Discuss the second amendment here.

[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.

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.

Oh I apologize for that misunderstanding. I quoted that from the wiki, I didn't write that myself.

[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.

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.

We are EASILY the freest society on earth...EASILY. Easy access to drugs, alcohol, firearms (more easily accessed than other countries) added with 300,000,000 legal citizens and a metric fuck-ton of illegals...c'mon, we're luck to only have this happen once every few years. Re: I can go right outside, walk less than 2 miles, and buy probably any drug i want, whether it be pot, meth, cocaine, whatever. This can be said for probably 99.9% of people in the US. If you can't walk into a bar and buy pot, then you aren't looking very hard. As far as the second statement, if someone is intent on killing someone, then they are going to kill them in some way. That's how crimes of passion work. Sometimes a gun doesn't kill someone. It's really a moot point that would argue the true intent of the (attempted)murderer.

[Lynsy]

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.

That's actually completely untrue. Our government likes us to believe that we're the freest nation in the world, but in reality many countries, most notably the Netherlands, have much more freedom than America.

I can go right outside, walk less than 2 miles, and buy probably any drug i want, whether it be pot, meth, cocaine, whatever. This can be said for probably 99.9% of people in the US. If you can't walk into a bar and buy pot, then you aren't looking very hard. As far as the second statement, if someone is intent on killing someone, then they are going to kill them in some way. That's how crimes of passion work. Sometimes a gun doesn't kill someone. It's really a moot point that would argue the true intent of the (attempted)murderer.

It, undoubtedly, decrease the homicide rate. It likely would not decrease violent crime in general. MOST Violent crime is not committed with guns. Most FATAL crime is.

[Melchiah]

Sure Perm, as long as you agree that there is an extremely wide gulf separating ideallic and practicality. Also I think it is speculation on your part that a person who snaps, for lack of a better word, will get himself under control if the gun is made not immediately available. I still say that these kinds of attacks are the result of weeks or months of depression or other issues, and are carefully thought out prior to execution. The VT shooter didn't just grab his 9MMs and go shooting. He decided to kill lots of people before hand. He decided that he should chain doors shut to facilitate his goal of killing many people by cutting off potential escape routes. What I'm getting at is that these situations will only be delayed by the lack of a gun. The planning stage will take longer and the individual will have to get creative to accomplish his goal. See what I mean?

[Tyche]

When the netherlands has to control a country that is larger than half the size of california, i think that would be a fair comparison.

Edit: Second quote. Less than 50% of domestic murders where the weapon was known, it was a firearm. Not most of the time as you stated.

[MF Perm]

Sure Perm, as long as you agree that there is an extremely wide gulf separating ideallic and practicality. Also I think it is speculation on your part that a person who snaps, for lack of a better word, will get himself under control if the gun is made not immediately available. I still say that these kinds of attacks are the result of weeks or months of depression or other issues, and are carefully thought out prior to execution. The VT shooter didn't just grab his 9MMs and go shooting. He decided to kill lots of people before hand. He decided that he should chain doors shut to facilitate his goal of killing many people by cutting off potential escape routes. What I'm getting at is that these situations will only be delayed by the lack of a gun. The planning stage will take longer and the individual will have to get creative to accomplish his goal. See what I mean?

I see what you mean, but I don't agree with you say lol. I think there would be alot more warning signs to someone attempting to bomb a place, than there are for someone attempting to shoot the place up ( as far as preparation ).

I still also think that if guns were taken out of the equation, the thought process might have ended differently for the VT case as well as Columbine.

It's basically the point where we differ, as that I don't think that just because there is a chance someone who had or has committed a gun crime will find some other way and be just as if not more successful than when they used a gun with whatever other means they went with in the absence of guns.

Just going to have to agree to disagree lol.

[Devek]

Guns really suck for murder anyway. The sound is loud and draws attention.. so much is traceable.. and the $200 purchase on your credit card at the gun store just gives it away. Guns make the coverup more complicated than it needs be and most people end up getting caught in the coverup.

The best way to kill someone in a moment of passion is to randomly (and in public) just run up, stab them, and then run off.

No bullets, no forensics, and no way to trace the knife back specifically to you.

Only downside would be if they had a gun..

[Melchiah]

Guns really suck for murder anyway. The sound is loud and draws attention.. so much is traceable.. and the $200 purchase on your credit card at the gun store just gives it away.

The best way to kill someone in a moment of passion is to randomly (and in public) just run up, stab them, and then run off.

No bullets, no forensics, and no way to trace the knife back specifically to you.

Only downside would be if they had a gun..

You'd need to shoot the eyewitnesses.

[Beckwin]

GUN CONTROL EFFECTIVENESS IN CANADA

In 1978, Canada passed C-51, a law which banned non-grandfathered automatic weapons, required the registration of other firearms, and generally tightened restrictions on their transportation and use. This was accompanied by a substantial drop in the firearm homicide rate:

Canadian homicide rate (per 100,000)

                  By      By other
Year    Overall   guns    methods
----------------------------------
1974     2.68     1.4     1.3
1975     3.09     1.4     1.7
1976     2.91     1.2     1.7
1977     3.06     1.2     1.8
1978     2.81     1.1     1.7  < C-51 passed
1979     2.66     0.9     1.8
1980     2.47     0.9     1.6
1981     2.66     0.8     1.8
1982     2.72     1.0     1.7
1983     2.75     0.9     1.8
1984     2.67     0.9     1.7
1985     2.80     0.8     1.9
1986     2.24     0.7     1.5
1987     2.51     0.8     1.7 

Averages:
74-78    2.91     1.3     1.6
79-87    2.61     0.9     1.7

Source: Stats Canada 88.

This chart shows that the drop in firearm homicides was not cancelled out by an equal rise in homicides using other methods. Murderers did not simply switch over to other types of weapons. In fact, t-tests show that the average drop in firearm homicides is significant (p=0.00003), whereas the slight increase for other methods is not (p=0.39).

Of course, this chart alone does not tell us if gun control was the cause of this reduction in gun homicides. But it does present a significant challenge to those who would like to argue that gun control laws increase the murder rate, or cause murderers to choose alternate weapons.

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-guncontrol.htm

[MF Perm]

Guns really suck for murder anyway. The sound is loud and draws attention.. so much is traceable.. and the $200 purchase on your credit card at the gun store just gives it away.

The best way to kill someone in a moment of passion is to randomly (and in public) just run up, stab them, and then run off.

No bullets, no forensics, and no way to trace the knife back specifically to you.

Only downside would be if they had a gun..

You'd need to shoot the eyewitnesses.

Or throw a pipebomb at them.

[Melchiah]

It's basically the point where we differ, as that I don't think that just because there is a chance someone who had or has committed a gun crime will find some other way and be just as if not more successful than when they used a gun with whatever other means they went with in the absence of guns.

These people, criminals, will find a way. They'll use a gun. Might not get it at a pawn shop or a gun retailer, but they will find a way to get one. I'd much rather the riff raff be carrying Glock 9mms than Isreali Uzis or other fully automatic weapons.

[freemason]

Penn & Teller explaining to us the purpose of the 2nd amendment. Audio is messed up.
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=409_1176853869

[Melchiah]

Ok Beckwin. Now explain the statistics mentioned earlier that show countries with both heavy and lax gun control having low homicide rates. The correlation is false.

[Tyche]

Here we go, comparing us to countries that don't have any more people than one of our states, nor the astounding number of illegals.

[MF Perm]

It's basically the point where we differ, as that I don't think that just because there is a chance someone who had or has committed a gun crime will find some other way and be just as if not more successful than when they used a gun with whatever other means they went with in the absence of guns.

These people, criminals, will find a way. They'll use a gun. Might not get it at a pawn shop or a gun retailer, but they will find a way to get one. I'd much rather the riff raff be carrying Glock 9mms than Isreali Uzis or other fully automatic weapons.

This is another point we don't agree on, the idea of a criminal as a static entity. The action a person does is what makes a criminal, the person isn't a criminal to start.

An alternative path opened because an unknown path is closed presents a different result. Obviously that result could be someone getting an Uzi, but I don't don't think it likely in a controlled setting.

I couldn't imagine this Korean VT guy going through the channels needed to obtain a weapon of that caliber in the event he was in an America with much tighter gun control laws.

Call me an optimist.

[Beckwin]

Guns really suck for murder anyway. The sound is loud and draws attention.. so much is traceable.. and the $200 purchase on your credit card at the gun store just gives it away. Guns make the coverup more complicated than it needs be and most people end up getting caught in the coverup.

The best way to kill someone in a moment of passion is to randomly (and in public) just run up, stab them, and then run off.

No bullets, no forensics, and no way to trace the knife back specifically to you.

Only downside would be if they had a gun..

You mean, only downside is if/when the victim cries out and a couple guys in the crowd chase you down, seeing that you don't have a gun?

Seriously, just shut up with the Tom Clancy bullshit. You aren't gonna go Rainbow 6 with Rin-Tin-Tin if someone breaks in your house and you aren't gonna 1-stab kill someone with a dagger and blend effortlessly into the crowd without a sound.

[BarthelloSylph]

I've said it before and I'll say it again.

Before guns, there were other weapons. Many people were killed.

Now we have guns. People get killed.

If you
A) Ban guns and
B) Leave the underlying problems of poverty, lack of education, etc alone you will get a future where there are

1) new weapons
2) people getting killed

you keep accusing me of not wanting it to be hard to get a gun. Did you not read my posts? Gun control is good! Let's make it hard as hell. Make it so you have to have a squeaky clean record and pass 20 psychatric tests. That's fine. I'm for it. I'm not for banning guns.

And while you focus so much on getting rid of guns, you seem to realize there is an underlying problem, but have no interest in fixing or trying to fix it.

My solution - let's stiffen up gun control (but not ban it, too much money and impossible to enforce), and let's get to solving some of these issues that plague our country.

I think your solution comes up short. Banning guns is A) impossible, B) costly, and C) doesn't permanently solve the problem.

Now that I've explained my position for the 10th time, can you explain why getting rid of guns will solve our problem A) more effectively and B) less costly than simply helping people in need? Bringing them out of poverty and educate then?

Geez, I sound like a better liberal than you!

Once again - solve the problem, and it's gone forever. Solve the means, and the problem will occur again in the future.

It's my opinion, but I think it's pretty solid. I'd be interested to see if you can respond sans personal attacks, I don't think you've got it in ya

I think I've made clear the case I'm making is that violent crime is related to the ease of which guns are obtained. Furthermore, I am disagreeing that simply running psychological tests is an efficient way to prevent said crimes.

We can sure go into the other areas surrounding this, but the end result of a violent crime is a person with a gun, not a fucked up mental person - who by the way may not have been mental or desperate until a certain point that no person can anticipate, ever.

So there it is in cliffnotes for you. You can't prevent crime by trying to impossibly diagnose millions of peoples mental conditions when it can change AFTER THE FACT of a gun purchase.

You can prevent crime by denying access to the gun.

Unless something new comes up I'm done with this line of argument, it's getting redundant and going in circles.

Why do you keep making up something that I never said?

I said that the kid in the VT incident was noticed to be unstable before - as were the Columbine kids, and therefore it could have been possibly STOPPED if someone had said something.

You sound retarded when you make up ridiculous arguments (such as mentally testing everyone) and put them in my mouth.

[Devek]

That and crime/murder rates sway back and forth for a multitude of reasons.

Violent crime as a whole has been dropping the last 16 years in America and according to the FBI we are at a 40 year low.

[Lynsy]

When the netherlands has to control a country that is larger than half the size of california, i think that would be a fair comparison.

....

The United States is the third largest country in the world, by population, and the third or fourth largest country by area. So what is a fair comparison? Sorry, but you didn't say "Freest country with a population of over 250m" you said we had the freest society, and that is categorically untrue. We do not. We never have. There are many other countries with freer societies. Sweden, Denmark, Switzerland, and many others. The United States actually falls typically in the 20s in most "Freedom" ranking surveys.

http://www.freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page=1 Is a website that discusses relative freedom of countries. The idea that the United States is the "freest most democratic country in the world" is what we call like to call propaganda.

[Beckwin]

Ok Beckwin. Now explain the statistics mentioned earlier that show countries with both heavy and lax gun control having low homicide rates. The correlation is false.

The country with the higher gun contols had the lower homicide rates compared to the countries with the more lax gun control and relatively (to the US, beacon of freedom and right in the world) low homicide rate.

The nations with lax gun control and relatively low murder rates have environments with weaker crime factors- don't have the rich/poor gap on our scale, they have better social institutions, don't have the same racial issues we have, and less street gang presence. I've never said there aren't societal/cultural issues that need fixing and I've never said the problem of murder will ever be fixed, but it's pretty obvious that heavily restricting the easiest and most deliberate method has a pretty strong impact on curbing homicide.

Correlation is still there.