"It's rigged"!!

[SSdoc33]

Advertisement - Members don't see this ad

More people are killed by coconuts falling on their heads than toddlers murdering their parents with the parents AK47s.

nice to meet you, straw man.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...dlers-have-shot-at-least-23-people-this-year/

 

[Ligament]

nice to meet you, straw man.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...dlers-have-shot-at-least-23-people-this-year/

These 23 incidents do not justify infringing the civil rights of hundreds of millions of Americans. Funny she did not use an important statistic such as the thousands of shootings in Democratic controlled Chicago every year...rather, appeal to the emotions with "toddlers" What a joke. How stupid she must think the American electorate is.

 

[Ducttape]

More people are killed by coconuts falling on their heads than toddlers murdering their parents with the parents AK47s.

the 150 people per year being killed by falling coconuts appears to be a gross exaggeration. (not all of the listed examples are due to "falling" - some are from coconuts being thrown...)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_by_coconut

Documented occurrences[edit]
Death by falling coconut[edit]

Coconuts on tree near Cancún, Mexico
In order for a falling coconut to indeed kill somebody, the coconut must be heavy enough and the tree it drops from must be tall enough.[27] Documented instances of death by coconut include the following:

• In approximately 1777, King Tetui of Mangaia in the Cook Islands had a concubine who died after being struck by "a falling green nut"[4]
• In 1833, four people died from falling coconuts on the island of Ceylon[28]
• In January 1943, a U.S. Marine was killed in his sleep when struck in the head by a falling coconut near Henderson Field on Guadalcanal[29]
• On 26 August 1952, a seven-month-old baby died when it was struck in the head by a coconut while being held by its mother in Singapore[30]
• In 1966, a resident of Rabaul, Papua New Guinea, was killed while eating lunch beneath a coconut tree when struck in the face by a falling coconut[31]
• In July 1973, a two-year-old girl was killed, and her aunt injured, in Waikiki, Hawaii when "a hail of coconuts" fell from a 15-metre (49 ft) palm; the police reported 57 coconuts had fallen[32][33]
• In November 1991, a mourner was killed by a falling coconut while attending a funeral at a cemetery in southern Sri Lanka[34]
• On 17 January 1995, in Kota Baru, Malaysia Mat Hussin Sulaiman, 76, was killed when the monkey he used to pick coconuts from trees hurled a coconut, splitting his owner's skull open[35]
• In April 2001, a resident of Vanuatu was killed by a falling coconut while seeking shelter from adverse weather conditions relating to Cyclone Sose[36]
• On 15 August 2001, in Kampung Tanjung Badang, Malaysia, Mamat Kundur, age 59, was killed when a monkey used to harvest coconuts from trees dropped a coconut on his head[37]
• On 1 August 2002, in Raub, Pahang, Malaysia, 6-month-old Nurul Emilia Zulaika Nasaruddin, died after a coconut fell into the child's crib and struck the child[38]
• On 22 September 2003, in Raub, Pahang Malaysia, Deraman Ghomat, 65, was waiting to catch a bus, the wind became stronger and it started to rain just before a coconut fell[39]
• In March 2009, 48-year-old Luelit Janchoom, in the Nakhon Si Thammarat province of Thailand, was killed when a monkey used to harvest coconuts furiously kicked them down to his master, hitting his head[40]
• In May 2010, a one-and-a-half-month-old girl was killed when a falling coconut struck her in the head during a religious ceremony outside the family's home in Thiruvananthapuram, India[41]
• In August 2010, a 69-year-old man was killed by a coconut that fell out of a 12-meter (39 ft) palm tree as he sat in a rocking chair outside his home in Melgar, Colombia[42]
• In 2013, Buddika Priyanjana Perera of Wellampitiya, Sri Lanka, was walking when a coconut fell on his head[43]

one opinion:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...shot-by-toddlers-on-a-weekly-basis-this-year/

After spending a few hours sifting through news reports, I've found at least 43 instances this year of somebody being shot by a toddler 3 or younger. In 31 of those 43 cases, a toddler found a gun and shot himself or herself.

and counterpoint - we do not know exactly how many people are shot by toddlers, because no one is keeping track.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...l-people-we-dont-know/?utm_term=.c31c2825d523

 

[SSdoc33]

These 23 incidents do not justify infringing the civil rights of hundreds of millions of Americans. Funny she did not use an important statistic such as the thousands of shootings in Democratic controlled Chicago every year...rather, appeal to the emotions with "toddlers" What a joke. How stupid she must think the American electorate is.

i would argue that they do, but thats getting off topic.

my point is that having children can change one's perspective.

 

[lonelobo]

.

 

[Ligament]

I stand corrected on Coconuts.

51 deaths per annum from lighting strikes however!

The point is the n is so small it is irrelevant. Not even an army of toddlers with guns justifies infringing upon the civil rights of Americans.

Of course their parents are at fault and the guns should have been out of the reach of any children. Lock up the stupid parents for negligence.

 

[hyperalgesia]

because it works so well in somalia, south sudan, syria, etc?

funny how most of the people who spout all this right-wing libertarian drivel are single men with no kids. its a bit scary to think of a socieyy without laws when there are children involved

What DOES work in those countries? "Lawlessness" does not mean "not enough laws". You can write any law you want in those countries.

Japan has ridiculously low violent crime rate. But it's not because of their laws or their gun laws. It's because of their culture.

What do you think would happen to your kids if there were no laws that would not happen anyway?

I'm detecting a common theme here. That families, churches, neighbors have no inherent respect for each other. They only respect each other because politicians and lawyers make them. If not for the benevolence of politicians and lawyers, it would be absolute mayhem.

 

[Blitz2006]

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-australia-guns-idUSKCN0XP0HG

"The chances of being murdered by a gun in Australia plunged to 0.15 per 100,000 people in 2014 from 0.54 per 100,000 people in 1996, a decline of 72 percent, a Reuters analysis of Australian Bureau of Statistics figures showed.

In 1996, Australia had 311 murders, of which 98 were with guns. In 2014, with the population up from about 18 million to 23 million, Australia had 238 murders, of which 35 were with guns."

It was the April 28, 1996, shooting deaths by a lone gunman of 35 people in and around a cafe at a historic former prison colony in Tasmania that prompted the government to buy back or confiscate a million firearms and make it harder to buy new ones.

The country has had no mass shootings since."

 

[Blitz2006]

These 23 incidents do not justify infringing the civil rights of hundreds of millions of Americans. Funny she did not use an important statistic such as the thousands of shootings in Democratic controlled Chicago every year...rather, appeal to the emotions with "toddlers" What a joke. How stupid she must think the American electorate is.

You know half the guns in Chicago are from outside of the state?

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/01/29/us/where-50000-guns-in-chicago-came-from.html?_r=0

"But more than 15,000 of the guns traced by the police came from just outside the city limits in Cook County and in neighboring towns that permit gun stores."

 

[hyperalgesia]

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-australia-guns-idUSKCN0XP0HG

"The chances of being murdered by a gun in Australia plunged to 0.15 per 100,000 people in 2014 from 0.54 per 100,000 people in 1996, a decline of 72 percent, a Reuters analysis of Australian Bureau of Statistics figures showed.

In 1996, Australia had 311 murders, of which 98 were with guns. In 2014, with the population up from about 18 million to 23 million, Australia had 238 murders, of which 35 were with guns."

It was the April 28, 1996, shooting deaths by a lone gunman of 35 people in and around a cafe at a historic former prison colony in Tasmania that prompted the government to buy back or confiscate a million firearms and make it harder to buy new ones.

The country has had no mass shootings since."

Obviously restricting guns will reduce gun deaths. I'm not sure about the larger picture of violent crime, including assault.

Also. has anyone ever PREVENTED violence with a gun and is that included in your statistic?

 

[Blitz2006]

Obviously restricting guns will reduce gun deaths. I'm not sure about the larger picture of violent crime, including assault.

Also. has anyone ever PREVENTED violence with a gun and is that included in your statistic?

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2443681

"Across the basic seven Index I crime categories, the strongest evidence of a statistically significant effect would be for aggravated assault, with 11 of 28 estimates suggesting that RTC laws increase this crime at the .10 confidence level. An omitted variable bias test on our preferred Table 8a results suggests that our estimated 8 percent increase in aggravated assaults from RTC laws may understate the true harmful impact of RTC laws on aggravated assault, which may explain why this finding is only significant at the .10 level in many of our models. Our analysis of the year-by-year impact of RTC laws also suggests that RTC laws increase aggravated assaults. Our analysis of admittedly imperfect gun aggravated assaults provides suggestive evidence that RTC laws may be associated with large increases in this crime, perhaps increasing such gun assaults by almost 33 percent.

In addition to aggravated assault, the most plausible state models conducted over the entire 1979-2010 period provide evidence that RTC laws increase rape and robbery (but usually only at the .10 level). In contrast, for the period from 1999-2010 (which seeks to remove the confounding influence of the crack cocaine epidemic), the preferred state model (for those who accept the Wolfers proposition that one should not control for state trends) yields statistically significant evidence for only one crime – suggesting that RTC laws increase the rate of murder at the .05 significance level"

RTC = Right To Carry.

Guns just increase crime in general.

Great study, and less than 2 years old.

 

[Ligament]

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-australia-guns-idUSKCN0XP0HG

"The chances of being murdered by a gun in Australia plunged to 0.15 per 100,000 people in 2014 from 0.54 per 100,000 people in 1996, a decline of 72 percent, a Reuters analysis of Australian Bureau of Statistics figures showed.

In 1996, Australia had 311 murders, of which 98 were with guns. In 2014, with the population up from about 18 million to 23 million, Australia had 238 murders, of which 35 were with guns."

It was the April 28, 1996, shooting deaths by a lone gunman of 35 people in and around a cafe at a historic former prison colony in Tasmania that prompted the government to buy back or confiscate a million firearms and make it harder to buy new ones.

The country has had no mass shootings since."

Great. They lost their rights to the nanny state. Always need more government, right?

 

[hyperalgesia]

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2443681

"Across the basic seven Index I crime categories, the strongest evidence of a statistically significant effect would be for aggravated assault, with 11 of 28 estimates suggesting that RTC laws increase this crime at the .10 confidence level. An omitted variable bias test on our preferred Table 8a results suggests that our estimated 8 percent increase in aggravated assaults from RTC laws may understate the true harmful impact of RTC laws on aggravated assault, which may explain why this finding is only significant at the .10 level in many of our models. Our analysis of the year-by-year impact of RTC laws also suggests that RTC laws increase aggravated assaults. Our analysis of admittedly imperfect gun aggravated assaults provides suggestive evidence that RTC laws may be associated with large increases in this crime, perhaps increasing such gun assaults by almost 33 percent.

In addition to aggravated assault, the most plausible state models conducted over the entire 1979-2010 period provide evidence that RTC laws increase rape and robbery (but usually only at the .10 level). In contrast, for the period from 1999-2010 (which seeks to remove the confounding influence of the crack cocaine epidemic), the preferred state model (for those who accept the Wolfers proposition that one should not control for state trends) yields statistically significant evidence for only one crime – suggesting that RTC laws increase the rate of murder at the .05 significance level"

RTC = Right To Carry.

Guns just increase crime in general.

Great study, and less than 2 years old.

0.54 per 100,000 is pretty low. Now the citizens are less prepared when the revolution comes. Not sure it was worth it.

Personally, I would be ok with more federal gun control but it would cost a constitutional amendment on taxes and other changes in the law to sew limited government into the flag.

 

[Blitz2006]

0.54 per 100,000 is pretty low. Now the citizens are less prepared when the revolution comes. Not sure it was worth it.

Personally, I would be ok with more federal gun control but it would cost a constitutional amendment on taxes and other changes in the law to sew limited government into the flag.

???

1) 0.15 is still 3.5x lower than 0.54! And decrease is huge, we are talking about human lives.

2) 0.54 is actually very high compared to the rest of the "rich, western world"

http://www.nationalobserver.com/2015/12/04/news/how-american-gun-deaths-and-gun-laws-compare-canadas

Japan - (0.01 per 100,000 population)
UK - (0.06 per 100,000 population)
Canada (0.5 per 100, 100 population)
USA - 3.5 per 100,000 population

So USA = 7x HIGHER gun homicide rate compared to Canada, bordering country

3) Lets further analyze

http://www.citylab.com/politics/201...cities-compared-deadliest-nations-world/4412/

• If it were a country, New Orleans (with a rate 62.1 gun murders per 100,000 people) would rank second in the world.
• Detroit's gun homicide rate (35.9) is just a bit less than El Salvador (39.9).
• Baltimore's rate (29.7) is not too far off that of Guatemala (34.8).
• Gun murder in Newark (25.4) and Miami (23.7) is comparable to Colombia (27.1).

These gun homicide rates are ridiculous! Ok, 0.54 might be relatively low, but are you actually going to defend 62.1 per 100 000 people???

 

[Blitz2006]

Great. They lost their rights to the nanny state. Always need more government, right?

Sure, if it means a safer outcome for humans.

"Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness".

Hard to pursue happiness if you are shot dead, right?

 

[SSdoc33]

0.54 per 100,000 is pretty low. Now the citizens are less prepared when the revolution comes. Not sure it was worth it.

Personally, I would be ok with more federal gun control but it would cost a constitutional amendment on taxes and other changes in the law to sew limited government into the flag.

what effing revolution would that be? this is not 18th century france. louis the 16th is not walking thru that door. as much as the right would like to believe it, there are no czars out there in america. 200 years of stability should be enough to grant at least a modicum of trust.

 

[Ligament]

Sure, if it means a safer outcome for humans.

"Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness".

Hard to pursue happiness if you are shot dead, right?

Absolutely not. Gun ownership is a fundamental human right recognized and protected by our constitution. These lemmings in other countries have zero power to protect themselves or stand against a tyrannical government. We don't want more of a nanny state here in America, its bad enough as it is. If fools choose to murder each other using tools such as guns, blame it on the fools, not the tool.

These shootings are the responsibilities of the animals that pull the trigger, not the gun itself.

 

[clubdeac]

???

1) 0.15 is still 3.5x lower than 0.54! And decrease is huge, we are talking about human lives.

2) 0.54 is actually very high compared to the rest of the "rich, western world"

http://www.nationalobserver.com/2015/12/04/news/how-american-gun-deaths-and-gun-laws-compare-canadas

Japan - (0.01 per 100,000 population)
UK - (0.06 per 100,000 population)
Canada (0.5 per 100, 100 population)
USA - 3.5 per 100,000 population

So USA = 7x HIGHER gun homicide rate compared to Canada, bordering country

3) Lets further analyze

http://www.citylab.com/politics/201...cities-compared-deadliest-nations-world/4412/

• If it were a country, New Orleans (with a rate 62.1 gun murders per 100,000 people) would rank second in the world.
• Detroit's gun homicide rate (35.9) is just a bit less than El Salvador (39.9).
• Baltimore's rate (29.7) is not too far off that of Guatemala (34.8).
• Gun murder in Newark (25.4) and Miami (23.7) is comparable to Colombia (27.1).

These gun homicide rates are ridiculous! Ok, 0.54 might be relatively low, but are you actually going to defend 62.1 per 100 000 people???

Is the problem access to guns or the progressive moral decay of society? Respect for human life has reached an all time low. Late term abortions are considered morally acceptable by our highest elected officials. The family unit is broken. More children are born into single parent homes than ever before. The ideals and concept of self sufficiency and determination have been replaced by learned helplessness due to ever increasing government handouts. In fact, you're financially rewarded for having a child out of wedlock if you "qualify". Sexual orientation and now even one's biological sex is merely a subjective experience relative to one's feelings. We disrespect and attack those whose job is to enforce the law of the land. Why would you expect anything less in a society such as this

 

[hyperalgesia]

what effing revolution would that be? this is not 18th century france. louis the 16th is not walking thru that door. as much as the right would like to believe it, there are no czars out there in america. 200 years of stability should be enough to grant at least a modicum of trust.

Every year our individual freedoms are further restricted by our government. More laws, more centralization of government, less individual freedom. The end point is either a fully complacent, obedient, and denervated population, that doesn't know or want liberty, that thanks the government for its rights, OR there's another revolution at some point.

Of course it's also possible there will be a socialist revolution instead. In that case, there should be no guns allowed...

 

[hyperalgesia]

• If it were a country, New Orleans (with a rate 62.1 gun murders per 100,000 people) would rank second in the world.
• Detroit's gun homicide rate (35.9) is just a bit less than El Salvador (39.9).
• Baltimore's rate (29.7) is not too far off that of Guatemala (34.8).
• Gun murder in Newark (25.4) and Miami (23.7) is comparable to Colombia (27.1).

These gun homicide rates are ridiculous! Ok, 0.54 might be relatively low, but are you actually going to defend 62.1 per 100 000 people???

I'm not going to defend the City of New Orleans or its mayor, for their outrageous 62.1 figure. Nor will I defend Detroit, Baltimore, Newark, Miami, or Chicago for that matter and their respective mayors or city/county representatives, who have allowed a vile torrent of death and crime to reign in their precincts. People ride around on bicycles all day and sling drugs instead of working. Then they scare away businesses by throwing bricks in their windows, looting and attacking Police officers. The mayors are often complicit in this disgraceful lawlessness by claiming their problems are somehow the fault of the US constitution or because they aren't getting enough handouts. The governance of these cities are a national embarrassment.

New Hampshire has some of the weakest gun laws in the US. You don't even have to register a gun. But they have the LOWEST gun murder rate in the country. Why should the people of New Hampshire have to change THEIR laws because of these pockets of failed municipal governance?

If you want to stop the crime in these places with federal resources, we do have a National Guard.

 

[Ducttape]

because people are buying guns in lax states like NH, and taking them to NY and elsewhere?
http://wivb.com/2016/10/25/ag-schneiderman-says-74-percent-of-recovered-guns-came-from-outside-ny/

AG Schneiderman says 74 percent of recovered guns came from outside NY
By Evan Anstey, News 4 Digital Producer Published: October 25, 2016, 12:38 pm

NEW YORK (WIVB) — Attorney General Eric Schneiderman unveiled new information on gun trafficking into New York on Tuesday.

According to new research announced by Schneiderman, 74 percent of all guns recovered by law enforcement officers came from outside the state. In addition to that statistic, 86 percent of recovered handguns come from outside of New York.

“The data makes one thing abundantly clear: New York’s strong gun laws are being undermined at every turn by lax laws in other states,” Schneiderman said. “Even as we work to make our streets safer, the illegal guns most often used in violent crimes continue to pour into our state. In fact, three-out-of-four guns used in New York crimes come from out-of-state. When you look at the illegal crime gun problem, it’s the handgun that’s killing people every day – and 86% of recovered handguns come from out-of-state, underscoring the problem New York faces. It’s time for the federal government – and other states – to take common sense measures and ensure weak gun laws won’t continue to take the lives of New Yorkers.”

Between 2010 and 2015, law enforcement agencies in the state recovered nearly 53,000 guns. Only 6 percent of those were recovered from someone who was also the original purchaser of the gun.

https://targettrafficking.ag.ny.gov/

 

[willabeast]

Attention Clinton supporters - suggest you read the following.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...-top-table-main_teneowiki815pm:homepage/story

 

[Stim4me]

Attention Clinton supporters - suggest you read the following.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/inside-bill-clinton-inc-hacked-memo-reveals-intersection-of-charity-and-personal-income/2016/10/26/3bf84bba-9b92-11e6-b3c9-f662adaa0048_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_teneowiki815pm:homepage/story

Try to explain this to the illiterate voting masses... they can only comprehend when one lane is closed on the GW bridge...

 

[lonelobo]

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/a...tion-level-sharply-divides-clinton-trump-race

OK...

 

[Ligament]

Is the problem access to guns or the progressive moral decay of society? Respect for human life has reached an all time low. Late term abortions are considered morally acceptable by our highest elected officials. The family unit is broken. More children are born into single parent homes than ever before. The ideals and concept of self sufficiency and determination have been replaced by learned helplessness due to ever increasing government handouts. In fact, you're financially rewarded for having a child out of wedlock if you "qualify". Sexual orientation and now even one's biological sex is merely a subjective experience relative to one's feelings. We disrespect and attack those whose job is to enforce the law of the land. Why would you expect anything less in a society such as this

Eliminate welfare and watch these murders dry up as people stop reproducing like rabbits when they are no longer paid by the state to do so.

I'm not going to defend the City of New Orleans or its mayor, for their outrageous 62.1 figure. Nor will I defend Detroit, Baltimore, Newark, Miami, or Chicago for that matter and their respective mayors or city/county representatives, who have allowed a vile torrent of death and crime to reign in their precincts. People ride around on bicycles all day and sling drugs instead of working. Then they scare away businesses by throwing bricks in their windows, looting and attacking Police officers. The mayors are often complicit in this disgraceful lawlessness by claiming their problems are somehow the fault of the US constitution or because they aren't getting enough handouts. The governance of these cities are a national embarrassment.

New Hampshire has some of the weakest gun laws in the US. You don't even have to register a gun. But they have the LOWEST gun murder rate in the country. Why should the people of New Hampshire have to change THEIR laws because of these pockets of failed municipal governance?

If you want to stop the crime in these places with federal resources, we do have a National Guard.

You forgot about burning down entire residential blocks in Detroit, for fun.

The non-criminal gun owners of the country (New Hampshire) must be punished for the deeds of the thugs that murder with guns. After all, the socialist narrative is that there is NO PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY any more. Need the government to be mother and father to these thugs instead of a real mother and father.

 

[Ligament]

Attention Clinton supporters - suggest you read the following.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/inside-bill-clinton-inc-hacked-memo-reveals-intersection-of-charity-and-personal-income/2016/10/26/3bf84bba-9b92-11e6-b3c9-f662adaa0048_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_teneowiki815pm:homepage/story

This means nothing to Clinton supporters. Because Vagina. Need to elect a Vagina into office. I've literally talked to Clinton supporters that are voting for Clinton because "She's a woman" and against trump because "He's a white male." Sexism and racism at its finest. (I'm realizing white females are not as demonized as F'ing white males).

No amount of bribery, corruption, destruction of evidence, obstruction of law, scandal, or abuse matters to the socialists. They don't care about reality, they care about feelings. Clinton talks about women and children. Toddler's with guns! That feels cute. Lets vote for her.

I'm voting based on content of character, not genitalia.

 

[lonelobo]

This means nothing to Clinton supporters. Because Vagina. Need to elect a Vagina into office. I've literally talked to Clinton supporters that are voting for Clinton because "She's a woman" and against trump because "He's a white male." Sexism and racism at its finest. (I'm realizing white females are not as demonized as F'ing white males).

No amount of bribery, corruption, destruction of evidence, obstruction of law, scandal, or abuse matters to the socialists. They don't care about reality, they care about feelings. Clinton talks about women and children. Toddler's with guns! That feels cute. Lets vote for her.

I'm voting based on content of character, not genitalia.

So you must be voting Libertarian?

 

[hyperalgesia]

because people are buying guns in lax states like NH, and taking them to NY and elsewhere?
http://wivb.com/2016/10/25/ag-schneiderman-says-74-percent-of-recovered-guns-came-from-outside-ny/



https://targettrafficking.ag.ny.gov/

Do you really think NH is the problem with these cities?

Do the looters get their bricks from NH? Their knives?

 

[Blitz2006]

I'm not going to defend the City of New Orleans or its mayor, for their outrageous 62.1 figure. Nor will I defend Detroit, Baltimore, Newark, Miami, or Chicago for that matter and their respective mayors or city/county representatives, who have allowed a vile torrent of death and crime to reign in their precincts. People ride around on bicycles all day and sling drugs instead of working. Then they scare away businesses by throwing bricks in their windows, looting and attacking Police officers. The mayors are often complicit in this disgraceful lawlessness by claiming their problems are somehow the fault of the US constitution or because they aren't getting enough handouts. The governance of these cities are a national embarrassment.

New Hampshire has some of the weakest gun laws in the US. You don't even have to register a gun. But they have the LOWEST gun murder rate in the country. Why should the people of New Hampshire have to change THEIR laws because of these pockets of failed municipal governance?

If you want to stop the crime in these places with federal resources, we do have a National Guard.

"People ride around on bicycles all day and sling drugs instead of working. Then they scare away businesses by throwing bricks in their windows, looting and attacking Police officers."

Right. Thats the same issue that UK has. UK is very socialist compared to USA. They have lots of people abusing the FREE healthcare and awesome welfare system. Did you know that in the UK, welfare PAYS more than minimum wage jobs sometimes!?? So you have a lot of people riding around bicycles all day, and slinging drugs, in the mean streets of London, Manchester, Birmingham.

In 2011, some of the worst looting was in the UK, as you keep referring to "looters". So I'll show you some real looting:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/datablog/2011/dec/06/england-riots-shops-raided

And this was just a spree of looting. It still happens all the time in England.

But guess what the gun homicide rate in England is: 0.1 per 100 000 compared to U.S 3.0 per 100 000 even with all these "looters" rolling around England. I've been to England a lot, trust me, there is rampant petty crime.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-34996604

So whats the only big difference between UK and US? Gun Control.

"New Hampshire has some of the weakest gun laws in the US. You don't even have to register a gun. But they have the LOWEST gun murder rate in the country. "


Ok, so you cherry picked the lowest gun homicide rate, and its still 0.53 per 100 000

https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2011/jan/10/gun-crime-us-state

Thats still 5x higher than the UK.

Oh wait, 0.53, thats exactly the gun homicide rate in Australia if you scroll up. And they decided to ban guns, and guess what, it went down to 0.15! So if Australia can decide to implement gun control with a gun homicide rate of 0.54, why can't Vermont at 0.53??

And yes, when it comes to human lives, the difference between 0.5 per 100 000 and 0.1 is massive, with 330 million people.

The top 10 states with the weakest gun laws are:

http://www.deseretnews.com/top/3430/0/The-10-states-with-the-least-restrictive-gun-laws.html

Only 2 of those 10 states have reasonable gun homicide rates: South Dakota (0.68) and Vermont (0.75). Both are still much higher than Canada (0.5) and several times higher than UK (0.1) and Australia (0.15).

 

[Blitz2006]

And if you don't believe me, here is a study from JAMA showing that the tighter state gun laws, have lower deaths from gun homicide and suicide:

http://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullarticle/1661390

• States with the most firearm legislation had a 42 percent lower overall firearm-associated mortality rate than states with the least legislation.
• The firearm-associated homicide rate was 40 percent lower, and the firearm-related suicide rate 37 percent lower, in states with the most legislation.
• There was no increase in non-firearm-associated fatalities in states with the most firearm legislation as compared to states with the least legislation.
• The types of legislation associated most clearly with decreasing rates of firearm-related homicides and suicides involved universal background checks and requiring permits to purchase firearms.
• States with the most firearm laws had the lowest levels of household gun ownership.

"Compared to states with the fewest laws, in states with the most there were 6.25 per 100,000 fewer firearm deaths from suicide and 0.40 per 100,000 fewer firearm deaths from homicide."

 

[Ligament]

So you must be voting Libertarian?

I traditionally am a Libertarian, but the current candidate is silly and no chance of winning, AND Trump espouses all the best parts of Libertarianism (for me), AND he has a chance of winning, so Trump for me...since no Dr. Carson :-(

 

[Ligament]

And if you don't believe me, here is a study from JAMA showing that the tighter state gun laws, have lower deaths from gun homicide and suicide:

http://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullarticle/1661390

• States with the most firearm legislation had a 42 percent lower overall firearm-associated mortality rate than states with the least legislation.
• The firearm-associated homicide rate was 40 percent lower, and the firearm-related suicide rate 37 percent lower, in states with the most legislation.
• There was no increase in non-firearm-associated fatalities in states with the most firearm legislation as compared to states with the least legislation.
• The types of legislation associated most clearly with decreasing rates of firearm-related homicides and suicides involved universal background checks and requiring permits to purchase firearms.
• States with the most firearm laws had the lowest levels of household gun ownership.

"Compared to states with the fewest laws, in states with the most there were 6.25 per 100,000 fewer firearm deaths from suicide and 0.40 per 100,000 fewer firearm deaths from homicide."

We do not care about your arguments for second amendment infringement, just as we would dismiss your arguments against free speech. They are both rights of US citizens and we will not have them infringed.

 

[hyperalgesia]

"People ride around on bicycles all day and sling drugs instead of working. Then they scare away businesses by throwing bricks in their windows, looting and attacking Police officers."

Right. Thats the same issue that UK has. UK is very socialist compared to USA. They have lots of people abusing the FREE healthcare and awesome welfare system. Did you know that in the UK, welfare PAYS more than minimum wage jobs sometimes!?? So you have a lot of people riding around bicycles all day, and slinging drugs, in the mean streets of London, Manchester, Birmingham.

In 2011, some of the worst looting was in the UK, as you keep referring to "looters". So I'll show you some real looting:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/datablog/2011/dec/06/england-riots-shops-raided

And this was just a spree of looting. It still happens all the time in England.

But guess what the gun homicide rate in England is: 0.1 per 100 000 compared to U.S 3.0 per 100 000 even with all these "looters" rolling around England. I've been to England a lot, trust me, there is rampant petty crime.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-34996604

So whats the only big difference between UK and US? Gun Control.

"New Hampshire has some of the weakest gun laws in the US. You don't even have to register a gun. But they have the LOWEST gun murder rate in the country. "


Ok, so you cherry picked the lowest gun homicide rate, and its still 0.53 per 100 000

https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2011/jan/10/gun-crime-us-state

Thats still 5x higher than the UK.

Oh wait, 0.53, thats exactly the gun homicide rate in Australia if you scroll up. And they decided to ban guns, and guess what, it went down to 0.15! So if Australia can decide to implement gun control with a gun homicide rate of 0.54, why can't Vermont at 0.53??

And yes, when it comes to human lives, the difference between 0.5 per 100 000 and 0.1 is massive, with 330 million people.

The top 10 states with the weakest gun laws are:

http://www.deseretnews.com/top/3430/0/The-10-states-with-the-least-restrictive-gun-laws.html

Only 2 of those 10 states have reasonable gun homicide rates: South Dakota (0.68) and Vermont (0.75). Both are still much higher than Canada (0.5) and several times higher than UK (0.1) and Australia (0.15).

I'm not trying to convince you that gun violence increases with more gun laws. Hopefully I don't need JAMA to prove that INDIVIDUALS, both in American cities and in UK will commit crimes period. "Gun violence" is just one example of their activities. We are not going to systematically dismember the foundation of America because of these CRIMINALS. If a tiny group (1/200k is tiny) goes around and abuses their freedom of speech, the rest of us aren't giving up our freedom of speech, like Ligament says. Even if JAMA says that speech can hurt people.

I think the root of the problem is that people in inner cities don't go to work every day. They just collect free stuff and have no responsibility, no values and no discipline. When you produce reports that shift responsibility for inner city criminal activity to the state of New Hampshire, you just continue the long train of straw men, denial and enablement.

-Edited: Maybe I was a bit harsh here. I would like to see some research on the correlation between unemployment and gun-violence rather than gun laws and gun violence.

 

[Ducttape]

NH might be one of the states that is contributing to NY State's gun problems. more likely, according to ATF, they are coming from "the South"...

with the SAFE law, NY has one of the - if not the - strictest gun laws in the country. yet guns remain a huge problem in NY.

just my two cents, but why does any discussion on gun control automatically seem to imply that one side wants to completely eliminate guns? this is a fallacy..

 

[SSdoc33]

We do not care about your arguments for second amendment infringement, just as we would dismiss your arguments against free speech. They are both rights of US citizens and we will not have them infringed.

WE absolutely do.

free speech - yes. religion - yes. assembly -yes. press - yes.

the second of amendment does not guarantee any yahoo out there to carry an AR-15. in no stretch of the imagination could it be interpreted that way.

i personally would be for a complete ban on all firearms, but i would accept ANY legislation that curbs their access.

ligament, even you must admit that closing the gun show loophole and universal background checks are reasonable ideas. a ban on assault weopons is also completely reasonable, but god forbid we talk about that.

one academic study after another has demonstrated the public health danger from guns. are you choosing to just ignore these studies? doesnt sound like something a learned PHYSICIAN would do.....

 

[lonelobo]

I traditionally am a Libertarian, but the current candidate is silly and no chance of winning, AND Trump espouses all the best parts of Libertarianism (for me), AND he has a chance of winning, so Trump for me...since no Dr. Carson :-(

So you are voting for Trump based on His "Character"?

 

[hyperalgesia]

I would love to see a debate between Ron Paul and Hillary.

 

[Ligament]

WE absolutely do.

free speech - yes. religion - yes. assembly -yes. press - yes.

the second of amendment does not guarantee any yahoo out there to carry an AR-15. in no stretch of the imagination could it be interpreted that way.

i personally would be for a complete ban on all firearms, but i would accept ANY legislation that curbs their access.

ligament, even you must admit that closing the gun show loophole and universal background checks are reasonable ideas. a ban on assault weopons is also completely reasonable, but god forbid we talk about that.

one academic study after another has demonstrated the public health danger from guns. are you choosing to just ignore these studies? doesnt sound like something a learned PHYSICIAN would do.....

The WE you speak of are spineless, weak, feeble socialists who wish to place their physical security in the hands of the state instead of their own, and who wish to never again be a power the state is afraid of. These are people who are stupid enough to believe when they are being raped or their homes invaded, the aggressor will wait 15-45 minutes for the police to arrive if the socialist victim calls for a "safe space" and a "time out," while she calls the police for help.

It is impossible to eliminate or ban or magically make disappear the 300,000,000+ firearms in the hands of US citizens. Place a ban, and only some of the law abiding lemmings will loose access to firearms. The criminals certainly will have a multi-generational supply of firearms available in abundant supply. Firearms are functional for 100+ years. Furthermore, even if you did magically eliminate all guns from US citizens, they would simply flow over our completely open southern borders like a waterfall right into the hands of criminals.

That you would support a ban of all firearms shows you have no desire to defend yourself or your family or home against violent aggressors. You do not want the ability to fight a tyrannical government. You want to be the slave of your elected overlords and the response times of the local police, if they decide to show up. You do not want women to have any force equalizer to defend themselves against male attackers who otherwise have physical superiority in physical assaults.

A ban on semi-automatic rifles is not reasonable. We need them to defend home, family, and against the tyrannical state. My semi-automatic rifle is my best home defense tool against criminal threats to life, not my pistol. Rifle ammunition is less likely to over-penetrate walls compared to handgun ammunition, and more effective at stopping an aggressor who wishes to commit murder or violent physical assault.

The danger to public health is the responsibility of the public individual, not the state. It is the responsibility of the individual to exercise her rights to bear arms in a responsible way. If the individual is too stupid to be responsible with their firearms, its their problem not mine or yours.

One academic study after another has demonstrated alcohol is a killer. Smoking is a killer. Cars are killers. In all cases, academia accepts these deaths are the responsibility of the consumer. Interestingly, suddenly people who can be responsible enough operate a car are not responsible enough to operate a firearm.

 

[Ducttape]

do you truly believe that, regardless of how many firearms you own, you will be able to fend off a squad of retired US infantry using outdated equipment, let alone a squad of SEALS with most up-to-date equipment?

how did it work for the gun owners at Ruby Ridge, Waco, Midland City (Alabama), Haileah (Fla), Whiteville (Tenn), San Bernadino, Orlando...

(this is not an argument against owning guns. only the concept that any single individual can stand against the might of the US army and "the tyrannical state".

and if you truly want to defend yourself against "the tyrannical state," against totalitarian dictatorship and tyrannical government, then you have to - unfortunately - vote Clinton and Republican Congress, because the other guy continues to spout dictatorial, racist and sexist rhetoric.)

 

[bedrock]

I've been avoiding this thread but have decided to put my two cents in. The truth of all great arguments is in the center between two polarized positions.

I can see both sides as I grew up in a town in the Rocky Mountains that has the distinction of being the city with the highest percent of its resident voting republican for the past 30 years in all of America. I grew up hunting with my father, and in my youth I hunted everything from deer, elk, rabbits, wild turkeys, to bear. Bear hunts are quite the experience. Half the people in my hometown drive a pickup truck with rifles mounted across the rear window.
However, I then spent the last 15 years living on the coasts of America in Boston, Seattle, Philadelphia, and now SoCal. I understand both sides of most political arguments which is why I'm an Independent.

I think most hardcore republicans can live with background checks, but they are most worried about this

i personally would be for a complete ban on all firearms, but i would accept ANY legislation that curbs their access.

Republicans/libertarians/independents fear that if they agree to some gun control, that eventually they will lose all firearms, even pistols for home protection, as it is the unspoken goal of liberals to completely ban all firearms.
They've seen virtually all gun ownership lost in the UK, Australia, and Canada and they fear the same thing for the US.

Due to the 2nd amendment and the unique makeup of the USA, I don't think that firearms will ever be banned completely and the Republicans are wrong on that point.

As with most arguments, the truth lies in the middle. Americans should be allowed to own personal firearms for personal and home defense, hunting, and for sporting competitions. However, preserving public safety and limiting the effects of public attacks by lunatics/terrorists with advanced weapons is also very important.

I believe they should close the gun show loophole and mandate background checks for all firearms. They should not allow anyone convicted of a felony to buy a firearm, as felons should lose that right forever. Would also not allow anyone to buy a firearm who has/had any mental illness more severe than mild anxiety or depression. Basically, anyone with moderate to severe anxiety/depression, bipolar, schizo, etc should never be allowed to own a firearm, ever. Anyone on a terror watchlist should not be allowed to buy firearms.

Steps have to be take the reduce the impact of future public attacks. I would support eliminating automatic shotguns with the huge drums of ammo. As rifles are very important for hunting and certain situations with home defense, yet a special threat to law enforcement due to their ability to penetrate kevlar, and the fact that assault weapons with large magazines have been devastating in many public attacks, we should severely limit rifle magazine size to 5 rounds or less. I also support limiting personal handgun magazines to 10 rounds as many states have done.

That said, I personally own a semiautomatic shotgun and two handguns for home defense, and use the smaller handgun for personal carry in certain rare situations.

As ducttape stated, no one is going to win a battle against Navy seals, tanks, etc. If a government agency comes for you, they will get you. The second amendment was written in a time when the weapons men hunted with and the weapons the state possessed, were exactly the same. That is not the case anymore and won't ever be again. That part of the second amendment is out of date. In the modern era, firearm ownership is about protecting yourself, your property, and family against criminals, and enjoying firearms for hunting and sport competitions.

That said, all Americans without significant mental illness, prior felony convictions, or terrorist connections should be allowed to own reasonable firearms after a background check.

 

[Ligament]

I've been avoiding this thread but have decided to put my two cents in. The truth of all great arguments is in the center between two polarized positions.

I can see both sides as I grew up in a town in the Rocky Mountains that has the distinction of being the city with the highest percent of its resident voting republican for the past 30 years in all of America. I grew up hunting with my father, and in my youth I hunted everything from deer, elk, rabbits, wild turkeys, to bear. Bear hunts are quite the experience. Half the people in my hometown drive a pickup truck with rifles mounted across the rear window.
However, I then spent the last 15 years living on the coasts of America in Boston, Seattle, Philadelphia, and now SoCal. I understand both sides of most political arguments which is why I'm an Independent.

I think most hardcore republicans can live with background checks, but they are most worried about this


Republicans/libertarians/independents fear that if they agree to some gun control, that eventually they will lose all firearms, even pistols for home protection, as it is the unspoken goal of liberals to completely ban all firearms.
They've seen virtually all gun ownership lost in the UK, Australia, and Canada and they fear the same thing for the US.

Due to the 2nd amendment and the unique makeup of the USA, I don't think that firearms will ever be banned completely and the Republicans are wrong on that point.

As with most arguments, the truth lies in the middle. Americans should be allowed to own personal firearms for personal and home defense, hunting, and for sporting competitions. However, preserving public safety and limiting the effects of public attacks by lunatics/terrorists with advanced weapons is also very important.

I believe they should close the gun show loophole and mandate background checks for all firearms. They should not allow anyone convicted of a felony to buy a firearm, as felons should lose that right forever. Would also not allow anyone to buy a firearm who has/had any mental illness more severe than mild anxiety or depression. Basically, anyone with moderate to severe anxiety/depression, bipolar, schizo, etc should never be allowed to own a firearm, ever. Anyone on a terror watchlist should not be allowed to buy firearms.

Steps have to be take the reduce the impact of future public attacks. I would support eliminating automatic shotguns with the huge drums of ammo. As rifles are very important for hunting and certain situations with home defense, yet a special threat to law enforcement due to their ability to penetrate kevlar, and the fact that assault weapons with large magazines have been devastating in many public attacks, we should severely limit rifle magazine size to 5 rounds or less. I also support limiting personal handgun magazines to 10 rounds as many states have done.

That said, I personally own a semiautomatic shotgun and two handguns for home defense, and use the smaller handgun for personal carry in certain rare situations.

As ducttape stated, no one is going to win a battle against Navy seals, tanks, etc. If a government agency comes for you, they will get you. The second amendment was written in a time when the weapons men hunted with and the weapons the state possessed, were exactly the same. That is not the case anymore and won't ever be again. That part of the second amendment is out of date. In the modern era, firearm ownership is about protecting yourself, your property, and family against criminals, and enjoying firearms for hunting and sport competitions.

That said, all Americans without significant mental illness, prior felony convictions, or terrorist connections should be allowed to own reasonable firearms after a background check.

Someone who is under indictment, has a felony conviction, uses illicit drugs or is an illegal immigrant is not permitted to buy a gun.

The problem with the terror watch list is that you, bedrock, can be arbitrarily placed on the terror watch list with no explanation, yet there is no due process to have you removed at this time. Therefore your civil rights can be infringed with no due process to address this infringement. Currently many people on the terror watch list have been permitted to buy guns. Some have not. It is up to the FBI to make the decision. Terrorists of course should not be allowed to purchase weapons. Same problems with the no fly list.

Nobody in their right mind thinks they can singularly take on the entirety of the US Military with their semi-auto rifle! But collectively, 300,000,000 firearms in millions of civilian hands pose a serious threat to a tyrannical government IF the US citizens collectively take action against the state. That is where the second amendment protects us against the state. Millions of armed citizens fighting against the state will have a serious impact regardless of the tanks and missiles the state possesses. If you don't believe that, explain Afganistan whose guerrilla fighters have survived and pushed out the Russians and doing very well against the US.

For your home defense or personal carry weapon, bedrock, what are you going to do if you use your five rounds on your assailants and they are not stopped? Why would you choose to limit your options in that way? Is your plan to surrender after your five rounds are used? I'll take a normal capacity magazine, thank you very much.

Automatic shotguns (and any automatic firearm) cannot be owned by most civilians, there are very very few available to civilians with massive regulatory and tax burdens placed upon ownership with a federal database. Automatic shotguns are a very rare bird, in such low circulation I don't see how you are concerned about them. Automatic shotguns are almost certainly less effective that semi-automatic shotguns in almost all circumstances. I think the exceptions might be riot control and demolition/breeching.

 

[bedrock]

Someone who is under indictment, has a felony conviction, uses illicit drugs or is an illegal immigrant is not permitted to buy a gun.

The problem with the terror watch list is that you, bedrock, can be arbitrarily placed on the terror watch list with no explanation, yet there is no due process to have you removed at this time. Therefore your civil rights can be infringed with no due process to address this infringement. Currently many people on the terror watch list have been permitted to buy guns. Some have not. It is up to the FBI to make the decision. Terrorists of course should not be allowed to purchase weapons. Same problems with the no fly list.

Nobody in their right mind thinks they can singularly take on the entirety of the US Military with their semi-auto rifle! But collectively, 300,000,000 firearms in millions of civilian hands pose a serious threat to a tyrannical government IF the US citizens collectively take action against the state. That is where the second amendment protects us against the state. Millions of armed citizens fighting against the state will have a serious impact regardless of the tanks and missiles the state possesses. If you don't believe that, explain Afganistan whose guerrilla fighters have survived and pushed out the Russians and doing very well against the US.

For your home defense or personal carry weapon, bedrock, what are you going to do if you use your five rounds on your assailants and they are not stopped? Why would you choose to limit your options in that way? Is your plan to surrender after your five rounds are used? I'll take a normal capacity magazine, thank you very much.

Automatic shotguns (and any automatic firearm) cannot be owned by most civilians, there are very very few available to civilians with massive regulatory and tax burdens placed upon ownership with a federal database. Automatic shotguns are a very rare bird, in such low circulation I don't see how you are concerned about them. Automatic shotguns are almost certainly less effective that semi-automatic shotguns in almost all circumstances. I think the exceptions might be riot control and demolition/breeching.

I'll admit that the terrorwatch list part, is the part of my statement that I'm least adamant about. It's iffy territory, however in today's terrorist climate, I think public safety is paramount and if the FBI is at least worried about you enough to put you on a terror watch list, I don't want you owning a gun in my neighborhood. If a few innocent people with bad relatives can't own guns, I'm ok with that, as protecting the public is more important.

I still don't ever see a future in America where hundreds of thousands of people take up arms against the government. This is the 21st century and America is still the most powerful and stable country in the first world. Afghanistan has been a messed up third world country for centuries.

Rifles are not indicated for personal carry or really even for home defense 95% of the time. However, they have been used disproportionately for public massacres like Aurora, San Bernardino etc and so the need to protect the public is the larger priority. The only time you would need a rifle for home defense is if you live in woods, and you know someone is coming after you. Once someone has entered your house, which is the situation 99% of the time in home defense, you'll stand a much better chance of dispatching the intruder in close quarters with a short barrel shotgun and semi-automatic pistols, than you would with a rifle.

To your point about magazine capacity, I only favor a strict limit on rifle capacity for the reasons I stated above. If someone enters my house with ill intent, I have two pistols with 20 rounds (10 in each gun). If the 20 rounds in my handguns and the rounds in my shotgun aren't enough to take out a home invader, then I need to spend more time practicing at the shooting range.

 

[hyperalgesia]

The 2nd amendment was written before congress could impose income taxes on people (16th amendment - 120 years later). Since the federal government got this power, it can pretty much starve anyone out, regardless of their arsenal. This is not what our founding fathers intended. Obamacare "tax" is just one example of how this is will continue to tip the scales of power from the people to our government.

I still think guns provide some protection from government, even if they just cause hesitation. The FBI will hesitate before storming a house in Texas partly because of their fear of an armed conflict.

My position is no federal law changes on guns unless there is a constitutional amendment limiting the power of government to levy taxes.

 

[Ligament]

I'll admit that the terrorwatch list part, is the part of my statement that I'm least adamant about. It's iffy territory, however in today's terrorist climate, I think public safety is paramount and if the FBI is at least worried about you enough to put you on a terror watch list, I don't want you owning a gun in my neighborhood. If a few innocent people with bad relatives can't own guns, I'm ok with that, as protecting the public is more important.

I still don't ever see a future in America where hundreds of thousands of people take up arms against the government. This is the 21st century and America is still the most powerful and stable country in the first world. Afghanistan has been a messed up third world country for centuries.

Rifles are not indicated for personal carry or really even for home defense 95% of the time. However, they have been used disproportionately for public massacres like Aurora, San Bernardino etc and so the need to protect the public is the larger priority. The only time you would need a rifle for home defense is if you live in woods, and you know someone is coming after you. Once someone has entered your house, which is the situation 99% of the time in home defense, you'll stand a much better chance of dispatching the intruder in close quarters with a short barrel shotgun and semi-automatic pistols, than you would with a rifle.

To your point about magazine capacity, I only favor a strict limit on rifle capacity for the reasons I stated above. If someone enters my house with ill intent, I have two pistols with 20 rounds (10 in each gun). If the 20 rounds in my handguns and the rounds in my shotgun aren't enough to take out a home invader, then I need to spend more time practicing at the shooting range.

I think this is a reasonable discussion and I'd like to respond. Those are thoughtful comments bedrock.

The problem with the terror watch list is that since there are no strict criteria, and no due process available to dispute it, the feds can expand the terrorist watch list to ANYBODY at ANY time and ANY scale for ANY reason. Lets say they want to place an entire community on the terrorist watch list because the feds are building internment camps in that community and do not want any resistance from citizens who remember the Japanese internment camps. They can do it. Again, I don't want terrorists to be in this country at all.

RE: you not seeing an American revolt. I remind you of the American Revolution. Remember it. Did not happen too long ago. Will it happen again? Unlikely I agree. America is on the quick decline. I would not be surprised if we reach second world status in 3 more generations. Great nations rise and decline, that is the rule. It will happen at some point.

Rifles and personal carry, very difficult and impractical. Home defense against a deadly threat, you are very wrong. Rifles are the VERY best option. 1) higher capacity 2) more accurate 3) allow mounting of red dot sights and lights which are fantastic for close quarters defense 4) rifle ammo is a much, MUCH more effective stopper of deadly threats 5) rifle ammo is much LESS likely to penetrate home walls and doors, therefore limiting collateral damage to innocents 6) much more difficult for murderous criminal to take longarm away from defendant 7) long arm can be used as an effective blunt weapon (barrel jabs vs. shoulder stock hits) 7) you can use a suppressor to reduce flash and sound and save your eyes and ears and that of your family. Shotguns second best option given limited round capacity and recoil issues and inability to suppress sound and flash signature. Handguns distant third best option. Handgun ammo much more likely to overpenetrate walls and doors and therefore possibly hit your family or neighbors.

Living in the woods is not a great argument, as if you are shooting somebody out in the woods it is unlikely that they are invading your home. Possible but unlikely.

Understand your reasons for magazine capacity. Rethink your argument re: your pistols and shotgun. 3am. Intruder in your home. How do you magically get 2 pistols and a shotgun ON YOUR PERSON in 20 seconds or less from your sleeping position in bed? Do you have a chest rig or belt to holster your pistols? Do you have time to put on your chest rig or belt? You only have 25 rounds on you if you have 2 handguns and 1 shotgun physically on you at the time, simultaneously. You loose precious seconds transitioning from firearm to firearm to firearm. Your other option is to have a single firearm at the ready like a military style semi-automatic rifle with 30-90 rounds in a single magazine with a red dot and light and possibly a suppressor. Chances you will need this many rounds are low, but as they say, 1 is none and 2 is 1 when it comes to this situation. More the better.

 

[bedrock]

I think this is a reasonable discussion and I'd like to respond. Those are thoughtful comments bedrock.

The problem with the terror watch list is that since there are no strict criteria, and no due process available to dispute it, the feds can expand the terrorist watch list to ANYBODY at ANY time and ANY scale for ANY reason. Lets say they want to place an entire community on the terrorist watch list because the feds are building internment camps in that community and do not want any resistance from citizens who remember the Japanese internment camps. They can do it. Again, I don't want terrorists to be in this country at all.

RE: you not seeing an American revolt. I remind you of the American Revolution. Remember it. Did not happen too long ago. Will it happen again? Unlikely I agree. America is on the quick decline. I would not be surprised if we reach second world status in 3 more generations. Great nations rise and decline, that is the rule. It will happen at some point.

Rifles and personal carry, very difficult and impractical. Home defense against a deadly threat, you are very wrong. Rifles are the VERY best option. 1) higher capacity 2) more accurate 3) allow mounting of red dot sights and lights which are fantastic for close quarters defense 4) rifle ammo is a much, MUCH more effective stopper of deadly threats 5) rifle ammo is much LESS likely to penetrate home walls and doors, therefore limiting collateral damage to innocents 6) much more difficult for murderous criminal to take longarm away from defendant 7) long arm can be used as an effective blunt weapon (barrel jabs vs. shoulder stock hits) 7) you can use a suppressor to reduce flash and sound and save your eyes and ears and that of your family. Shotguns second best option given limited round capacity and recoil issues and inability to suppress sound and flash signature. Handguns distant third best option. Handgun ammo much more likely to overpenetrate walls and doors and therefore possibly hit your family or neighbors.

Living in the woods is not a great argument, as if you are shooting somebody out in the woods it is unlikely that they are invading your home. Possible but unlikely.

Understand your reasons for magazine capacity. Rethink your argument re: your pistols and shotgun. 3am. Intruder in your home. How do you magically get 2 pistols and a shotgun ON YOUR PERSON in 20 seconds or less from your sleeping position in bed? Do you have a chest rig or belt to holster your pistols? Do you have time to put on your chest rig or belt? You only have 25 rounds on you if you have 2 handguns and 1 shotgun physically on you at the time, simultaneously. You loose precious seconds transitioning from firearm to firearm to firearm. Your other option is to have a single firearm at the ready like a military style semi-automatic rifle with 30-90 rounds in a single magazine with a red dot and light and possibly a suppressor. Chances you will need this many rounds are low, but as they say, 1 is none and 2 is 1 when it comes to this situation. More the better.

I'm always up for reasonable discussion.

Regarding rifles and home defense. Many people disagree on this point. I have heard firearms experts separately argue for shotguns, for pistols, and for rifles. To each his own, however I must note that you can mount suppressors, red dot sights or lights on pistols, and I use hollow points which won't penetrate the outer walls of my house. No one lives/sleeps anywhere but the master bedroom of my house and my pistols are next to my bed. Both pistols and their combined 20 rounds can be in my hands in 5 seconds if an intruder enters my house. I concede that a single rifle round has more stopping power, but if I put 3-4 hollow point rounds into someone, they are going down, no matter what the size.

Speaking of time to get the weapon ready, where is your rifle? That takes up a lot of space and is rather hillbilly to mount it on the wall in your bedroom. Most people I know don't sleep with rifles within arms reach, but many do have pistols within arms reach.

I agree the terrorist watchlist and magazine capacity limitations are the most debatable of the points I mentioned. I also think those are the last gun control measure that should be considered, if at all. Several states have limited magazine capacity because that's all they could get passed instead of more important things like background checks.

The more important measures are the ones I mentioned early. A national system for background checks before anyone can buy a gun, closing gun show loopholes, and also laws to prevent felons or the mentally ill from ever owning a firearm. These are common sense measures that should be the priority in limiting gun violence. No reasonable person should have a problem with those gun control measures and should be passed immediately.

 

[Blitz2006]

I've been avoiding this thread but have decided to put my two cents in. The truth of all great arguments is in the center between two polarized positions.

I can see both sides as I grew up in a town in the Rocky Mountains that has the distinction of being the city with the highest percent of its resident voting republican for the past 30 years in all of America. I grew up hunting with my father, and in my youth I hunted everything from deer, elk, rabbits, wild turkeys, to bear. Bear hunts are quite the experience. Half the people in my hometown drive a pickup truck with rifles mounted across the rear window.
However, I then spent the last 15 years living on the coasts of America in Boston, Seattle, Philadelphia, and now SoCal. I understand both sides of most political arguments which is why I'm an Independent.

I think most hardcore republicans can live with background checks, but they are most worried about this


Republicans/libertarians/independents fear that if they agree to some gun control, that eventually they will lose all firearms, even pistols for home protection, as it is the unspoken goal of liberals to completely ban all firearms.
They've seen virtually all gun ownership lost in the UK, Australia, and Canada and they fear the same thing for the US.

Due to the 2nd amendment and the unique makeup of the USA, I don't think that firearms will ever be banned completely and the Republicans are wrong on that point.

As with most arguments, the truth lies in the middle. Americans should be allowed to own personal firearms for personal and home defense, hunting, and for sporting competitions. However, preserving public safety and limiting the effects of public attacks by lunatics/terrorists with advanced weapons is also very important.

I believe they should close the gun show loophole and mandate background checks for all firearms. They should not allow anyone convicted of a felony to buy a firearm, as felons should lose that right forever. Would also not allow anyone to buy a firearm who has/had any mental illness more severe than mild anxiety or depression. Basically, anyone with moderate to severe anxiety/depression, bipolar, schizo, etc should never be allowed to own a firearm, ever. Anyone on a terror watchlist should not be allowed to buy firearms.

Steps have to be take the reduce the impact of future public attacks. I would support eliminating automatic shotguns with the huge drums of ammo. As rifles are very important for hunting and certain situations with home defense, yet a special threat to law enforcement due to their ability to penetrate kevlar, and the fact that assault weapons with large magazines have been devastating in many public attacks, we should severely limit rifle magazine size to 5 rounds or less. I also support limiting personal handgun magazines to 10 rounds as many states have done.

That said, I personally own a semiautomatic shotgun and two handguns for home defense, and use the smaller handgun for personal carry in certain rare situations.

As ducttape stated, no one is going to win a battle against Navy seals, tanks, etc. If a government agency comes for you, they will get you. The second amendment was written in a time when the weapons men hunted with and the weapons the state possessed, were exactly the same. That is not the case anymore and won't ever be again. That part of the second amendment is out of date. In the modern era, firearm ownership is about protecting yourself, your property, and family against criminals, and enjoying firearms for hunting and sport competitions.

That said, all Americans without significant mental illness, prior felony convictions, or terrorist connections should be allowed to own reasonable firearms after a background check.

"They've seen virtually all gun ownership lost in the UK, Australia, and Canada and they fear the same thing for the US."

This is not true. You can get guns in Canada, its just CONTROLLED. Here are the rules of the game across the border:

http://globalnews.ca/news/1378685/firearms-in-canada-how-is-someone-able-to-get-a-gun/

"it is the unspoken goal of liberals to completely ban all firearms."

This is also not true. All the liberals that I know (which is a fair amount, as I live in NYC) do not want to ban all firearms. I want gun CONTROL, just like it is in Canada, UK, etc. Hillary also doesn't want to BAN guns, she wants gun CONTROL.

Here is her 9 point plan: http://www.fool.com/investing/2016/10/30/9-ways-hillary-clintons-gun-control-plan-could-cha.aspx

The only thing she wants to BAN are Assault Rifles.

This is the biggest misconception, that liberals want to ban guns, take away rights, take away 2nd ammendment, etc. Not true. And its not just liberals/dems that want gun control:

"Putting those two data points together, Clinton calls for an expansion of the background check program, a move she says is supported by 90% of the U.S. population. The Pew Research Center largely backs up her claim for widespread support, finding that even three quarters of supporters of Republican nominee Donald Trump endorse further criminal investigations, though the policy institute pegs total support slightly lower, at 83%."


But I pumped all those stats and studies in my earlier posts to prove why there should be GUN CONTROL.. The violence in this country is getting out of hand, and somebody needs to control it before it gets even worse.

 

[bedrock]

"They've seen virtually all gun ownership lost in the UK, Australia, and Canada and they fear the same thing for the US."

This is not true. You can get guns in Canada, its just CONTROLLED. Here are the rules of the game across the border:

http://globalnews.ca/news/1378685/firearms-in-canada-how-is-someone-able-to-get-a-gun/

"it is the unspoken goal of liberals to completely ban all firearms."

This is also not true. All the liberals that I know (which is a fair amount, as I live in NYC) do not want to ban all firearms. I want gun CONTROL, just like it is in Canada, UK, etc. Hillary also doesn't want to BAN guns, she wants gun CONTROL.

Here is her 9 point plan: http://www.fool.com/investing/2016/10/30/9-ways-hillary-clintons-gun-control-plan-could-cha.aspx

The only thing she wants to BAN are Assault Rifles.

This is the biggest misconception, that liberals want to ban guns, take away rights, take away 2nd ammendment, etc. Not true. And its not just liberals/dems that want gun control:

"Putting those two data points together, Clinton calls for an expansion of the background check program, a move she says is supported by 90% of the U.S. population. The Pew Research Center largely backs up her claim for widespread support, finding that even three quarters of supporters of Republican nominee Donald Trump endorse further criminal investigations, though the policy institute pegs total support slightly lower, at 83%."


But I pumped all those stats and studies in my earlier posts to prove why there should be GUN CONTROL.. The violence in this country is getting out of hand, and somebody needs to control it before it gets even worse.

I misspoke on Canada, but guns in the UK and Australia are severely restricted, you basically can't own any type of pistol and any kind of semi-automatic rifle over .22 caliber in the UK, and in Australia you can't own semi-automatic rifles, and can't own a pistol until you are a competitive shooter.

Those kinds of restrictions are what the NRA truly fears, the government stepping and telling people what kinds of guns they can own.

I know quite a few liberals that if you get them drunk enough will admit they want to ban all guns, just like they'll admit they want totally socialized medicine. If you injected Hillary with truth serum, she would admit to wanting both things as well. She is a political animal and knows she can't publicly admit to those two things and still win the votes of Independents like myself.

Not all liberal are this way, but the hardcore ones, the Bernie followers would go this way. However 80% of the country doesn't want to ban guns or place severe restrictions like UK and Australia so that won't happen in the US.

I agree with you that we need gun control and that 90% of the population supports background checks. No reason we can't do common sense gun control.

 

[hyperalgesia]

The violence in this country is getting out of hand, and somebody needs to control it before it gets even worse.

This smells like another crisis, manufactured by politicians.
From Wikipedia.

 

[Ligament]

"They've seen virtually all gun ownership lost in the UK, Australia, and Canada and they fear the same thing for the US."

This is not true. You can get guns in Canada, its just CONTROLLED. Here are the rules of the game across the border:

http://globalnews.ca/news/1378685/firearms-in-canada-how-is-someone-able-to-get-a-gun/

"it is the unspoken goal of liberals to completely ban all firearms."

This is also not true. All the liberals that I know (which is a fair amount, as I live in NYC) do not want to ban all firearms. I want gun CONTROL, just like it is in Canada, UK, etc. Hillary also doesn't want to BAN guns, she wants gun CONTROL.

Here is her 9 point plan: http://www.fool.com/investing/2016/10/30/9-ways-hillary-clintons-gun-control-plan-could-cha.aspx

The only thing she wants to BAN are Assault Rifles.

This is the biggest misconception, that liberals want to ban guns, take away rights, take away 2nd ammendment, etc. Not true. And its not just liberals/dems that want gun control:

"Putting those two data points together, Clinton calls for an expansion of the background check program, a move she says is supported by 90% of the U.S. population. The Pew Research Center largely backs up her claim for widespread support, finding that even three quarters of supporters of Republican nominee Donald Trump endorse further criminal investigations, though the policy institute pegs total support slightly lower, at 83%."


But I pumped all those stats and studies in my earlier posts to prove why there should be GUN CONTROL.. The violence in this country is getting out of hand, and somebody needs to control it before it gets even worse.

Dude Canada is so anti-gun, that I have been stopped at the Canadian border and pulled over for interrogation and car inspection simply because I have a concealed carry pistol license in the USA. No gun on me, no gun of mine within 100 miles of Canada.

Me: "Why am I being questioned and my car searched?"
Socialists: "Because you have a legal license to legally carry a concealed firearm legally in your home country. We are afraid of your second amendment rights. Hey, we are amazed that you don't have a pistol in your car or on your person. You are free to go"

 

[Ligament]

Dude Canada is so anti-gun, that I have been stopped at the Canadian border and pulled over for interrogation and car inspection simply because I have a concealed carry pistol license in the USA. No gun on me, no gun of mine within 100 miles of Canada.

Me: "Why am I being questioned and my car searched?"
Socialists: "Because you have a legal license to legally carry a concealed firearm legally in your home country. We are afraid of your second amendment rights. Hey, we are amazed that you don't have a pistol in your car or on your person. You are free to go"

Cannot carry concealed pistols in Canada. Therefore you cannot protect yourself in Canada with a firearm. Of course Canada does not want its citizens to protect themselves.

Listen, Americans don't want guns just to hunt or do do target shooting with. They are defensive and anti-tyrranical tools. We are not powerless, weaponless lemmings like citizens of other countries who have had their weapons confiscated and outlawed.