So, Trayvon Martin. (Updated 9/10: From the duh and oops departments)

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 . . . 43 NEXT
 

Volf:

Archroy:

Volf:
Its not just that they had a weapon, it what organization they belonged to as well.

Is it an illegal organisation?

No, just an organization that has a certain "history".

Doesn't matter.

Captcha: "know your rights." fitting.

evilneko:
You guys realize the whole New Black Panthers thing has absolutely ZERO relevance here right?

Hell, I said that as soon as Ravenshrike posted it ... didn't help matters any.

Archroy:

Lil devils x:

Not sure why people have this thing about guns. To me it is just a tool. I have been shooting since I was 8 years old. All the women in my family own firearms. Only living things I have ever had to shoot were coyotes and wild dogs attacking our animals. I have seen holstered guns in public on many occasions and do not think twice about it. That is a non issue really, as where I come from, that is normal. It is abnormal to see someone waving the gun around in the air, running with it in hand, or using it in a threatening manner. The same applies to anything, whether it be a crowbar, a chainsaw, a cross bow, a baseball bat- it does not matter, it is not the item that is threatening, it is the manner in which it is being used and the proper setting.

I personally have a thing about them precisely because of what happened to Trayvon. Whatever may have happened in this case, an unarmed person was shot and killed by someone carrying a legal firearm.

A lot of people are fucking idiots and I wouldn't personally trust them with a wooden spoon, let alone a lethal weapon that can end a life in the blink of an eye.

You know I have been using that argument for quite some time to restrict who and who cannot drive a car, but we still wind up with all these idiots on the road ways that should not be there. Just think, Cars kill many more people than guns do, more than 100 people a day are killed by them just in the US, but they still give them to minors, and keep allowing these idiots out on the road ways. If a kid can't be trusted with a gun, they sure as hell cannot be trusted with a car.

Now you should actually feel safer with some of them owning a gun, since they cannot even control a wooden spoon, do you think they can actually hit someone if they are aiming at them? I have been shooting a long time, and I have seen some of these idiots who think you just "point and shoot" to hit a target. LOL

CM156:

The Gentleman:
. I also know that the NRA has effectively prevented any attempt to reduce gun violence through rational regulation, sometimes to an irrational sense

Such as..... what? What have they blocked that was "rational"?

If I'm not mistaken, they supported an improvement on the NICS system back in 2007
http://www.opencongress.org/wiki/NICS_Improvement_Act_of_2007

The assault weapons ban for starters

Bans on extended clips

Getting rid of the gun show background check loophole

Getting rid of the "private seller" loophole (I can literally buy a gun off Craigslist with no background check in the US fairly easily)

And that's just off the top of my head.

Lil devils x:

Archroy:

Lil devils x:

Not sure why people have this thing about guns. To me it is just a tool. I have been shooting since I was 8 years old. All the women in my family own firearms. Only living things I have ever had to shoot were coyotes and wild dogs attacking our animals. I have seen holstered guns in public on many occasions and do not think twice about it. That is a non issue really, as where I come from, that is normal. It is abnormal to see someone waving the gun around in the air, running with it in hand, or using it in a threatening manner. The same applies to anything, whether it be a crowbar, a chainsaw, a cross bow, a baseball bat- it does not matter, it is not the item that is threatening, it is the manner in which it is being used and the proper setting.

I personally have a thing about them precisely because of what happened to Trayvon. Whatever may have happened in this case, an unarmed person was shot and killed by someone carrying a legal firearm.

A lot of people are fucking idiots and I wouldn't personally trust them with a wooden spoon, let alone a lethal weapon that can end a life in the blink of an eye.

You know I have been using that argument for quite some time to restrict who and who cannot drive a car, but we still wind up with all these idiots on the road ways that should not be there. Just think, Cars kill many more people than guns do, more than 100 people a day are killed by them just in the US, but they still give them to minors, and keep allowing these idiots out on the road ways. If a kid can't be trusted with a gun, they sure as hell cannot be trusted with a car.

Now you should actually feel safer with some of them owning a gun, since they cannot even control a wooden spoon, do you think they can actually hit someone if they are aiming at them? I have been shooting a long time, and I have seen some of these idiots who think you just "point and shoot" to hit a target. LOL

Don't you have to take a test to drive a vehicle in the US? Is there a test to own a firearm in the US?

The Gentleman:

The assault weapons ban for starters

That expired. Congress didn't care enough to take up the issue.

Let's go over what makes an "assault weapon"
"Folding or telescoping stock
Pistol grip
Bayonet mount
Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one
Grenade launcher (more precisely, a muzzle device which enables the launching or firing of rifle grenades)"

Why are telescoping stocks or flash suppressors so dangerous? A bayonet mount and grenade launcher? I have never seen those on gun anywhere I've shopped even after the ban. And a pistol grip?

Also, from wikipedia "It was noted by the National Institute of Justice that should the ban be renewed, its effects on gun violence would likely be small at best and perhaps too small for reliable measurement due to assault weapons rarely being used in gun crimes even before the ban"

Let's also not forget that the VPC says the ban didn't work, only because the gun industry took away all the scary features from guns and sold them anyways.

Bans on extended clips

No such thing exists.

Now, magazines that carry more than 10 rounds do. Why is 11 rounds "high capacity"? Never gotten a good answer for that one. 16 is the standard size for my father's P99

Getting rid of the gun show background check loophole

Getting rid of the "private seller" loophole (I can literally buy a gun off Craigslist with no background check in the US fairly easily)

If you're a FFL dealer, you have to do a background check on any sale. Gun shows or no. If it leaves the state, it has to go through a FFL dealer as well.

Now, while this may be an issue, the pro/anti gun side disagree on how to deal with it. Some second amendment group (maybe the NRA, maybe another) was, I think, trying to get public access to the NICS system so people could run background checks at gun shows easier.

EDIT:

The Gentleman:
Don't you have to take a test to drive a vehicle in the US? Is there a test to own a firearm in the US?

I don't need a test to own a car, if that's what you're asking. Also, most anyone can take the test to drive a car at 16, and they can own any car they want, provided they can afford to pay for it. Want to do that with guns?

Apples and oranges.

The Gentleman:

Lil devils x:

Archroy:

I personally have a thing about them precisely because of what happened to Trayvon. Whatever may have happened in this case, an unarmed person was shot and killed by someone carrying a legal firearm.

A lot of people are fucking idiots and I wouldn't personally trust them with a wooden spoon, let alone a lethal weapon that can end a life in the blink of an eye.

You know I have been using that argument for quite some time to restrict who and who cannot drive a car, but we still wind up with all these idiots on the road ways that should not be there. Just think, Cars kill many more people than guns do, more than 100 people a day are killed by them just in the US, but they still give them to minors, and keep allowing these idiots out on the road ways. If a kid can't be trusted with a gun, they sure as hell cannot be trusted with a car.

Now you should actually feel safer with some of them owning a gun, since they cannot even control a wooden spoon, do you think they can actually hit someone if they are aiming at them? I have been shooting a long time, and I have seen some of these idiots who think you just "point and shoot" to hit a target. LOL

Don't you have to take a test to drive a vehicle in the US? Is there a test to own a firearm in the US?

The driver who hit me did not speak English, did not have a drivers license, did not have insurance, and did NOT go to jail. Even when the officer that arrived on the scene became agitated with them because they would not move their car off the road and pushed the car off the road himself, they still did not arrest the guy.

In my opinion, there should be more than a test required for both. There are licenses required to conceal to carry, there are also licenses for drving on public roads, however, the one for conceal to carry is much more difficult than for driving, even though driving kills many more people every day.

Lil devils x:

Archroy:

Lil devils x:

Not sure why people have this thing about guns. To me it is just a tool. I have been shooting since I was 8 years old. All the women in my family own firearms. Only living things I have ever had to shoot were coyotes and wild dogs attacking our animals. I have seen holstered guns in public on many occasions and do not think twice about it. That is a non issue really, as where I come from, that is normal. It is abnormal to see someone waving the gun around in the air, running with it in hand, or using it in a threatening manner. The same applies to anything, whether it be a crowbar, a chainsaw, a cross bow, a baseball bat- it does not matter, it is not the item that is threatening, it is the manner in which it is being used and the proper setting.

I personally have a thing about them precisely because of what happened to Trayvon. Whatever may have happened in this case, an unarmed person was shot and killed by someone carrying a legal firearm.

A lot of people are fucking idiots and I wouldn't personally trust them with a wooden spoon, let alone a lethal weapon that can end a life in the blink of an eye.

You know I have been using that argument for quite some time to restrict who and who cannot drive a car, but we still wind up with all these idiots on the road ways that should not be there. Just think, Cars kill many more people than guns do, more than 100 people a day are killed by them just in the US, but they still give them to minors, and keep allowing these idiots out on the road ways. If a kid can't be trusted with a gun, they sure as hell cannot be trusted with a car.

Comparing guns to cars is apples to oranges. The average person has much more need for a vehicle than they do a gun. Public transport in the US outside of certain cities is laughable at best and you can forget going on foot. I once walked a couple of miles from a friend's house in AZ to a nearby mall and for a good portion of it, there was no pavement (or sidewalk as you will have it over there). Crossing the six lane roads was squeaky bum time also, as the lights changed when you were halfway across, even if you ran.

For the majority of the US populace, if you have no means of transport, you're somewhat up shit creek. The same can't be said of guns on the whole. And you do at least have to take lessons and a test to drive a car, which as far as I am aware, is not the case with buying a gun in large parts of the US. And on the subject of driving, having spent a lot of time in the US, I think that the lessons and tests need to be more rigorous, because the overall standard is woeful in comparison to elsewhere.

Archroy:
Comparing guns to cars is apples to oranges.

I would agree, but for different reasons than the ones you listed.

I've searched the constitution, and I have yet to find any article or amendment that gives a right to own a car. However, I can find a few court decisions, state laws, state constitutions, and even the BoR that innumerate a "right" to keep and bear arms.

Missouri Constitution

Article I
BILL OF RIGHTS
Section 23

"That the right of every citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or when lawfully summoned in aid of the civil power, shall not be questioned; but this shall not justify the wearing of concealed weapons."

But I agree. Apple to oranges.

CM156:

Archroy:
Comparing guns to cars is apples to oranges.

I would agree, but for different reasons than the ones you listed.

I've searched the constitution, and I have yet to find any article or amendment that gives a right to own a car. However, I can find a few court decisions, state laws, state constitutions, and even the BoR that innumerate a "right" to keep and bear arms.

Missouri Constitution

Article I
BILL OF RIGHTS
Section 23

"That the right of every citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or when lawfully summoned in aid of the civil power, shall not be questioned; but this shall not justify the wearing of concealed weapons."

But I agree. Apple to oranges.

It's fair enough that you have a right to them, but that aside,for the vast majority of people, they just aren't necessary for everyday life like a vehicle is i.e. going to work or to the shops.

If the US population was presented with the hypothetical choice of having all the guns in the country magically vapourised,never to return, or all the motor vehicles, chances are that they'd choose to keep their cars.

Or at least I'd like to think they would. You never can tell.

Archroy:

Lil devils x:

Archroy:

I personally have a thing about them precisely because of what happened to Trayvon. Whatever may have happened in this case, an unarmed person was shot and killed by someone carrying a legal firearm.

A lot of people are fucking idiots and I wouldn't personally trust them with a wooden spoon, let alone a lethal weapon that can end a life in the blink of an eye.

You know I have been using that argument for quite some time to restrict who and who cannot drive a car, but we still wind up with all these idiots on the road ways that should not be there. Just think, Cars kill many more people than guns do, more than 100 people a day are killed by them just in the US, but they still give them to minors, and keep allowing these idiots out on the road ways. If a kid can't be trusted with a gun, they sure as hell cannot be trusted with a car.

Comparing guns to cars is apples to oranges. The average person has much more need for a vehicle than they do a gun. Public transport in the US outside of certain cities is laughable at best and you can forget going on foot. I once walked a couple of miles from a friend's house in AZ to a nearby mall and for a good portion of it, there was no pavement (or sidewalk as you will have it over there). Crossing the six lane roads was squeaky bum time also, as the lights changed when you were halfway across, even if you ran.

For the majority of the US populace, if you have no means of transport, you're somewhat up shit creek. The same can't be said of guns on the whole. And you do at least have to take lessons and a test to drive a car, which as far as I am aware, is not the case with buying a gun in large parts of the US. And on the subject of driving, having spent a lot of time in the US, I think that the lessons and tests need to be more rigorous, because the overall standard is woeful in comparison to elsewhere.

Yes, I understand the deplorable state of public transportation here, as I am in Texas and walked to and from work when I was younger for quite some time. I had guys drive off road and straight at me to ask me if "I needed a ride". I actually had a couple of guys who tried to physically pull me into their vehicle and made me fight for my life. No, it is not safe to walk here, but that does not excuse giving permission to operate a lethal weapon to people who do not exercise self control. Cars kill more than 43,000 people a year in the US, guns kill 1,100. The numbers are staggering, yet I am not seeing mobs forming to do something about cars as you do for guns.

Where I live a gun is a necessary tool. People seem to think it is okay to drop off viscious dogs in the country because they cannot control them. These dogs do not just " disappear" they form packs with the other wild dogs here, so we have packs of mixed breeds of pit bulls, german shepards, boxers, rottweilers, dobermans, and wolves running through our neighborhoods. Also out in the country we do not have an animal shelter, so you cannot just call the pound to come get them. Recently, when a school bus was loading one morning there were agitated pits running loose, and luckily my neighbor sacrificed himself and put himself between the children and the pits. He was able to shoot one after it had hold of his leg and that scared the other off. He still may lose his leg, he is on medication that will hopefully save it, but that is still uncertain, but if they had gotten ahold of one of those kids they would not be so lucky. My sisters own nephew did not make it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rZPeDH5dwWo

Lil devils x:

Yes, I understand the deplorable state of public transportation here, as I am in Texas and walked to and from work when I was younger for quite some time. I had guys drive off road and straight at me to ask me if "I needed a ride". I actually had a couple of guys who tried to physically pull me into their vehicle and made me fight for my life. No, it is not safe to walk here, but that does not excuse giving permission to operate a lethal weapon to people who do not exercise self control. Cars kill more than 43,000 people a year in the US, guns kill 1,100. The numbers are staggering, yet I am not seeing mobs forming to do something about cars as you do for guns.

Where I live a gun is a necessary tool. People seem to think it is okay to drop off viscious dogs in the country because they cannot control them. These dogs do not just " disappear" they form packs with the other wild dogs here, so we have packs of mixed breeds of pit bulls, german shepards, boxers, rottweilers, dobermans, and wolves running through our neighborhoods. Also out in the country we do not have an animal shelter, so you cannot just call the pound to come get them. Recently, when a school bus was loading one morning there were agitated pits running loose, and luckily my neighbor sacrificed himself and put himself between the children and the pits. He was able to shoot one after it had hold of his leg and that scared the other off. He still may lose his leg, he is on medication that will hopefully save it, but that is still uncertain, but if they had gotten ahold of one of those kids they would not be so lucky. My sisters own nephew did not make it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rZPeDH5dwWo

Sorry to hear about your sister's nephew. Dangerous dogs are a rich mine of debatable material on their own.

About the figures you quoted though, 1,100 firearm related deaths surely can't be right.

According to this link:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/jan/10/gun-crime-us-state

In 2010, California alone had 1,257 gun murders and there were almost 9,000 nationwide. This doesn't include accidental deaths. Did you mean 11,000?

Edit:
According to this:
http://www.uphs.upenn.edu/ficap/resourcebook/Final%20Resource%20Book%20Updated%202009%20Section%201.pdf

In the last twenty-four years, an average of 32,300 Americans died each year from firearm
injuries.

Edit the second.Info on vehicle related deaths:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_motor_vehicle_deaths_in_U.S._by_year

Well, I guess it was silly of me to hope this wouldn't turn into a gun/anti-gun debate...

evilneko:
Well, I guess it was silly of me to hope this wouldn't turn into a gun/anti-gun debate...

It's a huge political issue for a lot of people, despite being mostly settled in the courts. Roe was decided about 39 years ago, and we're still debating about it. Heller is barely four years old now.

Also, your avatar is violating one (or more) of the rules of gun safety, if that's a revolver (or any gun for that matter). Can you guess which?

EDIT: Note that with that last bit, I'm being facetious

Archroy:

Lil devils x:

Yes, I understand the deplorable state of public transportation here, as I am in Texas and walked to and from work when I was younger for quite some time. I had guys drive off road and straight at me to ask me if "I needed a ride". I actually had a couple of guys who tried to physically pull me into their vehicle and made me fight for my life. No, it is not safe to walk here, but that does not excuse giving permission to operate a lethal weapon to people who do not exercise self control. Cars kill more than 43,000 people a year in the US, guns kill 1,100. The numbers are staggering, yet I am not seeing mobs forming to do something about cars as you do for guns.

Where I live a gun is a necessary tool. People seem to think it is okay to drop off viscious dogs in the country because they cannot control them. These dogs do not just " disappear" they form packs with the other wild dogs here, so we have packs of mixed breeds of pit bulls, german shepards, boxers, rottweilers, dobermans, and wolves running through our neighborhoods. Also out in the country we do not have an animal shelter, so you cannot just call the pound to come get them. Recently, when a school bus was loading one morning there were agitated pits running loose, and luckily my neighbor sacrificed himself and put himself between the children and the pits. He was able to shoot one after it had hold of his leg and that scared the other off. He still may lose his leg, he is on medication that will hopefully save it, but that is still uncertain, but if they had gotten ahold of one of those kids they would not be so lucky. My sisters own nephew did not make it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rZPeDH5dwWo

Sorry to hear about your sister's nephew. Dangerous dogs are a rich mine of debatable material on their own.

About the figures you quoted though, 1,100 firearm related deaths surely can't be right.

According to this link:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/jan/10/gun-crime-us-state

In 2010, California alone had 1,257 gun murders and there were almost 9,000 nationwide. This doesn't include accidental deaths. Did you mean 11,000?

Actually those were old numbers, I didn't search very hard for recent ones, just grabbed the first ones that popped up I believe those were "accidental deaths" As police shootings and self defense really cannot be combined with others.
Car fatalities were at a record low in 2010:
32,788
http://www.fairwarning.org/2011/04/estimates-show-u-s-traffic-fatalities-at-record-low-in-2010/
this list has similar numbers to what I had found as well:
http://www.soyouwanna.com/soyouwanna-top-ten-causes-accidental-death-america-4008-full.html

According to this gun fatalities also were in decline:
MSNBC Shocker: Firearms Deaths Fall As Gun Restrictions Ease
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2010/03/29/msnbc-shocker-firearms-deaths-fall-gun-restrictions-ease

Trying to find the actual numbers separated by catagories is difficult.

They did not separate the police shootings, self defense, and suicides in the 30,000 either, and those cannot be combined with others.

From my understanding, the majority are suicides. If someone wants to kill themselves, they will find a way even if they do not have access to a gun.

Lil devils x:

Actually those were old numbers, I didn't search very hard for recent ones, just grabbed the first ones that popped up I believe those were "accidental deaths" As police shootings and self defense really cannot be combined with others.
Car fatalities were at a record low in 2010:
32,788
http://www.fairwarning.org/2011/04/estimates-show-u-s-traffic-fatalities-at-record-low-in-2010/
this list has similar numbers to what I had found as well:
http://www.soyouwanna.com/soyouwanna-top-ten-causes-accidental-death-america-4008-full.html

According to this gun fatalities also were in decline:
MSNBC Shocker: Firearms Deaths Fall As Gun Restrictions Ease
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2010/03/29/msnbc-shocker-firearms-deaths-fall-gun-restrictions-ease

Trying to find the actual numbers separated by catagories is difficult.

I edited my post above a couple of times, so you may not have seen it, but the numbers of total gun related deaths and vehicle related deaths aren't all that far away from each other.

I'm about to make an assumption, but I don't think it's too unreasonable. I believe that if you worked out the number of hours spent in a vehicle per person and compared it to the number of hours spent using a firearm per person and applied it to the number of deaths attributable to each, vehicles would come out as much safer.

I also think that US road casualties would be reduced if more people wore seatbelts. When I'm there, I see an alarming number of people not belting up, which I almost never see in the UK and haven't seen since the 1980s. There also seems to be a higher prevalence of drink driving there. Maybe because of the greater distances between places there. I'm getting off topic though.

Archroy:

Lil devils x:

Actually those were old numbers, I didn't search very hard for recent ones, just grabbed the first ones that popped up I believe those were "accidental deaths" As police shootings and self defense really cannot be combined with others.
Car fatalities were at a record low in 2010:
32,788
http://www.fairwarning.org/2011/04/estimates-show-u-s-traffic-fatalities-at-record-low-in-2010/
this list has similar numbers to what I had found as well:
http://www.soyouwanna.com/soyouwanna-top-ten-causes-accidental-death-america-4008-full.html

According to this gun fatalities also were in decline:
MSNBC Shocker: Firearms Deaths Fall As Gun Restrictions Ease
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2010/03/29/msnbc-shocker-firearms-deaths-fall-gun-restrictions-ease

Trying to find the actual numbers separated by catagories is difficult.

I edited my post above a couple of times, so you may not have seen it, but the numbers of total gun related deaths and vehicle related deaths aren't all that far away from each other.

I'm about to make an assumption, but I don't think it's too unreasonable. I believe that if you worked out the number of hours spent in a vehicle per person and compared it to the number of hours spent using a firearm per person and applied it to the number of deaths attributable to each, vehicles would come out as much safer.

I also think that US road casualties would be reduced if more people wore seatbelts. When I'm there, I see an alarming number of people not belting up, which I almost never see in the UK and haven't seen since the 1980s. There also seems to be a higher prevalence of drink driving there. Maybe because of the greater distances between places there. I'm getting off topic though.

Oddly, I have never seen someone without a seatbelt. Hell even the guy who didn't have a license that hit me had his seatbelt on. LOL

I edited my post as well to address those numbers. Those numbers are not broke down properly.
Police shootings, suicides, and self defense should not be included in those because 1) the police can legally shoot people 2) self defense is the proper use of a firearm 3) if someone wants to kill themslves they will find a way regardless of if they have a gun. We would need it broke down further to see which was the proper and improper use of a firearm and have those separated to get an accurate number to compare to auto deaths.

Number of hours using each really does not matter in the end of it all. The end of it all is how many people died, and why. The accidental deaths by vehicles is insane compared to the accidental deaths of firearms. Though more people do choose to kill themselves with firearms than they do with cars, I think that is more because they do not wish to harm anyone else, and crashing their vehicle can kill others as well. Though if they do not have access to a firearm, they still kill themselves, they just use another means. The Suicide rate in the US is alarming to say the least, with or without gun use.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_in_the_United_States

Lil devils x:

Oddly, I have never seen someone without a seatbelt. Hell even the guy who didn't have a license that hit me had his seatbelt on. LOL

I edited my post as well to address those numbers. Those numbers are not broke down properly.
Police shootings, suicides, and self defense should not be included in those because 1) the police can legally shoot people 2) self defense is the proper use of a firearm 3) if someone wants to kill themslves they will find a way regardless of if they have a gun. We would need it broke down further to see which was the proper and improper use of a firearm and have those separated to get an accurate number to compare to auto deaths.

Maybe it's just my wife's family then ;)

We're going to have to disagree on breaking the numbers down. A gun makes a suicide easy and immediate. Not many people survive shooting themselves in the head. I do think that fewer people would successfully kill themselves if they didn't have ready access to a firearm.

The US police do shoot people and I've seen more than a few cases where by the standards of where I live, it shouldn't have happened.
In b4 Jean Charles de Menezes.

As for self-defence, well, that's why we're here isn't it?

evilneko:
Well, I guess it was silly of me to hope this wouldn't turn into a gun/anti-gun debate...

Rule 1 of politics forums:

If a gun is mentioned, all Hell will break lose.

Archroy:

CM156:

Archroy:
Comparing guns to cars is apples to oranges.

I would agree, but for different reasons than the ones you listed.

I've searched the constitution, and I have yet to find any article or amendment that gives a right to own a car. However, I can find a few court decisions, state laws, state constitutions, and even the BoR that innumerate a "right" to keep and bear arms.

Missouri Constitution

Article I
BILL OF RIGHTS
Section 23

"That the right of every citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or when lawfully summoned in aid of the civil power, shall not be questioned; but this shall not justify the wearing of concealed weapons."

But I agree. Apple to oranges.

It's fair enough that you have a right to them, but that aside,for the vast majority of people, they just aren't necessary for everyday life like a vehicle is i.e. going to work or to the shops.

If the US population was presented with the hypothetical choice of having all the guns in the country magically vapourised,never to return, or all the motor vehicles, chances are that they'd choose to keep their cars.

Or at least I'd like to think they would. You never can tell.

Bringing magical situations does not make a good argument.

If every single weapon was suddenly vaporized, that would include one of every cop, soldier, special forces, and any military forces of the United States.

And what are we defining as guns? If it is "object that launches projectile from a barrel with," every single weapon we have outside of gernades and explosives will be useless. Tanks, arterlery, bazooka's, all these things are in some form and another. Even Nukes can technically be called a gun, since it fires the particles into the warhead. MEXICO could invade us.

Your basically making the choice between something you need for immediate survival for those that you need for long term. It would be like asking you to choose between your arms and your heart. You can live without your arms, but not easily.

Maybe it's just my wife's family then ;)

We're going to have to disagree on breaking the numbers down. A gun makes a suicide easy and immediate. Not many people survive shooting themselves in the head. I do think that fewer people would successfully kill themselves if they didn't have ready access to a firearm.

The US police do shoot people and I've seen more than a few cases where by the standards of where I live, it shouldn't have happened.
In b4 Jean Charles de Menezes.

As for self-defence, well, that's why we're here isn't it?

1. Jumping off a tall building or jumping in front of a train is just as quick and reliable a way for death as a gun. Train operators actually have support groups, just because almost all of them has killed at least one person within the first year of them conducting, and it is impossible to tell how many were suicides and how many just were idiots on the tracks. Highest suicide rate in a first world country is Japan, that has possibly the longest history of gun control of any nation.

2. Police have shot those that they didn't need to, and didn't shoot people that they did. Picking and choosing cases is very difficult.

3. And yes, that is why we are here, isn't it?

Not G. Ivingname:

evilneko:
Well, I guess it was silly of me to hope this wouldn't turn into a gun/anti-gun debate...

Rule 1 of politics forums:

If a gun is mentioned, all Hell will break lose.

Well at least it made it what, 8 pages before that happened?

Anyway, how about something on-topic....

What does anyone think of this "friend" of Zimmerman, Joe Oliver?

There is apparently a lot that Mr. Oliver didn't know about Zimmerman. He's self-described "uncle figure" to Zimmerman, and didn't know about Zimmerman's past arrests or anger management classes. He's trying to defend Zimmerman and hasn't even seen him since a week before the shooting.

Archroy:

Lil devils x:

Oddly, I have never seen someone without a seatbelt. Hell even the guy who didn't have a license that hit me had his seatbelt on. LOL

I edited my post as well to address those numbers. Those numbers are not broke down properly.
Police shootings, suicides, and self defense should not be included in those because 1) the police can legally shoot people 2) self defense is the proper use of a firearm 3) if someone wants to kill themslves they will find a way regardless of if they have a gun. We would need it broke down further to see which was the proper and improper use of a firearm and have those separated to get an accurate number to compare to auto deaths.

Maybe it's just my wife's family then ;)

We're going to have to disagree on breaking the numbers down. A gun makes a suicide easy and immediate. Not many people survive shooting themselves in the head. I do think that fewer people would successfully kill themselves if they didn't have ready access to a firearm.

The US police do shoot people and I've seen more than a few cases where by the standards of where I live, it shouldn't have happened.
In b4 Jean Charles de Menezes.

As for self-defence, well, that's why we're here isn't it?

Yea we can disagree on the numbers in regards to suicide, because there were multiple loaded weapons in my parents home when I chose to use sleeping pills instead. I never even gave thought to using a gun at the time, but that may be because I always thought of it as a tool, no different than seeing the stove in the kitchen.

Yes, more people would probably survive other means of suicide if they did not have access to a firearm, but we would also have more people hanging themslves and jumping from buildings and bridges, and possibly injuring or killing others in the process.

What really needs to be addressed, moreso than guns is the suicide issue, but as for self defense, I do not think stalking a guy, confronting them, and them freaking out on you is grounds for self defense. I do believe if you are in your home and someone breaks in that is self defense. I do believe if you are walking along a street and are attacked out of nowhere, that is self defense.

I do not believe Zimmerman was exercising self defense, and should have been taken into custody, even though Martin apparantly attacked him, he did not do so until after Zimmerman had stalked him.

Not G. Ivingname:

Bringing magical situations does not make a good argument.

If every single weapon was suddenly vaporized, that would include one of every cop, soldier, special forces, and any military forces of the United States.

And what are we defining as guns? If it is "object that launches projectile from a barrel with," every single weapon we have outside of gernades and explosives will be useless. Tanks, arterlery, bazooka's, all these things are in some form and another. Even Nukes can technically be called a gun, since it fires the particles into the warhead. MEXICO could invade us.

Your basically making the choice between something you need for immediate survival for those that you need for long term. It would be like asking you to choose between your arms and your heart. You can live without your arms, but not easily.

I'm not trying to get into a debate about what constitutes a gun/weapon/bunker busting bomb. That's already been done elsewhere in these hallowed pages to great acclaim. I'm not saying you shouldn't have guns. It's your country and it's up to you and your compatriots to decide that issue if appropriate.

It was merely a hypothetical question to compare the usefulness/necessity of firearms compared to vehicles for daily life in the US. I believe that most people would find a vehicle generally more useful, given the woeful state of public transport in most of the US.

In all seriousness though, are you saying that you personally need guns for your immediate survival?

evilneko:
There is apparently a lot that Mr. Oliver didn't know about Zimmerman. He's self-described "uncle figure" to Zimmerman, and didn't know about Zimmerman's past arrests or anger management classes. He's trying to defend Zimmerman and hasn't even seen him since a week before the shooting.

You mean like the assault charge against a cop which was then dropped? Which never happens unless the cop was royally fucking up?

As for the 'coons' conspiracy, any actual analysis of the sound wave itself shows the word to be punks.

Archroy:

Not G. Ivingname:

Bringing magical situations does not make a good argument.

If every single weapon was suddenly vaporized, that would include one of every cop, soldier, special forces, and any military forces of the United States.

And what are we defining as guns? If it is "object that launches projectile from a barrel with," every single weapon we have outside of gernades and explosives will be useless. Tanks, arterlery, bazooka's, all these things are in some form and another. Even Nukes can technically be called a gun, since it fires the particles into the warhead. MEXICO could invade us.

Your basically making the choice between something you need for immediate survival for those that you need for long term. It would be like asking you to choose between your arms and your heart. You can live without your arms, but not easily.

I'm not trying to get into a debate about what constitutes a gun/weapon/bunker busting bomb. That's already been done elsewhere in these hallowed pages to great acclaim. I'm not saying you shouldn't have guns. It's your country and it's up to you and your compatriots to decide that issue if appropriate.

It was merely a hypothetical question to compare the usefulness/necessity of firearms compared to vehicles for daily life in the US. I believe that most people would find a vehicle generally more useful, given the woeful state of public transport in most of the US.

In all seriousness though, are you saying that you personally need guns for your immediate survival?

No, I was saying we need cars for that since our entire economy is built around objects with four wheels that can move forward. Guns are the long term survival thing I was talking about.

evilneko:

Not G. Ivingname:

evilneko:
Well, I guess it was silly of me to hope this wouldn't turn into a gun/anti-gun debate...

Rule 1 of politics forums:

If a gun is mentioned, all Hell will break lose.

Well at least it made it what, 8 pages before that happened?

Anyway, how about something on-topic....

What does anyone think of this "friend" of Zimmerman, Joe Oliver?

There is apparently a lot that Mr. Oliver didn't know about Zimmerman. He's self-described "uncle figure" to Zimmerman, and didn't know about Zimmerman's past arrests or anger management classes. He's trying to defend Zimmerman and hasn't even seen him since a week before the shooting.

I do not think it would change anything of him defending his friend. Would knowing any of your friends had a troubled past change anything with the way you know them and feel about them? I would think not.

Not G. Ivingname:

Archroy:

Not G. Ivingname:

Bringing magical situations does not make a good argument.

If every single weapon was suddenly vaporized, that would include one of every cop, soldier, special forces, and any military forces of the United States.

And what are we defining as guns? If it is "object that launches projectile from a barrel with," every single weapon we have outside of gernades and explosives will be useless. Tanks, arterlery, bazooka's, all these things are in some form and another. Even Nukes can technically be called a gun, since it fires the particles into the warhead. MEXICO could invade us.

Your basically making the choice between something you need for immediate survival for those that you need for long term. It would be like asking you to choose between your arms and your heart. You can live without your arms, but not easily.

I'm not trying to get into a debate about what constitutes a gun/weapon/bunker busting bomb. That's already been done elsewhere in these hallowed pages to great acclaim. I'm not saying you shouldn't have guns. It's your country and it's up to you and your compatriots to decide that issue if appropriate.

It was merely a hypothetical question to compare the usefulness/necessity of firearms compared to vehicles for daily life in the US. I believe that most people would find a vehicle generally more useful, given the woeful state of public transport in most of the US.

In all seriousness though, are you saying that you personally need guns for your immediate survival?

No, I was saying we need cars for that since our entire economy is built around objects with four wheels that can move forward. Guns are the long term survival thing I was talking about.

Ah, my mistake. Read through quickly 'cause the wife was calling me.

Lil devils x:

I do not think it would change anything of him defending his friend. Would knowing any of your friends had a troubled past change anything with the way you know them and feel about them? I would think not.

Goes to his credibility as a character witness. He sure didn't know much about him.

Not G. Ivingname:

Archroy:

Not G. Ivingname:

Bringing magical situations does not make a good argument.

If every single weapon was suddenly vaporized, that would include one of every cop, soldier, special forces, and any military forces of the United States.

And what are we defining as guns? If it is "object that launches projectile from a barrel with," every single weapon we have outside of gernades and explosives will be useless. Tanks, arterlery, bazooka's, all these things are in some form and another. Even Nukes can technically be called a gun, since it fires the particles into the warhead. MEXICO could invade us.

Your basically making the choice between something you need for immediate survival for those that you need for long term. It would be like asking you to choose between your arms and your heart. You can live without your arms, but not easily.

I'm not trying to get into a debate about what constitutes a gun/weapon/bunker busting bomb. That's already been done elsewhere in these hallowed pages to great acclaim. I'm not saying you shouldn't have guns. It's your country and it's up to you and your compatriots to decide that issue if appropriate.

It was merely a hypothetical question to compare the usefulness/necessity of firearms compared to vehicles for daily life in the US. I believe that most people would find a vehicle generally more useful, given the woeful state of public transport in most of the US.

In all seriousness though, are you saying that you personally need guns for your immediate survival?

No, I was saying we need cars for that since our entire economy is built around objects with four wheels that can move forward. Guns are the long term survival thing I was talking about.

Actually, yes, I do need guns for my immediate survival. Coyotes around here have been getting bad again. Usually they only go after pets and other small animals, but now they started taking down mature cattle. We also had a mountain lion warning again. Apparently my neighborhood has now been included in their hunting grounds. The parks and wildlife dept caught a couple of cubs, but the adults are still at large.

evilneko:

Lil devils x:

I do not think it would change anything of him defending his friend. Would knowing any of your friends had a troubled past change anything with the way you know them and feel about them? I would think not.

Goes to his credibility as a character witness. He sure didn't know much about him.

You can know someone their entire life, and still not know those things about them. People do not usually go around bragging about things they are not proud of.

Lil devils x:

evilneko:

Lil devils x:

I do not think it would change anything of him defending his friend. Would knowing any of your friends had a troubled past change anything with the way you know them and feel about them? I would think not.

Goes to his credibility as a character witness. He sure didn't know much about him.

You can know someone their entire life, and still not know those things about them. People do not usually go around bragging about things they are not proud of.

The guy's billing himself as some sort of uncle figure. Surrogate family.

Clearly, he doesn't know Zimmerman as well as he apparently thinks he does.

evilneko:

Lil devils x:

evilneko:

Goes to his credibility as a character witness. He sure didn't know much about him.

You can know someone their entire life, and still not know those things about them. People do not usually go around bragging about things they are not proud of.

The guy's billing himself as some sort of uncle figure. Surrogate family.

Clearly, he doesn't know Zimmerman as well as he apparently thinks he does.

Lol! Most husbands/wives do not know their spouse as well as they think they do.

Lil devils x:

Not G. Ivingname:

Archroy:

I'm not trying to get into a debate about what constitutes a gun/weapon/bunker busting bomb. That's already been done elsewhere in these hallowed pages to great acclaim. I'm not saying you shouldn't have guns. It's your country and it's up to you and your compatriots to decide that issue if appropriate.

It was merely a hypothetical question to compare the usefulness/necessity of firearms compared to vehicles for daily life in the US. I believe that most people would find a vehicle generally more useful, given the woeful state of public transport in most of the US.

In all seriousness though, are you saying that you personally need guns for your immediate survival?

No, I was saying we need cars for that since our entire economy is built around objects with four wheels that can move forward. Guns are the long term survival thing I was talking about.

Actually, yes, I do need guns for my immediate survival. Coyotes around here have been getting bad again. Usually they only go after pets and other small animals, but now they started taking down mature cattle. We also had a mountain lion warning again. Apparently my neighborhood has now been included in their hunting grounds. The parks and wildlife dept caught a couple of cubs, but the adults are still at large.

Good point, didn't think about that.

I think everyone needs to chill and stop jumping to conclusions because there is a whole lot we do not know. Ill agree that this should have been investigated more earlier but it IS being looked into by a Grand Jury right now so let them do their job. Also knock it off with the stupid race baiting attempts. Do I even need to explain why trying to inject racism into this tragedy is ridiculous?

The worst part is people are trying to demonize Trayvon now. Saying things like "Oh he's a druggie!" or "Oh, he's with the black panthers!"

Honestly, I'm disgusted by the amount of people trying to say things like "They found evidence that he had a bag that may have had some marijuana in it." So does that mean people have a right to murder him all of a sudden? No, not at all.

Witty Name Here:
The worst part is people are trying to demonize Trayvon now. Saying things like "Oh he's a druggie!" or "Oh, he's with the black panthers!"

Honestly, I'm disgusted by the amount of people trying to say things like "They found evidence that he had a bag that may have had some marijuana in it." So does that mean people have a right to murder him all of a sudden? No, not at all.

Well yeah that would be wrong too but pointing out that he wasnt the pure choir boy that the Al Sharpton types tried to make him out to be is not demonizing him, its also not relevant to the case.

You could also turn it around and say that ok Zimmerman probably should have stopped following Martin when the police told him to stop. Still even though he kept following him it doesnt automatically make him a murderer or a racist. We need to look at the facts of the case and not jump to conclusions on our own.

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 . . . 43 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked