Gun Rights

[Pomplamouse]

i think that we need to crack down on illegal gun sales and also regular people who do have guns if they get mad they could very possibly shoot someone over a pack of smokes. also i think that saying that only the criminals are the ones weilding guns is a big generalization. and yes i realize that its a generalization saying that people shoot others over a pack of smokes. but the point is that if we crack down on illegal gun sales then the violence could potentially go down.

We do crack down on illegal gun sales. The problem is that they do not advertise to the police when they open a new illegal gun market.

You show me the statistics for how many deaths/year in America are caused by people who are carrying legally owned, legally carried firearms. It doesn't happen, and pretending it does is not a good argument.

I didn't say only criminals wield guns. Plenty of law abiding citizens wield guns - they simply do not commit gun crimes (which is to say, they commit an insignificant fraction of gun crimes - and they are punished accordingly.)

It is not a generalization to say that legal gun owners carrying legally registered firearms legally shoot others over a pack of smokes. It is simply incorrect.

You made up a bullshit claim to counter my statistical fact. I'd suggest you do better next time you want to argue.

Edit: As I said, we do "crack down on" illegal gun sales - it's just that we don't know when they are going down. It's not like we can make it any more illegal than illegal. Additionally, restricting legal firearm consumption would not decrease this rate of violence, or illegality. False premise, false conclusion.

to say that people who dont carry guns wont shoot others is insane. people die because of civilian gun fire and it is absurd to think otherwise. if you give someone a weapon they will use it.

[Der Teutoniker]

im not saying that everyone who carries a gun is like that, it was just an example

A false example, that does not resemble any accuracy that you made up right now to make guns, and gun owners into boogeymen. Literally, that example is entirely moot because that shit does not happen enough (if ever) to be a statistical problem. Compared to the number of responsible legal gun owners, the extreme few that misuse their legally obtained, legally owned, legally carried guns are basically none. The problem is those with illegal guns. Restricting who can legally get a gun does not hinder people from getting guns illegally, it's really not hard to understand.

[Der Teutoniker]

We can never question, examine or amend the Constitution. Never.

I agree with this sentence when we examine a "moral" right to legally carry guns. We should indeed question, and examine the Constitution. I still find the Second Amendment correct, but it is good to make sure that our Constitution is still meeting the needs of the people it serves, rather than simply blindly following it.

[Der Teutoniker]

No, they can, legally. Go go Gadget Strawman!

Answer please.

The US (where I live, and do not rebel against) legally can not. I did answer.

[The Soviet Technocracy]

people die because of civilian gun fire

For every example of this, there's two where civilians have been killed by police crossfire.

[Pomplamouse]

im not saying that everyone who carries a gun is like that, it was just an example

A false example, that does not resemble any accuracy that you made up right now to make guns, and gun owners into boogeymen. Literally, that example is entirely moot because that shit does not happen enough (if ever) to be a statistical problem. Compared to the number of responsible legal gun owners, the extreme few that misuse their legally obtained, legally owned, legally carried guns are basically none. The problem is those with illegal guns. Restricting who can legally get a gun does not hinder people from getting guns illegally, it's really not hard to understand.

is it possible that youre not being objective in this debate? what about handguns in schools, or domestic terrorism? Columbine would never had happend if we had banned guns. Also i am not saying that people who own guns are horrible people, please dont take it personally.

[Der Teutoniker]

to say that people who dont carry guns wont shoot others is insane. people die because of civilian gun fire and it is absurd to think otherwise. if you give someone a weapon they will use it.

Legally owned, legally obtained, legally carried guns - in the hands of civilians - are responsible for an insignificant amount of gun crime in the US.

But, you live in MN, the Conceal and Carry law passed in, 2003? Something like that. How many CCW permit holders have committed gun related crime, in MN, with their legally concealed gun? When you can show that many of them (many being, more than half, let's say) have committed such gun crime, I will back down, and advocate your ridiculous position. When you fail to show anything near that level of gun crime committed by legally carried guns (and you will fail, awesomely) then maybe you can change your mind?

[Alyakia]

No, they can, legally. Go go Gadget Strawman!

Answer please.

The US (where I live, and do not rebel against) legally can not. I did answer.

Aww... A quick read. You might be right on at least one count. Turns out it's only non-US citizens that can be locked up without a trial. Which is still pretty tyrannical. But, at least, they tried to extend this glorious privelledge to you. Lucky you, I guess?

[Der Teutoniker]

is it possible that youre not being objective in this debate? what about handguns in schools, or domestic terrorism? Columbine would never had happend if we had banned guns. Also i am not saying that people who own guns are horrible people, please dont take it personally.

I am being biased towards the truth, if that's what you are asking.

Columbine could absolutely have happened if we banned guns, you know why? Because the guns they used were already illegally possessed. Obviously a little issue of law did not deter those two criminals from obtaining guns - why would more restrictions have stopped them?

I don't own guns, so I wouldn't take it personally if I thought you were saying that. You simply have no clue what you are talking about, and I'm trying to help you along. A shame, it's a surprise you live in MN, and don't see the usefulness of gun ownership... we are a state big on hunting.

[The Soviet Technocracy]

A false example, that does not resemble any accuracy that you made up right now to make guns, and gun owners into boogeymen. Literally, that example is entirely moot because that shit does not happen enough (if ever) to be a statistical problem. Compared to the number of responsible legal gun owners, the extreme few that misuse their legally obtained, legally owned, legally carried guns are basically none. The problem is those with illegal guns. Restricting who can legally get a gun does not hinder people from getting guns illegally, it's really not hard to understand.

is it possible that youre not being objective in this debate? what about handguns in schools, or domestic terrorism? Columbine would never had happend if we had banned guns. Also i am not saying that people who own guns are horrible people, please dont take it personally.

Columbine wouldn't have happened if teachers were armed.

Because shootings only take place in places where firearms aren't allowed (funny, that), like schools, churches, and shopping malls. You never hear about a shooting spree at a rifle range, or a police station.

[Pomplamouse]

to say that people who dont carry guns wont shoot others is insane. people die because of civilian gun fire and it is absurd to think otherwise. if you give someone a weapon they will use it.

Legally owned, legally obtained, legally carried guns - in the hands of civilians - are responsible for an insignificant amount of gun crime in the US.

But, you live in MN, the Conceal and Carry law passed in, 2003? Something like that. How many CCW permit holders have committed gun related crime, in MN, with their legally concealed gun? When you can show that many of them (many being, more than half, let's say) have committed such gun crime, I will back down, and advocate your ridiculous position. When you fail to show anything near that level of gun crime committed by legally carried guns (and you will fail, awesomely) then maybe you can change your mind?

when you can show me substantial evidence stating that people who carry guns dont commit gun crimes then maybe i will believe you.

[Alyakia]

Revised!

My government, at this point, could literally kick my door in without a warrant and give me to the U.S. (hell yeah extradition) who will send me to a black site without a trial indefinitely. Also, your government, at this could, could kick down your door without a warrant (or a no-knock warrant) and send you to one of the high high high quality prisons. And kill your dog. (You'd be suprised how much this happens. Happened to a bloody Mayor once.) It's a good thing you have a gun... Because you'll be charged with murder if you use it against police who don't announce their presence!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IWxpQ87C4t4

American prisons are.... Bad. And this isn't Guantanamo or anything. It's just a normal prison.

[Alyakia]

is it possible that youre not being objective in this debate? what about handguns in schools, or domestic terrorism? Columbine would never had happend if we had banned guns. Also i am not saying that people who own guns are horrible people, please dont take it personally.

Columbine wouldn't have happened if teachers were armed.

Because shootings only take place in places where firearms aren't allowed (funny, that), like schools, churches, and shopping malls. You never hear about a shooting spree at a rifle range, or a police station.

You realise they would have (and did) just shoot the teachers regardles, right?

Schools are often places of emotional distress for teenagers, and have a lot of people. Shopping malls have a hell of a lot of people. Churches are also places where people gather, and have a special significance. Rifle ranges do not have literally hundreds of people and police stations are far too fortified to have a spree in. I've been in ones where literally all of the doors beyond reception were keypad locked. There'd be no where to spree to.

The real common factor is that they all have literally hundreds if not thousands of people in them.

[Der Teutoniker]

when you can show me substantial evidence stating that people who carry guns dont commit gun crimes then maybe i will believe you.

This is not quite what you asked for, but it actually more accurately addresses your false claims.

[Pomplamouse]

Columbine wouldn't have happened if teachers were armed.

Because shootings only take place in places where firearms aren't allowed (funny, that), like schools, churches, and shopping malls. You never hear about a shooting spree at a rifle range, or a police station.

You realise they would have (and did) just shoot the teachers regardles, right?

Schools are often places of emotional distress for teenagers, and have a lot of people. Shopping malls have a hell of a lot of people. Churches are also places where people gather, and have a special significance. Rifle ranges do not have literally hundreds of people and police stations are far too fortified to have a spree in. I've been in ones where literally all of the doors beyond reception were keypad locked. There'd be no where to spree to.

it was a horrible event and being in highschool i know how many teenagers are going through problems. maybe it was a premature assumption that Columbine wouldn't have happend if guns were outlawed.

[Der Teutoniker]

You realise they would have (and did) just shoot the teachers regardles, right?

Schools are often places of emotional distress for teenagers, and have a lot of people. Shopping malls have a hell of a lot of people. Churches are also places where people gather, and have a special significance. Rifle ranges do not have literally hundreds of people and police stations are far too fortified to have a spree in. I've been in ones where literally all of the doors beyond reception were keypad locked. There'd be no where to spree to.

The real common factor is that they all have literally hundreds if not thousands of people in them.

Well, his point was that, in general, one is probably going to be less tempted to go on a shooting spree in a place where almost everyone is armed.

Overall, I detected a hint of satire/sarcasm in his post.

[Der Teutoniker]

it was a horrible event and being in highschool i know how many teenagers are going through problems. maybe it was a premature assumption that Columbine wouldn't have happend if guns were outlawed.

The guns they obtained were already illegally obtained.

[The Soviet Technocracy]

Columbine wouldn't have happened if teachers were armed.

Because shootings only take place in places where firearms aren't allowed (funny, that), like schools, churches, and shopping malls. You never hear about a shooting spree at a rifle range, or a police station.

You realise they would have (and did) just shoot the teachers regardles, right?

Schools are often places of emotional distress for teenagers, and have a lot of people. Shopping malls have a hell of a lot of people. Churches are also places where people gather, and have a special significance. Rifle ranges do not have literally hundreds of people and police stations are far too fortified to have a spree in. I've been in ones where literally all of the doors beyond reception were keypad locked. There'd be no where to spree to.

The real common factor is that they all have literally hundreds if not thousands of people in them.

1) It's easy to shoot something that doesn't shoot back. if the teachers had handguns, and were trained in their use, it's likely that Columbine would be a footnote in history, or a victory for firearms.

2) You've obviously never been to larger rifle ranges where you can get hundreds of people there, ready to shoot paper hanging from sticks, and you just proved my point by pointing that the reason police stations are not attacked is because there are lots of people with guns in them.

[Alyakia]

You realise they would have (and did) just shoot the teachers regardles, right?

Schools are often places of emotional distress for teenagers, and have a lot of people. Shopping malls have a hell of a lot of people. Churches are also places where people gather, and have a special significance. Rifle ranges do not have literally hundreds of people and police stations are far too fortified to have a spree in. I've been in ones where literally all of the doors beyond reception were keypad locked. There'd be no where to spree to.

The real common factor is that they all have literally hundreds if not thousands of people in them.

Well, his point was that, in general, one is probably going to be less tempted to go on a shooting spree in a place where almost everyone is armed.

Overall, I detected a hint of satire/sarcasm in his post.

Why not? It'd be more fun, no? Of course, only the teachers would have had guns, which is hardly everyone. Unless you'd support letting all kids in school have guns go go gadget strawman

So did I. It's still worth addressing though, because there are people that will read this thread that actuall believe that.

[Pomplamouse]

it was a horrible event and being in highschool i know how many teenagers are going through problems. maybe it was a premature assumption that Columbine wouldn't have happend if guns were outlawed.

The guns they obtained were already illegally obtained.

i dont think you understand what i meant by that. i said maybe it was a premature assumption that Columbine wouldn't have happend if guns were outlawed.

[Alyakia]

You realise they would have (and did) just shoot the teachers regardles, right?

Schools are often places of emotional distress for teenagers, and have a lot of people. Shopping malls have a hell of a lot of people. Churches are also places where people gather, and have a special significance. Rifle ranges do not have literally hundreds of people and police stations are far too fortified to have a spree in. I've been in ones where literally all of the doors beyond reception were keypad locked. There'd be no where to spree to.

The real common factor is that they all have literally hundreds if not thousands of people in them.

1) It's easy to shoot something that doesn't shoot back. if the teachers had handguns, and were trained in their use, it's likely that Columbine would be a footnote in history, or a victory for firearms.

2) You've obviously never been to larger rifle ranges where you can get hundreds of people there, ready to shoot paper hanging from sticks, and you just proved my point by pointing that the reason police stations are not attacked is because there are lots of people with guns in them.

1) What? Are all the teachers standing there, ready to draw their guns at all times? Prepared to use their pinpoint auccracy regardless of the stress? Didn't the boys have body armour and much much better weapons?

2a) Obviously. Can you get thousands of people in there? All in the open or in a series of straight corridors? Like my old 1400 student school or godknowshowmanypeople malls?

2b) No. Police stations are not not attacked because there are people with lots of guns in them. They are not attacked because they are very hard to move through due to locks. Did I mention the police station I was talking about had no guns whatsoever?

[Der Teutoniker]

i dont think you understand what i meant by that. i said maybe it was a premature assumption that Columbine wouldn't have happend if guns were outlawed.

I understood what you mean. I was re-assuring you that your premature assumption was as wrong as the first time I pointed it out.

[The Soviet Technocracy]

1) It's easy to shoot something that doesn't shoot back. if the teachers had handguns, and were trained in their use, it's likely that Columbine would be a footnote in history, or a victory for firearms.

2) You've obviously never been to larger rifle ranges where you can get hundreds of people there, ready to shoot paper hanging from sticks, and you just proved my point by pointing that the reason police stations are not attacked is because there are lots of people with guns in them.

1) What? Are all the teachers standing there, ready to draw their guns at all times? Prepared to use their pinpoint auccracy regardless of the stress? Didn't the boys have body armour and much much better weapons?

2a) Obviously. Can you get thousands of people in there? All in the open or in a series of straight corridors? Like my old 1400 student school or godknowshowmanypeople malls?

2b) No. Police stations are not not attacked because there are people with lots of guns in them. They are not attacked because they are very hard to move through due to locks. Did I mention the police station I was talking about had no guns whatsoever?

1) AFAIK, they had two shotguns, a pistol, and a pistol calibre carbine, no body armour and little training in their use.

2) Schools have locks too.

[Pomplamouse]

i dont think you understand what i meant by that. i said maybe it was a premature assumption that Columbine wouldn't have happend if guns were outlawed.

I understood what you mean. I was re-assuring you that your premature assumption was as wrong as the first time I pointed it out.

well you could have accepted the fact that i admitted that i made a mistake and been nice about it instead of rubbing it in my face. but you people from the GOP like to poke fun at the democrats, even if they do admit that they are wrong.

congrats you won.

[Der Teutoniker]

well you could have accepted the fact that i admitted that i made a mistake and been nice about it instead of rubbing it in my face. but you people from the GOP like to poke fun at the democrats, even if they do admit that they are wrong.

congrats you won.

I am not partisan, I vote for each candidate based on how I feel about them specifically. I carry no prejudice for democrats. And besides, your admission of defeat was hardly that. You said your assumption may have been premature. I was reassuring you that it was not premature, it was wrong. If you see that now, I am extremely happy for you.