreds of such situations a year, probably more

.
There are 37,000 gun deaths a year in the US. Police have to act with extreme caution because they have to assume people they are encountered are armed, and this fear is contributing to behaviors that are alienating the police from the citizens they are supposed to protect.
The risks and the contribution to early death by the presence of so many guns is a fact. The counter that guns afford citizens protection may be correct on a anecdotal, individual case here and there. But in an actuarial sense Americans are much more frequently injured and killed from guns then they could possibly be saved from such.
The Waco Texas gunfight by bad people was not stopped by good people with guns.

bbauska wrote:Cross posting from Danivon:
I do not ignore those facts. If you carry a weapon, and you get into an altercation with a police officer, you:
DO NOT DRAW YOUR WEAPON
PLACE THE WEAPON ON THE GROUND
PLACE YOUR HANDS IN THE UPRIGHT AND LOCKED POSITION
SUBMIT COMPLETELY TO THE OFFICER
BRING ANY COMPLAINT TO THE OFFICERS SUPERVISOR

That's not the real issue I am thinking of (although I despise the idea of such a police state that means the penalty for not obeying a police officer as above can be exta-judicial killing).

The point is that because anyone can be armed, the police act as if anyone can be armed. And so they don't necessarily wait for a threat to emerge, they sometimes treat people as if they already are a deadly threat. Even if they are running away.

As for deaths of innocents, let us compare gun deaths to abortion and check the totals.

Or, let's not change the subject. Not that you aren't already bringing in a whole host of other issues like smoking at prayer for no reason other than to create an ideological dichotomy as opposed to looking at the specific issue the thread is about.

Innocent gun deaths are sad, yes, but it does not overrule the importance of the choice of gun ownership.

Why does it not "overrule" the "importance" of gun ownership. Would you concede that there is a level above which the numbers of innocent deaths from gun use might actually start to override the importance of gun ownership?

And what evidence (as opposed to anecdote, or "good guy with a gun theory") can you present to explain why the deaths of innocent people are a price worth paying for the freedom for all kinds of idiots to own various types of firearm?

In either case, a person has a choice as to own or not own a weapon. That comes with risks and responsibilities. If you choose to not have those risks or responsibilities, then please, do not own a weapon.

I don't want the risk of living in a society that is so paranoid and well armed. It's nice to visit, and most of you Americans are perfectly decent people, but if I lived there, I would feel that my choice to not be armed was a false choice. Just like my choice not to breathe in carcinogenic fumes from smokers is limited if there are not places where smoking is banned (to digress a little)

rickyp wrote:fate

The problem with the "it makes us safer" argument is that it does . . . until it doesn't.

Is this an argument for or against an armed public?

Nope, it is an argument against disarming the public. There is a difference. Try reading.

Having armed citizens in a public space makes us safer from bad people, until it doesn't. And shots ring out?

Once again, your public education is showing. I didn't say that.

One thing is clear: criminals violate laws, EVEN (and I know this will disappoint you) gun laws. Someone who is willing to rape, rob, and murder, is also willing to violate ANY gun law.

So, the answer is not to restrict the law-abiding citizen from making the choice to arm himself/herself.

Fate

In situations where a person's life is in peril, a gun can make the difference.

Usually its the presence of a gun that genuinely imperils the people in the first place...

A 240 lb. man mugs a woman with a knife. Is she safer because he doesn't have a gun?

Now, same scenario. Both are armed. Weight is no longer the difference maker.

Is it ideal? No. Ideal ended when the Garden of Eden was placed off-limits.

You lefties keep pretending utopia is possible; I'll stick with the real world.

There are 37,000 gun deaths a year in the US. Police have to act with extreme caution because they have to assume people they are encountered are armed, and this fear is contributing to behaviors that are alienating the police from the citizens they are supposed to protect.

Even if you ban guns, any officer who does not act with extreme caution is an idiot and will end up getting himself or someone else hurt.

The risks and the contribution to early death by the presence of so many guns is a fact.

This is rubbish. You can have a million guns in a city of 200 people and the death rate won't change. It's not the guns; it's the people.

The counter that guns afford citizens protection may be correct on a anecdotal, individual case here and there. But in an actuarial sense Americans are much more frequently injured and killed from guns then they could possibly be saved from such.

Maybe, maybe not. However, those who have experienced it have no desire to surrender their guns. So, keep your Canadian thinking in Canada.

The Waco Texas gunfight by bad people was not stopped by good people with guns.

No, and no amount of laws would have stopped it. Bad people do bad things. Laws don't make them good.

danivon wrote:And what evidence (as opposed to anecdote, or "good guy with a gun theory") can you present to explain why the deaths of innocent people are a price worth paying for the freedom for all kinds of idiots to own various types of firearm?

What evidence is there that a gun ban will stop bad people from shooting others? See Chicago. See Baltimore.

The places with the strictest gun control laws in the US are not the safest places. The "why" is up to you to sort out.

I don't want the risk of living in a society that is so paranoid and well armed. It's nice to visit, and most of you Americans are perfectly decent people, but if I lived there, I would feel that my choice to not be armed was a false choice.

I would not want to risk living in a society where free speech is punished. I would not want to live in a society wherein the State determines whether or not I can own a gun. I would not want to live in a society that discriminates against Christianity and promotes Islam. Most of you Britons seem to be perfectly decent people, but I'll stay here.

So, we're just where we belong. Perfect.

Doctor Fate wrote:Americans are not giving up their rights just because a few bikers want to shoot each other. We also don't give up our right to free speech or freedom of religion, unlike other countries (see "Uk" for example).

We have not "given up" our rights to such freedoms. We have greater rights to them now than before and definitely more than 200 years ago, but:

1) they are recognised as not being absolute, but limited
2) we recognise that one of the main limits to rights of one individual is those of another individual
3) the right to free expression does not mean the same thing as the right to not be criticised for what you say. Similarly, the right to religious belief is not the same as the right to all religious practice at all times (thus human sacrifice is out).

And no, you Americans will allow many many more such incidents to occur, more shootings by people who should never have been allowed near a gun, more kids picking up a parent's gun and shooting themselves or a family member, people killed by their own weapons, criminals having easy access to weapons just be stealing them from the law-abiding (or just buying then from a cheap and loosely regulated market). Because the abstract right that having guns represents is far more important than human lives.

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:Americans are not giving up their rights just because a few bikers want to shoot each other. We also don't give up our right to free speech or freedom of religion, unlike other countries (see "Uk" for example).

We have not "given up" our rights to such freedoms. We have greater rights to them now than before and definitely more than 200 years ago, but:

1) they are recognised as not being absolute, but limited
2) we recognise that one of the main limits to rights of one individual is those of another individual
3) the right to free expression does not mean the same thing as the right to not be criticised for what you say. Similarly, the right to religious belief is not the same as the right to all religious practice at all times (thus human sacrifice is out).

Actually, speech that offends anyone makes one subject to arrest in the UK. Challenge me on that.

And no, you Americans will allow many many more such incidents to occur, more shootings by people who should never have been allowed near a gun, more kids picking up a parent's gun and shooting themselves or a family member, people killed by their own weapons, criminals having easy access to weapons just be stealing them from the law-abiding (or just buying then from a cheap and loosely regulated market). Because the abstract right that having guns represents is far more important than human lives.

No, but I would not expect rational conversation from you on this topic. Guns are not more important than people. However, cars kill plenty of people. Alcohol kills plenty of people. it's not that either one is "bad," it is that sometimes people do foolish things with them.

As I said, you're in the right country--a place where the State is supreme and people are not secure in their homes. We are heading that way and I will fight that slide every step of the way.

Doctor Fate wrote:

danivon wrote:And what evidence (as opposed to anecdote, or "good guy with a gun theory") can you present to explain why the deaths of innocent people are a price worth paying for the freedom for all kinds of idiots to own various types of firearm?

What evidence is there that a gun ban will stop bad people from shooting others? See Chicago. See Baltimore.

Chicago and Baltimore do not exist in a vacuum, they are integrated parts of the whole USA.

The evidence is based on what Sass has already said: that in countries with stricter controls, cirminals have less access to guns.

The places with the strictest gun control laws in the US are not the safest places. The "why" is up to you to sort out.

And yet Illinois as a State is one of the safest in terms of gun deaths. Maryland is in the middle. The ten most deadly states per capita as of 2011 were:

#1, Mississippi
Gun deaths per 100,000: 18.3
Permissive gun laws: 4th out of 50

#2, Arizona
Gun deaths per 100,000: 15
Permissive gun laws: 1st out of 50

#3, Alaska
Gun deaths per 100,000: 17.6
Permissive gun laws: 11th out of 50

#4, Arkansas
Gun deaths per 100,000: 15.1
Permissive gun laws: 7th out of 50

#5, Louisiana
Gun deaths per 100,000: 19.9
Permissive gun laws: 23rd out of 50

#6, New Mexico
Gun deaths per 100,000: 15
Permissive gun laws: 6th out of 50

#7, Alabama
Gun deaths per 100,000: 17.6
Permissive gun laws: 27th out of 50

#8, Nevada
Gun deaths per 100,000: 16.2
Permissive gun laws: 22nd out of 50

#9, Montana
Gun deaths per 100,000: 14.5
Permissive gun laws: 10th out of 50

#10, Wyoming
Gun deaths per 100,000: 14.5
Permissive gun laws: 8th out of 50

Note that most of these are also in the top ten for permissive gun laws. And three of the ones that are not are next door to a state that is in both top tens. (Louisiana & Alabama to Mississippi, Nevada to Arizona.

And that the USA is not hard to move around, people or guns.

I don't want the risk of living in a society that is so paranoid and well armed. It's nice to visit, and most of you Americans are perfectly decent people, but if I lived there, I would feel that my choice to not be armed was a false choice.

I would not want to risk living in a society where free speech is punished.

You have libel laws in the USA. You have censorship through the FCC (which punished transgressors) and other means: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship ... ted_States

Don't you currently have a situation where States are banning scientists from talking about climate change?

I would not want to live in a society wherein the State determines whether or not I can own a gun.

Fine. Although it's not like the USA does not have any restrictions. Can prisoners get guns? Should the mentally unstable have guns? If not a state, who would decide such rules?

I would not want to live in a society that discriminates against Christianity and promotes Islam.

Utter rubbish. We do not "discriminate" against Christianity. We have Bishops in Parliament. We have churches all over the place, and new ones opening up all the time (the old ones are emptying, perhaps, but that's out of choice, not state compulsion).

And UK society does not "promote" Islam. We accord Muslims the same rights to religion that we accord anyone else (with the same lack of power that all non-CoE religious strains have).

You did try to claim we we were discriminating against religion by citing two cases - your pal Pastor Mike shouting at people in the street, and a guy who was libeling a woman and was found guilty. Big whoop.

Most of you Britons seem to be perfectly decent people, but I'll stay here.

Ever actually been here in the last 20 years? Or just read second hand and biased accounts of how awful it is to confirm your prejudice?

So, we're just where we belong. Perfect.

If you believe your own myths, yes.

Doctor Fate wrote:Actually, speech that offends anyone makes one subject to arrest in the UK. Challenge me on that.

And? Blasphemy used to make one subject to arrest. It no longer is. But no, not all offensive speech is automatically arrestable. I know your shouty street-pastor mate was arrested (and not actually charged), but hey, he was close to breach of the peace.

No, but I would not expect rational conversation from you on this topic. Guns are not more important than people. However, cars kill plenty of people. Alcohol kills plenty of people. it's not that either one is "bad," it is that sometimes people do foolish things with them.

There is a clear difference. Cars are not built to cause damage, but for the purpose of carrying people and items around. Alcohol is bad for you and for others (and hence controlled a lot).

Guns are made for the purpose of being able to cause damage. Often specifically to be able to cause fatal damage to humans.

Also, whatever you may think, we don't even have a total ban on guns. As I have mentioned before, my uncle made a living from repairing guns. The town I live in has a gun shop http://www.gunshoprugby.com/ and a nearby gunsmith http://www.normanclarkgunsmith.com/

As I said, you're in the right country--a place where the State is supreme and people are not secure in their homes. We are heading that way and I will fight that slide every step of the way.

My goodness what hyperbole.

As for home safety, as well as our Murder rates being much lower than yours, so are our Burglary rates:

UK burglary incidences: 258,148 (THOSB – CEW page 73, paragraph 3.)

258,148 / 561 = 460.1

US burglary incidences: 2,188,005 (FBI – CUS)

2,188,005 / 3116 = 702.1

You are thus 1.52x (702.1 / 460.1) more likely to suffer burglary in the US than in the UK.

Source with links to all data used

Who is more secure in their homes?

Actually, speech that offends anyone makes one subject to arrest in the UK. Challenge me on that.

This is a gross mischaracterisation of the situation here. That said though, there are undoubtedly issues with some of the recent 'hate speech' laws that have been passed in the UK. I wouldn't dispute that and I'd like to see some of them repealed. Quite what this has to do with the debate on gun ownership completely escapes me though.

Is it really necessary to try and conflate this issue with all kinds of wholly unrelated issues ?

Anyway... the point that you keep repeating is that criminals will break gun laws. This is obviously true, but at the same time it totally misses the point. As it stands in the US, getting hold of guns is trivially easy (legally or otherwise) and there's essentially no downside for any criminal to own a weapon. In those circumstances it's obvious that most criminals will own them. If gun laws were much stricter then there would be a real potential cost to owning a gun, prices would be higher, availability would contract. It would be very risky to go out in public carrying a gun. Over time this would lead to a reduction in the number of guns in circulation. It would take time of course, probably decades in the US given how many guns already exist, but eventually you'd manage to get on top of the problem. I don't think this argument is really disputable.

Given that the ability of the US to eventually get control of firearms is not really disputable, what you're left with is the argument about needing your guns to protect against government tyranny. This has always struck me as a particularly miserabilist argument that doesn't sit easily with the kind of American exceptionalism that often characterises the other positions of the people who use it. The reason you haven't slipped into tyranny has nothing to do with your guns and everything to do with the democratic spirit of your people. Americans are a dynamic, freedom-loving people, as I'm sure you'll agree. What makes you believe that such a people would ever allow their country to slip into tyranny ? It's the strength of your institutions and the spirit of your people which keep you free, not your guns.

danivon wrote:In either case, a person has a choice as to own or not own a weapon. That comes with risks and responsibilities. If you choose to not have those risks or responsibilities, then please, do not own a weapon.

I don't want the risk of living in a society that is so paranoid and well armed. It's nice to visit, and most of you Americans are perfectly decent people, but if I lived there, I would feel that my choice to not be armed was a false choice. Just like my choice not to breathe in carcinogenic fumes from smokers is limited if there are not places where smoking is banned (to digress a little)[/quote]

And you don't live in an area where that is true. Bully for you!

My statements are all about choice. People having the choice to do what they want as long as it does not infringe on another person's rights.

Cigarettes. I think that second hand smoke bothers some people, and they should not have to breathe it. Public consumption should be prohibited for that reason.
Guns. My ownership of a gun does not affect anyone but me and my family. That should be our choice.
School Selection. I agree that education should be paid for. I think the money should go with the student however, not with the building. If a parent wants their child to be in a better school that is available, then why not pay to have the student in a better school?
Alternative Opinions. We have covered this in another forum
Religious Freedoms. If a person wants to pray in school, what does it matter to the school?

Danivon, you are focusing on the issues rather than the ISSUE. My issue is that the extreme left wants to prohibit things that they don't agree with rather than just not using them (in the case of guns), ban rather than not participate (in the case of prayer) and force from office/employment rather than allow a different view(In the case of Firefox/Mozilla).

I claim that the diversity that the extreme left desires would only be filled with those who believe as they do. Their claim of being for "CHOICE" is complete malarkey.

They do not want anyone to have the choice to own firearms. They do not want people to have the choice of a better school. They do not want people to have the choice of an alternative opinion that is not affecting a person's job. They do not want to allow time for some to choose to pray to a "Christian God" but they allow time and space for prayers to a "Muslim God".

For me it is about choice. You choose to not have a firearm and live in a country that does not have them. I have been to many countries, and would move if I wanted to. Again, my choice.

To answer your question about why does it not overrule? I draw your attention to the 2nd Amendment of the US Constitution.

Sassenach wrote:Anyway... the point that you keep repeating is that criminals will break gun laws. This is obviously true, but at the same time it totally misses the point. As it stands in the US, getting hold of guns is trivially easy (legally or otherwise) and there's essentially no downside for any criminal to own a weapon. In those circumstances it's obvious that most criminals will own them. If gun laws were much stricter then there would be a real potential cost to owning a gun, prices would be higher, availability would contract. It would be very risky to go out in public carrying a gun.

This is because there is not a binary "criminal" / "non-criminal" division in society. We are all potential criminals (and most of us more likely to be guilty of a crime that we'd probably like to admit, but never caught).

Criminals are not motivated by breaking crimes, they are motivated by the benefits to them of committing crimes, over the risks. If they perceive the risks to have risen, then they are less likely to commit the crime.

bbauska wrote:Danivon, you are focusing on the issues rather than the ISSUE. My issue is that the extreme left wants to prohibit things that they don't agree with rather than just not using them (in the case of guns), ban rather than not participate (in the case of prayer) and force from office/employment rather than allow a different view(In the case of Firefox/Mozilla).

Umm, no. The "issue" in this thread relates to an incidence of extreme gun violence that left several people dead.

You can bring up your "extreme left" bogeymen all you like, you can bring in irrelevancies like smoking or school choice all you like, and you can tell me until you are blue in the face that these are the issue, but you will still be ignoring the basic point:

the thread is about gun violence.

To answer your question about why does it not overrule? I draw your attention to the 2nd Amendment of the US Constitution.

And I point out that this is just a law (albeit a Basic Law), and does not actually answer the question I asked you. I will rephrase it:

How many innocent lives is preserving a law worth?

By the way, if the intent of the Second Amendment is to allow people to keep guns in order to come together in an organized resistance (militia) against a government that has become a tyranny, then why do people need to be armed in public? Yes, Scalia (the "strict constructionist") found that the Second Amendment conferred a right to own guns for self-defense but that is clearly not what the text of the amendment indicates. The argument could be made but was not made in Heller is that even though there are no longer any militias the intent of the Second Amendment was to allow private gun ownership for purposes of organized resistance against a central government that was oppressive. Therefore, the Second Amendment protects gun ownership but not gun restrictions unrelated to potential resistance against government. Therefore, whether people should be allowed to carry guns in public becomes a political question, not a constitutional one.

I think Sass and Danivon have made good points, even though they are not from here...