2013 America (and Friends!) Gun Violence Thread No Plows Allowed!

[Fhqwghads]

Your whole argument has been predicated on an unyielding definition of the amendment including the term "shall not be infringed". Following your logic there should not be any sort of arms that the U.S. Government or its entities could possess that citizens are not allowed to legally own.

If you do not believe that then you must allow for a reinterpretation of the amendment based on the values and positions of modern society and understand that things have changed drastically since it was written.

Edit: And in all honesty anyone who is incensed that they cannot legally own any weapon in the U.S. arsenal is a crazy person who should not be allowed to own any weapon.

I have no problems with the citizens of this country owning any arms available to the military. Why assume that the scale of arms is directly related to the probability that they'd be used for criminal activity? Case in point are modern day sporting rifles. They are used in an exceedingly rare number of crimes. Full or burst-capable firearms are in order of magnitudes less frequently used than sporting rifles. Is it difficult to extrapolate that arms currently in service by the military would be used in even less incidents than full/semi burst?

[zoobernut]

I have no problems with the citizens of this country owning any arms available to the military. Why assume that the scale of arms is directly related to the probability that they'd be used for criminal activity? Case in point are modern day sporting rifles. They are used in an exceedingly rare number of crimes. Full or burst-capable firearms are in order of magnitudes less frequently used than sporting rifles. Is it difficult to extrapolate that arms currently in service by the military would be used in even less incidents than full/semi burst?

The bold part is NOT the argument no one has ever said that the scale of the arms increasing increases the chances that it will be used for criminal activity directly. Though indirectly if you are going to use weapons in criminal activity you are going to gravitate towards the most efficient powerful weapon at your disposal.

[Blubbartron]

If anyone is curious about what the official name for Fhqwghads' argument style is, or you just want to educate yourself so that you can more easily tell when people are debating in a profoundly ignorant and pointless manner:

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gish_Gallop

[Fhqwghads]

I'm well aware of the other uses of firearms, but that doesn't change the fact that the firearm was developed as a weapon. Just like all weapons are. If you are implying that I am somehow some kind of media sheep that only came to this conclusion because I believe what the media tells me. You'd be wrong in that regards. I've held this opinion for quite a long time as I simply do not like guns, does this make me biased in regards to the gun control issue. Yes. There is obviously some biased on my part but I don't let it cloud my view to suggest that I want guns banned, that's illogical and ridculious.

The United States has one of the higher gun death per capita in the world and there are more firearms here then probably anywhere else in the world. The problem with your logic about the past is the differences in technology and how much more dangerous our guns have become they have evolved more then any other weapon. Back when the the country was formed a gun was not capable of the sheer destructive force and often couldn't fire more then handful of rounds are far as I know. These days many assault weapons could killls hundreds of people in a very short time sometimes with one clip. Yes Gun Control is more recent development but because the much the impact of these weapons have become. Sometimes you have to be willing to relook at a situation and decide what is the best thing to do, but that's not the political climate we live it. It's either heaven or hell, good and evil, tyrant or freedom. There is no balance about the issue only generally outrage.

Are you really expecting me to believe that firearm owners have given up much ground? When the NRA and other gun lobbying groups basically paid off politicians to continue to do nothing about the death tolls so the gun manufactors can continue to sell more guns to people they shouldn't be? That weapons capable of high-capacity magnazine are a good idea? Sorry, I don't believe in keeping the things the same because simply because that has always been the case.

At this point I don't feel there is much more that I can say that has already been said.

The problem with your view is it doesn't have statistics to back it up. You're relying on feelings, emotions and skewed numbers to come to the conclusion that more draconian firearm laws will result in a drop in violent crime. The statistics have shown that the sharp increase in gun sales have resulted in lower numbers of violent crimes involving firearms.

One has to look no further than when the so-called "assault weapons" ban kicked in and violent crime went up, to when it expired and violent crime dropped. When you remove criminal on criminal violence where firearms are involved, the stats for gun violence are on par or lower than European nations. How is this explained given the sheer number of legal firearms that citizens of this country own? We're well over 300,000,000 firearms owned, and that's just a conservative estimate that doesn't include the huge surge in sales recently thanks to the irrational climate that people who are afraid of guns created.

I think people are misled and blinded by the MSM, politicians and their own feelings, and don't want to see beyond the facade of the gun control structure built by those who want to disarm America.

[Fhqwghads]

The bold part is NOT the argument no one has ever said that the scale of the arms increasing increases the chances that it will be used for criminal activity directly. Though indirectly if you are going to use weapons in criminal activity you are going to gravitate towards the most efficient powerful weapon at your disposal.

If that was the case then the number of sporting firearms used in criminal activity would be through the roof. The statistics simply do not support that line of reasoning.

[zoobernut]

If that was the case then the number of sporting firearms used in criminal activity would be through the roof. The statistics simply do not support that line of reasoning.

What the hell are you talking about? I am not even sure the point you are trying to make at this point. You are not formulating coherent arguments anymore. I also am not really sure how to respond to the ridiculous notion that anyone should be able to legally purchase any arms that the U.S. government uses in its arsenal. If you don't see how that could possibly be a bad idea then I am not sure anything will convince you to think about this rationally.

[Fhqwghads]

What the hell are you talking about? I am not even sure the point you are trying to make at this point. You are not formulating coherent arguments anymore. I also am not really sure how to respond to the ridiculous notion that anyone should be able to legally purchase any arms that the U.S. government uses in its arsenal. If you don't see how that could possibly be a bad idea then I am not sure anything will convince you to think about this rationally.

I don't understand where I lost you. You stated "if you are going to use weapons in criminal activity you are going to gravitate towards the most efficient powerful weapon at your disposal." How is my reply regarding modern sporting rifles confusing?

We have private citizens who own military-grade weaponry already. I have yet to hear of any crimes committed that involve them. I don't see how it's difficult to conclude that they are not a threat to people.

[zoobernut]

I don't understand where I lost you. You stated "if you are going to use weapons in criminal activity you are going to gravitate towards the most efficient powerful weapon at your disposal." How is my reply regarding modern sporting rifles confusing?

We have private citizens who own military-grade weaponry already. I have yet to hear of any crimes committed that involve them. I don't see how it's difficult to conclude that they are not a threat to people.

Well the answer to your question could be two things. One is that sporting rifles are much easier to get and exist in more prevalent numbers, which can infer that decreasing supply of a type of weapon does in fact reduce its use for criminal activity. Or that most gun violence in this country or at least the type that we are trying to stop with gun regulations is perpetrated with a legally obtained weapon of which a large portion are sporting rifles.

Edit: Private citizens cannot own military-grade weaponry of any fashion. Most of it has to be hindered or modified in some way before a regular civilian can own it or it requires extremely stringent background checks and permits to own. And still there are many weapons that the military has at their disposal that are not legal for regular citizens to own under any circumstance.

[Draginhikari]

The problem with your view is it doesn't have statistics to back it up. You're relying on feelings, emotions and skewed numbers to come to the conclusion that more draconian firearm laws will result in a drop in violent crime. The statistics have shown that the sharp increase in gun sales have resulted in lower numbers of violent crimes involving firearms.

One has to look no further than when the so-called "assault weapons" ban kicked in and violent crime went up, to when it expired and violent crime dropped. When you remove criminal on criminal violence where firearms are involved, the stats for gun violence are on par or lower than European nations. How is this explained given the sheer number of legal firearms that citizens of this country own? We're well over 300,000,000 firearms owned, and that's just a conservative estimate that doesn't include the huge surge in sales recently thanks to the irrational climate that people who are afraid of guns created.

I think people are misled and blinded by the MSM, politicians and their own feelings, and don't want to see beyond the facade of the gun control structure built by those who want to disarm America.

I'm being emotional and driven eh? I don't see how your doing this any differently really. You continue to express this idea that people are trying to disarm American and have yet to show any proof that is what is happening here or that gun owners are being persecuted in some significant way. We don't have equal gun violence with most European countries and we are still high up there among those countries with some of the worst. The main difference is the level of gun control a country has had and generally the economical status of the country itself.

I have yet to see a study from an unbiased source that shows a causation link between more guns and lower crime rates or decreased death rates from firearms so at most it could be minor link among other factors at best.

[Fhqwghads]

Well the answer to your question could be two things. One is that sporting rifles are much easier to get and exist in more prevalent numbers, which can infer that decreasing supply of a type of weapon does in fact reduce its use for criminal activity. Or that most gun violence in this country or at least the type that we are trying to stop with gun regulations is perpetrated with a legally obtained weapon of which a large portion are sporting rifles.

Edit: Private citizens cannot own military-grade weaponry of any fashion. Most of it has to be hindered or modified in some way before a regular civilian can own it or it requires extremely stringent background checks and permits to own. And still there are many weapons that the military has at their disposal that are not legal for regular citizens to own under any circumstance.

Hold the phone there... you're stating that most gun violence is perpetrated by legally obtained modern sporting rifles? You do realize this flies directly in the face of all the data on violence involving firearms, right? The overwhelming majority of crimes involving firearms are handguns, not rifles (of any kind). This is where gun control falls flat on its face. Completely ignoring what the statistics show and targeting the wrong object (namely modern sporting rifles).

If those arguing for gun control are doing so solely for the purpose of reducing violent crime then why aren't handguns the number one item on the list? I can answer that for you: because the public wouldn't stand for it. That's why they try to go after modern rifles, because casual firearm owners don't have any. It's a case of "doesn't affect me" apathy. The problem is, if they are allowed to ban modern rifles the next thing they'll argue is "well that didn't make violence numbers drop" (duh) "so let's target handguns next.... handguns are really the problem everyone!" And then everyone jumps on the ban handgun wagon, and so on until we're back at the scenario I described earlier where the only legal firearm is a bolt-action .22LR.

[Fhqwghads]

I'm being emotional and driven eh? I don't see how your doing this any differently really. You continue to express this idea that people are trying to disarm American and have yet to show any proof that is what is happening here or that gun owners are being persecuted in some significant way. We don't have equal gun violence with most European countries and we are still high up there among those countries with some of the worst. The main difference is the level of gun control a country has had and generally the economical status of the country itself.

I have yet to see a study from an unbiased source that shows a causation link between more guns and lower crime rates or decreased death rates from firearms so at most it could be minor link among other factors at best.

Hmm, apparently you never heard some of the most outspoken congressional leaders talking about their gun control agenda. Let's go ahead and quote some good 'ol Dianne Feinstein:

If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them . . . Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in, I would have done it.

Here's a nice chart for you:

[zoobernut]

Hold the phone there... you're stating that most gun violence is perpetrated by legally obtained modern sporting rifles? You do realize this flies directly in the face of all the data on violence involving firearms, right? The overwhelming majority of crimes involving firearms are handguns, not rifles (of any kind). This is where gun control falls flat on its face. Completely ignoring what the statistics show and targeting the wrong object (namely modern sporting rifles).

If those arguing for gun control are doing so solely for the purpose of reducing violent crime then why aren't handguns the number one item on the list? I can answer that for you: because the public wouldn't stand for it. That's why they try to go after modern rifles, because casual firearm owners don't have any. It's a case of "doesn't affect me" apathy. The problem is, if they are allowed to ban modern rifles the next thing they'll argue is "well that didn't make violence numbers drop" (duh) "so let's target handguns next.... handguns are really the problem everyone!" And then everyone jumps on the ban handgun wagon, and so on until we're back at the scenario I described earlier where the only legal firearm is a bolt-action .22LR.

You have serious reading comprehension issues or you start typing your response before you read what I wrote. I never said it as a fact I said it was one of the possibilities, you also have to remember that people are arguing for gun control to slow down the rate of or prevent gun violence that occurs in schools or regular public places. We have been talking about a different type of gun violence than gang violence which is a separate issue though one that needs to be addressed.

Not only that but handguns are the subject of heavy regulation and control laws already. I am really not sure why you don't think people focus or talk about those at all. You are all over the place with your arguments and you make no sense at all.

A big part of this thread and recent gun control discussions haven't been about keeping guns out of gangs hands. Or looking at the overall gun related violence rate. It is about seeing an increase in gun violence by the mentally ill who obtained their weapons from family members houses where the gun was a legal gun. Or they bought it legally from a friend in a private sale. Or from a kid who stole their parents gun where the gun was not secured properly. Or where a toddler or kid less than 10 years old accidentally shoots and kills a playmate, parent, guardian, neighbor etc. with a gun they find laying around their house. These are all real examples and the things that start the gun control debate.

Edit: I like how you so conveniently ignore my question about the disparity between being anti gun control law but not freaking about existing laws limiting the possession and sale of military grade weapons to regular civilians.

[notorious bum]

This is the definition of insanity.

[Draginhikari]

Hmm, apparently you never heard some of the most outspoken congressional leaders talking about their gun control agenda. Let's go ahead and quote some good 'ol Dianne Feinstein:


Here's a nice chart for you:

Like I said previously, I'm well aware of the decrease and how other factors play into the fact. Your oversimplify the results of that chart. There have the studies that suggest that even decrease amounts of levels of lead in material could be one of many factors for example to have some impact on behavior so it's not a straight question and answer and there are a lot of things that impact those number besides more guns= less crime.. doesn't quite work that way.

[Fhqwghads]

You have serious reading comprehension issues or you start typing your response before you read what I wrote. I never said it as a fact I said it was one of the possibilities, you also have to remember that people are arguing for gun control to slow down the rate of or prevent gun violence that occurs in schools or regular public places. We have been talking about a different type of gun violence than gang violence which is a separate issue though one that needs to be addressed.

Not only that but handguns are the subject of heavy regulation and control laws already. I am really not sure why you don't think people focus or talk about those at all. You are all over the place with your arguments and you make no sense at all.

A big part of this thread and recent gun control discussions haven't been about keeping guns out of gangs hands. Or looking at the overall gun related violence rate. It is about seeing an increase in gun violence by the mentally ill who obtained their weapons from family members houses where the gun was a legal gun. Or they bought it legally from a friend in a private sale. Or from a kid who stole their parents gun where the gun was not secured properly. Or where a toddler or kid less than 10 years old accidentally shoots and kills a playmate, parent, guardian, neighbor etc. with a gun they find laying around their house. These are all real examples and the things that start the gun control debate.

If we're going to narrow the scope of the problem down to such an infinitesimally small number of incidents then we're on a completely separate line of reasoning. If that's all anyone on this thread cares about, you're wasting your time. People have about a 0.003% chance of ever being involved in one of these high-profile mass shootings. Any sort of restrictions based solely on these is a waste of time, money and resources. There is no amount of legislation that will stop them from happening which doesn't outright and blatantly infringe on 2nd amendment rights. On top of that it assumes that all mass shootings are only done by lunatics who use modern sporting rifles when they go on their nut-job killing sprees. I'll remind you of Virginia Tech where the shooter used handguns only. There is simply no excuse for trying to ban a firearm that saturates the gun community, yet is used in a fraction of a fraction of shootings.

[zoobernut]

If we're going to narrow the scope of the problem down to such an infinitesimally small number of incidents then we're on a completely separate line of reasoning. If that's all anyone on this thread cares about, you're wasting your time. People have about a 0.003% chance of ever being involved in one of these high-profile mass shootings. Any sort of restrictions based solely on these is a waste of time, money and resources. There is no amount of legislation that will stop them from happening which doesn't outright and blatantly infringe on 2nd amendment rights. On top of that it assumes that all mass shootings are only done by lunatics who use modern sporting rifles when they go on their nut-job killing sprees. I'll remind you of Virginia Tech where the shooter used handguns only. There is simply no excuse for trying to ban a firearm that saturates the gun community, yet is used in a fraction of a fraction of shootings.

Well what did you think people were talking about? When they talk about gun control laws they are talking about reducing the amount of crimes that happen with legally obtained guns. When they talk about better mental health care they are talking about reducing crimes committed by the mentally ill. When they talk about arming teachers or having armed guards at schools (a favorite one of the anti gun control crowd) they are talking about reducing the high profile school shootings.


When we talk about reducing gun violence in gangs and inner city crimes we talk about increasing police force and education programs to try to help pull people out of poverty... oh wait.

The point is that it is a complex problem and you can't solve all facets of it with one law or one solution each one needs to be addressed individually.

And in the end your understanding of the 2nd amendment and history is very flawed, borderline delusional/hypocritical. Your 2nd amendment rights based on your definition of the 2nd amendment has been blatantly infringed upon for a while.

Good grief your selective reading is amazing. I addressed the handgun issue. People talk about restricting handguns all the time. And they are restricted all the time. Handguns are not ignored in any way.

[Fhqwghads]

Well what did you think people were talking about? When they talk about gun control laws they are talking about reducing the amount of crimes that happen with legally obtained guns. When they talk about better mental health care they are talking about reducing crimes committed by the mentally ill. When they talk about arming teachers or having armed guards at schools (a favorite one of the anti gun control crowd) they are talking about reducing the high profile school shootings.


When we talk about reducing gun violence in gangs and inner city crimes we talk about increasing police force and education programs to try to help pull people out of poverty... oh wait.

The point is that it is a complex problem and you can't solve all facets of it with one law or one solution each one needs to be addressed individually.

And in the end your understanding of the 2nd amendment and history is very flawed, borderline delusional/hypocritical. Your 2nd amendment rights based on your definition of the 2nd amendment has been blatantly infringed upon for a while.

Good grief your selective reading is amazing. I addressed the handgun issue. People talk about restricting handguns all the time. And they are restricted all the time. Handguns are not ignored in any way.

You know, I am really trying to be patient here and play by whatever arbitrary subject you're making up as we go along, but really this is getting old. You just said the topic was revolving around mass shootings only, and now you just said it's "reducing the amount of crimes that happen with legally obtained guns". The title of this thread is "2013 America (and Friends!) Gun Violence Thread No Plows Allowed!" There isn't anything in the title which says "better mental health care", "reducing crimes committed by the mentally ill" or "high profile school shootings". I just replied on my opinion on why mass shootings are not worth more gun control measures since that is what you just mentioned in your last post, and then you change the subject yet again.

The 2nd amendment as defined today and interpreted by the SCOTUS today is all that matters. With that in mind - I have every right to own the firearms I posses. Period. You and others talk about wanting to enact more gun control measures to further restrict (i.e. infringe) on the rights of firearms owners. You make the completely illogical justification that because gun owners already have to deal with ridiculous infringement on what we can own that we shouldn't have any complaints with even more infringement (lol what?) You and others argue back and forth when I've given statistics and facts, and then have the audacity to tell me I am the one who isn't informed, and throw all sorts of derogatory and inflammatory remarks in return ("delusional", "hypocritical", "dumber than a box of rocks").

You will not succeed in passing more gun control. As a matter of fact, gun control people owe pro-2nd amendment people some of the concessions we gave you back. I don't think you quite understand how fed up people like me are when it comes to liberals and progressives never being satisfied with the infringement you've already pushed on gun owners. You take and you take, we get nothing in return, and nothing changes with regard to violence and firearms, and you want more concessions. Nope.

I tell you what, you tell me why you think I don't have a right to protect myself as I see fit, and tell me why I shouldn't own certain firearms. List the various features of firearms that make them so dangerous (despite their proliferation across the nation and statistically insignificant usage in crimes) that you think they should be banned.

[zoobernut]

All I can say is you should read an entire post before responding to it. You take a tiny snippet out of peoples posts and say that is their one and only point completely ignoring everything else they said. You spend three pages approximately talking about what you think the original writers of the 2nd amendment intended and it shouldn't be interpreted or changed for today and then you say you only care about TODAYS definition and interpretation of the 2nd amendment by SCOTUS. You are all over the place and if you keep changing how you feel or what your argument is then a coherent argument cannot happen.

[Fhqwghads]

All I can say is you should read an entire post before responding to it. You take a tiny snippet out of peoples posts and say that is their one and only point completely ignoring everything else they said. You spend three pages approximately talking about what you think the original writers of the 2nd amendment intended and it shouldn't be interpreted or changed for today and then you say you only care about TODAYS definition and interpretation of the 2nd amendment by SCOTUS. You are all over the place and if you keep changing how you feel or what your argument is then a coherent argument cannot happen.

I read enough of it to see it's the typical gun-grabber mentality. I've responded in entirety to the majority of posts people have made in response to mine (although the irony that you just ignored most of my post is not lost here). My posts were a variety of points, so your hyperbole that I spent three pages on interpreting the 2nd amendment is silly. You take what I say out of context with regard to the 2nd amendment.

I'm still waiting for an answer to the last part of my previous post.

[zoobernut]

I read enough of it to see it's the typical gun-grabber mentality. I've responded in entirety to the majority of posts people have made in response to mine (although the irony that you just ignored most of my post is not lost here). My posts were a variety of points, so your hyperbole that I spent three pages on interpreting the 2nd amendment is silly. You take what I say out of context with regard to the 2nd amendment.

I'm still waiting for an answer to the last part of my previous post.

You spew logical fallacy after logical fallacy. You get mad at someone for characterizing you in a way that you don't want to be characterized then do the same to me. Lol News flash: I own guns. I am not anti gun. I grew up around guns. I just HATE illogical arguments and feel compelled to argue against them. I don't care for the selective reading, careful reinterpretation of what people say and hypocrisy that shows up in your posts about guns.

Don't forget that you were the one who said definitions of terms are so important and the 2nd amendment says arms not guns. With that in mind to answer the last part of your previous post, I don't think you have the right to own nuclear weapons of any kind. I don't think you have the right to own biological weapons of any kind. I don't think you have the right to own fully functioning tanks, fighter jets, or helicopters equipped with air to ground or air to air missiles. I don't think you have the right to own a turret or an artillery gun. Etc. The list goes on.

Oh and I don't like that you hold people's posts to certain standards with respect to definitions and other things but don't hold up to those yourself.