I'll start the gun control debate

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

It would ban semi automatic rifles. Per my definition. Did you only read half the definition I provide? And that's a loose one at that. I'd say ban all handguns too. Their only purpose is to kill humans. Get rid of those too.

Your definition stated auto, and semi-auto rifles designed for military use. Civilian models are, by definition, not designed for military use.

All guns are purposed to kill humans. Some of them are for killing animals too. A nice, scoped .308? Good for taking down a white tail deer. Great for taking down a guy sitting in his car 600 yards away. I suppose now would be the time to bring up liberty and safety, but I doubt you'd give a damn.

[Centrist Simon Steele]

I gave a damn when I opposed the Patriot Act, seemingly in the very small minority. I gave a damn when I opposed all these "we're looking out for your health" bans that came out. Liberty, in which you pursue what you want, aka a gun, stops when schools are being shot up at an increasing rate. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. They cannot conflict.

Americans are not ready for pure liberty. Hell, by this argument, you don't give a damn because you don't live a life of true liberty and you accept it. And liberty as a definition is different to each individual. So everyone should just act according to their own will? That is not what Benjamin Franklin had in mind when he said that.

Should the government spy on us, tap our phones, invade our privacy? No. Should they intervene when we're too stupid to make a decision as easy as this one? Yes. Lucky for you our government is too stupid to enact something like this. They'll just take away the important aspects of liberty without anyone ever knowing.

Hey, you think hunting rifles for game are dangerous, then I'm sure we could get stricter rules on those too. But people don't hunt game with an AR15, which was designed for military use, and given to the civilian market with just one single modification that didn't really change it at all.

"I heartily accept the motto,—“That government is best which governs least;” and I should like to see it acted up to more rapidly and systematically. Carried out, it finally amounts to this, which I also believe,—“That government is best which governs not at all;” and when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which they will have."

Study everything behind the philosophy of our government, not just the famous quotes. Men are not prepared for it. Thoreau was right.

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

Liberty, in which you pursue what you want, aka the right to be secure in your person, papers, and effects, stops when terrorist threats are happening at an increasing rate.

Liberty, in which you pursue what you want, aka the right to habeas corpus, stops when terrorist sleeper cells are being discovered by the FBI at an increasing rate.

Liberty, in which you pursue what you want, aka the right to publicly assemble, the freedom of association, the freedom of speech and the press, stops when important processes of government are being increasingly interrupted by unruly and violent protests. Then its off to the free speech zones with you.

[Centrist Simon Steele]

Except all that is bullshit. None of that is happening at an increasing rate in this country. The FBI and CIA could continue to stumble into their once in awhile busts on the morons incapable of carrying out the attacks without having a HUGE violation of American rights.

One of the biggest lies told the American public in the war against terror was that we are no longer safe in America. Our agencies had all the info they needed to stop Sept. 11th without invading our privacy, without suspending all that crap, had they just done their job. They had multiple sources telling them it was coming, and they didn't take it serious. They had justifiable cause to check up on these guys, but the agencies didn't want to work together.

So in our moment of fear the government took advantage and seized up rights from us, which didn't need to go away, and we will never get those back.

If this spying is so effective, and terrorists are so prevalent, how come they've stopped only "foreign" terrorists? How come mass killings where guys post shit on the internet before it happens aren't caught until after it happens?

Believing in terrorism from the Taliban in America is the biggest fraud we've ever been given. Torturing a bunch of guys after we've decided in meetings that they are not terrorists, is masochistic.

We have much bigger threats in our country that kill us at infinitely higher rates. Yet we're going to fear the bolt out of the blue.

[TrueMetis]

The NSSF estimates 20.6 million active hunters in 2004 in the U.S. and a 2001 survey estimates there are 43.7 people who have hunted at one point in their life. Some hunting rifles fire fairly fast and these are not your normal guy who gets a gun just to have a gun they know how to use them. Just thought I would put that out there.

NSSF

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

One of the biggest lies told the American public in the war against terror was that we are no longer safe in America.

One of the biggest lies in this thread is that murder is an ever increasing threat in the US, when it has in fact been steadily declining for decades. On such we stake our freedom.

[ljkeane]

One of the biggest lies in this thread is that murder is an ever increasing threat in the US, when it has in fact been steadily declining for decades. On such we stake our freedom.

Well that's not true. The murder rate in the US has varied over the years but it certainly hasn't been steadily declining, it went up in the early 90's and while the murder rate is lower than it was in the mid 90's it was higher in 2008 than it was in 2000.

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

The murder rate in the US by year

Murder peaked in 1980, then fell through the 80's with a slight uptick in the early 90's, followed by a decrease over the last 20 years. Murder rates are about half now what they were in the 80's.

See also that crime across all categories has gone down over the last 15-20 years, which coincides (note I am not saying is caused by) with a relaxing of gun control by state governments across the country.

[ljkeane]

Murder peaked in 1980, then fell through the 80's with a slight uptick in the early 90's, followed by a decrease over the last 20 years. Murder rates are about half now what they were in the 80's.

Ok those statistics generally correspond with those I found fron the DOJ. So for the majority of the last 50 years the murder rate has been higher than the previous year, there was a large decline in the late 90's but since then it has been stable (still at an extremely high level).

I wouldn't describe that as steadily declining, being stable at a very high (but not quite as high as the peaks of the early 80's and 90's) level isn't a good thing.

[Tempra]

I've got no idea how useful guns are for self defense purposes, but since pro gun advocates are the ones arguing that the high rates of gun ownership lower crime probably you should be the one to actually produce evidence that gun ownership makes people safer. Considering the rates of violent crime in the US as well as the high rates of gun ownership this wouldn't appear to be the case.

See my response below to Shryke. Ignore the last sentence.

Again producing statistics regarding the murder rate in the US would be difficult as everyone agrees that many factors go into the murder rate in the US, but the ready availability of guns clearly makes killing someone an easier proposition. It's not hard to find statistics on the many western societies with stricter gun controls that have far lower murder rates than the US and far fewer gun related deaths, they also have far fewer cases of gun related mass killings like we see in the US.

Read above about how you can't compare statistics in the US to elsewhere. At least on this issue. *shrugs*

Because we're trying to be reasonable and thus are ignoring bad statistics?

Beyond that, it's YOUR job to prove the usefulness of guns in self-defense and/or safety.

It absolutely is NOT our job to prove the usefulness of guns. It is a fundamental right of Americans enshrined in the Constitution. It is upon those who want to change the status quo to put up or shut up. Must defenders of free speech conclusively and concretely prove the virtue of free speech everytime someone wants to inhibit free speech? Hell fucking no. It is upon those who want to curtail a right to prove conclusively that it should be done. That means the ball is, has been, and will apparently always be in your court.

Don't ask me for a source again if you can't back up your crap.

[ljkeane]

Read above about how you can't compare statistics in the US to elsewhere. At least on this issue. *shrugs*

Why not? What's the difference between the US and other western societies other than the ready availability of guns? If the high rate of firearm related murders/deaths is not due to the easy access to guns in the US what is the cause?

Additionally I'd think the thousands of murders with guns every year clearly illustrate that there are costs to the widespread ownership of guns, the question regarding their usefulness would be whether there are any benefits as pro gun advocates are arguing.

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

It is upon those who want to change the status quo to put up or shut up. Must defenders of free speech conclusively and concretely prove the virtue of free speech everytime someone wants to inhibit free speech? Hell fucking no. It is upon those who want to curtail a right to prove conclusively that it should be done.

This is an excellent point. It is of course up to those advocating change to provide evidence that change is desirable, necessary, and acheivable.

If the high rate of firearm related murders/deaths is not due to the easy access to guns in the US what is the cause?

Once again I challenge this idea in the face of the low rate of firearm murders compared to the easy access of guns in the Czech Republic and Switzerland, in conjuntion with the high rate of murder and the very strict gun controls in Mexico. You either need to account for this difference, or show why it is non-applicable. You have consistently ignored this point throughout the thread. Answer it or stop bringing up the point.

[ljkeane]

Once again I challenge this idea in the face of the low rate of firearm murders compared to the easy access of guns in the Czech Republic and Switzerland, in conjuntion with the high rate of murder and the very strict gun controls in Mexico. You either need to account for this difference, or show why it is non-applicable. You have consistently ignored this point throughout the thread. Answer it or stop bringing up the point.

As I understand it guns are readily available in Mexico, a poorly regulated system of gun control is not really relevant to the question of whether a well implemented system of gun control would reduce gun related deaths.

The Czech republic and Switzerland have far lower rates of gun ownership than the US for a start and additionally Switzerland certainly has a far lower crime rate. I agree a that a number of factors contribute to the murder rate but the combination of the crime rate of the US and the availability of guns clearly results in a far higher rate of murders than in other western societies. There are other countries that have (other than the murder rate) similar crime rates to the US but the difference as far as I can see is the availability of guns.

Again what do you think is the cause other than the availability of guns, which seems a fairly obvious contributory factor to the number of firearm related murders in the US to me.

[Centrist Simon Steele]

A lot of the problem with guns in America is probably the same as drugs in America. Unless the southern borders get some enforcement in illegal trafficking then it will be hard to keep down the black market. Mexico may have gun control but they probably don't do much to keep black market trade coming up from South America.

And that is passed on to the United States.

But closing the borders is a humanitarian issue and one that goes directly in the face of what the country is supposed to stand for. I mean it was okay for all the white people to run away from oppression to come here for a better life, but no one else. We've hit our freedom quota.

As long as we leave the borders as they are gun control would be difficult for the US like drug control has been. Maybe not to the same effect though.

[TrueMetis]

A lot of the problem with guns in America is probably the same as drugs in America. Unless the southern borders get some enforcement in illegal trafficking then it will be hard to keep down the black market. Mexico may have gun control but they probably don't do much to keep black market trade coming up from South America.

And that is passed on to the United States.

But closing the borders is a humanitarian issue and one that goes directly in the face of what the country is supposed to stand for. I mean it was okay for all the white people to run away from oppression to come here for a better life, but no one else. We've hit our freedom quota.

As long as we leave the borders as they are gun control would be difficult for the US like drug control has been. Maybe not to the same effect though.

The U.S. produces more guns than any other country do you really think that most of the illegal guns are coming from mexico?

[Shryke]

It absolutely is NOT our job to prove the usefulness of guns. It is a fundamental right of Americans enshrined in the Constitution. It is upon those who want to change the status quo to put up or shut up. Must defenders of free speech conclusively and concretely prove the virtue of free speech everytime someone wants to inhibit free speech? Hell fucking no. It is upon those who want to curtail a right to prove conclusively that it should be done. That means the ball is, has been, and will apparently always be in your court.

Don't ask me for a source again if you can't back up your crap.

"2nd Amnedment blah blah blah"

Who gives a fuck what a bunch of dead guys said on the subject? Hell, these people obviously thought they could be very wrong since they set the system up for people to correct them in the future.

Anyway, the point is, "That's what the law says now" is a really stupid argument for this discussion. We all know what US law says and we all know it ain't gonna change anytime in the near future. The NRA (the hypocrites that they are) have won this debate on a practical level. We are discussing the viability and such of changes that will probably never happen.

You need to find an ACTUAL defense for your position. That's the point of the discussion.

To use your example, we would need to defend the reason for Free Speech to be an enshrined right. The thing is, that is pretty fucking easy to do.

Gun rights? That's a much trickier and more complex subject.

The ball is in your court to prove that gun rights, as you want them to be (which seems to be as they are now), are a good thing. That's what the discussion is about. So put up or shut the fuck up.

It is of course up to those advocating change to provide evidence that change is desirable, necessary, and acheivable.

It's up to you to tell us why people should have the kind of gun rights you want them to have.

[Silent Rider]

I recently took up shooting. I do it because I enjoy it, pure and simple. I'm not a gun owner yet but I intend to be in the near future. I intend to apply for a permit, I've taken classes, I'm doing my homework on the guns I'm looking at and I fully intend to safely store my weapon(s). Owning a gun isn't all about safety or because you didn't get enough hugs as a kid. For some of us it's a sport and something we enjoy spending our time on. Gun control is fine if it's reasonable.

But if the whole reason for gun control is to keep someone from shooting up a school or gym then you might want to try something else. If someone wants to do something badly enough they will. There is more then one way to get your hands on something if you really want it. So while we may have less nuts running around shooting massive amounts of people, we'll still have those few very special nuts who went well out of their well to see their goal completed.

If you have a gun in your house with your, or any other, child then I think education is the key. Instill a healthy respect in them for that weapon. If they understand what it's capable of and have been correctly taught by a responsible party then I think a child should be just fine.

People can still harm you with most any pointy, blunt ect. ect. item. Gun control is not a cure all. Shit can still happen.

[Centrist Simon Steele]

The U.S. produces more guns than any other country do you really think that most of the illegal guns are coming from mexico?

No. But they will if we clamp down on it. Black market guns most likely won't come from here.

As for people finding a way--it seems to me that those types of killings (schools, mass shootings) tend to drop in countries that take the guns away. This latest nut in the gym has a journal. We don't know how it would have affected him if the guns weren't so easy for him to get. In his diary he basically said "went and got my guns today, gonna do it tomorrow." Then he chickened out and waited 8 months. What if it wasn't so easy for him to get the guns?

It wasn't even a slight obstacle for him to unleash his destructive fantasy on young women.

People shouldn't have a right to guns. Hell, look at that guy in Texas who made a 911 call about a burglary. He walked over to his neighbors house while on the phone and shot the burglars dead in the lawn. They didn't have any weapons on them. What if in his heroic moment of vigilante justice, dealing out the death penalty to non-violent crime, a round went through a window and caught an innocent bystander?

I'm tired of these assholes with guns on their hips thinking they're going to keep us safe. Who is going to keep us safe from the justice dealers? Cops? And where are the vigilante heroes when some guy is shooting up a school?

They don't serve a positive function in our society, and their little need to carry a gun because it was guaranteed by the infallible founding fathers, is completely unnecessary. If guns were limited, the shit would happen less.

What is the alternative? I mean it's not like gun owners are stopping these terrible things from happening. So if the gun owners aren't packing they still won't stop mass murders. Nothing changes. Except probably the frequency in which the murdering happens.

Or should we start letting our teachers pack? Because in some of these school shootings where there was a cop on the premises, the single cop often does nothing to help. You need a large number of trained, armed teachers and principals on staff. We can give up one of our plan periods for weapon cleaning.

What I'd like to see is it not be so easy for any asshole to pick up a gun and enact his sense of righteousness on the populace.

I also like how people who support the second amendment as sacred are often the same ones who say it's okay to cheat on freedom because we live in a different time than our founding fathers. So the founding fathers are infallible only in certain areas of thought? "We have to tap phones and be spied on, it's a different time."

Sure. And it was a different time when the founders of the nation saw a need for the citizens to keep guns in the home.

Besides, if a tyrant took over our only hope are the thugs. Because most people who own guns ain't gonna throw back an army. Americans don't have the guts. You should go overseas with some of our soldiers some time. Half of them bitch and cry about how tough it is.

[Lord Mord]

Shryke,

I think that's a very poor place to start.

Basically you're saying, "In order to participate in this thread, you are going to have to assume that a ban on gun ownership is a fait accompli. Now prove why that's bad." Why would anyone who believes gun ownership is a fundamental right ever participate on that basis? Of what use would the answers be of the people who don't so believe?

I mean, you don't get to make up rules that completely hamstring all opposition.

"Teh gay is inhuman. Prove why it should be legal anyway. And don't you dare say it's not inhuman, because that's already established as the basic premise."

"Intellectualism promotes teh gay, which should be criminal. Prove why we need intellectuals anyway."

"Communism saps all the will to live. Prove why it's a good economic system anyway."

[Stubby]

With reference to the AR15 discussions upthread. That weapon is banned here. It falls within the definition set by Parliament as a 'machine gun'. It may not be what you guys over there call a 'machine gun' - but here its a defined term in the legislation.

Also, the AR15 was Martin Bryant's weapon of choice when he did the Port Arthur massacre. Just sayin.