Discuss the second amendment here.

[Melchiah]

Again with context please. Don't quote line and not the line before it:

An autopsy showed Whitman had a brain tumor, which has led some to speculate that it caused his actions; however, this can't be known for sure. A state report found that Whitman's lifelong abuse by his father created the conditions that led to a homicidal breakdown.

Doesn't change what you said at all. Speculation of brain tumor, state report concludes abusive relationship to be the primary cause. Wut?

[Tyche]

Actually no, but I hope to god you aren't referring to the Cruikshankcase, as they had the same ruling for the first amendment rights. That was a total joke. Isn't it amazing how the constitution can be interpretted different ways. Anywho, jefferson is right, letting less than probably a thousandth of one percent (the crazy people) of gun owners control rights that people have is absolutely absurd.

[MF Perm]

Perm, I liken you to a man trying to plug a leaky bucket with his finger. You stop the leak in one place, it's just going to find another outlet. Know much about physics? A force will try to find the path of least resistance. You can think of a pressurized container. The first place that container will leak is the weakest point. Upon finding that outlet blocked, it will then begin exerting force on the next weakest point. All of that to say this: The problem is that there are people who are not being taught that killing others is wrong. If you make guns illegal for private ownership, what have you accomplished? You only deprive people who obey the law of guns. All of these violent incidents we are discussing, Columbine, VT, the historical example were all carefully considered thought out endeavors. Those people made up their minds that they were going to make other people share in their misery. The easiest method was a gun. Could have been explosives, arson, poison, any number of things. You want to outlaw guns because they are the easiest target, and you still aren't addressing the underlying problem of the devaluation of human life or untaught morality. Also, wasn't your example to my challenge using a rifle? Not a handgun?

Please show me the amount of poisoning, stabbing, or blunt objects in Japan that has just recently recovered from a economic recession with hig h unemployment rates and in which also had a high depression rate from children being pushed too hard in school, in respect to their strict gun laws.

The assumption that it's ok for "honest people" to have guns because "criminals" will find another way to harm innocent people is not an argument.

I agree that there are several factors that go into making a person use a gun to kill someone, I don't agree that if you take guns away all the sudden crazy criminals will come out of the woodworks with now illegal guns and start killing people just because they can.

Ordinary people are buying guns and killing people just because they can. The past 3 massacres weren't staged by criminals. And please tell me what a criminal is. It is a person who has commited a crime. No one is a criminal by default, people will not just become criminals with the lack of citizens having guns. They have a better chance of becoming criminals with the lack of AUTHORITATIVE PRESENCE.

[MF Perm]

Again with context please. Don't quote line and not the line before it:

An autopsy showed Whitman had a brain tumor, which has led some to speculate that it caused his actions; however, this can't be known for sure. A state report found that Whitman's lifelong abuse by his father created the conditions that led to a homicidal breakdown.

Doesn't change what you said at all. Speculation of brain tumor, state report concludes abusive relationship to be the primary cause. Wut?

A state report concluding from an investigation not involving the dead suspect concludes on minimal evidence that at the age of 25 he retaliated against abusive parenting by killing people.

I'd like to see the forensic files on that case. A stat report is a hypothesis based on the opinion of investigators. The guy was dead, they didn't get it from him.

Wut?


Should I bring into play how many state and federal reports concluded the guilt of a person only for forensic evidence to later set them free?

Oh wait.. I know... where's those WMD in Iraq. That was a great conclusion. Don't base your argument on human judgement and not fact please.

[Melchiah]

Making guns illegal will NOT stop people who don't want to obey the fucking law from getting them. What part of that do you not understand? If a person wants to kill people he will find the most efficient method of doing. Banning guns outright is a stalling tactic at best. Christ you are dense.

[Melchiah]

[quote=MF Perm]

Again with context please. Don't quote line and not the line before it:

An autopsy showed Whitman had a brain tumor, which has led some to speculate that it caused his actions; however, this can't be known for sure. A state report found that Whitman's lifelong abuse by his father created the conditions that led to a homicidal breakdown.

Doesn't change what you said at all. Speculation of brain tumor, state report concludes abusive relationship to be the primary cause. Wut?

A state report concluding from an investigation not involving the dead suspect concludes on minimal evidence that at the age of 25 he retaliated against abusive parenting by killing people.

I'd like to see the forensic files on that case. A stat report is a hypothesis based on the opinion of investigators. The guy was dead, they didn't get it from him.

Wut?


Should I bring into play how many state and federal reports concluded the guilt of a person only for forensic evidence to later set them free?

Oh wait.. I know... where's those WMD in Iraq. That was a great conclusion. Don't base your argument on human judgement and not fact please.[/quote:29048]

Then stop representing your bullshit as fact only to call me down when I go along with you and argue under the same premise.

[MF Perm]

[quote=Melchiah]

Again with context please. Don't quote line and not the line before it:

An autopsy showed Whitman had a brain tumor, which has led some to speculate that it caused his actions; however, this can't be known for sure. A state report found that Whitman's lifelong abuse by his father created the conditions that led to a homicidal breakdown.

Doesn't change what you said at all. Speculation of brain tumor, state report concludes abusive relationship to be the primary cause. Wut?

A state report concluding from an investigation not involving the dead suspect concludes on minimal evidence that at the age of 25 he retaliated against abusive parenting by killing people.

I'd like to see the forensic files on that case. A stat report is a hypothesis based on the opinion of investigators. The guy was dead, they didn't get it from him.

Wut?


Should I bring into play how many state and federal reports concluded the guilt of a person only for forensic evidence to later set them free?

Oh wait.. I know... where's those WMD in Iraq. That was a great conclusion. Don't base your argument on human judgement and not fact please.

Then stop representing your bullshit as fact only to call me down when I go along with you and argue under the same premise.[/quote:b24ba]

Bullshit as fact? It is factual the the guy killed people. It is not fact that he did this as a result of abuse.

[MF Perm]

Making guns illegal will NOT stop people who don't want to obey the fucking law from getting them. What part of that do you not understand? If a person wants to kill people he will find the most efficient method of doing. Banning guns outright is a stalling tactic at best. Christ you are dense.

We should really just end here, because neither is going to budge. You feel the way you do, and I feel the way I do.


I'm not trying to attack you as a person by the way, if you ever felt that coming off from me. But I was attacking your views on the topic vice mine.

[Melchiah]

Then why did you represent it as such? I'm letting you dictate the premises under which we argue and you are trying to play both sides.

[Devek]

The Constitution is not a static document. Hence ammendments.

Nothing essential in this day and age about college students buying glock 9mms.

Because most college stupids are poor and don't own anything. Wait until you get older and you actually have stuff or you run a business.

I don't think Oklahoma police are that much worse than police in other places but I have NEVER heard of someone getting robbed and the police getting their stuff back. The police are too busy hunting down people who smoke pot.

Without guns how can a person own anything and have any security in it?

What happens when you piss off someone who happens to be a police officer and he decides to kill you? You won't be able to explain that you were attacked because you're dead and you can't talk.. The police officer will get a medal

I don't know how many police officers you know IRL but they are worse than any criminals I have met and if only the police have guns more and more criminals will want to join "the force".

Just because you don't need a gun now... just wait for the real world.. it is coming.

[MF Perm]

Then why did you represent it as such? I'm letting you dictate the premises under which we argue and you are trying to play both sides.

I don't think I understand what you are saying. Represent what as such? And I'm not sure what you mean by trying to play both sides.

[Melchiah]

I just can't wrap my mind around how you come to the conclusion that banning guns will stop violent crime. It might cause a nominal decrease in the number of people who get shot, but people who make their minds up to bring misery or pain or death to others are going to do so with whatever weapon they think is the most efficient. If we are having a quantitative discussion on how many people a fire arm can kill per time unit, then yes clearly a handgun outruns bladed weapons and the like, and a large scale explosive attack being the only thing with a greater mortality potential is not likely. But the point remains, you are only slowing down the killing, and evil people who want guns for evil purposes will find a way to get them because we cannot legislate gun ownership across the globe.

[MF Perm]

The Constitution is not a static document. Hence ammendments.

Nothing essential in this day and age about college students buying glock 9mms.

I don't think Oklahoma police are that much worse than police in other places but I have NEVER heard of someone getting robbed and the police getting their stuff back. The police are too busy hunting down people who smoke pot.

Without guns how can a person own anything and have any security in it?

By redirecting fiscal policy concerning the war on drugs. Then we have more security against robbery. Also, how does a gun protect you if you're not home when you're being robbed?

[Tyche]

We are the easily the freest society on the planet. I do not know of many places on this earth where a person can say "Id like a gun, alcohol, and drugs, and i'd like them in the next 15 minutes". In the US, that's totally feasible. That is why it is incredibly unfair to compare us to any other country. In a country with probably close to 400,000,000 people including illegals, i think were doing fairly well to have only 1 or 2 bad days like this out of 1,000. Unless, of course, you want to count the thousands of shootings a day in which someone would have been hurt/killed regardless of the accessibility of a firearm, by some other type of weapon due to the fact it was a crime of passion.

[Melchiah]

Then why did you represent it as such? I'm letting you dictate the premises under which we argue and you are trying to play both sides.

I don't think I understand what you are saying. Represent what as such? And I'm not sure what you mean by trying to play both sides.

Your wording about the state report represents it as the states conclusion as to why the boy did what he did, and it has the appearance of a fact because of the word concluded. Perhaps its just poor wording, but it seems like you are trying to change the premises of the debate on the fly.

[Beckwin]

Explain the lower homicide rates in other western nations with stricter gun laws then. Wanna say its a cultural problem? Ok, sure, our goddam gun culture is a problem.

Guns are for killing (people). If they are out there, they're gonna be used and people will die.

Don't go back to the knife/baseball bat/chainsaw crap. You don't get to easily pick and chose who you want to kill with those potential weapons. You don't go on bloody rampages with those weapons. Bombs are illegal, so kind of a moot point in this.

Lets talk about armed robbers again. Would they think twice about confronting someone if they only had a knife?

Yes, criminals that really want to get ahold of guns will have them. But we can make it so only the criminals with the most extreme means can do it. Other countries have found success like this so we don't have any excuses. Culture again, you say? Fine, we can fix the rich/poor gap and improve social institutions as well, I'm all for that. And I'm all for a sea change in people being raised to appreciate human life above all else. But there is still no reason for Joe Citizen to own a firearm just on the extreme off chance he needs to shoot someone, especially considering what reducing the number of guns out there could do for crime, as shown by other western nations.

[Devek]

The Constitution is not a static document. Hence ammendments.

Nothing essential in this day and age about college students buying glock 9mms.

I don't think Oklahoma police are that much worse than police in other places but I have NEVER heard of someone getting robbed and the police getting their stuff back. The police are too busy hunting down people who smoke pot.

Without guns how can a person own anything and have any security in it?

By redirecting fiscal policy concerning the war on drugs. Then we have more security against robbery. Also, how does a gun protect you if you're not home when you're being robbed?

Home are very very very rarely robbed down here... because criminals are not stupid. The risk of someone being home and armed is too high. It is a nice deterrent.

Just like concealed handguns.... the more people that have them the higher the risk involved with robbing a person directly.

Crime is a game of risk vs reward... criminals that engage in risky behavior win Darwin awards.

[Melchiah]

Explain the lower homicide rates in other western nations with stricter gun laws then. Wanna say its a cultural problem? Ok, sure, our goddam gun culture is a problem.

Guns are for killing (people). If they are out there, they're gonna be used and people will die.

Don't go back to the knife/baseball bat/chainsaw crap. You don't get to easily pick and chose who you want to kill with those potential weapons. You don't go on bloody rampages with those weapons. Bombs are illegal, so kind of a moot point in this.

Lets talk about armed robbers again. Would they think twice about confronting someone if they only had a knife?

Yes, criminals that really want to get ahold of guns will have them. But we can make it so only the criminals with the most extreme means can do it. Other countries have found success like this so we don't have any excuses. Culture again, you say? Fine, we can fix the rich/poor gap and improve social institutions as well, I'm all for that. And I'm all for a sea change in people being raised to appreciate human life above all else. But there is still no reason for Joe Citizen to own a firearm just on the extreme off chance he needs to shoot someone, especially considering what reducing the number of guns out there could do for crime, as shown by other western nations.

There were statistics shown that showed countries with high amounts of gun controls and low homicide rates, and also countries with high per capita private gun ownerships and low homicide rates. So that defies the correlation between homicide rates and gun ownership.

[MF Perm]

I just can't wrap my mind around how you come to the conclusion that banning guns will stop violent crime. It might cause a nominal decrease in the number of people who get shot, but people who make their minds up to bring misery or pain or death to others are going to do so with whatever weapon they think is the most efficient. If we are having a quantitative discussion on how many people a fire arm can kill per time unit, then yes clearly a handgun outruns bladed weapons and the like, and a large scale explosive attack being the only thing with a greater mortality potential is not likely. But the point remains, you are only slowing down the killing, and evil people who want guns for evil purposes will find a way to get them because we cannot legislate gun ownership across the globe.

The point I am standing by is the fact that it's not evil people or default criminals that end up making this decision to just hurt people because they can. I'm sure if guns were gone this would occur, but with far less frequency imo.

What my point is, is that if there is not access to a firearm, this is not an option to the person in the mental capacity they were in when they did kill or attack someone with a gun - the chances that a violent crime would have occurred, or the amount of victims involved would drastically decrease.

Think if it this way, in a more absurd sense just to make a point - if citizens were allowed to purchase and own rocket launchers, how many of these crimes do you think would have involved rocket launchers instead of guns, since these are far more destructive and now in the equation.

Now that said, since we both know this is not the case, and rocket launchers are not in the equation - is there a rocket launcher smuggling issue in the US? Are there crimes involving rocket launchers?

Now replace all of that with the word gun, and imagine we live in a country that owning a gun is illegal.

Now, I have conceded several times in this thread that by instantly taking the rights away will obviously cause alot of problems to start. I also think that proper funding and management of this proposal would have the chance to curb anything too drastic as far as crime rates.

I understand that this is nearly an impossible goal to achieve for several reasons, but I think ideally that a gun free America would be much safer and pleasurable to live in.

Does that make better sense as far as where I'm coming from?

[Beckwin]

We are the easily the freest society on the planet. I do not know of many places on this earth where a person can say "Id like a gun, alcohol, and drugs, and i'd like them in the next 15 minutes". In the US, that's totally feasible. That is why it is incredibly unfair to compare us to any other country. In a country with probably close to 400,000,000 people including illegals, i think were doing fairly well to have only 1 or 2 bad days like this out of 1,000. Unless, of course, you want to count the thousands of shootings a day in which someone would have been hurt/killed regardless of the accessibility of a firearm, by some other type of weapon due to the fact it was a crime of passion.

I really don't think its fair to say we're the freest society on the planet. I can't go to a bar and buy pot :/ We can also talk about awful voter turnout, rich/poor divides, and post 9/11 security practises affecting freedom as well, but thats another subject.

You talk about hurt/killed in crimes of passion with a firearm: it would be more hurt and less killed if the firearms weren't present. One pull of the trigger is all it takes to kill someone more often than one stab or one bludgeon.