Supreme Court says Americans have right to guns

[jynxxxedangel]

Some say that if you make it manditory to hunt/skin/cook/eat an animal in the early teens will teach the VALUE OF LIFE.

*nods in agreement*

I am one who agrees with this school of thought.

I also think folks should fast, sweat and smudge before a hunt.

[Rev.Reverence]

*nods in agreement*

I am one who agrees with this school of thought.

I also think folks should fast, sweat and smudge before a hunt.

[Fin]

I have two case studies for you: the UK and Australia. Two island nations so it's even harder to smuggle in guns. Yet, when both countries completely banned firearms, all crime including gun crime went up. Read that book I linked to and you will find your facts.

Your link is an interesting read: But like all sites devoted to the topic, it demonstrates some real science & some ill-supported claims. There are several other sites that do the same thing on the web--I have yet to find one that does not mix some fact with some tripe, be they pro-gun or anti-gun.

The UK police force changed the manner in which it reported such crimes at the same time the 1997 handgun ban was initiated, which offered ambiguous results at best. The British Crime Survey commissioned by the British Goverment, however (CLICK HERE) demonstrated a consistent decrease in handgun related crimes from 1997 through 2003 (the year the study was concluded).

Likewise, the exaggerated claims of Australian spikes in gun violence after its ban was enacted have been debunked by several sources (eg. THIS ONE).

Since the 1997 "buy-back" program was enacted, the gun-related homicide level has decreased (albeit less dramatically than in the U.K.) (CLICK HERE)

Mind you, we all understand that statistics can be used to warp any argument to suit one's purpose. All these seemingly conflicting statements of "fact" should therefore continue to be scrutinized by those of us who wish to see their true meaning through--as I'm sure most of us do.

[jynxxxedangel]

Fin the "Cooler."

That's HOTTT..

*pauses for a cold drink in between her gun-cleaning activities*

[phee]

*nods in agreement*

I am one who agrees with this school of thought.

I also think folks should fast, sweat and smudge before a hunt.

Naw... I don't like the current system though.... So I think we should send out robots to hunt and kill our food, then bring it back and cook it, while I jerk off and watch BSG.... That maybe just me though....

More to the point... I think guns = violence.... that is what they are made for after all.

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

1. Continental Army

2. French training

3. French declaring war against England

Explain how we lost Detroit, and had the White House burned if the militias were so good.

It was the organized military of 1812 that saved face for the US.

Sometimes.. Wars are lost. It sucks, but it happens.

I am unwilling to give up my Constitutional Rights because the militias failed... once.

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

Some say that if you make it manditory to hunt/skin/cook/eat an animal in the early teens will teach the VALUE OF LIFE.

We have a whole sub-culture that does just that...

you most likely call them "Hicks" or "Rednecks"

[Nightgaunt]

More to the point... I think guns = violence.... that is what they are made for after all.

I don't have numbers, statistics, or articles to link to, but from what I understand, in most of the cases where a responsible, armed citizen confronts an armed assailant, the encounter ends sans bloodshed. I'd be perfectly happy and feel perfectly safe if gun ownership was mandatory (with, obviously, provisions for religious and philosophical objections) and everyone wore a sidearm in public. I think it was Heinlein who said, "An armed society is a polite society."

[Goth Brooks]

Sometimes.. Wars are lost. It sucks, but it happens.

I am unwilling to give up my Constitutional Rights because the militias failed... once.

The militias failing should have cost you the Constitution PERIOD.

Thankfully, or rather thanks to the French trained Continental Army, it didn't happen.

The militias were always useless. I fully support the national guard, and state defense forces.. but the concept of "state militias" as they were organized then is just bunk.

[phee]

I don't have numbers, statistics, or articles to link to, but from what I understand, in most of the cases where a responsible, armed citizen confronts an armed assailant, the encounter ends sans bloodshed. I'd be perfectly happy and feel perfectly safe if gun ownership was mandatory (with, obviously, provisions for religious and philosophical objections) and everyone wore a sidearm in public. I think it was Heinlein who said, "An armed society is a polite society."

With the exception of the "wild west"

[ttogreh]

Phee, you can't use the "wild west" as a counter to Nightgaunt's hypothetical "everyone is always armed" society. Not everyone was always armed in the "wild west" which for purposes of our discussion was the period circa 1830 to 1910 west of the Mississipi in North America.

Of course, I highly doubt there is any historical evidence of a society whose total members... let's say anyone over the age of majority and younger than the elderly were always armed... AND whose technological or societal complexity comes anywhere close to ours.

As such, it is all academic, really.

[phee]

Phee, you can't use the "wild west" as a counter to Nightgaunt's hypothetical "everyone is always armed" society. Not everyone was always armed in the "wild west" which for purposes of our discussion was the period circa 1830 to 1910 west of the Mississipi in North America.

Of course, I highly doubt there is any historical evidence of a society whose total members... let's say anyone over the age of majority and younger than the elderly were always armed... AND whose technological or societal complexity comes anywhere close to ours.

As such, it is all academic, really.

true....

[Rev.Reverence]

We have a whole sub-culture that does just that...

you most likely call them "Hicks" or "Rednecks"

I don't talk about family like that!

[n0Mad]

With the exception of the "wild west"

The so called "Wild West" wasn't very wild at all. Most people think it is because of movies but it hardly happened that way. Sure, there were some bloody episodes most of which have been inflated.

[Vater Araignee]

To much to quote and I didnt bother to read everything but lets state one indisputable fact...

If you make guns illegal then only the bad guys have guns.

If you say no the government will have them too then I'll say "I just said then only the bad guys have guns."

More to the point... I think guns = violence.... that is what they are made for after all.

Gun = 1 a: a piece of ordnance usually with high muzzle velocity and comparatively flat trajectory b: a portable firearm (as a rifle or handgun) c: a device that throws a projectile.

Your statement "that is what they are made for after all" is to broad and can be "shot down" (had to say it) simply by saying "hunting is what they are made for" very broad statement in it self and completely true. We started out throwing rocks and sticks and now we are launching bismuth at high velocity.

For those of you not in the know bismuth is becoming the projectile material of choice for private usage because (A) It is more ecologically friendly and (B) It drives up the profit per bullet. Bismuth costs more then lead so the price goes up but bismuth melts about 56° lower and you and I know that that savings wont be passed on to us.

[phee]

If you make guns illegal then only the bad guys have guns.

That line of logic has always been amusing to me....

If you make prostitution illegal, only the bad guys will hire prostitutes.

If you make drugs illegal, only the bad guys will use drugs.

If you make theft illegal, only the bad guys will steal stuff.

If you make campfires illegal, only the bad guys will go camping.

If you make driving illegal, only the bad guys will wear seatbelts.

If you make chairs illegal, only the bad guys will sit down....

That isn't really logic, it's more of a pun.

[Vater Araignee]

That line of logic has always been amusing to me....

If you make prostitution illegal, only the bad guys will hire prostitutes.

If you make drugs illegal, only the bad guys will use drugs.

If you make theft illegal, only the bad guys will steal stuff.

If you make campfires illegal, only the bad guys will go camping.

If you make driving illegal, only the bad guys will wear seatbelts.

If you make chairs illegal, only the bad guys will sit down....

That isn't really logic, it's more of a pun.

So basicaly what you are saying is...

"If you make guns illegal, then criminals will be incapable of acquiring them and those that have them will give them up."

(flawed) If you make prostitution illegal, only the bad guys will hire prostitutes. <--- um yeah!

(flawed) If you make drugs illegal, only the bad guys will use drugs. <--- doi!

(flawed) If you make theft illegal, only the bad guys will steal stuff. <--- no shit Sherlock

(flawed) If you make campfires illegal, only the bad guys will go camping. <--- No only the bad guys will make camp fires

(flawed) If you make driving illegal, only the bad guys will wear seatbelts. <--- and possibly every one else in the car not driving IE not breaking the law because they are not driving.

(flawed) If you make chairs illegal, only the bad guys will sit down....<--- No only the ones sitting in chairs.

Phee I hate to ask this of you of all people, but I must...

Can you possibly come up with examples that are even more stupid then the last three or more obvious then the first three?

[ttogreh]

That line of logic has always been amusing to me....

If you make prostitution illegal, only the bad guys will hire prostitutes.

If you make drugs illegal, only the bad guys will use drugs.

If you make theft illegal, only the bad guys will steal stuff.

If you make campfires illegal, only the bad guys will go camping.

If you make driving illegal, only the bad guys will wear seatbelts.

If you make chairs illegal, only the bad guys will sit down....

That isn't really logic, it's more of a pun.

Oh, dear. I feel that the main problem between your point of view is that on the face of it, making guns harder to get seems logical.

It isn't.

Neither is making prostitution illegal, or drugs illegal.

As for theft, camp fires, driving, and chairs... your rhetoric does you a disservice.

The cold hard dispassionate facts are these; drugs, guns, and prostitution kill less people when they are regulated rather than banned. I could pull up the studies, clobber you to death with link after link, but I won't.

I will offer you a simple challenge. Look for studies on your own that do not support my assertion. Look at the studies' methodologies, and who funded them. Educate your self on this issue.

[phee]

So basicaly what you are saying is...

"If you make guns illegal, then criminals will be incapable of acquiring them and those that have them will give them up."

(flawed) If you make prostitution illegal, only the bad guys will hire prostitutes.

(flawed) If you make drugs illegal, only the bad guys will use drugs.

(flawed) If you make theft illegal, only the bad guys will steal stuff.

(flawed) If you make campfires illegal, only the bad guys will go camping.

(flawed) If you make driving illegal, only the bad guys will wear seatbelts.

(flawed) If you make chairs illegal, only the bad guys will sit down....

Phee I hate to ask this of you of all people, but I must...

Can you possibly come up with examples that are even more stupid then the last three or more obvious then the first three?

Then you get my point entirely.... "the if we outlaw ______ only outlaws will have ________." You said it yourself, it is "stupid" and "obvious" the examples were supposed to be stupid and obvious.....

[phee]

The cold hard dispassionate facts are these; drugs, guns, and prostitution kill less people when they are regulated rather than banned. I could pull up the studies, clobber you to death with link after link, but I won't.

Now we get to the meat of the matter.... not just with guns, but does making something illegal in fact make it more dangerous?

[Vater Araignee]

Then you get my point entirely.... "the if we outlaw ______ only outlaws will have ________." You said it yourself, it is "stupid" and "obvious" the examples were supposed to be stupid and obvious.....

And it seems that the point you where trying to make to me is oxymoronic at best.

Lets say you make guns illegal. I refuse to give mine up and you have just turned me into a criminal overnight.

Now lest say somebody pulls a hot B&E at my domicile, I grab my shot gun and rack it causing to burgler to shit himself and run. The next night he gets caught doing a B&E and cops a plea telling the cops where a gun is being kept so he gets less time or better yet I call the cops and they catch him on the streets and he busts on me. Now I am going to go to jail because you made it illegal to protect my wife, children, property and self.

If somebody you love gets beaten to death (much more likely to happen then death by gun) are you going to try to outlaw baseball? Plumbing? 2x4s, tree branches, rocks, bricks, rebar, fence poles, lamps, chairs, stools and most important of all humans?

ARE you going to outlaw everything that has weapon potentiality? Probably not for the simple fact that it would be stupid to do so, just like banning fire arms which have and do more good than harm.

[Goth Brooks]

Rest In Peace

[n0Mad]

Now we get to the meat of the matter.... not just with guns, but does making something illegal in fact make it more dangerous?

Usually. Just look at the Prohibition era.

[ttogreh]

Now we get to the meat of the matter.... not just with guns, but does making something illegal in fact make it more dangerous?

Well, that depends on your perspective, eh? A banned gun or a legal gun will still fling a projectile at high speed out of its barrel. A banned drug or a legal drug can still give you an overdose. You are still having sex with a stranger whether or not prostitution is legal.

However, a criminal does not care about drug laws, prostitution prohibitions, or gun control. He is just looking to get paid. So, in for a penny, in for a pound. If someone may get three years for simple robbery, but ten years for armed robbery, and ten more years for possession of a banned weapon...

Well, it makes sense to not leave any witnesses, right?

The fact of the matter, phee, is that blaming the gun for gun deaths, the powder for drug violence, or the prostitute for getting killed is looking at the issue from a flawed viewpoint.

Blaming objects, consumables, and a (hopefully) consensual act for society's ills is the easy, thoughtless, and WRONG way to solve society's ills.

Blaming society for society's ills, well, you probably aren't going to make any friends saying that America is the problem, but at least you are being honest.

[n0Mad]

"A gun is a tool, Marian; no better or no worse than any other tool: an axe, a shovel or anything. A gun is as good or as bad as the man using it. Remember that." Shane, 1953