the 2nd amendment has already been infringed. there is no absolute right to gun ownership in this country.
Umm - you are distorting stats - i'm talking gun murders, you are talking just any homicides. Gun deaths in the UK number 52 - I shoulded the link. From the BBC no less. Why are you trying to push Guns so much?
The reason people give for taking guns away is because they believe it will lead to less killing. Giving the number of homicides isn't out of the realm of this debate. In fact, that's precisely the type of fact you'd want to know. EDIT: This conversation began with you talking about the number of murders in a particular city and blaming it on gun culture. Providing you with the murder rates of other cities without a gun culture is a way to counter your argument. You can't change what you're arguing half way through.
Until the 14th Ammendment the Bill of Rights didn't apply to the States but only to the Fed.. I'm not advocating infringements of rights as I said I respect the Constitution. That said though the 2nd Ammendment needs to be read it its whole. While it seems clear to me and the USSC agrees that it guarentees the right to gun ownership, although arms is a subjective term, it is clear that conditons can be placed on the type and usage of those arms. I applaud your bravery but your 50 caliber rifle will do nothing against a cruise missle, high altitude bombing or long range artillery.
people have been: 1. killin other people 2. gone loco since the beginning of MANKIND Haven't you guys seen Planet of the Apes??? Man takes out Man. Therefore the Apes's golden rule is Ape shall not kill Ape.
What if they invented high engergy guns that could destroy buildings? Should everyone be allow to have one? I think the arms in 1700s is much different than the arms we are talking about today and will be much different than the arms we will be talking about in 200 years.
yes. we should all be allowed guns that can take planes out of the sky, as well. also lightsabers. what could possibly go wrong?
what's next to blame? videogames? has anyone learned any lessons from the great stories? the moral of the Planet of the Apes or the moral of I ROBOT with Will Smith. humans are the biggest danger to humans! who do you think invented guns? apes? nope There are two humans: Crazy Not crazy The Crazies need to be locked up. They failed to do so on this one dude and they knew he was crazy. sad.
To the guy who says a 50 cal can take out small planes and APC's. Dude are you nuts? Secondly AE ammo has a tax of 200 dollars PER ROUND! Please post a pic of your 50 surrounded by your AE ammo that has your screen name up on the computer. A piece of paper can be altered.
If we go by your definition, your hero Mad Max (the real one) would have been locked up for a long time ...
Did you acctually look at the numbers? That link shows there were less then 800 murders in all of the UK, a population of 60 million people. Want to guess how many people were murdered in the the US over that same time?
Vernon never took out anyone (as far as we know), plus he's never beaten the crap out of someone who didn't deserve it. Vernon = compassionate
This right here is the problem. Correlation does not indicate causation. There are more murders per capita in the United States. There are also more Hispanic people per capita. Might we then assume that Hispanic people are the cause of murder? In this instance, there is a correlation between Hispanic people and murder. Intuitively we understand that the two numbers correlate, but one does not cause the other (corelation without causation). The number of available firearms turns out to be as statistically relevant to murder rates as the number of Hispanic people. It would seem to be self-evident that reducing guns will reduce murder. It also turns out to be totally false. Exactly what the causes of murder are in the USA is fairly poorly defined. But statistically it isn't the availability of guns. Alterations in the available level of firearms result in no change in levels of violence in developed countries. Yes the United States has a much larger murder problem than England, but had the same problem before England banned guns. After guns were banned in England, the murder rates rose. This rise can not be attributed to population growth, and this claim is a perfect example of explaining away evidence in order to maintain your intuitive sense of reality. Gun murders declined, but knife and other murders rose and then some, and it doesn't matter if you are murdered from a gun or a knife or a rubber chicken, you are still murdered and dead. Are you familiar with Bell's Theorem? The theory indicates that two particles can become entangled so that the change in spin state to one will instantly affect another anywhere else in the universe. This defied everything that was known about physics. Einstein hated it so much that he made fun of it. He called it 'spooky action at a distance'. The theorem: [rquoter] ...so defied common sense that [physicists] refused to accept quantum mechanics as a complete explanation for how physics really worked at the level of the very small. [/rquoter] Unfortunately, it turns out that Bell's Theorem is proven correct by experimental evidence. When confronted with evidence that the world operated in ways that seemed impossible to them, physicists surrendered their intuitive understanding of the world. They accepted experimental evidence over their own gut reactions. That is a difficult thing to do, but it is also the rational thing to do. The universe operates as it does with or without your approval. There is ample evidence that reducing guns won't reduce violence, but everybody seems to prefer their own gut feeling to the degree that they take their position and only later apply misconstrued or confabulated "evidence" to prove their point. I realize that many people are repelled from guns on a very primal level. I appreciate that. But try and look at the statistical evidence with an unjaundiced eye. In the United States, where each state has different gun laws, there is no correlation between restrictiveness of laws and murder rates. I appreciate that that none of this seems to make sense. It also turns out to be true, and if you try to explain it away, you are choosing your own emotional gut reaction over reality.
