Well being the said Mr. Chang, although I will disagree with the title eminent as it makes me sound like some sort of PBS expert, I'll weigh in. Fred, you are right that the Bill of Rights is later than the Federalists Papers but like Otto I will say you can't ignore the context. Obviously the Bill of Rights was a compromise forced upon the Madison but as part of a compromise it would seem very odd that Madison would completely start from whole cloth and forget what he had wrote in the Federalists Papers or not be influenced by what Hamilton had wrote. As Otto said the Federalist Papers provide a window into what the Framers were intending so even though the Bill of Rights its not likely that the Framers hadn't completely changed their minds about what they earlier wrote. In regard to the 2nd Ammendment I brought up Federalist 29 because that one specifically addresses the nature and purpose of the militia and seems to address most specifically the 2nd Ammendment. Particularly the part about "a well regulated militia." Again I will agree with you that Federalist 29 was written before the 2nd Ammendment but it would seem odd that the 2nd Ammendment would be phrased that way or that Madison wouldn't have been aware of Federalist 29. So yes we an never know for sure without going back in time and interviewing Madison and Hamilton themselves but it given its nature and the phrasing of the 2nd Ammendment that would seem like a very good source for understanding it.
Why does it imply that? Do you have scientific proof? No. You have an assumption that without gun control it would be higher. It's easy to "prove" something that way because you're really just stating an opinion and offering no proof. You're actually the one spinning the results here.
you will twist everything to believe your NRA fabricated info. You don't even want to consider that more guns cause more gun murders....why even bother trying to say there's no legitimate study - it's like trying to convince someone in the 1300's that the earth is round.
Chance of survival facing a gun at 10 feet: very low. Chance of survial facing a knife at 10 feet: good chance. Someone pulls a knife on me - I know I might get hurt but I will survive. Someone pulls a gun on me, there's a good chance I may die. Yeah, facing a knife is a lot better. I'll take that any day any time - except when I'm 90 and ready to end the game of life.
God man - i've put a lot of evidence forward that shows a correlation between gun availablibility and gun deaths. One only has to look at New York city to see how gun control dropped murder by a factor of two. Guiliani's greatest gift to the city. Yet it doesn't matter - if you can find anything - anything at all where the data doesn't show it, then you're find to say gun control doesn't work. Not to mention that statistics is never ever "proof" by definition in stats - there's always a > ) possibility. What I don't understand, is why are you so in love with guns? You act like a gun is a little baby that has to be defended, and anyone who wants less guns is the devil incarnate.
^ This may sound counter intuitive and grotesque at the risk of sounding like an internet tough guy again if I had to kill somebody at close range I would use a knife instead of a gun. As a mechanical instrument there is a possibility of a gun being jammed or malfunctioning and if the person I was trying to get got his hands on me in the ensuing scuffle theres a chance that I could get shot too. While there is a chance that I could be stabbed with my own knife its harder to grab a knife hand as you risk grabbing the blade itself where as you can grab a gun and redirect it and it is easier to manuever the knife to cut than the gun to shoot.
I didn;t say getting attacked I said getting killed. You said you want to lower gun deaths and dismiss other homocides to make your argument. To me being dead by a gun is just as dead as by a knife or a club or fists.
You haven't put any evidence forward that proves anything at all. Period. You've put forward conjectures. I'm not in love with guns. I don't own one and I never will. Guns scare me. It's not even worth debating with someone who makes assumptions like you do and who doesn't know what providing evidence means. You know nothing about me yet assume I'm in love with guns. I wish guns did not exist but they do and I'd rather allow law abiding citizens to have guns since the criminals will get them anyway.
Yes you are correct. He is bringing nothing to the table and is changing his arguments when they are losing ones. There is a real debate on gun control and this guy is not one that actually knows any of the talking points.
Not personally but I've seen pictures. They weren't pretty. Although the affectiveness of the weapon depends on the skill of someone using it. Speaking personally I would be more comfortable at close range with knife than gun.
go to brady.org and look up the facts man. If people have guns, they use them to kill people. Why are you denying that? It doesnt matter if people can find another way. Fact is, people survive knife attacks at a much higher rate than guns. it's on brady.org. That's where I got most of the facts I put forward her from. But you guys don't want to believe it because you'd rather promote guns. How can you say you wish guns don't exist yet you support people possessing them? Come out of the closet and admit your gun love!
You have a higher chance of surving an assualt with a knife than a gun. Hmmmm, let's see - can you guess why? So...if that's true, than it's deducible to say that had UK criminals had more guns, than they would have killed more people as for two reasons: One: Their attacks would be more likely to be lethal. Two: It would be harder to want to kill someone as you'd have to find a gun illegally on the black market. Unless you are in organized crime, it will deter you from commiting a crime of passion. It's a lot easier to kill someone with a gun than a knife. One you just point and pull a little trigger. The other you have to stab someone multiple times at close range while there's screaming.
I know, New Yorker, that you are not as vapid as some of your flimsy logic here. I have to think you are just trolling for fun. I certanly hope so anyway.
Uhh....no. I think the second amendment should have been done away with after world war ii. Really - to me it's just really obvious why you don't put guns in the hands of people - because that's just dangerous and reckless. Guns are killing devices - things that should never be trusted in the hands of ordinary people. Are you kidding me? And my logic is clear, documented, and backed up with sound logic. Look, just agree to disagree - no reason to be so disrepectful. You have produced nothing but spurious facts and yet I don't attack you for it. Geez. I know you have more class than people like some thoses guys like MacGreat
here's a compromise to the gun debate. yall cowboys can have your guns....but have to go through all the triaining, a psychological evaluation, and your license with you whenever you have the gun. also, all new guns should have gps tracking - so the police can track the last place a gun was fired and immediate close in on the scene. now - why would gun folks be opposed to these kinds of measure? They get to carry their "piece" or "pieces", and we have a determinent for them to carry or discharde their weapons. ever.
I'm not trying to be rude. I truly believe that your arguments in this thread are based around a number of spurious suppositions that I can seem to get us to discuss and I also think you have a very strong emotional reaction to this issue which predefines and colors your viewpoint. Any rudeness is the result of frustration when I repeatedly point out concerns with your argument, such as the concern that the linked articles had nothing to do with the point you were making, and you don’t seem to see what appears to be as plain to me as the nose on my face. When we can't even begin to agree what documents actually say it frustrating, especially when from my perspective, there is no ambiguity. It truly upsets and frustrates me that you can't see what I see when I read your posts. It is not about different sides on the issue, though of course that doesn't help. There are people with whom I can disagree on this issue and not feel the same frustration I feel in trying to discuss your points with you. Perhaps I am developing Alzheimer’s disease and this is just the first sign. Maybe your points are perfectly coherent and make absolute sense. I don't know what to tell you, though, beyond the fact that it appears to me that it doesn't appear that way to me. I would go back and enumerate all of these issues, but I don't think it would do any good.
