Second Amendment Repeal / Gun Control

[Spirit of Hope]

Accept they are far more commonly used for other purposes. Namely target shooting and hunting. And if you are going to complain about one things danger it better be more dangerous. Which surprise statistically guns are less dangerous to society than cars. They kill on average the same number of people, and cars injure far more.

I'm all for lowering the homicide and suicide rate, but guns aren't your problem. Getting rid of guns doesn't lower homicides or suicides. Those are the results of other issues, which should be what you are targeting.

My suggestion for lowering homicide and suicide rates is to reduce gun ownership.
What is your suggestion?

Then try and deal with the issues of homicide, since getting rid of guns has historically not been connected to a reduction in the homicide rate.

Source, please.

How about better education, mental health care, job training, transition from jail to civilian life, etc? There are lots of things you can do to help with crime and suicides that also have all kinds of other positive effects on society.

You can look up the number of homicides in Great Britain, I can't find the link. But they remain stable right through the near total ban on guns.

Here are a number of studies on Australian gun control. You will note a number show no connection between banning guns and a decrease in homicides.

[Fartsniffage]

I am struggling to believe that you honestly don't see a difference between homicide and suicide.

I certainly don't thing there's enough of a difference between them to discard out of hand a measure that could reduce the one that dwarfs the other just because it probably wouldn't make much difference to the other.

[Sevvania]

No. But clamp down on gun ownership. Seriously, how does more guns in the civilian population reduce gun use?

There's nothing wrong with gun use. Criminal activity is another issue, but Australia has shown us that less guns doesn't necessarily mean reduced crime.

If we strengthen the police service, select police officers well to determine they are responsible with firearms, and reduce civilian gun ownership, we can ensure that guns are less of a threat to society. The argument that outlawing guns would let criminals have all the guns is flawed. The police would be even stronger and will clamp down on crime. When someone is arrested, their firearms would be confiscated. The process of arrest of suspects and confiscation of firearms would quickly eliminate the illegal gun pool.

How can you determine if a police officer is any more responsible with a firearm than a civilian? In regards to confiscating firearms until illegal weapons are eliminated:
https://homemadeguns.wordpress.com/

Someone invaded my apartment a couple years ago. I have a false pump-action shotgun, painted in reflective black, that I keep in my bedroom in case this happens. When the invader broke in, I grabbed the "shotgun" and let him hear the pump. He scurried off immediately. I didn't need to shoot to stop the invader. The power of the mind is a beautiful thing.

You didn't have to shoot, yet you still had a "gun," and by your own account, this "gun" deterred your attacker. You don't have to shoot to stop an invader, whether your gun is real or fake. But if worse comes to worse and you need to do so, it'd be nice to have the option.

Guns are meant to kill.

They can be used to kill, but this is not their sole purpose; This pistol is meant for target shooting.

[Kernen]

No. But clamp down on gun ownership. Seriously, how does more guns in the civilian population reduce gun use? We aren't in a state of emergency. The nation is not crumbling apart. There is little chance that it will. In fact, if it does, it will be because the gun nuts decide to start a revolution.

I’m not sure why we need to reduce the use of guns when the overwhelming majority of them are used responsibly and safely.

If we strengthen the police service, select police officers well to determine they are responsible with firearms, and reduce civilian gun ownership, we can ensure that guns are less of a threat to society. The argument that outlawing guns would let criminals have all the guns is flawed. The police would be even stronger and will clamp down on crime. When someone is arrested, their firearms would be confiscated. The process of arrest of suspects and confiscation of firearms would quickly eliminate the illegal gun pool.

Police still don’t have the ability to be everywhere always, which leaves civilians responsible for their own self defense in the instants preceding and following an attack. Confiscating firearms when somebody commits a crime that has nothing to do with that firearm is theft.

I understand that many people here believe that civilian gun ownership reduces crime and saves more lives than it takes. But think of the early West. The ubiquity of gunslingers and vigilantes before law and order were established in California, Nevada, etc., certainly killed more than it protected civilian life. The mixture of law and order with civilian gun ownership may result in less crime, but I don't share that belief.

Source that it killed more than it saved? And why do you equate all gun ownership with vigilantism?

Someone invaded my apartment a couple years ago. I have a false pump-action shotgun, painted in reflective black, that I keep in my bedroom in case this happens. When the invader broke in, I grabbed the "shotgun" and let him hear the pump. He scurried off immediately. I didn't need to shoot to stop the invader. The power of the mind is a beautiful thing.

And had that invader known it was fake? Felt like risking it? Been armed himself? I’ll happily give up my home defense weapon when there is absolutely no chance of me being harmed by an invader. Until then, and until the police figure out how to subdue an attacker the second he begins to attack me, there is a certifiable need for firearms in self-defense. To say nothing about collecting, target shooting, and hunting.

[Gun Manufacturers]

No. But clamp down on gun ownership. Seriously, how does more guns in the civilian population reduce gun use? We aren't in a state of emergency. The nation is not crumbling apart. There is little chance that it will. In fact, if it does, it will be because the gun nuts decide to start a revolution.

If we strengthen the police service, select police officers well to determine they are responsible with firearms, and reduce civilian gun ownership, we can ensure that guns are less of a threat to society. The argument that outlawing guns would let criminals have all the guns is flawed. The police would be even stronger and will clamp down on crime. When someone is arrested, their firearms would be confiscated. The process of arrest of suspects and confiscation of firearms would quickly eliminate the illegal gun pool.

I understand that many people here believe that civilian gun ownership reduces crime and saves more lives than it takes. But think of the early West. The ubiquity of gunslingers and vigilantes before law and order were established in California, Nevada, etc., certainly killed more than it protected civilian life. The mixture of law and order with civilian gun ownership may result in less crime, but I don't share that belief.

Someone invaded my apartment a couple years ago. I have a false pump-action shotgun, painted in reflective black, that I keep in my bedroom in case this happens. When the invader broke in, I grabbed the "shotgun" and let him hear the pump. He scurried off immediately. I didn't need to shoot to stop the invader. The power of the mind is a beautiful thing.

I'd say good luck with "clamping down on gun ownership", but I'm not on your side. Firearms ownership isn't going to go anywhere in the US anytime soon. You would need 2/3 of Congress to push a repeal to the states (and there's not enough votes to get out of even 1 house). Also, 38 states would be needed to ratify a repeal, but 44 states have the right to bear arms in their state constitutions. I don't see states going against the 2nd Amendment when those states ALSO protect the right at the state level.

[Fartsniffage]

No. But clamp down on gun ownership. Seriously, how does more guns in the civilian population reduce gun use? We aren't in a state of emergency. The nation is not crumbling apart. There is little chance that it will. In fact, if it does, it will be because the gun nuts decide to start a revolution.

If we strengthen the police service, select police officers well to determine they are responsible with firearms, and reduce civilian gun ownership, we can ensure that guns are less of a threat to society. The argument that outlawing guns would let criminals have all the guns is flawed. The police would be even stronger and will clamp down on crime. When someone is arrested, their firearms would be confiscated. The process of arrest of suspects and confiscation of firearms would quickly eliminate the illegal gun pool.

I understand that many people here believe that civilian gun ownership reduces crime and saves more lives than it takes. But think of the early West. The ubiquity of gunslingers and vigilantes before law and order were established in California, Nevada, etc., certainly killed more than it protected civilian life. The mixture of law and order with civilian gun ownership may result in less crime, but I don't share that belief.

Someone invaded my apartment a couple years ago. I have a false pump-action shotgun, painted in reflective black, that I keep in my bedroom in case this happens. When the invader broke in, I grabbed the "shotgun" and let him hear the pump. He scurried off immediately. I didn't need to shoot to stop the invader. The power of the mind is a beautiful thing.

I'd say good luck with "clamping down on gun ownership", but I'm not on your side. Firearms ownership isn't going to go anywhere in the US anytime soon. You would need 2/3 of Congress to push a repeal to the states (and there's not enough votes to get out of even 1 house). Also, 38 states would be needed to ratify a repeal, but 44 states have the right to bear arms in their state constitutions. I don't see states going against the 2nd Amendment when those states ALSO protect the right at the state level.

You might want to read the thread title again. It isn't "will", it's "should". Big difference.

[Big Jim P]

I'd say good luck with "clamping down on gun ownership", but I'm not on your side. Firearms ownership isn't going to go anywhere in the US anytime soon. You would need 2/3 of Congress to push a repeal to the states (and there's not enough votes to get out of even 1 house). Also, 38 states would be needed to ratify a repeal, but 44 states have the right to bear arms in their state constitutions. I don't see states going against the 2nd Amendment when those states ALSO protect the right at the state level.

You might want to read the thread title again. It isn't "will", it's "should". Big difference.

Since the benefits of gun ownership far outweigh the costs, then no, it should not.

[Gun Manufacturers]

I'd say good luck with "clamping down on gun ownership", but I'm not on your side. Firearms ownership isn't going to go anywhere in the US anytime soon. You would need 2/3 of Congress to push a repeal to the states (and there's not enough votes to get out of even 1 house). Also, 38 states would be needed to ratify a repeal, but 44 states have the right to bear arms in their state constitutions. I don't see states going against the 2nd Amendment when those states ALSO protect the right at the state level.

You might want to read the thread title again. It isn't "will", it's "should". Big difference.

You might want to read who I was responding to (hint, it wasn't the OP or the thread title). I was responding to Arbolvine, who said we should "clamp down on gun ownership".

[Fartsniffage]

You might want to read the thread title again. It isn't "will", it's "should". Big difference.

Since the benefits of gun ownership far outweigh the costs, then no, it should not.

Simplistic. But at least it address the point of the thread. Well done you.

[Fartsniffage]

You might want to read the thread title again. It isn't "will", it's "should". Big difference.

You might want to read who I was responding to (hint, it wasn't the OP or the thread title). I was responding to Arbolvine, who said we should "clamp down on gun ownership".

Yes. I read that. "Should" clamp down on gun ownership. He addressed the question posed by the thread.

You're answer didn't.

[Gun Manufacturers]

You might want to read who I was responding to (hint, it wasn't the OP or the thread title). I was responding to Arbolvine, who said we should "clamp down on gun ownership".

Yes. I read that. "Should" clamp down on gun ownership. He addressed the question posed by the thread.

You're answer didn't.

I had more than that one post in the thread, I don't need to re-address the OP with EVERY post.

[Fartsniffage]

Yes. I read that. "Should" clamp down on gun ownership. He addressed the question posed by the thread.

You're answer didn't.

I had more than that one post in the thread, I don't need to re-address the OP with EVERY post.

Yet you still feel that "will" is a good answer to "should". It's not.

An argument as to why it shouldn't be repealed would be interesting. I might not agree with it but at least it'd be worth reading.

[Gun Manufacturers]

I had more than that one post in the thread, I don't need to re-address the OP with EVERY post.

Yet you still feel that "will" is a good answer to "should". It's not.

An argument as to why it shouldn't be repealed would be interesting. I might not agree with it but at least it'd be worth reading.

I have explained in this thread, as well as others on the subject, that I feel that it shouldn't. I have also given, as my reasons why it shouldn't, several examples of legitimate firearms uses.

Better, now?

[New Neros]

Yet you still feel that "will" is a good answer to "should". It's not.

An argument as to why it shouldn't be repealed would be interesting. I might not agree with it but at least it'd be worth reading.

I have explained in this thread, as well as others on the subject, that I feel that it shouldn't. I have also given, as my reasons why it shouldn't, several examples of legitimate firearms uses.

Better, now?

You should get all of these major points in a big post and repost it whenever someone asks you about this again, which they will.

[Occupied Deutschland]

No. But clamp down on gun ownership. Seriously, how does more guns in the civilian population reduce gun use?

It doesn't really, from anything I've seen. But then, civilian gun use isn't the problem as it is overwhelmingly utilized in nonharmful activities or manners.

We aren't in a state of emergency. The nation is not crumbling apart. There is little chance that it will. In fact, if it does, it will be because the gun nuts decide to start a revolution.

And, as is astoundingly obvious, firearms have more usage than just 'state of emergency survival/security'. Such as recreation.

If we strengthen the police service, select police officers well to determine they are responsible with firearms, and reduce civilian gun ownership, we can ensure that guns are less of a threat to society.

Not especially. There's not a problem with civilian gun ownership, and strengthening the police force and selecting officers who are responsible is a general solution that ensures everything is less of a 'threat' to society.
Of course, their time would probably be better used, and there would be more 'bang' for the law-changing buck if the US were to address other issues that suck police strength for little to no gain (the drug war being a major one here).

The argument that outlawing guns would let criminals have all the guns is flawed. The police would be even stronger and will clamp down on crime. When someone is arrested, their firearms would be confiscated. The process of arrest of suspects and confiscation of firearms would quickly eliminate the illegal gun pool.

I think you profoundly overestimate the process and underestimate the capability for firearms to exist.

I understand that many people here believe that civilian gun ownership reduces crime and saves more lives than it takes.

Generally yes. Because it's true.

But think of the early West. The ubiquity of gunslingers and vigilantes before law and order were established in California, Nevada, etc., certainly killed more than it protected civilian life.

This is not the early West, and there exist a number of laws regarding the usage of violence to defend oneself or take another's life.
Your comparison is irrelevant.

The mixture of law and order with civilian gun ownership may result in less crime, but I don't share that belief.

Care to actually prove this with anything resembling evidence or is this just Old-West comparison happy-time hour for your beliefs?

Someone invaded my apartment a couple years ago. I have a false pump-action shotgun, painted in reflective black, that I keep in my bedroom in case this happens.

That is a wholly unnecessary and rather ridiculous idea. If you want something to use as 'defense', get a bat. It'd be more useful than an empty, useless firearm.

When the invader broke in, I grabbed the "shotgun" and let him hear the pump. He scurried off immediately. I didn't need to shoot to stop the invader. The power of the mind is a beautiful thing.

No offense, but I don't believe that happened. Besides that, it's wholly irrelevant to the matter under discussion.

[Big Jim P]

Since the benefits of gun ownership far outweigh the costs, then no, it should not.

Simplistic. But at least it address the point of the thread. Well done you.

It is not a particularly complicated issue. *shrug*

[Galloism]

But think of the early West. The ubiquity of gunslingers and vigilantes before law and order were established in California, Nevada, etc., certainly killed more than it protected civilian life.

This is not the early West, and there exist a number of laws regarding the usage of violence to defend oneself or take another's life.
Your comparison is irrelevant.

The mixture of law and order with civilian gun ownership may result in less crime, but I don't share that belief.

Care to actually prove this with anything resembling evidence or is this just Old-West comparison happy-time hour for your beliefs?

Incidentally, the wild west may not have been excessively violent. It's merely assumed it was, but evidence on such pervasive widespread (nonwar) violence is hard to come by.

[United Prefectures of Appia]

I'd say good luck with "clamping down on gun ownership", but I'm not on your side. Firearms ownership isn't going to go anywhere in the US anytime soon. You would need 2/3 of Congress to push a repeal to the states (and there's not enough votes to get out of even 1 house). Also, 38 states would be needed to ratify a repeal, but 44 states have the right to bear arms in their state constitutions. I don't see states going against the 2nd Amendment when those states ALSO protect the right at the state level.

Well, as long as a number of senators and congressmen are on the payroll of the NRA and gun makers, I doubt you'd even get a chance at all. Though I myself am not in favor of abolishing the 2nd Amendment.

[Wallenburg]

What does Mr. Dixon need with a machine gun?

Your fist ends where my nose begins.

Interpret this post however you want. I know you will, anyway (also interpret that however you want. I know...).

[Occupied Deutschland]

What does Mr. Dixon need with a machine gun?
(Image)
Your fist ends where my nose begins....

Unsure what you're referencing with 'Mr. Dixon', but ownership of a machine gun isn't a violent act. There is no fist being slammed into your nose because someone owns an automatic firearm.

[Grinning Dragon]

What does Mr. Dixon need with a machine gun?
(Image)
Your fist ends where my nose begins....

Unsure what you're referencing with 'Mr. Dixon', but ownership of a machine gun isn't a violent act. There is no fist being slammed into your nose because someone owns an automatic firearm.

I think he is referencing the often misconstrued/ill applied usage of your right ends where his begins, with his fist/nose mantra.

[Sevvania]

What does Mr. Dixon need with a machine gun?
(Image)
Your fist ends where my nose begins.

Interpret this post however you want. I know you will, anyway (also interpret that however you want. I know...).

Having been in this thread before, you already know that fists kill more people in the US than machine guns.

Edit: And the saying is "Your right to swing your fist ends where the next man's nose begins." Simply owning something is not equivalent to swinging a fist (i.e. using it offensively).

[Madiganistan]

Yes it should, and yes, a Democratic Congressman should introduce the bill soon! Preferably: mid October, 2016.

This is not the early West, and there exist a number of laws regarding the usage of violence to defend oneself or take another's life.
Your comparison is irrelevant.

Care to actually prove this with anything resembling evidence or is this just Old-West comparison happy-time hour for your beliefs?

Incidentally, the wild west may not have been excessively violent. It's merely assumed it was, but evidence on such pervasive widespread (nonwar) violence is hard to come by.

I always kind of got the impression that the rumors of ever-pervasive lawlessness were the result of failed prospectors whom returned east telling the 19th century's equivalent of "I swear the fish was *this* big" or "I got *so* laid after the frat party" stories in Boston bars or whatever.

[Rhoderberg]

What does Mr. Dixon need with a machine gun?
(Image)
Your fist ends where my nose begins.

Interpret this post however you want. I know you will, anyway (also interpret that however you want. I know...).

Why bother posting?

Anyways, fists kill far more people annually than machine guns ever have. Not that I expect you to know the difference between a machine gun and a select-fire rifle.

[Sevvania]

What does Mr. Dixon need with a machine gun?
(Image)
Your fist ends where my nose begins.

Interpret this post however you want. I know you will, anyway (also interpret that however you want. I know...).

Why bother posting?

Anyways, fists kill far more people annually than machine guns ever have. Not that I expect you to know the difference between a machine gun and a select-fire rifle.

Well legally, select-fire rifles are classified as "machine guns". Laypeople do seem to struggle wih the difference between semi-auto and select-fire, though.