Sorry, but **** the less than 2% - the man has a hobby to pursue, and it's not worth limiting/affecting that in any way to save the less than 2%. Sorry Newtown parents, but the freedom to pretend like you're a soldier and carry a bushmaster > your kids lives.
It's always been about the people, and case in point fast forward 10 to 25 years after the Constitution was written, you had evidence of the people owning the pistols...sorry, A. Hamilton, Burr cheated,....the shotguns, and the rifles separate from a formed military. Given this, the founders of the constitution accepted this fact as inherent with the bill of rights. Alexander Hamilton realized the risks and accepted this.
Um no. I was referencing his disregard towards the effect of assault rifles since they result in "less than 2%" of gun-related murders. (I don't even know if that number is actually correct)
Currently the only thing anti-gun proponents are proposing are ban of assault rifles, magazine sizes and more thorough background checks. None of these address the majority of gun related deaths.
So, therefore, it's not worth addressing. Good to know. Why don't you just come clean and admit that re-enacting Predator on your farm every 4th of July is more important than a small amount of people being the victims of assault rifle-related shootings?
Just like how the first amendment is rendered useless since you don't have the freedom to call in bomb threats, right?
What? The second amendment is useless unless you can have assault weapons and high capacity magazines? I don't think it's too hard to apply the second amendment without having assault weapons and high capacity magazines.
With 20 dead kids piled on top of all the mass shootings we've seen in this country---and it ain't getting better---he'd BETTER the **** have something to say about it. The SNL parody of the 2nd Obama-Romney debate ("Governor Romney, what would you do about gun control?" "Nothing." "Mr. President, same question?" "I, too, would do nothing.") is not what I want from the leader of a country whose citizens seem to think of themselves as Gus McCrae and Woodrow Call and/or have seen too many Rambo movies. He can't get the handguns. He won't try. But if he can outlaw the machine-gun crap and ammunition, awesome. Because this 2nd amendment stuff is brainwashing. The NRA is out to protect gun manufacturers and their billion dollar enterprise.
People are conflating whether gun control measures are constitutional vs whether they are effective. Those are two separate issues. And those asking gun rights advocates to draw a line are under the same obligation to do so from the other side (or argue for a 2nd Amendment repeal). I don't think there is any constitutional right to high capacity magazines or automatic weapons. Each state experimenting with their own gun control measures makes alot more sense than federal blanket policies. Chicago and New York can try to disarm everyone, and Texas can arm teachers, and people can decide which circumstance they prefer.
Try searching through my posts to see an extensive back and forth between Svpernaut and I on this issue and his inability to take a position. I found it mystifying. Should be in the Newtown reaction thread.
I think that state gun control measures will always be quite limited in effectiveness without the support of strong federal gun trafficking laws and other federal measures that effectively limit the ability of people to buy weapons in Indiana and transport them to Illinois for killing people.
Though you sound plenty more reasonable here I cannot agree with you on how gun control measures are different in every state. There is too much interstate travel in U.S. and most American families have lived in different states. It makes things harder than it should be.
Assault weapon murders may count for 2% of gun deaths but what percentage of guns purchased are assault? I'm just speculating but maybe the # per assault rifle purchased is higher than other weapons, just a smaller total because of the "rarity" of these compared to more practical guns. Regardless of all of this I think the mentality of these weapons give people a sense of empowerment. How many gun owners have helped keep the peace because of their weapon? I think if you require MORE than 6 shots you are doing it wrong. Olympic trap shooters don't get to unload a magazine trying to hit one target. People get these high powered weapons and huge magazines because they feel like a bad ass.
The argument that seems to be most prevalent is one of "greatest utility". I.E. if we ban guns, it has a total net benefit to human life. It strikes me that the one other place where I have heard that argument most vehemently in the recent past is with regard to the torture debate. If you really get right down to it, we can reduce the death of innocents by significantly curbing the powers of the fourth, fifth, and sixth amendments. After all, just as the founding fathers never had to deal with modern guns, they never had to deal with modern crime and modern terrorism. Really, what is a little extrajudicial detention, for instance, against the lives of innocents? I think the assumptions behind the utility argument are the source of the real disagreement. I think we can mostly all agree that the negative consequences of the fourth, fifth and sixth amendments are more than offset by their concurrent benefits - we will all accept that some (perhaps many) people will get away with heinous crimes in order to make sure nobody is wrongly punished. The difference of positions on the gun issue comes down to a difference of opinion on to what degree there are positive attributes to firearm ownership that offset the negative ones, in the same way that it is said that one would say "better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer", Obama's argument from the pro gun perspective is like saying, "Think of the ten that escape! You need to break a few eggs to make an omelet." I think most of these arguments I'm reading really miss the core issue of the disagreement (relative positive value of gun ownership), and honestly, I think that is an argument that isn't really going to be debatable. I see this quite like the abortion debate in that I don't think this is one where too many people will be swayed one way or the other. I think most of the other drawn out logic is an attempt to avoid talking directly to the core stumbling block.
Some countries such as England, Germany, Greece, Japan require you to have an extensive background check, psychiatric evaluation, and eye test. Even at this rate 19-20 people are denied liscenses. Not surprisingly the deaths (gun related) per 100k people. Japan is the lowest at 0.07 and Greece the highest at 1.5, compare to USA at over 10. Why can we not force these regulations? Also force the perspective buyer to pay for examinations so there won't be "reckless" gov. Spending.
That is one of my favorite as well. If we wanted to regulate paint balls or something, I could see the argument. Otherwise, pretty much: bullets >> human flesh.
Is Switzerland on your list? they have very lax gun regulations. You take 4 blips of data (I am sure these countries where just picked at random) out of thousands and call that what? proof?
