Second Amendment Repeal / Gun Control

[Bezkoshtovnya]

And in the meantime, simply rip away the rights of millions and then leave them vulnerable to criminals while we hope the government can do the impossible and eliminate crime and the black market. Sounds great.

Congrats for your logical fallacy. That is called oversimplification. Here's my counterargument:
Are you arguing that the banning of guns will suddenly encourage criminals with guns to go on rampages? Very few people manage to avoid gun violence by shooting at their assailants. I don't see how restrictions on gun ownership would risk more lives than those that gun owners themselves take, either deliberately or through carelessness.

Shouldn't have messed with an AP Language/Composition student...

No, that is not. That is literally what is being advocated by Kefka. And yes, I do say that, in a way. Millions of people are now disarmed, and you don't think there is going to be a spat of robberies in light of this fact? Source that few people are saved through legal fire arm ownership, and source that legal firearms cause far more risk than illegally owned ones obtained by criminals.

Good for you on attempting to apply what you are learning in class kid. Though don't be too excited, you're not the only one in AP Language class here, and it doesn't mean shit.

[Arlenton]

Post it again. Remember, though, you need to prove that those deaths are from LEGAL firearms.

Does it matter if they are legal? I'm looking at the effect of all firearms on the population, and deciding where I stand on how far restrictions should go from there.

A repeal of the 2nd amendment would only affect legal weapons, right? So I would say it matters to a degree.

[Wallenburg]

Does it matter if they are legal? I'm looking at the effect of all firearms on the population, and deciding where I stand on how far restrictions should go from there.

It does matter if they are legal, since restrictions only apply to legal gun owners.

How do you think they got the illegal firearms? Someone had them legally at some point, unless they were produced by an illegal firearms manufacturer.

[Arlenton]

A handful of deaths? TENS OF THOUSANDS EVERY YEAR.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/cr ... ta-table-8
The FBI says that there were just over 12,000 homicides (including those that didn't involve a gun) in 2011, and it's been on the decline since before 2007. The Federal Assault Weapon ban expired in 2004.

Not to mention the rise in gun ownership.

[Sevvania]

It does matter if they are legal, since restrictions only apply to legal gun owners.

How do you think they got the illegal firearms? Someone had them legally at some point, unless they were produced by an illegal firearms manufacturer.

Australia has this problem in spite of their strict regulations against semi-automatics:

[Wallenburg]

Congrats for your logical fallacy. That is called oversimplification. Here's my counterargument:
Are you arguing that the banning of guns will suddenly encourage criminals with guns to go on rampages? Very few people manage to avoid gun violence by shooting at their assailants. I don't see how restrictions on gun ownership would risk more lives than those that gun owners themselves take, either deliberately or through carelessness.

Shouldn't have messed with an AP Language/Composition student...

No, that is not. That is literally what is being advocated by Kefka. And yes, I do say that, in a way. Millions of people are now disarmed, and you don't think there is going to be a spat of robberies in light of this fact? Source that few people are saved through legal fire arm ownership, and source that legal firearms cause far more risk than illegally owned ones obtained by criminals.

Good for you on attempting to apply what you are learning in class kid. Though don't be too excited, you're not the only one in AP Language class here, and it doesn't mean shit.

Okay, I looked up Kefka, and I'm getting Final Fantasy shit. Care to explain?

[Bezkoshtovnya]

No, that is not. That is literally what is being advocated by Kefka. And yes, I do say that, in a way. Millions of people are now disarmed, and you don't think there is going to be a spat of robberies in light of this fact? Source that few people are saved through legal fire arm ownership, and source that legal firearms cause far more risk than illegally owned ones obtained by criminals.

Good for you on attempting to apply what you are learning in class kid. Though don't be too excited, you're not the only one in AP Language class here, and it doesn't mean shit.

Okay, I looked up Kefka, and I'm getting Final Fantasy shit. Care to explain?

The orginal name of Infected Mushroom, the poster I was replying to.

[Wallenburg]

Okay, I looked up Kefka, and I'm getting Final Fantasy shit. Care to explain?

The orginal name of Infected Mushroom, the poster I was replying to.

I don't care what another user advocates. How does their existence make them an authority on the subject. Again, research your own facts and give me HARD FACTS, not just opinions.

[Sevvania]

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/cr ... ta-table-8
The FBI says that there were just over 12,000 homicides (including those that didn't involve a gun) in 2011, and it's been on the decline since before 2007. The Federal Assault Weapon ban expired in 2004.

Not to mention the rise in gun ownership.

I think the number of individal gun owners has actually declined somewhat, but they now own more guns, on average. I'd have to check for sources again to confirm that, but that's my current understanding.

[Korouse]

Sure. But it shouldn't change what guns you can get. Just the acquisition of those arms.

[Wallenburg]

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/cr ... ta-table-8
The FBI says that there were just over 12,000 homicides (including those that didn't involve a gun) in 2011, and it's been on the decline since before 2007. The Federal Assault Weapon ban expired in 2004.

Not to mention the rise in gun ownership.

The decline of homicides reflects the growing competence of our police, not the "safe effect" of having thousands of bullets packed in your closet.

[Bezkoshtovnya]

The orginal name of Infected Mushroom, the poster I was replying to.

I don't care what another user advocates. How does their existence make them an authority on the subject. Again, research your own facts and give me HARD FACTS, not just opinions.

....I was responding to another poster on a debate forum, engaging in what is known as debate. I am not sure what you are on about, but we kind of have to debate amongst one another since, you know, we can't debate against the people in authority directly.

[Mavorpen]

Not to mention the rise in gun ownership.

I think the number of individal gun owners has actually declined somewhat, but they now own more guns, on average. I'd have to check for sources again to confirm that, but that's my current understanding.

You're right. Gun ownership per household has decreased while the number of guns have increased.

[Sevvania]

Not to mention the rise in gun ownership.

The decline of homicides reflects the growing competence of our police, not the "safe effect" of having thousands of bullets packed in your closet.

I never said there was a correlation between gun ownership and "safety". I was pointing out that there's minimal correlation between number of guns and homicide rates. As has been mentioned, violent crime in general has been on the decline for years, even with current gun laws and regulations/the availability of semi-automatic weapon to the general public/etc., which is why I don't see any need for any measures as drastic as repealing an amendment.

[Bezkoshtovnya]

Not to mention the rise in gun ownership.

The decline of homicides reflects the growing competence of our police, not the "safe effect" of having thousands of bullets packed in your closet.

Unless you can prove that, it is mere speculation. Again, the generalisation of more guns means more crime by default is a very weak position, when things like Switzerland and Kennesaw exist.

[Allmalia]

Bill of Rights aren't laws any court or body can just repeal; they are inalienable rights, God given, for all men and women. Anyone who attempts to remove them forfeits all legitimacy as a governing official or body in our United States. Unless you want a rehash of 1860-1864 mixed with some modern day Balkan/Rwanda genocide, it's best to leave them be.

[Shilya]

Does it matter if they are legal? I'm looking at the effect of all firearms on the population, and deciding where I stand on how far restrictions should go from there.

It does matter if they are legal, since restrictions only apply to legal gun owners.

I'd wager that many illegal firearms start out as legal ones, and with tighter restrictions, would never have ended up being illegal. So, I guess there's a certain amount of overlap.

[Big Jim P]

Your chances of being shot are so small as to be laughable.

So long as guns are out there... Two words:

''Valar Moghulis'' (anyone can be killed... by gunfire)

That's how I would describe the situation in America. Too many shooters, too many criminals with guns, too dangerous.

Once the Second Amendment is gone, we can think about imposing a Japanese style gun control policy to protect the people.

30,000 gun deaths, 300+ million guns in 100+ million hands. The benefits overwhelmingly outweigh the risks.

[Mavorpen]

Bill of Rights aren't laws any court or body can just repeal; they are inalienable rights, God given, for all men and women. Anyone who attempts to remove them forfeits all legitimacy as a governing official or body in our United States. Unless you want a rehash of 1860-1864 mixed with some modern day Balkan/Rwanda genocide, it's best to leave them be.

The Bill of Rights represent no such thing. The Bill of Rights were nothing more than significant issues that people during the Founding were most concerned about. They have nothing to do with your imaginary sky-daddy.

[Bezkoshtovnya]

Bill of Rights aren't laws any court or body can just repeal; they are inalienable rights, God given, for all men and women. Anyone who attempts to remove them forfeits all legitimacy as a governing official or body in our United States. Unless you want a rehash of 1860-1864 mixed with some modern day Balkan/Rwanda genocide, it's best to leave them be.

Not really, the Bill of Rights, like any other ammendments, can be repealed.

[Ifreann]

Again, why isn't Switzerland full of "gun totting criminals"?

I think its because they voluntarily follow a particular type of Christianity.

Its not a solution we can import to America.

Catholicism?

---

Yes.

But really only because I don't like the amendment itself. I'm not interested in banning firearms.

If you're not a fan of the amendment, wouldn't it be simpler to revise and update the amendment, as opposed to scrapping it, and replacing it with something else?

Politically, maybe, but the actual process would be the same either way.

---

Bill of Rights aren't laws any court or body can just repeal; they are inalienable rights, God given, for all men and women. Anyone who attempts to remove them forfeits all legitimacy as a governing official or body in our United States. Unless you want a rehash of 1860-1864 mixed with some modern day Balkan/Rwanda genocide, it's best to leave them be.

The Bill of Rights is part of the US Constitution. It is the supreme law of the land, but it is just a law and can be amended. The process to amend the constitution is set out in the constitution. The constitution was amended to add the bill of rights. And all the other amendments. That's why they're called amendments.

[Big Jim P]

Because simply putting a ban on guns will magically make sure no one, especially criminals has any. More guns does not mean more crime, and forbidding law abiding citiZens from owning them certainly won't do anything.

making guns legal helps with the multiplication and circulation of dangerous firearms.

Making them illegal means that criminals will be more dangerous as they would be the only ones armed.

[Jamzmania]

Bill of Rights aren't laws any court or body can just repeal; they are inalienable rights, God given, for all men and women. Anyone who attempts to remove them forfeits all legitimacy as a governing official or body in our United States. Unless you want a rehash of 1860-1864 mixed with some modern day Balkan/Rwanda genocide, it's best to leave them be.

The Bill of Rights represent no such thing. The Bill of Rights were nothing more than significant issues that people during the Founding were most concerned about. They have nothing to do with your imaginary sky-daddy.

They most certainly are God-given unalienable rights, a fact that can't be changed even by your derogatory insults.

[Mavorpen]

The Bill of Rights represent no such thing. The Bill of Rights were nothing more than significant issues that people during the Founding were most concerned about. They have nothing to do with your imaginary sky-daddy.

They most certainly are God-given unalienable rights, a fact that can't be changed even by your derogatory insults.

No they aren't. This should be obvious given the fact that governments had to grant them in the first place.

And insulting nonexistent things is not a large concern of mine.

[Bezkoshtovnya]

The Bill of Rights represent no such thing. The Bill of Rights were nothing more than significant issues that people during the Founding were most concerned about. They have nothing to do with your imaginary sky-daddy.

They most certainly are God-given unalienable rights, a fact that can't be changed even by your derogatory insults.

No, they aren't. They are amendments and like any amendment, can be repealed. It is extremely unlikely, but not impossible.