Second Amendment Repeal / Gun Control

[Autonomous Titoists]

I haven't done any of that. Resorting to partisan tactics only further entrenches the perception of you as a poor debater, so you ought not do so.

You yourself have resorted to partisan tactics. You and every other gun rights advocate have adopted the platform that you have a "God-given right" to own guns, and that gun ownership protects against a tyranny.

I haven't pulled god given bullshit into this. God doesn't give you shit he's not real.

[Sevvania]

You are right. I should have just gone with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearms_license. That is pretty self-explanatory.

"Countries with Firearms Licensing:
•United States of America (for some states and/or municipalities)"

Pretty self-explanatory.

[Kernen]

That source is for open-carry regulation of security personnel on duty on the state of California. A private citizen does not need a permit to own a firearm.

You are right. I should have just gone with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearms_license. That is pretty self-explanatory.

A list that doesn't distinguish between local customs regarding different types of firearm. You'll notice I didn't say that every firearm is unlicensed. Class 2 and 3 firearms have licensing frameworks comparable to a drivers license. And that only barely.

Furthermore, that list includes tax stamps, background checks, purchasing paperwork, etc as a licensing scheme from what I've read.

[Jamzmania]

You are right. I should have just gone with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearms_license. That is pretty self-explanatory.

"Countries with Firearms Licensing:
•United States of America (for some states and/or municipalities)"

Pretty self-explanatory.

And even then, it's mostly concealed carry.

[Roski]

I haven't done any of that. Resorting to partisan tactics only further entrenches the perception of you as a poor debater, so you ought not do so.

You yourself have resorted to partisan tactics. You and every other gun rights advocate have adopted the platform that you have a "God-given right" to own guns, and that gun ownership protects against a tyranny.

Are you still making generalizations?

I don't believe in a god. I support gay rights. I also support the right to keep and bear arms

[Wallenburg]

You yourself have resorted to partisan tactics. You and every other gun rights advocate have adopted the platform that you have a "God-given right" to own guns, and that gun ownership protects against a tyranny.

Are you still making generalizations?

I don't believe in a god. I support gay rights. I also support the right to keep and bear arms

You are one weird bee. I cannot pin down liberal or conservative. Libertarian? Maybe, but I can't be sure.

[Kernen]

"Countries with Firearms Licensing:
•United States of America (for some states and/or municipalities)"

Pretty self-explanatory.

And even then, it's mostly concealed carry.

Which isn't even license to own, just to hide them on your person!

I love it when an argument falls apart!

[Ifreann]

You yourself have resorted to partisan tactics. You and every other gun rights advocate have adopted the platform that you have a "God-given right" to own guns, and that gun ownership protects against a tyranny.

Please provide proof in this debate that I accepted that position? I've always maintained that firearms ownership is a state-given right, and while I believe it can help prevent tyranny,
I've never endorsed it as the silver bullet for authoritarianism.

There's something. Does the right to bear arms actually prevent tyranny in the US, as so many insist that it is intended to do?

[Prezelly]

Proper practice of firearm safety dictates tha you always assume that shooting a target will lead to destruction. You err on the side of caution, to lessen the odds of something stupid happening.

I'm curious at the actual shot/death by shot ratio.
What you said makes sense, but is it reasonable to assume? Shooting someone, what are the actual odds of destruction?

So according to http://www.bradycampaign.org/sites/default/files/GunDeathandInjuryStatSheet3YearAverageFINAL.pdf 100.000 people a year get shot on average in the U.S., and 31.537 people die from these injuries. So that's about 33% mortality, there's a reasonable chance that shooting someone wont kill them
Edit--unless you intend to kill

[Kernen]

Please provide proof in this debate that I accepted that position? I've always maintained that firearms ownership is a state-given right, and while I believe it can help prevent tyranny,
I've never endorsed it as the silver bullet for authoritarianism.

There's something. Does the right to bear arms actually prevent tyranny in the US, as so many insist that it is intended to do?

Only one way to find out. Somebody call the Queen!

[To Quoc Duc]

You are right. I should have just gone with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearms_license. That is pretty self-explanatory.

"Countries with Firearms Licensing:
•United States of America (for some states and/or municipalities)"

Pretty self-explanatory.

You need a license to own fully automatic weapons, and some particularly high calibre weapons. For most though, you don't need one. Just go to Wal-Mart, say 'I want to buy that M-4 behind the counter' and they ostensibly do a three day background check, you come back and pick up your rifle.

[Bezkoshtovnya]

Please provide proof in this debate that I accepted that position? I've always maintained that firearms ownership is a state-given right, and while I believe it can help prevent tyranny,
I've never endorsed it as the silver bullet for authoritarianism.

There's something. Does the right to bear arms actually prevent tyranny in the US, as so many insist that it is intended to do?

Good question. Honestly, I don't have a solid answer. I imagine the balances system does a lot more to prevent that than the second amendment does however.

[Ifreann]

There's something. Does the right to bear arms actually prevent tyranny in the US, as so many insist that it is intended to do?

Only one way to find out. Somebody call the Queen!

I don't think she takes calls from the internet. Except greed and death, of course.

[Roski]

Are you still making generalizations?

I don't believe in a god. I support gay rights. I also support the right to keep and bear arms

You are one weird bee. I cannot pin down liberal or conservative. Libertarian? Maybe, but I can't be sure.

It doesnt matter the ideology I have. What matters more is that you are making horrendous generalizations that are being disptoven constantly then claiming we are the ones generalizing

[Wallenburg]

Please provide proof in this debate that I accepted that position? I've always maintained that firearms ownership is a state-given right, and while I believe it can help prevent tyranny,
I've never endorsed it as the silver bullet for authoritarianism.

There's something. Does the right to bear arms actually prevent tyranny in the US, as so many insist that it is intended to do?

Exactly. When have we needed an armed populace to defend ourselves against a tyranny?

[Imperializt Russia]

That we nitpick is "sniper rifles should be banned," "assault weapons should be banned," "high power rifles should be banned," or "arsenals should be banned." None of those has a technical definition, they are just words. If they then apply a technical definition I am happy to debate with them, but they need to have something substantial for me to argue against.

People don't generally get anal about colloquial expressions that aren't entirely correct for any other topic, what makes guns so different and touchy that we just have to use precise technical definitions?

Because, on a personal note, I disagree hugely with the arbitrary classification of firearms under inconsequentialities of their design or worse - their appearance - that have no tangible effect on the capabilities of that firearm.
And from there, the desire that on this arbitrary classification which may not even exist should be prohibited from ownership.

They have all said if he runs away they aren't shooting, and if gets on the ground they aren't shooting. It is only if he remains, or comes at them that they start shooting.

And I've always been under the impression that you can't legally shoot someone in the back (i.e. if they're running away), even if they've broken into your home.

Cops can.

No, you didn't. The correct term is destroy.

Destroy and shoot are different things. Shoot means that there will be a bullet fired at it. Destroyed means to put an end to existence. Shooting does not always lead to destruction

The critical point is that this is a risk that cannot and should never be taken.
Sevv's quip about it being equivalent to "editing so it reads 'assume all firearms are loaded unless probably not'" is exactly true.

There is no reliable, non-lethal shoot-to-wound.
There just isn't. It's not a thing, without using specialist "less-lethal" ammunition, which themselves carry a severe fatality risk.

Proper practice of firearm safety dictates tha you always assume that shooting a target will lead to destruction. You err on the side of caution, to lessen the odds of something stupid happening.

I'm curious at the actual shot/death by shot ratio.
What you said makes sense, but is it reasonable to assume? Shooting someone, what are the actual odds of destruction?

Unacceptable.

I'm curious at the actual shot/death by shot ratio.
What you said makes sense, but is it reasonable to assume? Shooting someone, what are the actual odds of destruction?

So according to http://www.bradycampaign.org/sites/default/files/GunDeathandInjuryStatSheet3YearAverageFINAL.pdf 100.000 people a year get shot on average in the U.S., and 31.537 people die from these injuries. So that's about 33% mortality, there's a reasonable chance that shooting someone wont kill them
Edit--unless you intend to kill

Not all those people are shot, per se. Many of them are struck.
That is, a ricochet, an overpenetration, flyoff of buck and the like significantly beyond its effective range.

It is wholly unrepresentative of standing afore of someone, shooting them, with the intention to wound.

[Jamzmania]

There's something. Does the right to bear arms actually prevent tyranny in the US, as so many insist that it is intended to do?

Exactly. When have we needed an armed populace to defend ourselves against a tyranny?

Read: American Revolution

[Korva]

You are one weird bee. I cannot pin down liberal or conservative. Libertarian? Maybe, but I can't be sure.

It doesnt matter the ideology I have. What matters more is that you are making horrendous generalizations that are being disptoven constantly then claiming we are the ones generalizing

persecution complexes are hard crosses to bear

[Sevvania]

I'm curious at the actual shot/death by shot ratio.
What you said makes sense, but is it reasonable to assume? Shooting someone, what are the actual odds of destruction?

So according to http://www.bradycampaign.org/sites/default/files/GunDeathandInjuryStatSheet3YearAverageFINAL.pdf 100.000 people a year get shot on average in the U.S., and 31.537 people die from these injuries. So that's about 33% mortality, there's a reasonable chance that shooting someone wont kill them

It doesn't matter what the chances are. What are the chances that every single firearm you encounter is loaded and ready to fire? What are the odds that you can avoid pulling the trigger even if you're walking around with your finger inside the guard? What are the odds that you can take a shot without being sure of what's behind the target and things playing out alright? If you're responsible, you don't gamble when it comes to guns. You assume the worst case scenario and take pre-emptive precautions to prevent that scenario from happening. You err on the side of caution so you don't accidentally do something stupid.

[Farnhamia]

"Countries with Firearms Licensing:
•United States of America (for some states and/or municipalities)"

Pretty self-explanatory.

You need a license to own fully automatic weapons, and some particularly high calibre weapons. For most though, you don't need one. Just go to Wal-Mart, say 'I want to buy that M-4 behind the counter' and they ostensibly do a three day background check, you come back and pick up your rifle.

That varies from state to state.

[Wallenburg]

"Countries with Firearms Licensing:
•United States of America (for some states and/or municipalities)"

Pretty self-explanatory.

You need a license to own fully automatic weapons, and some particularly high calibre weapons. For most though, you don't need one. Just go to Wal-Mart, say 'I want to buy that M-4 behind the counter' and they ostensibly do a three day background check, you come back and pick up your rifle.

And that is the problem. What if they don't do the background check? Who will know?

[Bezkoshtovnya]

Are you still making generalizations?

I don't believe in a god. I support gay rights. I also support the right to keep and bear arms

You are one weird bee. I cannot pin down liberal or conservative. Libertarian? Maybe, but I can't be sure.

Maybe because your political view is stark black and white. Regardless it is irrelevant.

[Korva]

I'm curious at the actual shot/death by shot ratio.
What you said makes sense, but is it reasonable to assume? Shooting someone, what are the actual odds of destruction?

So according to http://www.bradycampaign.org/sites/default/files/GunDeathandInjuryStatSheet3YearAverageFINAL.pdf 100.000 people a year get shot on average in the U.S., and 31.537 people die from these injuries. So that's about 33% mortality, there's a reasonable chance that shooting someone wont kill them
Edit--unless you intend to kill

Wait a second, are you telling me that if you shoot to kill there is a 66% chance they won't die?

It is almost like "shooting to kill" and "shooting to wound" are the same thing

[Kernen]

You need a license to own fully automatic weapons, and some particularly high calibre weapons. For most though, you don't need one. Just go to Wal-Mart, say 'I want to buy that M-4 behind the counter' and they ostensibly do a three day background check, you come back and pick up your rifle.

And that is the problem. What if they don't do the background check? Who will know?

Considering the requirements to move it through a FFL, who had the information on every automatic weapon legally imported, and who do regular checks on the owners? Probably the ATF.

[Washington Resistance Army]

No, you don't. Not in the US, at least.


Why? Your argument wasn't accurate. I'll recognize it when you make a factual one that I cannot respond to without resorting to opinion.

Why should I waste my time researching hard facts when your side's previous behavior suggests you will either demand more evidence, reject it as biased or inaccurate, or, when you notice that it actually demonstrates that my argument is strong, simply ignore it and pretend that it never happened by switching to another aspect of the debate?

Also, that guns don't need permits is an obvious lie. There is no way to defend your argument on that. http://www.bsis.ca.gov/forms_pubs/fire_fact.shtml

You don't need a permit to own guns in most parts of the US, no one in my house has any paperwork and we own something like 9 guns.