A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

 

Must democrats argue the point that the founding fathers had no idea that there would be such power guns but if you read the 2nd amendment it says being necessary to the security of a free state this means you should be able to buy an AR-15 if you want to protect yourself from tyranny of the government that was the point of the 2nd amendment was to make sure the people were up to arms with the government so the government could never become to powerful and take away your rights. Also it doesn't matter if you ban an AR-15 or any other gun because terrorist groups will just get the gun through an illegal source. Just like the war on drugs. Also did you know the Japanese didn't plan a mainland attack on America because they knew the Americans citizens would be armed and would prevent them from winning. Taking away guns from American citizens would just make it easier for terrorist to kill more people because no one could defend them self's for example in San Bernardo if someone had a gun on them there could have been less casualties. Even if they did prevent a terrorist from buying a gun they will just use bombs, knifes, or anything else they can get a hold of. Guns don't kill people, people kill people.  

17 minutes ago, sirkingnut said:

Guns don't kill people, people kill people.  

Yeah, with guns.

 

Edited July 19, 20169 yr by Illusionyary

8 hours ago, Coltsmith said:

Well, we can't look into the heads of the lawmakers then, so we don't know what they meant exactly,. . . .  furthermore were those full-auto cannons highly ineffective and maintenance heavy, that citizens couldn't afford those easily, so I guess the lawmakers then had muskets in mind

 

Well, we know for certain that they fought for days to word things perfectly, and even fought over where they should put the comma in the 2nd Amendment to make sure it was understood in the correct context. Arms includes any and all weapons, including ones of the future, rather than just muskets. 

Furthermore, all arms includes artillery, that seems 'highly ineffective and maintenance heavy, that citizens couldn't afford those easy' doesn't it? This did occur, here's a letter of marque and reprisal straight from President James Madison in which he gives an authorization of privateering to the captain of a privately owned and armed ship. http://www.constitution.org/mil/lmr/1812amer1.htm

Not only did was this ship armed privately with cannons, it was with 18 of them!

The 'muskets' clause isn't even a question, especially with the US Supreme Court Decision of District of Columbia v. Keller, and now with the upholding of that with Commonwealth v. Caetano; the latter of which upholds one decision which was that “the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding,”. That also furthers the view that the second amendment refers to all weapons, which in this case was a stun gun. 

Here is District of Columbia v. Keller, read it. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

 

8 hours ago, Coltsmith said:

not your "special" weapons.

They were special, so special that the writer of the Constitution (Thomas Jefferson) knowingly equipped a reserve army officer, and a civilian with them for an expedition.

8 hours ago, Coltsmith said:

We have airburst full-auto grenade launchers (XM 25) today, but nobody has aquired them in these days, and most people don't know about those,

In the United States, the only people who can aquire the XM-25 are manufacturers/importers of destructive devices. Even if we could get them without the importation deal, it was manufactured after May of 1986 since it's full auto, and is a destructive device since it is well over .50 cal plus fires grenades (each of which is a destructive device in and of itself to the ATF). Thank the National Firearms Act of 1934, and the Hughs Amendment of the Firearms Owner Protection Act of 1986 for people not knowing about this.

8 hours ago, Coltsmith said:

And the world has changed since these times and the first amendment has evolved in times, so should the second amendment, and that doesn't mean including full-auto rifles but maybe also restrictive sales, because the whole world has proven to you, that it works, but no, America is sooooo special it wouldn't work there, gimme a break!!! 

It so far in it's limited success, only been 'successful' in countries that either never had many guns, or had the ability to forcefully confiscate them (violation of 4th Amendment without a warrant in the US). Furthermore, many of these countries didn't have a problem with guns to begin with. Lets take mass shootings as an example for Australia. 

Australia, in their list of massacres on Wikipedia, only had  21 mass shootings within the last hundred one years (including the 5 after the ban, starting from the first mass shooting). The gap between the first and second of which was 58 years, to me that's a long time to begin with when you are comparing them with similar laws at the time with the US. A different culture maybe, combined with a much smaller population? Then all the sudden from that second shooting in 1973, until the ban in 1996, there was 16 shootings (including the starting and finishing), creating an average of 0.6956 mass shootings a year from this time period from the second shooting until the Port Arthur Shooting. However, from the first shooting to the second shooting, there was only two mass shootings if you include those two shootings, leaving an average of 0.0344 mass shootings per year in that 58 year time period. Guns were not the problem in that time; something caused the surge in mass shootings after the second mass shooting. That is not the topic currently though. How much in the years since has that rate changed? Well, it changed to 0.25 per year. Congratulations Australia, you've still haven't got the rate back down even after the reforms. Give it 38 more years, and we'll see just how effective gun control has been.

The difference between guns in that 58 years, and the types of guns you can now own after gun control, should be night and day. Furthermore, the access to guns without licenses should also be noted. Neither has affected the rate of which the shootings have happened, especially since there is 38 more years before the modern stats can accurately be compared.

What you should think about instead, is why in that 23 years between the second shooting and Port Arthur are there so many shootings out of nowhere? Especially when the guns had always been available. 

Edited July 20, 20169 yr by crkinnh
Grammar, Math (forgot to add a 0 before the 3)

8 hours ago, crkinnh said:

Well, we know for certain that they fought for days to word things perfectly, and even fought over where they should put the comma in the 2nd Amendment to make sure it was understood in the correct context. Arms includes any and all weapons, including ones of the future, rather than just muskets. 

Furthermore, all arms includes artillery, that seems 'highly ineffective and maintenance heavy, that citizens couldn't afford those easy' doesn't it? This did occur, here's a letter of marque and reprisal straight from President James Madison in which he gives an authorization of privateering to the captain of a privately owned and armed ship. http://www.constitution.org/mil/lmr/1812amer1.htm

Not only did was this ship armed privately with cannons, it was with 18 of them!

The 'muskets' clause isn't even a question, especially with the US Supreme Court Decision of District of Columbia v. Keller, and now with the upholding of that with Commonwealth v. Caetano; the latter of which upholds one decision which was that “the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding,”. That also furthers the view that the second amendment refers to all weapons, which in this case was a stun gun. 

Here is District of Columbia v. Keller, read it. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

 

They were special, so special that the writer of the Constitution (Thomas Jefferson) knowingly equipped a reserve army officer, and a civilian with them for an expedition.

In the United States, the only people who can aquire the XM-25 are manufacturers/importers of destructive devices. Even if we could get them without the importation deal, it was manufactured after May of 1986 since it's full auto, and is a destructive device since it is well over .50 cal plus fires grenades (each of which is a destructive device in and of itself to the ATF). Thank the National Firearms Act of 1934, and the Hughs Amendment of the Firearms Owner Protection Act of 1986 for people not knowing about this.

It so far in it's limited success, only been 'successful' in countries that either never had many guns, or had the ability to forcefully confiscate them (violation of 4th Amendment without a warrant in the US). Furthermore, many of these countries didn't have a problem with guns to begin with. Lets take mass shootings as an example for Australia. 

Australia, in their list of massacres on Wikipedia, only had  21 mass shootings within the last hundred one years (including the 5 after the ban, starting from the first mass shooting). The gap between the first and second of which was 58 years, to me that's a long time to begin with when you are comparing them with similar laws at the time with the US. A different culture maybe, combined with a much smaller population? Then all the sudden from that second shooting in 1973, until the ban in 1996, there was 16 shootings (including the starting and finishing), creating an average of 0.6956 mass shootings a year from this time period from the second shooting until the Port Arthur Shooting. However, from the first shooting to the second shooting, there was only two mass shootings if you include those two shootings, leaving an average of 0.0344 mass shootings per year in that 58 year time period. Guns were not the problem in that time; something caused the surge in mass shootings after the second mass shooting. That is not the topic currently though. How much in the years since has that rate changed? Well, it changed to 0.25 per year. Congratulations Australia, you've still haven't got the rate back down even after the reforms. Give it 38 more years, and we'll see just how effective gun control has been.

The difference between guns in that 58 years, and the types of guns you can now own after gun control, should be night and day. Furthermore, the access to guns without licenses should also be noted. Neither has affected the rate of which the shootings have happened, especially since there is 38 more years before the modern stats can accurately be compared.

What you should think about instead, is why in that 23 years between the second shooting and Port Arthur are there so many shootings out of nowhere? Especially when the guns had always been available. 

In figures about Australia, you miss one point: The population of the United States and that of Australia are somewhat quite different as the state of California has the equal population density as whole Australia. And I am not only talking about mass shootings, it also important to view murder rates and suicide rates. Contrary to popular belief, Australia has more guns today than it had prior the gun buyback. Still, homicide rates and suicide rates dropped after those measures took place. And I don*t know where you get your stats on mass shootings, but according to this website http://www.snopes.com/crime/statistics/ausguns.asp, there were 13 mass shootings in the prior 18 years, not 2! Furthermore, although robberies soared shortly after the buyback (I guess criminals didn't want to sell their guns duh!) those figures are on a steady decline and sank lower than the pre-buyback figures shortly after the year 2000. And yes, those buyback measures wouldn't help the US mostly because of the geographical nature of the country, but at least restrictions would skyrocket black market prices and would prohibit mentally unstable patients to acquire guns in the first place.

The argument that trying would fail anyways is a little low for Americans, as the stereotypical United States citizens isn't renown for being a wuss!? So at least try to implement restrictions on guns, you never know if it might help! ;)

I just researched on the gun laws in Germany and found out that these laws include your rifles mentioned above, so we Germans can any gun developed in the 18th and early 19th century as well! But that's not really the point, because there aren't any militias in the U.S. either, just the National Guard, which isn't technically a militia but a reserve. So this part changed, why do you stick so much to the second clause?

 

Edited July 20, 20169 yr by Coltsmith
Grammar

Meh, I had a long winded argument, but I'll boil it down.

I do not support gun control, particularly at a federal level. I work in LE, and I cannot think of any of my co-workers who don't feel the same.

 

I'm not good at debating, so I'm just going to contribute one thing to this...

As someone who lives in the UK (I've fired a gun, but only at a range, it was a bolt-action rifle) I think America is insane about not implementing any sorts of control... I don't see why people don't think that restricting the purchase of guns is going to solve the problem of people who shouldn't have guns... having guns.

5 hours ago, Coltsmith said:

The argument that trying would fail anyways is a little low for Americans, as the stereotypical United States citizens isn't renown for being a wuss!? So at least try to implement restrictions on guns, you never know if it might help! ;)

 

The problem is just that though. "Trying" to impose restrictive laws on guns isn't something you just "try" it isn't something you give a whirl and say "hey, screw it, if it works great, if it doesn't, oh god" because the last thing needed is thousands upon thousands, upon thousands of people who own guns feeling like their backs are against a wall. People from other countries that are expressing the need for harsher laws don't have the problem of already existing weapons. They also don't have the problem with the fact that America is made up of 320 million people, either. People from France, Australia, etc, they don't even touch a fraction of America's population. Hell, the amount of people in America per capita that have guns is much bigger than the population of Australia or France and both combined. It's a delicate scenario all around, and it requires delicate tinkering in order to get it right otherwise trying to impose something when America has such a huge investment in guns could get much bloodier than the already existent problem.

I keep seeing people from Australia saying "we haven't had a mass shooting since 1996!" Well, great, for you -- but the population of the state of California is almost double to that of Australia. People from other countries just don't get it as a whole, and that is something coming from someone who agrees that something needs to be done, but at a delicate level and not something just to temporarily bandage an open wound, which at the end of the day could open a much, much bigger sore. I also believe there is other problems other than just guns that make up violence, but that is a whole different topic and story altogether. 

7 hours ago, Coltsmith said:

In figures about Australia, you miss one point: The population of the United States and that of Australia are somewhat quite different as the state of California has the equal population density as whole Australia.

 

I did actually mention that. I'll bold it for you because it's in the middle of that.

15 hours ago, crkinnh said:

Australia, in their list of massacres on Wikipedia, only had  21 mass shootings within the last hundred one years (including the 5 after the ban, starting from the first mass shooting). The gap between the first and second of which was 58 years, to me that's a long time to begin with when you are comparing them with similar laws at the time with the US. A different culture maybe, combined with a much smaller population?

It was because there was 58 years of not having a mass shooting of any type (1915-1973), so there was an insanely low amount of mass shootings on average per year in that time period.

 

7 hours ago, Coltsmith said:

there were 13 mass shootings in the prior 18 years, not 2!

Yeah, there were actually 16 in the 23 years starting with the second shooting and ending with Port Arthur. You just proved my point. I was pointing out the sudden explosion of shootings in that time period prior to the enacting of gun control. Yet from 1915 (the first mass shooting) to 1973 (the second mass shooting) there was 58 years in between. I pointed out that there was an explosion in shootings starting that year.

What is important to note though, is that after the enacting of the gun control, Australia still has had 4 mass shootings within the past 20 years after Port Arthur (1996-2016). This still leaves the frequency higher than those 58 years without gun control.

7 hours ago, Coltsmith said:

I just researched on the gun laws in Germany and found out that these laws include your rifles mentioned above, so we Germans can any gun developed in the 18th and early 19th century as well!

You know, I'm actually really happy about that. If you can get your hands on one, do it.

7 hours ago, Coltsmith said:

because there aren't any militias in the U.S. either, just the National Guard, which isn't technically a militia but a reserve. So this part changed, why do you stick so much to the second clause?

 

Well, the truth is that these two separate clauses are talking about two separate things, and can be taken in many different ways. 

Some argue that the first clause states that citizens have the right to form a militia (which I agree with), however, we can't form a militia that is recognized by the government anymore because all states have repealed the laws allowing you to do that. In fact, the only way to be recognized as a militia is if you are designated a terrorist organization for no reason other than forming a 'well regulated militia'. Take the Michigan Militia as an example.

However, it is also incorrectly argued that the militia is the only ones who should have guns. This is when people forget about the commas. 

The second clause is a separate right, which is the right to keep and bear arms (something I also agree with). 

 

The truth is that the 2nd Amendment doesn't give us anything. The first few amendments are simply a reminder to the government of our natural (god given) rights, it's no different to the 1st Amendment. Please read District of Columbia v. Keller. Please read it, but if not, I urge you to watch this video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v9AU1uyzglc

Finally, I'd actually like to thank you. You know what you are talking about, and there is no harm in anything either of us is saying.

2 hours ago, crkinnh said:

I did actually mention that. I'll bold it for you because it's in the middle of that.

Now that you mentioned it, I can see that! But that proves my point, as mass shootings occur less because there are less people.

 

Quote

Yeah, there were actually 16 in the 23 years starting with the second shooting and ending with Port Arthur. You just proved my point. I was pointing out the sudden explosion of shootings in that time period prior to the enacting of gun control. Yet from 1915 (the first mass shooting) to 1973 (the second mass shooting) there was 58 years in between. I pointed out that there was an explosion in shootings starting that year.

Yes, but the population was higher in these last years prior the gun ban, and I don't get the point, because I guess with globalization it was also easier to acquire guns in the latest years prior the gun buyback. the years prior the seventies had also stricter restrictions on guns in Australia. Witgh lifting those in the early 70s, as you mentioned, mass shootings skyrocketed!

Quote

What is important to note though, is that after the enacting of the gun control, Australia still has had 4 mass shootings within the past 20 years after Port Arthur (1996-2016). This still leaves the frequency higher than those 58 years without gun control.

That's up for debate, as the definition of mass shooting can vary. So some sources claim there were no mass shootings, but killings with 3 people dead and few injured occurred, that is correct.

Quote

You know, I'm actually really happy about that. If you can get your hands on one, do it.

Problem is, you can't get the gunpowder anytime except on the days before New Years Eve, and those guns cost a fortune, at least a few thousand bucks...

Join a gun club and shooting regularly is easier and doesn't cost that much :P (Fun fact, although Germany has the strictest gun laws in Europe, we have the most legally owned guns in the EU.)

Quote

Well, the truth is that these two separate clauses are talking about two separate things, and can be taken in many different ways. 

Some argue that the first clause states that citizens have the right to form a militia (which I agree with), however, we can't form a militia that is recognized by the government anymore because all states have repealed the laws allowing you to do that. In fact, the only way to be recognized as a militia is if you are designated a terrorist organization for no reason other than forming a 'well regulated militia'. Take the Michigan Militia as an example.

However, it is also incorrectly argued that the militia is the only ones who should have guns. This is when people forget about the commas. 

The second clause is a separate right, which is the right to keep and bear arms (something I also agree with). 

I am just saying, that the first clause changed over time, but the second one didn't. I know it is seen as a different right (the are always minorities in the juristic faculties who disagree). I'm just saying that the second amendment is often seen as unchangeable, which it obviously isn't.

Quote

 

The truth is that the 2nd Amendment doesn't give us anything. The first few amendments are simply a reminder to the government of our natural (god given) rights, it's no different to the 1st Amendment. Please read District of Columbia v. Keller. Please read it, but if not, I urge you to watch this video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v9AU1uyzglc

It gives you the right to be free of infringement on your right to bear arms ;)

Quote

Finally, I'd actually like to thank you. You know what you are talking about, and there is no harm in anything either of us is saying.

It always good to have a healthy debate, so I can only thank you back!

 

4 hours ago, Solidefiance said:

The problem is just that though. "Trying" to impose restrictive laws on guns isn't something you just "try" it isn't something you give a whirl and say "hey, screw it, if it works great, if it doesn't, oh god" because the last thing needed is thousands upon thousands, upon thousands of people who own guns feeling like their backs are against a wall. People from other countries that are expressing the need for harsher laws don't have the problem of already existing weapons. They also don't have the problem with the fact that America is made up of 320 million people, either. People from France, Australia, etc, they don't even touch a fraction of America's population. Hell, the amount of people in America per capita that have guns is much bigger than the population of Australia or France and both combined. It's a delicate scenario all around, and it requires delicate tinkering in order to get it right otherwise trying to impose something when America has such a huge investment in guns could get much bloodier than the already existent problem.

I keep seeing people from Australia saying "we haven't had a mass shooting since 1996!" Well, great, for you -- but the population of the state of California is almost double to that of Australia. People from other countries just don't get it as a whole, and that is something coming from someone who agrees that something needs to be done, but at a delicate level and not something just to temporarily bandage an open wound, which at the end of the day could open a much, much bigger sore. I also believe there is other problems other than just guns that make up violence, but that is a whole different topic and story altogether. 

Well look at numbers of mass shootings in California and in Australia and compare them ;) and the EU has a population if around 600 million. Some of the countries have pretty relaxed gun laws, such as switzerland, sweden and some Yugoslavian states. Still, we don't have such high rates of gun violence as the US. (Civil Wars aside, that is a whole different ballgame).

 

Just to be clear, I don't like pretty restrictive gun laws (like those in Germany - I am a weapon-carrying person though). But no restriction at all is not a good recipe in keeping the streets safe.

Edited July 20, 20169 yr by Coltsmith

15 hours ago, crkinnh said:

You know, I'm actually really happy about that. If you can get your hands on one, do it.

You... shouldn't advise people to get a gun just like that. You are the epitome of what is wrong in here. People act way too casually about guns, as if they were toys or candies. For god's sake, guns are tools, yes, but tools with the sole purpose of KILLING PEOPLE the fastest way possible. That's the only things gun can do, the only thing they were designed for. You can't just say 'Hey dude, get a gun lolz'. When you manipulate a gun, you need experience, training, knowledge, responsibility, and even more when you own one. Don't tell random people to get a gun, it is irresponsibility to its finest, you don't know them, their past, their story and what they might do or not do with it.

5 hours ago, ScarletDraconis said:

You... shouldn't advise people to get a gun just like that. You are the epitome of what is wrong in here. People act way too casually about guns, as if they were toys or candies. For god's sake, guns are tools, yes, but tools with the sole purpose of KILLING PEOPLE the fastest way possible. That's the only things gun can do, the only thing they were designed for. You can't just say 'Hey dude, get a gun lolz'. When you manipulate a gun, you need experience, training, knowledge, responsibility, and even more when you own one. Don't tell random people to get a gun, it is irresponsibility to its finest, you don't know them, their past, their story and what they might do or not do with it.

Well, you can't instigate a mass shooting with a musket, so clam down!

8 hours ago, ScarletDraconis said:

You... shouldn't advise people to get a gun just like that. You are the epitome of what is wrong in here. People act way too casually about guns, as if they were toys or candies. For god's sake, guns are tools, yes, but tools with the sole purpose of KILLING PEOPLE the fastest way possible. That's the only things gun can do, the only thing they were designed for. You can't just say 'Hey dude, get a gun lolz'. When you manipulate a gun, you need experience, training, knowledge, responsibility, and even more when you own one. Don't tell random people to get a gun, it is irresponsibility to its finest, you don't know them, their past, their story and what they might do or not do with it.

So advising someone to get a gun from before the 1900's because they aren't restricted in a country where guns are heavily restricted, and because they are also rare, I must be a problem? It's not like I can't tell by this point that he doesn't own a firearm to begin with, hell, his name is Coltsmith with his avatar being Colt Canada. Clearly he has some sort of firearms training based on his previous comments, and based on his name. Not to mention one of his most recent reply saying that he owns firearms in Germany. 

If anything YOU are what's wrong, literally no one believes that there is this 11th commandment saying "I get an AR-15, you get an AR-15, we all get AR-15's!", but you make it out to be that. Then you got to education. Hell, the NRA have been saying the literal exact same thing about education and owning a gun for well over 30 years now. 

Oh, and another thing, if guns can only kill, then how come mine haven't? What about my competition rifle? That wasn't explicitly made to kill. Seems to me that you've never been around a gun in your life based on your brief description of guns.

43 minutes ago, crkinnh said:

So advising someone to get a gun from before the 1900's because they aren't restricted in a country where guns are heavily restricted, and because they are also rare, I must be a problem? It's not like I can't tell by this point that he doesn't own a firearm to begin with, hell, his name is Coltsmith with his avatar being Colt Canada. Clearly he has some sort of firearms training based on his previous comments, and based on his name. Not to mention one of his most recent reply saying that he owns firearms in Germany. 

If anything YOU are what's wrong, literally no one believes that there is this 11th commandment saying "I get an AR-15, you get an AR-15, we all get AR-15's!", but you make it out to be that. Then you got to education. Hell, the NRA have been saying the literal exact same thing about education and owning a gun for well over 30 years now. 

Oh, and another thing, if guns can only kill, then how come mine haven't? What about my competition rifle? That wasn't explicitly made to kill. Seems to me that you've never been around a gun in your life based on your brief description of guns.

I'll explain it to you more thoroughly, so you can understand and stop being so condescending like most pro-gun people I've talked to! :)

• Just because a gun is from the 1900's doesn't mean it's any less of a gun, it's been made to kill another human being, thus it needs to be taken care of appropriately :)
• If you judge people just by their name and avatar on a forum, well... you should become a psychiatrist, because that's one hell of a talent! What if someone had the Superman logo and was called Superman? Would you think they are Superman too? I think not! :)
• I never talked about a 11th commandment, nor did I say about getting AR-15 for everybody, and I don't make it out to be that, so it'd be nice not to put words in my mouth just to discredit my point, that's not how you're going to prove yours! My education is perfectly fine, thank you very much, just because I disagree with you doesn't mean I'm ignorant, but that's what you seem to imply. Remember what I said about being condescending? :)
• Guns were made to kill people. They weren't made in the optic of "Hey, what about we make something that shoots something to aim at targets?" No, they were made in the optic of "Hey, what about we make something that can kill people more effectively than a blade or an arrow?" Guns are killing tools. Just because you use it a different way doesn't mean it's any less of a killing tool. As an analogy, a car is meant to drive from point A to point B quicker than a carriage with horses. People quickly started racing with it, but does it mean they were made for racing to beginning with? Nup, sorry :)

As for a summary of what I said in my previous post, since you completely ignored my point (how convenient! :) ): guns have to be treated as killing tools, and not toys or candies. They were made to kill people, and should be dealt with accordingly. With safety, responsibility, and knowledge of the object, and not just manipulating it as if it was a little plastic toy for kids. Even less advising random people to get one without knowing anything of them on a personal level.

Have a good day :)

Edited July 21, 20169 yr by ScarletDraconis

Although I agree with you on some of the points, never even denied that guns are tools that can kill, and even said that the NRA agrees with you on treatment and responsibility in ownership of firearms. I'll repeat some of the things I said because it's obvious that you didn't listen or understand all the content of the material nor all its context.

52 minutes ago, ScarletDraconis said:

If you judge people just by their name and avatar on a forum, well... you should become a psychiatrist, because that's one hell of a talent! What if someone had the Superman logo and was called Superman? Would you think they are Superman too? I think not! :)

Now, putting aside the fact that we know at the very least he owns guns in Germany, we at the very least knows he has an interest in firearms. If we dissect his name to the words colt and smith, then we get a possible career. Does that mean that he actually is that (gunsmith with Colt), no it doesn't, however it wouldn't be too irrational to believe that he is one. A career choice like that is significantly more believable than being Superman.

52 minutes ago, ScarletDraconis said:

I never talked about a 11th commandment, nor did I say about getting AR-15 for everybody, and I don't make it out to be that, so it'd be nice not to put words in my mouth just to discredit my point, that's not how you're going to prove yours! My education is perfectly fine, thank you very much, just because I disagree with you doesn't mean I'm ignorant, but that's what you seem to imply. Remember what I said about being condescending? :)

It's more of a joke, it's pointing out the fact that you said that "People act way too casually about guns, as if they were toys or candies." I pointed out to you that literally no one is so casual as to do that. If people (meaning all people, you never specified gun owners) really did treat them like candy, then that so called '11th commandment' I made up would sound rational, which it doesn't, it sounds absurd.

52 minutes ago, ScarletDraconis said:

 guns have to be treated as killing tools, and not toys or candies. They were made to kill people, and should be dealt with accordingly. With safety, responsibility, and knowledge of the object, and not just manipulating it as if it was a little plastic toy for kids.

Respectfully, when did I ever deny this? You know what, here's the NRA safety webpage. http://training.nra.org/nra-gun-safety-rules.aspx

52 minutes ago, ScarletDraconis said:

Even less advising random people to get one without knowing anything of them on a personal level.

Okay, and I don't need anymore background knowledge than he has already given to recommend the legal acquisition of those in Germany. I already know that he has gone through the hoops needed to obtain them in Germany to begin with, why should I need anymore reason than to recommend that he goes through them again to get that?

 

I think you are the one putting words in my mouth, especially since I have said some of the same things in my replies (albeit some indirectly).

You have an even better day

Edited July 21, 20169 yr by crkinnh

2 hours ago, ScarletDraconis said:

Guns were made to kill people. They weren't made in the optic of "Hey, what about we make something that shoots something to aim at targets?" No, they were made in the optic of "Hey, what about we make something that can kill people more effectively than a blade or an arrow?" Guns are killing tools. Just because you use it a different way doesn't mean it's any less of a killing tool. As an analogy, a car is meant to drive from point A to point B quicker than a carriage with horses. People quickly started racing with it, but does it mean they were made for racing to beginning with? Nup, sorry :)

Your argument, while I agree to a certain extent holds the value that can be used against you. Guns, really any weapon of choice, can be seen as tools to hunt too. Archery used to be and still is in many cases a sport, something to do for fun and test your strength. The same can generally be said for guns too. You're going along the idea that guns are just used solely to kill people, they are not. At one point in time guns in Canada surpassed those in America per capita because we in the North love to hunt and very few, were used to kill another human. The analogy you go by, cars, guns, blades, etc, can all be classed as evolving as the human race. Equally, cars, guns, blades, etc all kill people too....and while one or the other effectively kills people more than another, it doesn't mean that it was solely made for killing. Another example of this is that a study was made back in 2015 for the top 10 vehicles that were involved in the deaths of many. Four door, small and lightweight vehicles like the Kia Rio, Nissan Versa, Hyundai Accent were the top 3 that had the most fatalities attached to them. That said, does that mean we should ban/restrict four door lightweight vehicles because they're killing people more than heavier, more stable cars and trucks, just because they're statistically killing more people than any other vehicle of choice? In short, no. 

However, I don't disagree in that there needs to be something done. But on the other hand, if history has taught me anything is that humans love to kill one another, back in the Roman times it was swords and shields, all the way up to the Medieval period. Then came Muskets and cannons, now it's pistols and rifles. The necessity to kill one another has never changed, it's just the way we do it that has since evolved over time. In my opinion, I highly doubt this will ever change. Even if we manage to completely remove firearms off the face of the planet, people will start holding people by the neck with steak knives and whatever sharp object they can get their hands on. 

11 hours ago, crkinnh said:

Although I agree with you on some of the points, never even denied that guns are tools that can kill, and even said that the NRA agrees with you on treatment and responsibility in ownership of firearms. I'll repeat some of the things I said because it's obvious that you didn't listen or understand all the content of the material nor all its context.

Now, putting aside the fact that we know at the very least he owns guns in Germany, we at the very least knows he has an interest in firearms. If we dissect his name to the words colt and smith, then we get a possible career. Does that mean that he actually is that (gunsmith with Colt), no it doesn't, however it wouldn't be too irrational to believe that he is one. A career choice like that is significantly more believable than being Superman.

It's more of a joke, it's pointing out the fact that you said that "People act way too casually about guns, as if they were toys or candies." I pointed out to you that literally no one is so casual as to do that. If people (meaning all people, you never specified gun owners) really did treat them like candy, then that so called '11th commandment' I made up would sound rational, which it doesn't, it sounds absurd.

Respectfully, when did I ever deny this? You know what, here's the NRA safety webpage. http://training.nra.org/nra-gun-safety-rules.aspx

Okay, and I don't need anymore background knowledge than he has already given to recommend the legal acquisition of those in Germany. I already know that he has gone through the hoops needed to obtain them in Germany to begin with, why should I need anymore reason than to recommend that he goes through them again to get that?

 

I think you are the one putting words in my mouth, especially since I have said some of the same things in my replies (albeit some indirectly).

You have an even better day

Just to make something clear, I do not own a gun, I am just a LEO-Cadet, who is given a gun by his department. But that normally entails rigorous training with firearms including assembly, disassembly and shooting the darn thing ;) . I am just happen to know Firearm laws in Germany because they are part of my job.
On the other hand I agree with you, that comments made by Mr ScarletDraconis are do little enriching this debate, as his points are most not factual.
And I did not take that proposal in buying a pre-20th century firearm all too seriously :)

Edited July 22, 20169 yr by Coltsmith

On 21/07/2016 at 2:21 AM, crkinnh said:

What is important to note though, is that after the enacting of the gun control, Australia still has had 4 mass shootings within the past 20 years after Port Arthur (1996-2016). This still leaves the frequency higher than those 58 years without gun control.

 

While yes there still have been a few here an there in the last 20 years (none of which firearms were used), the great and powerful US of A has had more than 4 in a matter of days. The fact remains I can still safely defend my family, house and others without the need for firearms (It's called learning how to fight). And even if I did have access to guns I wouldn't go out and get one because a piece of paper says I can. 

N/A

Edited November 14, 20178 yr by Account Deleted

On 7/25/2016 at 1:00 PM, nic227 said:

Ill just leave this here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate. If you want to compare gun violence in one country to another, you need to look at a per capital basis otherwise its just a bunch of bullshit arguments that don't hold any air.

Quick facts (I just included homicide numbers):

USA -  3.43 per 100.000 people per year, whereas Canada -  0.38 per 100.000 people per year, and the two countries are neighbors, and Germany -   0.07 per 100.000 people per year.

So just looking at those three numbers you can see that a system of very strict gun control definitely works as seen in Canada and Germany, and from what I know Germany's gun laws are quite a bit stricter that Canada's.

You know, I hate to bring back up a long silent topic in this forum, but I was curious as to what happened in this thread since I really last was on. 

 

Now putting aside that Canada and Germany do not have an underlying crime problem in most of the country in and of itself, those numbers (homicide being generalized) include suicides. 

 

Guns don't have to be a problem, look at the statistics for the Czech Republic for example with extremely lenient laws for guns in Europe, it has a whopping 0.12 homicides with a firearm per 100000 people in 2014. How about Switzerland in 2014 with another whopping 0.09 homicides with a firearm per 1000000 people in 2014? How about Austria with another 0.12 in 2014 despite the one of the highest rate of gun ownerships in Europe? These statistics are all from Gunpolicy.org by the way. Let's also not forget that this is ALL homicides with a firearm, which means all deaths from everyone including the government and suicides by guns. The true rate of murders in Austria for example with both hand guns and long guns combined is 0.02 murders per 100000 people despite the civilian populace collectively owning 2,500,000 guns. Guns do not have to be a problem in and of themselves.

 

On 7/25/2016 at 1:00 PM, nic227 said:

So just looking at those three numbers you can see that a system of very strict gun control definitely works as seen in Canada and Germany, and from what I know Germany's gun laws are quite a bit stricter that Canada's

As previously discussed, neither have an underlying crime problem, however what kind of gun control are you referring to? Gun control is a broad topic in general. It can range from the type of firearms owned to who can own them and how.

On 7/25/2016 at 1:00 PM, nic227 said:

To people who say guns don't kill people, people kill people, give me a fucking break. People kill people using guns, guns kill people being operated by people, it's as simple as that. Arguing that makes anybody sound like an uneducated dipshit. Firearms are manufactured to inflict damage to the object or person they are discharged at.

Honestly can't disagree with that definition. That's why the government owns them, that's why the police owns them, that's why the civilian populace in the US is able to own them.

In a perfect society, where crime is not an underlying problem, as it isn't in my state where gun homicides (all deaths by handguns including government and self defense, exempting suicide in this case) with a handgun were 0.23 deaths per 100000 and homicides with a long gun was at 0.00 homicides per 100000 (excluding suicides, found on gunpolicy.org), the guns are there to make sure the government doesn't start overstepping it's bounds without the threat of armed rebellion. If the type of gun is the problem, clearly my state does not have that problem because NH allows everything from bolt actions to semi auto pistols to AR-15s/AKs even to full auto .50 BMGs. In fact, my state actually has the most full auto (by ATF definition) machineguns per capita of any other state in the US http://www.fosters.com/article/20130120/GJNEWS_01/130129919.

 

The type of gun is not the problem.

On 7/25/2016 at 1:00 PM, nic227 said:

I have said it before, and I will say it again, NOBODY NEEDS TO HAVE a fully automatic rifle or a handgun, any other firearm than a hunting rifle or a shotgun in their possession. The ease of obtaining one in the US is astonishing.

Let's put an emphasis on the "NOBODY", that phrase means everybody including the military and the police as phrased. 

 

Furthermore, blanket terms such as "hunting rifle" is just as meaningful as "sniper rifle". There is no clear definition of hunting rifle by anyone, similar to sniper rifle. In fact, just because of that similarity in specificity, that means that any rifle used for hunting is a hunting rifle. This is just as any rifle used by a sniper is a sniper rifle. And if firearms other than "hunting rifles" are so much of a problem how come rifles like the Tavor, QBZ-95, VZ-58, SKS, and SVT-40 are unrestricted in Canada? All you need to obtain one is the same requirements for a standard "hunting rifle." And for shotguns, a shotgun can include things such as the Taurus Judge for example, the Saiga 12, or even the AA-12. 

 

As for handguns, simply put- self defense. In the US we don't want your 'ideas' for how we should deal with self defense, we want something that will work. And not everyone can 'learn to fight', for example the elderly, and physically disabled.

 

As for full autos, yeah, no one really needs one. They mostly are just for fun nowadays because they are so expensive ($10,000 and up) and so hard to get even by European standards, it's almost not worth it (M240Bs are expensive, but they pay off- I know personally).

 

Let me remind you though, that AR-15s are not full auto, they are actually are semi auto, just like a Ruger 10/22 or Ruger Mini-14.

 

 

Meh. I've already said my piece in this topic but whatever. Most gun crime in the US is Black on Black, in urban centers that traditionally have the strictest gun laws, and done by handguns which are already illegally obtained, illegal in themselves or are otherwise "hot".

 

I'm pragmatic. Firearms to me are nothing but tools, either used for self-defense, hunting, sporting, recreation or whatever else. Doesn't bother me none. This country has millions of firearms, with millions of gun owners, I see no reason to punish and make criminals out of the vast, vast majority of lawful gun owners out there.

 

Change the underlying cultures that lead to criminal intent if you want to change the rate of gun crime. The tool in which the crime was committed with doesn't matter if the intent to commit said act still existed anyhow.