USA Politics Thread - *No gun debate*

[Hans Ludwig 0]

Myke;2268937']Theoretically it could be limited to one single shot revolver and it would still respect the second amendment.No exceptions. None.

I suggest you read Court's decision on District of Columbia v. Heller.

On June 26' date=' 2008, the Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in Heller v. District of Columbia.[3'][4] The Court of Appeals had struck down provisions of the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 as unconstitutional, determined that handguns are "arms" for the purposes of the Second Amendment, found that the District of Columbia's regulations act was an unconstitutional banning, and struck down the portion of the regulations act that requires all firearms including rifles and shotguns be kept "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock." "Prior to this decision the Firearms Control Regulation Act of 1975 also restricted residents from owning handguns except for those registered prior to 1975.

For those of you that have little understanding of the U.S. Constitution, whatever isn't specifically mentioned in the Constitution is then left up to the individual states. Therefore, the Constitution doesn't have to be specific on every little thing in our society, as the framers decided those would be best left up to the states to act or not act upon.

I just came upon this fairly recent study:

In the 10-year period from 1996–1997 to 2005–2006, 207 student homicides occurred in U.S. schools, an average of 21 deaths per year. Dividing the nation’s approximately 125,000 elementary and secondary schools (U.S. Department of Education, 2008) by 21, any given school can expect to experience a student homicide about once every 6,000 years.

SOURCE:

http://www.cato.org/blog/nras-panic-attack

http://69.8.231.237/uploadedFiles/Publications/Journals/Educational_Researcher/3901/027-037_02EDR10.pdf

Edited December 26, 2012 by Hans Ludwig

[nodunit 397]

Since you're involving school shootings I'd like to point out that guns aren't the only problem with this, the media blows it up as well, although this video originates from the UK it applies wolrdwide wherein the media have mass coverage.

Now I'm not saying that it's all the media, things like this aren't just one problem but several that come to a head and violently explode like a filled and swollen zit when just barely squeezed. Guns are just a part of the problem, not the whole.

Also a chart representing incidents, wounding, and fatalities in age groups are bound to have sky rockets in the 12-20 age groups.

Edited December 27, 2012 by NodUnit

[Mattar_Tharkari 10]

Interesting point by NodUnit, please watch that video!

I have seen the media attempt to manipulate events to 'generate' news a number of times recently (reporting locations of government meetings / events in advance to get a crowd to turn up etc.) but I don't think it's deliberate in this case. They have to focus on the gunman as they have nothing else to report at the beginning of a story, if they focus on the victims & families they will be accused of intrusion. Lets face it - asking them 'not to do it' doesn't work, shrieks of 'press freedom' and all that jazz. The unfortunate side effect is the stimulation of the unbalanced in the community, some of whom can't then get the thoughts and images out of their heads. Most of what we see, including the recent school shooting are 'copy cat' killings imho.

Maybe we should urge families of victims to talk to the 'vultures of the press' sooner, rather than later so they have something meaningful to put on TV. I think family videos of the victims should be released so we get a sense of who died, rather than a list of numbers. After all, the real news here is young lives lost, ruined families and potential that will never be realised, not some idiot with a gun who didn't have the sense to blow his own head off and leave it at that....

I see sales of AR-15's have rocketed! Must be great to see your feckless, half idiot, beer swilling, weed tootin neighbour running over to the gun shop to buy as much guns and ammunition as possible before they ban sales. I don't know how the average US citizen manages to sleep at night.

Edited December 27, 2012 by Mattar_Tharkari

[GRS 10]

By looking at the statistics and knowing that guns are used in defense at least 10x more often than in homicide (by the very most conservative (not the political affiliation) numbers) meaning that they have indeed done far more good than harm. Idunno, just a thought... I mean, I've gone over this countless times now. You haven't actually read this thread have you? The end of your post stinks of unfounded rhetoric.

People can live in fear if they want. Personally, I prefer reality and a foundation built of facts to support what I say.

Edited December 27, 2012 by GRS

[Tonci87 163]

I ask myself one questions. Why can people here in germany live and sleep without fear and without guns, but so many americans can´t?

[GRS 10]

My question is that if guns are used far more often for good, why do so many people in Germany care about what people in America own?

[batto 17]

My question is that if guns are used far more often for good, why do so many people in Germany care about what people in America own?

That was rhetorical question and this is international forum. I'm sure you can find US-only forum for yourself.

[GRS 10]

That was rhetorical question and this is international forum. I'm sure you can find US-only forum for yourself.

That's nice, and so was mine to make a counter argument. This is the USA politics thread and I see so many Europeans (and even other Americans) coming in and bashing American's and their guns despite being proven wrong countless times. If anyone has some actual well-formulated argument, have at it. As it stands, I keep reading the same baseless "guns are bad and Americans are fools" bullshit. And it keeps happening despite the factual evidence I have presented. I can only conclude that people who continue to argue based on nothing but the unfounded thoughts in their heads are either willfully ignorant or stupid and irrational.

I have no issue with an international crowd having a discussion. I do have an issue with an international crowd spouting BS every time they say something even though it's been disproven already or resorting back to the usual "stupid Americans" elitist crap. Any other contributions you'd like to make? If so, shoot me a PM. I have no desire to fully return to this mind-numbing display of willful ignorance.

Edited December 27, 2012 by GRS

[nodunit 397]

I ask myself one questions. Why can people here in germany live and sleep without fear and without guns, but so many americans can´t?

Legal system perhaps? I don't know what law is like over there but in some states there are rules that explicit that you CANNOT "KILL" the intruder. You essentially have to give them a way out of the house and cannot block it, a gun in this case would serve as a deterrant rather than force. If the criminal has a gun in the first place do you think a knife is going to strike fear in their eyes and make them want to get out of the house?

It's a very difficult thing to debate because of the rules and regulations, and since they vary from state to state so there is no one solution to all problems approach.

Personally, I don't own a gun, my house sits on the side of the highway and people have stolen things out of my garage several times. However it has not convinced me to purchase a gun, and when I sleep I don't rest in a panic or fear of such things..it could be me being naive, there are reasons to carry other than simply home defense.

Infact most guns people purchase aren't even there with the intention of home defense.

Most I have talked to rarely if ever mention it save for one, and it isn't an assault style rifle of any kind, it isn't even a presentation of the weapon but merely the sound. The cocking of a shotgun, nothing more.

The rest is used in free time at targetting ranges, or hunting. And some people just like to collect guns for..any number of reasons, I know at least two people with over 10 weapons across the board from hunting rifles, shotguns, hand guns and even bows. The reasons vary but they usually come down to hobbies, collecting them for things such as their history and so on.

Edited December 28, 2012 by NodUnit

[GRS 10]

And hey, nobody has to own or carry a gun. But nobody has the right to tell me I, as a law-abiding citizen, cannot. Especially not when the facts suggest that I am, at the very worst, no worse off.

[nodunit 397]

The object is not the problem, the mentality of the one who wields it is.

A knife for example. To one person it may be seen as a defense tool, to another an offensive, and to another a utility. These also do not require background checks, regulation or any of the paperwork that guns go through, it's as simple as a "I want that knife", bought and done. So do you ban knives as well?

Edited December 28, 2012 by NodUnit

[GRS 10]

inb4 "but teh guns exist only for killing!"

To which I reply: not really, and yet they are used in defense more often than offense anyways.

[[frl]myke 14]

Comparing knives with firearms is silly, simply by the effective engagement range. Try to kill someone 50m away with a knife. So attacking someone with a knife takes a lot more as one would have to go into close range which makes the attacker more vulnerable than with a gun. Pull the trigger and done. So please, don't compare apples with pears, would ya?

inb4 "but teh guns exist only for killing!"

"I have to cut this onion, please pass me the Magnum". ;)

[nodunit 397]

I understand that guns offer an open window, a greater chance of having the advantage, my statement was not to compare guns to knives but to compare that the mindset is the determining factor, not the object itself.

The conversation became so focused on the object itself that some started to forget that the object does not act without outside intervention.

Edited December 28, 2012 by NodUnit

[froggyluv 2135]

My comparison is less about guns vs knives speficily but what their purposes is viewed as by the person who wields it. Essentially anything can be turned into a killing tool, you need only the method.

And yes you're right, you could shoot someone from a distance but so too can you bring a garden tool, knock on someones door, ask them for directions in attempt to lure them out and then stab them repeatedly.

The distance and methods are secondary factors, the core was the intention of murder or otherwise.

Right but now think about the person who's intention is to kill as many people as possible before death by cop -I'd rather they try with a garden tool then military assault rifle.

Potential severity of damage has to be taken into consideration. Lets take this to the National level: Iran has plenty of killing power already -jet fighters, tanks, missiles, navy etc.. yet then why is the world so worried about them attaining a nuclear device? Potential severity of damage.

[GRS 10]

Then explain how non-shotgun long guns make up no more than 6% of all guns used in homicides. That includes hunting rifles and other "non-evil" guns. Obviously, less than 6% of a very rare problem that is proven to be outweighed by the good done with the same kind item (guns) is the issue and must be banned. :raisebrow:

[froggyluv 2135]

But the results of high powered assault rifles massacres are nonetheless horrific. And nobody said banned (at least not me) -better regulated with strong vetting.

[[frl]myke 14]

Personally i would be curious how many kills occured because the victim was armed with a gun.

I'm serious, why is the kill rate in USA so high while in europe so low? Where does it go wrong? personally i believe (and i really just believe, no proof and i admit i can be completely wrong) that the many weapons are the cause.

Just think about it: assume you're a criminal and you intend to break into some houses and steal stuff. So, would you need a gun or not? In US, you know that it is very likely that the inhabitant might have a weapon, so yes, you need a weapon to defend yourself. In europe, it is not that likely that inhabitants will be armed, so no, no gun needed. After all, guns do cost money and i expect illegal guns to be even more expensive. I also assume such a criminal isn't rich, why else he would have to steal.

Far fetched? Maybe a little. ;)

[MAVEN 1]

Myke;2269799']Personally i would be curious how many kills occured because the victim was armed with a gun.

I'm serious' date=' why is the kill rate in USA so high while in europe so low? Where does it go wrong? personally i believe (and i really just believe, no proof and i admit i can be completely wrong) that the many weapons are the cause.

Just think about it: assume you're a criminal and you intend to break into some houses and steal stuff. So, would you need a gun or not? In US, you know that it is very likely that the inhabitant might have a weapon, so yes, you need a weapon to defend yourself. In europe, it is not that likely that inhabitants will be armed, so no, no gun needed. After all, guns do cost money and i expect illegal guns to be even more expensive. I also assume such a criminal isn't rich, why else he would have to steal.

Far fetched? Maybe a little. ;)[/quote']

You are partially right about that.

But guns are only a smaller piece of a much bigger picture.

United States always had guns and always does, it's sort of a tradition by now. Sure there were several bloodsheds but it's nothing unlike it now, things are far worse.

The reason why there's so much violence and why guns are being put as main issue is because in the early days when US of A was once great and when every of its citizens lived a true American Dream, word spread out and soon enough, people from all over the world started pouring into United States in a hope they will have a much better life than what they had before. Soon enough, peaceekeeping missions in Middle East, Central Europe and Africa brought even more devastation to those places, and those who weren't fighting but were "civilians" used this as an excuse to seek better life somewhere else. A huge amount went to Europe (UK and France mostly) and called it their home, yet even bigger number of those who fled violence went to US, it was and still is something easy to do as US favors freedom and welcomes everyone. The new citizens of America found out that to live your dream you have to work hard and earn your money first otherwise you will die on the streets, this was new to many as poor countries often require only basic domestic work skills and most got used to that, but advanced nations require far more than that and because of this those who couldn't keep up yet had to feed their families took guns and started going the wrong way. They established their own cultures, their own rules, laws, politicians, etc whilst maintaining old habits and pushing US even further downhill. So while brave true American people become soldiers and go to die in already abandoned and devastated Middle East, those who fled the violence enjoy all the good stuff that those soldiers ancestors earned with blood. sweat and dedication.

Now, I'm not being racist or something. You can't blame them for what they do, it's wrong yes, but it's United State's goodwill that let this happen.

It's really sad what's going on in the West. I have many friends and colleagues from United States and each year they cope worse and worse with basic things such as jobs, education, taxes, etc than several years ago.

As a saying goes - Be good and you will be used, be evil and you will be killed, be something in between and you will be worshiped.

And about the guns pricing. Guns are dirt cheap - AK47 ~30 USD (yes, that's the average used and imported AK47 from Africa) Uzi/MAC10/MAC11 ~300-400 USD, M4's 1000 to 1500 with silenced versions going around 2500 USD MP5's ~800-1000 USD with silenced versions going around 2500, etc and those are even higher prices, god knows how much do the used ones cost. For something that can wipe out many, cause misery and devastation even 10k a piece is nothing. A decent gaming system or a top-notch smartphone costs more than that.

[GRS 10]

But the results of high powered assault rifles massacres are nonetheless horrific. And nobody said banned (at least not me) -better regulated with strong vetting.

"High powered assault rifles" simply do not exist, they would knock a man trying to fire it clean over. It's just a media term used to sensationalize something. Lethal, yes. But as we've seen already, not nearly as wrongly lethal as rightly defensive. Now, tell me, in what way would these regulations help? Gotta ban them bayonette lugs and "shoulder things that go up" again? Oh wait, we already did that among many other infringements from '94-'04 when all of the "evil" (read: standard) features that make something this so called "assault rifle" where banned, and we all no that not a single school massacre or criminal homicide by gun happened the last time around... Hell, gun crime didn't even change in the least...

Remember these guys? Right smack in the middle of limitation and regulation.

You are suggesting things that are not only lack a reasonable basis, but have failed to work in the past. The only thing that should happen is the closing of the gunshow loophole. It's infringing, certainly, but it is aimed at the right people (the criminals), which some people forget is the important thing when dealing with crime. You already have to be considered upstanding to legally buy a gun in all other circumstances.

Edited December 28, 2012 by GRS

[Hillsbills 1]

Myke;2269799']Personally i would be curious how many kills occured because the victim was armed with a gun.

I'm serious' date=' why is the kill rate in USA so high while in europe so low? Where does it go wrong? personally i believe (and i really just believe, no proof and i admit i can be completely wrong) that the many weapons are the cause.

Just think about it: assume you're a criminal and you intend to break into some houses and steal stuff. So, would you need a gun or not? In US, you know that it is very likely that the inhabitant might have a weapon, so yes, you need a weapon to defend yourself. In europe, it is not that likely that inhabitants will be armed, so no, no gun needed. After all, guns do cost money and i expect illegal guns to be even more expensive. I also assume such a criminal isn't rich, why else he would have to steal.

Far fetched? Maybe a little. ;)[/quote']

Demographics.

Just over 50% of our homicides come from 6% of our population. It's a very touchy subject though. I believe the UK knife crime rise may be seen in similar circles though.

An overwhelming majority of our people own legal guns that are never used in crimes though.

[Hans Ludwig 0]

I ask myself one questions. Why can people here in germany live and sleep without fear and without guns, but so many americans can´t?

You aren't trying to say Europa is a safer place to live are you? Please tell me yes so I can post some interesting graphs that show otherwise.

[MAVEN 1]

You aren't trying to say Europa is a safer place to live are you? Please tell me yes so I can post some interesting graphs that show otherwise.

People in Europe (not just in Germany) sleep with less fear and guns than in the West not because it's a safer and better place to live, but because Europe is far better controlled than US is, the reason for this is because Europe is a hotbed for violence and terrorism in the future and bigger advanced European nations are aware of this (many politicians are learning on United State's mistakes) so to prevent this from happening or at least minimize the effect there is a stricter control, and to make people think they are safer European nations use propaganda very often on their own citizens and monitor their actions (CCTV's, GPS tracking etc) more than in the rest of the world. Germany in particular, learning on its past in WW2, knows how to deal with this kind of problems professionally. This is what US needs if it's going to survive and not break down or even worse end up having another civil war.

And by the way, it's Europe, not Europa Hans ;) at least in English.

[GRS 10]

No thanks, I prefer what little freedom exists in this world and being safer over feeling safer.

Hans, I'm interested in seeing those graphs regardless. Perhaps I could use them the next time I find myself in such a discussion. :D

[[frl]myke 14]

Myke;2269799']Personally i would be curious how many kills occured because the victim was armed with a gun.

I'm serious' date=' why is the kill rate in USA so high while in europe so low? Where does it go wrong? personally i believe (and i really just believe, no proof and i admit i can be completely wrong) that the many weapons are the cause.

Just think about it: assume you're a criminal and you intend to break into some houses and steal stuff. So, would you need a gun or not? In US, you know that it is very likely that the inhabitant might have a weapon, so yes, you need a weapon to defend yourself. In europe, it is not that likely that inhabitants will be armed, so no, no gun needed. After all, guns do cost money and i expect illegal guns to be even more expensive. I also assume such a criminal isn't rich, why else he would have to steal.

Far fetched? Maybe a little. ;)[/quote']

Since the pro-firearms fraction ignored that post, i'll take the freedom to quote myself.

And about freedom and the BoR: go out, find the next police officer, tell him you make use of your freedom of speach according to the first amendment of the BoR and he is a a$$hole. You have the right to do that, it is stated in the BoR.

Edited December 29, 2012 by [FRL]Myke