# 7 Killed In Shooting At Sikh Temple In Wisconsin

Submitted by: piperfawn 5 years ago in
28
http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/06/us/wisconsin-temple-shooting/index.html

Oh no! America, not again. Pls stop all that. Sources says the shooter is an Army vet and also alleged white supremacist
28
Male 2,357
Democrat.
Male 2,214
Republican.
Male 2,357
@patchgrabber: While the states still retain quite a bit of power (after all, they dictate current gun laws), that power is rapidly falling to an increasingly powerful federal government.

Its a tough thing to relate the Constitution to the Bible, as the Bible is merely a collection of stories; the Consitution is still the law of the land. If society wants it gone, then it should be replaced (I hope this never happens). Until then, we should abide by our own laws.

I understand that we are not the same society and that rules must change. However, there are many of us who see a strong correlation between the changing of the culture and the undeniable sinking of the US. Just because something has changed, doesnt mean it has changed for the best.

Male 5,811
@HA: It still works on some level. As youve pointed out, youre now a "socialized, interventionist society." Yet your states are still in possession of a good deal of political power. All Im saying is that, as with any old text like the Constitution or Bible or what have you, as time goes on the original thought behind the words doesnt have the same meaning it used to. Your nation is much bigger than 13 colonies now.
Male 2,357
@Angilion: "Yes, but its not that way in reality."

You are very correct about that - unfortunately.

While it is no longer true that we cant have a centralized government due to communication or travel issues, I do not think that this was the intent behind the decisions in the Consitution. After reading into the writings of the many founders, most are led to believe that these men were primarily concerned with trying to avoid creating a tyrannical society. They knew that simple democracy does not work and that a central government alone does not work. They also knew that a central government was necessary for some purposes, but they vigorously opposed a strong central government.
Male 14,331
Remember when the UK was in conflict with the IRA for almost 100 years or so? Those gun laws protected so many civilians.... Oh ya no they just blew stuff up and still got guns.
Male 2,357
@patchgrabber: It worked up until the Civil War.
Male 14,331
@Angilion

Yes yes please do old chap I shall break out the crumpets and tea! Show me where your extreme limits on guns have made you safer then Sweden a place much less controling of what can be owned.
Male 12,365
Come to think of it, the UK does use a somewhat similar approach. Scotland has (and always has had) a partially seperate political and legal system to England and Wales.
Male 5,811
@Angillion: Oh, I agree that the idea has merit, but in practice it never really happens. At best its a mind projection fallacy, but ideal solutions not rooted in reality solve nothing.
Male 12,365
[quote]It states the very few responsibilities of the federal government and then clearly explains that all other responsibilites fall to the states.[/quote]

Yes, but its not that way in reality.

The USA constitution is a pick n mix from pre-existing systems that was a good attempt at an ideal for the time it was written. Id have done the same thing if I had been writing it - look at the existing systems that I knew of and pick out the bits I thought were the best ideas.

But it was at least in part drawn up that way in response to what was until very recently a big problem in any country or empire and which quickly became an insurmountable problem with size - communication and travel.

Put simply, it was impossible to effectively run the USA as a single entity at that time. Local government was essential for practical reasons, not just desirable for political reasons. Thats no longer true.
Male 12,365
[quote]This is assuming the pure intentions of those making the laws, which is a naive assumption. Politicians, be they state or federal, serve their own interests and the interests of those who give them money. Corruption is inherent in the system and as such your "experiment" is tainted.[/quote]

True, but the idea is sound.

I think that HumanActions assertion that what they call a republic (which isnt the only form of republic) will eventually get the right answers is wrong because of the taint you refer to, but in some situations it might well make a better approximation of the right answer than a representative democracy with local governments that have less autonomy.

Its an evolutionary approach - multiple variations with the most effective being selected. The selection process is where the problem is in the real world, but the idea is sound.
Male 5,811
@HA: But Im not making any assumptions, Im merely pointing out the invalid assumptions of your argument. If I were to take money from personal interests that wanted me to come to specific conclusions in my research that were not supported by the data, that is worse than sloppy research, its deplorable.

Your assertion that if people dont like the laws they can leave is just argument from dismissal. Voting is how citizens exercise political power, not by running away. Having so many governments with enough power over so many issues make travelling from one state to another a huge headache due to the different restrictions in each state. Some issues are best left to the federal level so they can be easier-applied to the country as a whole. Now I realize that the political structure of the US is more geared towards state freedom, but as countries grow, the rules set forth over a hundred years ago might need to be changed.
Male 2,357
@Angilion: I know you have no vested interest, but you should read the US Constitution some day (if you havent already). It states the very few responsibilities of the federal government and then clearly explains that all other responsibilites fall to the states.

Yet here we are today. Somehow we have become a socialized, interventionist society with no more than a thread of the republic remaining. The Constitution never allowed for any of this - not even a standing army (Navy - and by extension Marine Corp are allowed).
Male 2,357
@patchgrabber: Yet you use this to attempt to completely dismiss the notion that fifty governments will find better legislation that one giant one.

Reading you statement about corruption, I am having a hard time understanding how you could then support one giant government with absolute power over fifty smaller governments? Corruption occurs due to absolute power.

With the states, if corruption occurs, the people may leave to another state. Therefore, the individual state has a motivation to stay honest (if people leave, tax revenues fall). However, people are much less apt to leave their country. If the federal government goes corrupt, what can be done?
Male 12,365
[quote]The point being made is that the states have the Constitutional right to limit our individual liberties as they see fit. The federal government doesnt.

Please read my post to patchgrabber about "50 little experiments in democracy" (I wrote it after your last comment). With a republic, we would eventually see the best answers.[/quote]

Thats an interesting and internally consistent argument. Its also the best succinct explanation of an idealised distinction between state and national government in the USA that Ive read. I expect that the reality is rather less clear, but its an interesting idea that I would agree with. It wouldnt be practical here (the country is too small), but you make a good case for it in the USA.
Male 5,811
[quote]With a republic, we would eventually see the best answers.[/quote]
This is assuming the pure intentions of those making the laws, which is a naive assumption. Politicians, be they state or federal, serve their own interests and the interests of those who give them money. Corruption is inherent in the system and as such your "experiment" is tainted.
Male 12,365
Also, to clarify something:

I havent stated my position regarding to what extent the authorities should restrict private ownership of weapons.

Note how I have phrased that. I reject the simple and rather silly pretences that there are only two positions and that the only weapons that exist are guns.

I havent done so partly because I havent decided what my position is and partly because I think that its not as simple as the same restrictions being the best in all times and places.
Male 2,357
@Angilion: "Your argument is that that is liberty"

No it isnt. My argument is that this maintains I higher amount of liberty that stricter gun laws, or complete removal/ban.
Male 2,357
@Angilion: "Why is that liberty?"

I think this issue lies in how be both evaluate liberty. You seem to think of it as a black and white thing. Either it is, or it isnt.

I, however, perceive it to be a pool. We can both add to it or remove from it. Its not that some things are liberties and some arent - it is that some things more drastically decrease our liberty than others.
Male 2,357
@Angilion: "So if a state government drew the line at any position, would you still see it as being liberty?"

I think you will find this interesting - but yes. If the state says that you may not buy a nuclear weapon, then yes, your liberty has been limited. Before that point, you were free to buy a nuclear weapon, now you are not. Therefore, you liberty has been diminished.

The point being made is that the states have the Constitutional right to limit our individual liberties as they see fit. The federal government doesnt.

Please read my post to patchgrabber about "50 little experiments in democracy" (I wrote it after your last comment). With a republic, we would eventually see the best answers.
Male 12,365
[quote]No I wasnt.[/quote]

Yes, you were (and are).

Youre advocating a lesser degree of restriction on gun ownership. Your argument is that that is liberty.

Youre not advocating no restrictions on weapon ownership. Youre not even advocating no restrictions on gun ownership. Youre advocating a lesser degree of restriction on gun ownership and youre calling that liberty.

Why is that liberty?
Male 2,357
@piperfawn: Still here old man =).

@patchgrabber: "This makes little sense"

Yes it does. This is how a republic works, and we are a republic. The idea behind a republic is quite fascinating actually. You see, with 50 little experiments in democracy, we will yield better ideas that one massive one. The idea here is that, if certain gun laws lower crime, then some states will create those laws. Crime will drop drastically, and other states will see this success (and follow suit). If the federal government imposes such rules, then there is no experiment at hand.
Male 12,365
[quote]"It also appears oddly undefined. You accept some restrictions on gun ownership but not others - how do you differentiate between which restrictions are part of liberty and which will destroy it?"

It ends via the agent implementing the changes. The state government has the power to do so - the federal government does not.[/quote]

Ah, I see. Its not about the restrictions, its about which level of government decides what the restrictions are.

So if a state government drew the line at any position, would you still see it as being liberty?

Bear in mind that even if you for some reason ignore all weapons other than firearms, youre still left with a very wide range on the spectrum of restrictions, from total ban to no restrictions, e.g. heavy machine guns firing radioactive incendiary bullets legally being sold to children.
Male 2,357
@Angilion: "Youre basing your argument pretty much solely on the *assumption* that a lesser degree of restriction on gun ownership is liberty"

No I wasnt. You will see that I have been under the impression this entire time that you were supporting gun removal.
Male 5,811
[quote]I am fine with each state imposing the restrictions they see fit. I am completely against any federal restrictions though.[/quote]
This makes little sense. You say that politicians and government are idiots and that you should be responsible for yourself, yet youre fine with one level of government and not the other? What if your state imposed a mandatory exercise regimen for its constituents, would that be ok? Is Bloombergs soda ban ok with you too or is that another level of government you dont agree with?

Also Im not arguing for gun removal, because that just cannot be enforced. I am in favour of tighter restrictions though.
Male 5,141
HumanAction "I hope you do" still losing stamina? Poor boy, maybe that last can of soda you shoot was a though guy.
Male 12,365
[quote]Still not an answer as to why crime is higher in the gun free zone.[/quote]

There are 1.8M licensed guns in the UK.

Where is this "gun free zone" youre referring to? When you made your risible statement of your own delusional ignorance, you referred to the UK. Now youre referring to an undefined "gun free zone".

Shall I quote your original statement so that more people can laugh at how silly it was?
Male 5,141
McGovern1981 i have some but i think you are not able to read italian.
Male 2,357
@piperfawn: "(I will allways associate this immage to you..pfff...hahah)"

I hope you do =).

@MattPrice: "Sounds like these shooters may have been living the pro-gun dream, using their right to bear arms in a (short lived) stand against their own government. An oppressive regime that threatens to inhibit their liberty (to shoot people they dislike)."

Do you honestly believe this?

@Angillion: "It also appears oddly undefined. You accept some restrictions on gun ownership but not others - how do you differentiate between which restrictions are part of liberty and which will destroy it?"

It ends via the agent implementing the changes. The state government has the power to do so - the federal government does not.
Male 2,357
@Angilion: It is not often I find someone who disagrees with me and does it well. Its very entertaining (in a good way). I apologize about confusing your stance (firearm restriction) with that of patchgrabber (firearm removal) - it is difficult to keep such similar arguments apart.

That being said, please allow me to clarify my position. I am against gun restriction and removal, though, I believe the states have the right to do as they please. I wouldnt personally be happy if it happened in my state, but this is the way a republic works. I am completely opposed to restriction from the federal government.

I do believe that there are many other uses for firearms than killing humans. Afterall, how many guns are owned in the US and how many have been used to kill a human? Relatively few.

Also, tea is delicious. I drink it every day. I wish I could find a local grower though.
Male 14,331
@Angilion

Still not an answer as to why crime is higher in the gun free zone.

@piperfawn

So your agents do I follow the stench of garlic till I find the grease trail??? Also waiting for the evidence of your "oppression."

Male 12,365
[quote]My argument still remains that we should not sacrifice the liberties of all due to some outliers. The "cons" associated with increased gun availability are slight in comparison to the "pro" of liberty.[/quote]

Why is a lesser degree of restriction on gun ownership "liberty" and and lesser degree of restriction on other weapons not "liberty"?

Youre basing your argument pretty much solely on the *assumption* that a lesser degree of restriction on gun ownership is liberty (since youve had to drop the claim that it reduces violent crime because youve no evidence to support that claim).

Your argument appears to be circular and unsupported - an increase in restrictions on guns will end liberty because it will.

It also appears oddly undefined. You accept some restrictions on gun ownership but not others - how do you differentiate between which restrictions are part of liberty and which will destroy it?
Male 5,141
HumanAction i post this photo so maybe you stop a while to talk about your "presumed" perfection and go to masturbate a bit leaving some fresh air for us

(I will allways associate this immage to you..pfff...hahah)
Male 2,220
Sounds like these shooters may have been living the pro-gun dream, using their right to bear arms in a (short lived) stand against their own government. An oppressive regime that threatens to inhibit their liberty (to shoot people they dislike).
Male 12,365
[quote]So you have no good argument you tea swilling pussy?[/quote]

Thanks for the laugh. You make an excellent court fool.
Male 5,141
McGovern1981 JERSEY SHORE CAST is a product of YOUR society, you can travel all around the Italy and you will never find someone similar to people in JS. So pls dont try to be offensive if you are not able to arrive at a point.
Male 2,357
@piperfawn: "try to go down 50 steps"

If I climb down 50 steps, then I will still be many more above you my Italian friend. Because you believe something, this does not make it a global truth.
Male 12,365
[quote]This entire time Ive been arguing against the complete removal/ban of firearms.[/quote]

Which is one place to draw the line.

My point was that there arent just two places (utter ban on guns or no restrictions on guns), but a wide spectrum of restrictions on weapons in general, of which guns are just one example.

Is there anywhere that does have a complete ban on firearms?

Im sure some people will think that the UK does. It doesnt. There are ~1.8 million licensed firearms in the UK.
Male 14,331
[quote]McGovern1981 If the people you speak of didnt elect Bush we wouldve never been there. Zing! [/quote]

I never knew we had greaseball secret agents among us? OMG THE JERSEY SHORE CAST ARE AGENTS SENT TO DESTROY OUR FUTURE!!
Male 2,357
@Angilion: Perhaps my statement was a bit overly dismissive. As for a weakening of my position - this has only occurred because I have been baited into straying from my true argument.

My argument still remains that we should not sacrifice the liberties of all due to some outliers. The "cons" associated with increased gun availability are slight in comparison to the "pro" of liberty.
Male 5,141
HumanAction what you belive is not allways the truth, try to go down 50 steps(the place where you actualy really are), also if your ego tend to uber evaluate yourself this dont mean that others agreed with your omnipotence delirium.
Male 5,141
McGovern1981 If the people you speak of didnt elect Bush we wouldve never been there. Zing!
Male 12,365
[quote]Most everything can be made to be a weapon by some creative mind - so what can we possibly hope to gain by removing guns?[/quote]

Lots of peoples lives.

Most objects can be used as a weapon by a person who wants to do so. Humans are highly inventive, intelligent and orientated towards tool use.

Few objects can be used as a weapon anywhere near as effectively as a gun, an object designed by those highly inventive, intelligent, tool-using minds for the sole purpose of multiple killing as quickly as possible.

You weaken your position by associating it with such silly comparisons.
Male 2,357
@Angillion: "So its a matter of how much the authorities should restrict weapon ownership and distribution, not whether or not they should be allowed to do so."

Oh - OK. This entire time Ive been arguing against the complete removal/ban of firearms. In that case, I am fine with each state imposing the restrictions they see fit. I am completely against any federal restrictions though.
Male 12,365
I think its worth pointing out that were not talking about just two discrete positions here, although its easy to make it seem that way.

What were really talking about is where to draw the line on a wide spectrum, not a simple choice between one of two discrete and opposing positions.

Were all in favour of restrictions on weapon ownership. Nobody is suggesting, for example, that it would be reasonable for biological and chemical weapons to be sold to children by anyone who wants to do so. Whod want to see weaponised anthrax for sale at Walmart or Disneyland, or wherever?

So its a matter of how much the authorities should restrict weapon ownership and distribution, not whether or not they should be allowed to do so.

Here in the UK, I could legally buy a ranged (~400 yards) deadly weapon right now. No licence, no ID, no registration, nothing. Walk in, pay cash, walk out with it (or buy it online).
Male 14,331
@piperfawn

Youve yet to show any actual evidence of the CIA keeping you so oppressed. If the people you speak of didnt elect Mussolini and ally with Hitler we wouldve never been there.
Male 2,357
@piperfawn: I believe Ive embarassed you enough - wouldnt you agree? Are you really sure you want another go at it?
Male 2,357
@Angillion: "Speed alone is *very* rarely the cause."

Speed is almost always cited in fatal accidents. Excessive speed is driver error.

The example is purposefully extreme to demonstrate that we inherently only look after the liberties that directly affect us while neglecting those that do not.

The healthcare example would not cripple society - actually, it would almost certainly strengthen society and release much of the burden of public healthcare. Why then is that an pear whilst fireams are apples?
Male 5,141
HumanAction "There are legitimate reasons to own weapons".
First of all watermelons massacre...pffff hahaha!
Male 2,357
@patchgrabber:

"I dont buy it"
Meh, you dont have to buy it. I made no incorrect statements - only misleading ones. You are free to interpret my intentions in doing so freely.

"Hundreds of innocent bystander deaths each year?"
At the cost of a loss of liberty for hundreds of millions - permanently.
Male 14,331
@Angilion

So you have no good argument you tea swilling pussy?

Heart diseases is the first worlds number one killer.

If you want the government to put you in a bubble and dictate your lives for your "saftey" why dont you ban allk unhealthy food and eat just tofu? See how that works out.
Male 12,365
[quote]Im not sure of the exact numbers but I doubt speed alone is usually the cause of most vehicular deaths.[/quote]

Speed alone is *very* rarely the cause. Speed is rarely determined to be a factor at all in investigations into accidents (fatal or not).

The biggest factor, unsurprisingly, is driver error.

But the comparison would still be inappropriate even if a 20mph speed limit would save many lives.

A 20mph speed limit on vehicles would destroy a modern civilisation.

More restrictions on private ownership of very dangerous weapons would not.

The "guns and cars" comparison is ludicrous. It makes comparing apples and pears seem very reasonable. At least theyre both types of fruit, so there are legitimate similarities to base a comparison on.
Male 5,141
"when Stalin was in power would you have rather we left you for him?"
I think that we as a democratic state prefere to make our own decision without the interference of a foreign country. If we had chose to follow Russia that would be "OUR" decision. We are talking about freedom in this post right?
Male 5,811
[quote]so what can we possibly hope to gain by removing guns?[/quote]
Hundreds of innocent bystander deaths each year?
Male 5,811
[quote]Ive justified this with patchgrabber as a means to slim the argument to those capable of an actual debate. [/quote]
I dont buy it. Directly making incorrect or misleading assertions not only discredits every potential argument you make however valid it may be, but also reduces your personal credibility. Occams razor would suggest you made a mistake or were just wrong.
Male 12,365
[quote]I said Sweden where guns are legal has a lower crime rate then the UK. You proceded to insult my intelligence. Bad argument Id expect nothing less from a brainwashed peon who supports a queen...[/quote]

Feel free to continue to express your ignorance and silly prejudices and please continue lying about what youre written.

The more you do it, the more people will laugh at you.

There are three possible explanations for your statement:

1) Monumental stupidity.
2) Delusion, probably rooted in irrational prejudices.
3) Trolling.

It doesnt really matter which one or more of those reasons applies to you, but at least one of them does.
Male 2,357
@Angilion: Whew, getting hard to keep up with the thread.

"By dissuade an attack, what you actually mean is make a convincing threat to kill."

That is exactly what I meant. This is a useful purpose of a gun (just one example mind you).

"Its possible for humans, being inventive animals, to use almost any object for something other than what it was designed to do"

Exactly the point. Most everything can be made to be a weapon by some creative mind - so what can we possibly hope to gain by removing guns?
Male 14,331
[quote]Guns are weapons designed to kill as efficiently as possible[/quote]

Ever heard of sport shooting or just recreational shooting? Beside the whole protection thing human or not try to scare a pissed off bear away with happy thoughts.
Male 2,357
@patchgrabber

"I just dont think innocent bystanders would share your praise of their sacrifice"

We cant save everyone though. Certainly some will be wronged by other individuals, but that (to me) is still preferred to having individuals wronged by the government.

"This argument fails if everyone has a gun"

Eh, it was taken a bit out of context. The point was that we are all inherently disadvantaged against someone else out there were there to be a fight. A gun instantly levels the playing field regardless of the players. Another example of proper use of a weapon is varmint control.

"A person is smart (theoretically); PEOPLE are stupid"

I agree. By extension, a government of people are stupid, so such simple decisions are best left to the individual.
Male 12,365
[quote]Also, guns do have legitimate purposes other than killing things. They can be used properly to dissuade an attack.[/quote]

Which is possible because guns are designed as efficiently as possible with the sole purpose of killing things.

By "dissuade an attack", what you actually mean is "make a convincing threat to kill". Thats what the gun does in that scenario. Youre not using the gun for anything other than killing things. You are not using the gun - you are *threatening* to use the gun.

Its possible for humans, being inventive animals, to use almost any object for something other than what it was designed to do. So you could, for example, use a gun as a club. Or a paperweight. Or a lever. Or a means of competition (target shooting). None of that changes the purpose of a gun.
Male 14,331
@Angilion

I said Sweden where guns are legal has a lower crime rate then the UK. You proceded to insult my intelligence. Bad argument Id expect nothing less from a brainwashed peon who supports a queen...

@piper
[quote]McGovern1981 Operation Gladio last till 1990[/quote]
Oh hey look right about the time the Soviet Union failed. That was the purpose of the operation which started after WW2 when Stalin was in power would you have rather we left you for him? After he die it continued because it was against communisum which this operation was supported by NATO something youre a member of I see you fail to see that.

@patch
[quote]unless you count Mexico, but most of their guns are supplied by your country anyway.[/quote]
Yes, by our politicians who if werent caught wouldve use it to promote an anti gun agenda. See how much sense that make? BTW the mafia has full autos there too something thats not coming from here.
Male 5,811
[quote]To deny that reducing the speed limit to 20 MPH would save lives is as foolish as claiming that increasing gun saturation would result in less gun violence.[/quote]
Im not making such a claim, but speed limits are not arbitrary, they are based on studies and safety guidelines. Again I come back to purpose, and the main purpose of a gun is to kill things.
Male 2,357
@Angilion: Indeed, I certainly implied that as one of the pros/benefits. Ive justified this with patchgrabber as a means to slim the argument to those capable of an actual debate.

I believe if you go back, you will see that the "pro" I have most strongly supported during the entire time here has been an increase of liberty.

Good catch though; I was wondering how long until someone called me out on that.
Male 5,811
[quote]Well there is certainly no need to be rude here; we were doing so well[/quote]
Wasnt meant to be rude, I just dont think innocent bystanders would share your praise of their sacrifice.

[quote]They can be used properly to dissuade an attack.[/quote]
This argument fails if everyone has a gun, and one could argue that the presence of a gun actually escalates the possibility of violence, people arent always rational.

[quote]When the government creates a law, they are essentially suggesting that you are too stupid to figure this out for yourself.[/quote]
Ah, but here is the problem. A person is smart (theoretically); PEOPLE are stupid. If a politician were governing one person a piece Im sure it would be much easier. This is also why you have governments in the first place: to run the country and protect their citizens, even from yourselves.
Male 12,365
[quote]It would be very interesting to see a uniform analysis on violent crimes taken in regard to population density across several nations. I would anticipate similar rates regardless of the nation.[/quote]

So why have you claimed that widespread gun ownership with little control reduces violent crime rates?

That was the benefit you cited as being worth the 10,000 lives per year, in your "pros and cons" argument.

I wouldnt expect to see similar rates regardless of the nation if the only thing you were accounting for was population density, even assuming a completely unrealistic ideal case in which (a) the same definition of "violent crime" was used for all countries and (b) reporting rates were the same.

There are many other factors, e.g. living conditions, religions, criminal gangs, degree of effectiveness of law enforcement. Perhaps mostly importantly and probably least quantifiably, the amount of hope people have.
Male 2,357
@patchgrabber: To deny that reducing the speed limit to 20 MPH would save lives is as foolish as claiming that increasing gun saturation would result in less gun violence.
Male 2,357
@patchgrabber: "Im surprised someone who praises personal liberty so highly values life so little."

Well there is certainly no need to be rude here; we were doing so well. It is not that I devalue life - certainly any unjust loss of life is a tragedy. I absolutely wish that people would stop killing each other.

That being said, I hyper-value liberty. When the government creates a law, they are essentially suggesting that you are too stupid to figure this out for yourself. I have yet to meet a politician Ive deemed wiser than myself.

Also, guns do have legitimate purposes other than killing things. They can be used properly to dissuade an attack. I am 62", roughly 200lbs. There are men much larger than I that could kill me quickly with their bare hands. If I had a gun with me, then that instantly levels the playing field. Think of the women.
Male 5,811
Edit: to address your example of a 20mph speed limit, Im not sure of the exact numbers but I doubt speed alone is usually the cause of most vehicular deaths.
Male 5,811
[quote]Why then do we treat guns differently? [/quote]
Because cars have other uses besides killing things, and these uses far outweigh the deaths caused as a result of their use (i.e. without cars the economy would collapse, not the same with guns). Likewise, the use of fast food alone does not kill people, but neglect of things like exercise and other proper foods can contribute to it. I eat fast food and consider myself fairly healthy. Im surprised someone who praises personal liberty so highly values life so little.
Male 12,365
[quote]
piperfawn-"10.000 deaths for firearms a year...hmm yes they are few you are right."

And there are 1,700,000 deaths a year due to traffic accidents, yet we think the automobile is a great thing.

Whats your point?[/quote]

So why are the official figures for the USA about 35,000?

Are you arguing that the authorities in the USA somehow manage to conceal 98% of all deaths in traffic accidents? Thats not a plausible argument. Even a devout conspiracy believer would have trouble believing that one.

Vehicles are tools essential for modern civilisation and designed to be as safe as possible.

Guns are weapons designed to kill as efficiently as possible, usually very specifically to make multiple kills in a very short space of time.

Comparing the two is still silly even without multiplying one number by ~50 to make a ridiculous "comparison".
Male 2,357
@patchgrabber: I actually consider my view to be the most moral. To me, it would be immoral for the government to justify banning firearms. I agree that the US is the leading industrialized nation in firearm-related deaths (I dont count Mexico... who does?). I just find it to be an acceptable compromise for that liberty.

Consider this - would it be OK for the government to force us not to eat fast food and force us to exercise vigorously 5 days a week 60-90 minutes a day? Surely this would lower the death count drastically more than removing firearms. Or, would it be OK for the government to impose a nationwide speed limit of 20 MPH? Surely this would also save countless lives.

Obviously these are both wrong and are massive infringements on our liberties. Why then do we treat guns differently? There are legitimate reasons to own weapons, just as there are cars.
Male 12,365
[quote]So when the know it all has no argument you result to insults of intellect. You have no rebuttal do you.[/quote]

I asked if you were stupid enough to believe that the ludicrous and spectacularly ignorant statement you made was a rational argument.

Apparently you are that stupid. Or maybe deluded. A person of normal intelligence can believe an obviously ridiculous assumption if theyre insane.

So youre stupid or insane. Regardless of the reason, your statement was gibberish devoid of rational content. Which is par for the course for you.

In order for me to make a rebuttal, youd have to post something with some sort of rational content.
Male 5,811
[quote]If Country A makes it legal to carry machetes around and Country B makes it illegal, then it should be common sense that Country A will see more machete misuse, right?[/quote]
Of course, sound logic. However, youre ignoring moral implications. Just because there are more as a result of more guns doesnt make it OK. Also, the US is the top industrialized nation on that list, unless you count Mexico, but most of their guns are supplied by your country anyway. Youve said that as a country you accept the collateral damage of guns to preserve your freedom to carry them. I just dont see how a gun on your hip justifies all that innocent life lost.
Male 2,357
Ive argued it many times before that there are many of us that value individual liberties as the most sacred of virtues - even moreso than life itself. We should not punish the masses for the poor decisions and actions of so few. In addition, we should we wary of proactively attacking the problem in order to prevent tragedy.

I believe it was this line of thought that put us in Iraq, and has many worried about possible strikes against Iran.
Male 2,357
@patchgrabber: "Id be more interested in stats detailing how many innocent bystanders are killed by guns each year. Too bad their deaths are just lumped in with gun deaths."

This is a bit dated (2004-2006 for the US), but it seperates firearm-related deaths into Homicides, Suicides, and Unintentional Deaths. This US is at #12 overall.

What is the point of this stat though? Certainly it should surprise nobody that, as firearm saturation increases, firearm misuse increases as well - or does it actually surprise people?

If Country A makes it legal to carry machetes around and Country B makes it illegal, then it should be common sense that Country A will see more machete misuse, right?
Male 5,811
[quote]It would be very interesting to see a uniform analysis on violent crimes taken in regard to population density across several nations. I would anticipate similar rates regardless of the nation. [/quote]
Id be more interested in stats detailing how many innocent bystanders are killed by guns each year. Too bad their deaths are just lumped in with "gun deaths."
Male 5,141
McGovern1981 Operation Gladio last till 1990, Stalin was allready dead from long time. Your drating CIA have done lot of dirty job directly interfering on our democratic country for long time and i think is still doing something. For 40 years your rats have interfered on the sovereign italian people democracy. And this is really bad also if seem minor in front of what your country have done in South America.
Male 133
"The role of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) in sponsoring Gladio and the extent of its activities during the Cold War era, and its relationship to right-wing terrorist attacks perpetrated in Italy during the "Years of Lead" (late 1960s to early 1980s) and other similar clandestine operations is the subject of ongoing debate and investigation."

It was after WW2 we couldve let Stalin have you it not like he killed millions upon millions of people..... oh whoops wait he did.
this is a simplicistic reasoning.
Male 14,331
@umanAction

YOU MEANZ DEY ISNT STANDARD AMERUICUN ISSUED?!?!

@Vimto

Training is helpful and all but it wont be beter then someone whos grown up shooting. Ask a drill Sgt alot of those "rednecks" as you call them didnt need an ounce of gun training and could hit anything some even from the hip. Source my grandfather.
Male 14,331
@Bantangoo

That involves NATO which more than likely means it also include your home country. It was after WW2 we couldve let Stalin have you it not like he killed millions upon millions of people..... oh whoops wait he did.
Male 133
Male 2,357
@patchgrabber: Im actually fairly certain that it is relatively consistent between the two. I would expect to see higher rates in areas with higher population density (Chicago, NYC, Toronto) and lower rates in low population density areas.

It would be very interesting to see a uniform analysis on violent crimes taken in regard to population density across several nations. I would anticipate similar rates regardless of the nation.

@Vimto: "We dont give guns to people who arent trained to use them, they tend to do stupid things."

Neither do we; they must purchase the gun. It would be incredibly silly to just give everyone a gun... wouldnt you agree? 8-)

When you make a loaded statement like that, I will always attack it from the most ridiculous point I can find =).
Male 5,811
@HA: Level 1 is assault not using a weapon and not resulting in serious bodily harm. Things like "Uttering threats" also isnt counted by the FBI, as well as other things. Like you said, the lines are a little blurry for what each offence constitutes, but Im reasonably sure that the US has more violent crime per capita than Canada.
Male 2,861
"Ok well continue to save your ass the next time you get taken over cause you cant shoot a gun for s**t."

Actually our military shoot very well. Theyre trained to. We dont give guns to people who arent trained to use them, they tend to do stupid things.
Male 4,844
This is so sad. The Indian religion Sikhism is about doing good deeds in this life in order to ensure a place with God in the afterlife. An example of their loving religion is how they treat women - as equals.

The shooter was so blinded by hate he couldnt tell one religion from another. Because of their headgear he thought he was shooting Muslims. Was he stupid because he hates or does he hate because he is stupid?
Male 133
@HumanAction: ops, I misunderstood

@McGover.: ok, you are the cops (and the billybutton) of the world, are you happy now?
Male 14,331
@HumanAction

Thats me hes whining to. They would then of course find something wrong with that to complain about.

@Bantangoo

Perhaps if you did a beter job yourselfs we wouldnt get stuck policing the world. The CIA does not control you.
Male 2,357
@Bantangoo: I think youre seeing me as being offensive towards you and Im not sure why; I am agreeing with you. I also wish that we would remove our bases, foreign aid, and influence around the world. Why are you upset?

@patchgrabber: Like Ive said, we would need to look into the legal definitions. From all indications, the US treats "aggravated assault" as a grouping of both aggravated assault, and assault level 2 in Canada (not sure what level 1 is yet)... The lines may be blurred in many other places as well.
Male 5,811
After taking out crimes not included in your countrys violent crime stats our number is around 315/100k.
Male 133
Male 133
i didnt talking about wwi or wwii
i am talking about your base and the control of cia upon our countries

you dont save our ass, you make our interests
Male 14,331
@HumanAction

You seem to think they wouldnt whine about that too.

@Bantangoo

Can do next time well let you be bombed to nothing. Enjoy!!
Male 2,357
@patchgrabber: Thats fair enough; we would need to delve into the laws themselves to make an truely honest comparison (aggravated assault may not be the same exact thing between our two countries). Unfortunately the most concrete of stats (homicides) only shows the worst about guns.

That being said, Ill still use this stat (theres one for Britain too) to dismiss the statistics thrown about by lesser liberals.

@Bantangoo: "Please, no, we dont need another meddling from you."

Oh how I too wish we would mind our own business. There is a line of thought that suggests that, had it not been for Wilson entering WWI, then WWII may never have begun. WWI would have ended as a stalemate without US intervention. Thus, the Treaty of Versailles would not have been so one-sided, and thus, Hitler may never have come to power.

I wish we wouldnt meddle just as you wish.
Male 5,811
The FBI only includes four main offences in the violent crime index – homicide, forcible
rape, robbery, and aggravated assault. Simple assault is the number one contributor to our violent crime rate.
Male 133
"Ok well continue to save your ass the next time you get taken over cause you cant shoot a gun for s**t."

Please, no, we dont need another meddling from you.
Male 5,811
However, the stats are still misleading, as the reported US violent crime rate includes only aggravated assault, whereas the Canadian violent crime rate includes all categories of assault, including the more numerous assault level 1. A government study showed that the comparison of violent crime rates between our two countries is "inappropriate" (Source: http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/ 85f0035x/85f0035x2001000-eng.pdf)
Male 2,357
No worries - made me even go back and double-check.
Male 5,811
Ok I was wrong. My bad.
Male 2,357
@patchgrabber: If we are to include the theft youve listed, as well as the other property crimes, then the stat rises to 4751/100k.

Stop misrepresenting the stats.
Male 2,357
@patchgrabber: "Youre also lumping in stuff like "Theft under $5000" which alone is 497/100k Stop misrepresenting the statistics." Seems youve misread the stats. The property crime youve listed is not included in my stat. Please reread it and then get back to me. The stat includes: Homicide; Attempted Murder; Sexual Assault; Assault; Firearms; Robbery; Kidnapping; Extortion; Harassment; and Threats. "Could just have easily have been said by someone killed by a gun (although not literally because that person would be dead)." The issue is the perpetrator. Your implication allows the government to limit liberty. Your example only shows one individual wronging another. Male 14,331 Male 5,811 [quote]But another persons freedom does not include taking mine away.[/quote] Could just have easily have been said by someone killed by a gun (although not literally because that person would be dead). Male 5,811 [quote]@piperfawn: Yes, lovely - though I believe weve addressed this already. Since you care so much for recent statistics, allow me to share these: Canada Total Violent Crime Rate - 1,231/100k US Total Violent Crime Rate - 403.6/100k Like Ive said - Pros and cons.[/quote] Here we are again, but again you cant seem to read the stats correctly. Take another look at your Canada crime link: The "violent" crime rate is only 424.4/100k. Youre also lumping in stuff like "Theft under$5000" which alone is 497/100k Stop misrepresenting the statistics.
Male 14,331
Now lets piss off the hippies and show me your guns!!

Male 14,331
What the anti gun nut like to paint as "assualt rifles" are not. Assualt rifles are automatic citizens cant own automatics unless theyre well off it costs a fortune and you need to go through all sorts of licensing.

[quote]ok, america, continue to kill yourself[/quote]

Ok well continue to save your ass the next time you get taken over cause you cant shoot a gun for s**t.
Male 2,357
@SpermNinja81: "What I cant understand is the need that the average U.S. citizen would have for an automatic assault rifle or machine pistol"

This is where I think much of the confusion lies. The average American can have neither of these things. Our "assualt rifles" are simply semi-automatic rifles that have aesthetic modifications to them. We cannot own fully automatic weapons, nor may we own burst weapons.
Male 1,526
Staged shootings in order to take your guns away.
Male 6,227
@Ollie: "...unless, of course, youre a liberal, in which case theres no telling you anything that conflicts with your idiotic preconceived bigoted anti-constitutional opinions."

Way to encourage the other side to discuss topics with you, Ollie! =^.^=
Male 6,227
Omigosh! I just noticed that *I* just passed 2000 posts. And I didnt even notice it.

First the odometer at 100,000 miles and now this. Grrrrrr!
Male 6,227
Congratulations on 2000 posts, Piperfawn! =^.^=
Male 459
Rifles or shotguns for hunting, I can understand. Pistols for target shooting or self protection too. What I cant understand is the need that the average U.S. citizen would have for an automatic assault rifle or machine pistol, those things are specifically designed to cause maximum possible death /injury to HUMAN life. Australia banned even semi-automatic/self loaders after the Port Arthur Massacre and Ive never personally met a gun enthusiast here who feels that it detracts from the experience of hunting.
Male 133
ok, america, continue to kill yourself
Male 15,832
[quote]Are these really isolated incidents going on or is someone REALLY lobbying for gun control / disarmament?[/quote]
I think these incidents are isolated nutcases. However, hundreds of Mexicans have been killed with guns furnished by our government in Operation Fast and Furious, and that absolutely WAS an effort to promote gun control. Eric Holder wanted to create as much violence, murder, and mayhem as possible and have it all traced back to guns from the US. Then the libs could all stand up and scream, "See? See? This is why we need to abolish private gun ownership in the US!"

After Romney wins, he should have Holder extradited to Mexico to stand trial for about 200 counts of conspiracy to commit 1st-degree murder. Hopefully he can then live out the rest of his miserable live in a stinking \$#!+hole of a Mexican prison.
Male 15,832
The US courts have ruled many times that the police have absolutely no obligation whatsoever to protect you; they are only obligated to catch criminals AFTER a crime has been committed. The 2nd amendment gives you the right to protect yourself. If you do not avail yourself of that right, do not expect others to do it for you.

The reason this person was able to kill and injure as many people as he did was because he was the ONLY one there who had a gun, AND HE KNEW IT! Since WW II, there have been 59 multiple-victim public shootings in the US, and 58 of them have occurred in so-called "gun-free zones." That should tell you something (unless, of course, youre a liberal, in which case theres no telling you anything that conflicts with your idiotic preconceived bigoted anti-constitutional opinions).
Male 795
Are these really isolated incidents going on or is someone REALLY lobbying for gun control / disarmament??
Male 2,384
and people ask me why im atheist
Male 2,357
@piperfawn: "Now excuse me "sirs" but here is late and i need some rest. Tomorrow i think i will have some more important things to do instead to shoot watermelons and cans of sodas. I leave you in your magnificence, now you can raise your level."

No worries "friend", as I am to go bicycling while the day is still young. I will also be invested in more important matters tomorrow (watermelons rejoice); Ill be working - its this thing I do with most of my time. Probably not trendy or "cool" according to piperfawn, but hey, it is what it is. Either way, Ill keep an eye out for you as I found dismantling you most entertaining =).
Male 2,357
@piperfawn: Oy vey... Obviously MeGrendel was not suggesting that either car accident-related deaths nor firearm-related deaths are good things. Nor has he suggested that one forgives the other.

The point was that offering a statistic on the number of related deaths does little for the argument. There are many other things that kill far more people in the US and around the world than guns, yet we are stunningly focused on removing guns, as if this will significantly impact death rates.

Improving the overall health of society will certainly lower total deaths to a greater extent than reducing guns. So what then, shall we force citizens to pay a 50% tax on fast food and shall we force citizens to exercise vigorously 60-90 minutes 5 days a week? Certainly these would help, but do they allow liberty to prosper? No... neither does removing guns.
Male 5,141
Now excuse me "sirs" but here is late and i need some rest. Tomorrow i think i will have some more important things to do instead to shoot watermelons and cans of sodas. I leave you in your magnificence, now you can raise your level.
Male 5,141
MeGrendel ohh great so cause we have lot of cars accidents why dont add also 10.000 guns murders? Seem a great and intelligent idea!

look how smart i am!
Male 2,357
@piperfawn: "i simply dont think that not owning a weapon degrade my freedom"

Well it doesnt. If you CHOOSE not to own a weapon, then that is absolutely your choice. If you do not have the freedom to own a weapon, then that liberty has been taken from you.
Male 5,141
HumanAction i totaly can own a weapon if i want, i have all the requisites necessary and the law here allow me to buy a weapon if i want, im jelous of no one and i simply dont think that not owning a weapon degrade my freedom.
Male 8,415
piperfawn-"10.000 deaths for firearms a year...hmm yes they are few you are right."

And there are 1,700,000 deaths a year due to traffic accidents, yet we think the automobile is a great thing.

Whats your point?

Rate of posting, maybe, cuz answers is one thing you aint got.

BTW, Congratulations, a new record. 2,000 post and not a coherent thought amongst them. (Usually people have a fact, or insight, or somesort of meaningful idea based just on the laws of probability...but not you.)
Male 2,357
@piperfawn: Since weve come to the finger-pointing "better than thou" part of the argument, please allow me to be you for a moment in time.

"BAD GUNS! BAD, Hulk Hogan, Chuck Norris, Babies! Popcorn without liberty... AWESOME! Damn Americans... so jealous. Wish I could have a gun. I cant. Then they shouldnt either!"

Youre right. This is fun =). Should we keep at this or return to the argument?
Male 5,141
HumanAction "Gnee gne gnee! Im better than you! lallalalla! The reason is mine, my arguments are better, trillilillli! I offend you talking about your whifeeee" Prrrr. Now excuse me but i have to go to massacre some watermelon to exercize my freedom." Clap...clap...clap. This is you.
My way of entertain dont involve watermelons and car hoods. I swear during my 2000 posts no melons was armed.
Male 2,357
@piperfawn: Please allow me to take a moment to congratulate you on your momentous, life-altering event. I know its been a long and hard road, but you made it. From here, the sky is the limit.

Honestly, and you have the gull to question my methods of entertainment?
Male 5,141
piperfawn

217 on front page. Ty friends of I-A-B
Male 2,357
@piperfawn: "HumanAction can you explain to me what your "stamina thing" lend intelligent thought to the conversation? Zing!"

It doesnt; I am not afraid to be at your level =). I find it most amusing to fight liberal foolishness with more foolishness.

"You need a red bull? your rate of answer is lower than mine, maybe is you that dont have enough stamina."

My content is far superior to yours. Ask your wife and she will ensure you that quality trumps quantity.
Male 5,141
oh next time answer to me in italian, lets see how much your stamina will last.
Male 2,357
@piperfawn: ""to bargain the lives of few" 10.000 deaths for firearms a year...hmm yes they are few you are right."

Yes, they are very few actually (relative the 315 million Americans).
Male 5,141
You need a red bull? your rate of answer is lower than mine, maybe is you that dont have enough stamina.
Male 5,141
HumanAction can you explain to me what your "stamina thing" lend intelligent thought to the conversation? Zing!
Male 5,141
"to bargain the lives of few" 10.000 deaths for firearms a year...hmm yes they are few you are right.
Male 2,357
@piperfawn: Running out of stamina again, eh? Lol
Male 5,141
"I also use it to MURDER watermelons - moron. It is also rather entertaining to shoot car hoods, soda cans, and other misc. things."
OMG what a sad way of entertain yourself, what a sad immage. Yepaaaa!
Male 2,357
@piperfawn: This is why nobody takes you seriously. You somehow always reach the most extreme end of the spectrum regardless of the argument at hand.

Clearly I am not arguing that running amuk shooting each other is a good thing - duh. Doesnt take Einstein to figure that one out (well, maybe it does if you are any indication).

Instead, my point is that we are willing to bargain the lives of few to ensure the liberties of many. You wish to be a tyrant, and I hope some day that you are governed by one. We should not punish everyone for the misdeeds of so few.
Male 8,415
lostinkorea-"What the hell is the answer?"

Make murder illegal.
Male 8,415
piperfawn-"your freedom end where the freedom of another person start."

But another persons freedom does not include taking mine away.

piperfawn-"without interfering with the others desire to do as they please."

Well, my carrying a gun in no way interferes with others doing what they please (unless, of course, they please to do me harm).

piperfawn-"a firearm give much more possibility and the easiest way to satisfy your desire to kill someone"

Actually, I can think of easier and/or more sure ways.

Male 8,415

Thanks for demonstrating just how ignorant you are.

piperfawn-"are data of "death by murder" and not "death by firearm""

Yes, because being dead by knife is so much more pleasant than being dead by gunfire.

piperfawn-"236 years ago didnt exist submachines guns, sniper rifles,"

Been around for 600+ years

Been around for 420+ years.

Youre really not very good at this, are you?
Male 5,141
HumanAction and your agenda is " Wow so cool, we can kill eachothers with massacres just for the sake of "freedom" drat Yeah! We are the best bang! bang! bang! Yeppy Khaa yeee!Oh shix someone just kill my son, but nevermind he is espendable for our freedom." Right?
Go on, go on we are just waiting.
Male 2,357
@piperfawn: Enjoy your show =); its been happening for quite a long time now so you may have some catching up to do. No worries though - all implications are that we will be around for a very long time yet.

@Simbosan: Please define an "assault rifle". I have an AR-15; is that an assault rifle? If so, I also use it to MURDER watermelons - moron. It is also rather entertaining to shoot car hoods, soda cans, and other misc. things.

Male 159
"It seems that you forget that it isnt the gun that causes the massacre - it is the person behind it."

Do people think that people with legal assault rifles dont use them to kill people? An assault rifle has one function only, killing people.

Guns dont kill people... retard
Male 5,141
HumanAction ohh you really dont get it?Is the 6 years old baby that want to fight Hulk Hogan, Chuck Norris and the strongest man in the world not the reverse.
Male 5,141
HumanAction Ohh nice so we ,out of USA, have just to wait until your people finish to realize their will of freedom so we will have a free land to move on. Go on with your massacres, meanwhile i go buy pop corns and beer to better enjoy the show. 10.000 deaths a years, will be a little long but im not in a hurry.
Male 2,357
@piperfawn: "A 6 year baby with an assault riffle in hand can easily kill Hulk Hogan, Chuck norris and the strongest man in the world just pulling a little trigger."

I believe that the more important question here is this - why are Hulk Hogan, Chuck Norris, and the strongest man in the world fighting a 6-year old?
Silly statements get silly responses.

"HumanAction what is my agenda?"
Youve implied several times now that you wish to institute harsher gun control laws.
Male 2,357

I dont worry at all. I can shoot back }-). My state is a "shall issue" state.
Male 5,141
HumanAction what is my agenda? Please resume my "ridiculous things".
Dont worry about my stamina, is better you worry about your neighbour that in the will of exercizing his "freedom" have just bought an arsenal and is planning a trip to your preferd local store.
Male 14,331
@piperfawn

Thats not necessarily a bad thing that would literally make "all men created equal." You trust government entirely to much to care about you history shows the opposite.
Male 5,141
Oh and machete fight exclude the weakest people cause in a body to body confrontation the weakests ,also if with machete, can fail. A 6 year baby with an assault riffle in hand can easily kill Hulk Hogan, Chuck norris and the strongest man in the world just pulling a little trigger.
Male 2,357
@piperfawn: "We are not gods we live inside a society"

I agree entirely. Unfortunately for those with your agenda, most people in my society still agree with me. See, it is you who is out-of-touch with American society.

When you say these ridiculous things that dont lend intelligent thought to the conversation, it merely suggests that you are running out of points to argue. Either that or you are losing stamina.
Male 5,141
"It seems that you forget that it isnt the gun that causes the massacre - it is the person behind it."
And you seem to dont understand that a firearm give much more possibility and the easiest way to satisfy your "fredom" desire to kill someone...also from long distance. A machete is allways a weapon and is controlled by a human too but to be effective you must fight grapple and you can reach just a single "freedom" kill at time.
Male 14,331
@piperfawn

When someone makes a bomb from diesel fuel or propane tanks and kills a bunch of people what will you do then? The biggest massacres that have happen didnt involve guns.
Male 5,141
HumanAction "the power to do as one pleases"...without interfering with the others desire to do as they please. This is the correct definition of freedom and liberty. We are not gods we live inside a society. If you dont understand that is better you go on an isolated mountain without contact with others humans, there you can satisfy all the desire of freedom you want.
Male 2,357
@piperfawn: "HumanAction well good luck on doing a "freedom" massacre with a musket."

There have been increasing reports of machete massacres coming out of various places in Africa. These massacres are on a much more massive scale that the recent shootings.

It seems that you forget that it isnt the gun that causes the massacre - it is the person behind it.
Male 14,331
[quote]You have the right to control YOURSELF, not others.[/quote]

Bingo!! The right to bear firearms helps keep it that way too.
Male 5,141
HumanAction well good luck on doing a "freedom" massacre with a musket. Take out the satchel with gun powder, put gun powder on the rifle, put some steel balls in the rifle, press the mixture, aim , shoot...repeat that for 30 time. You start in the morning and you finish at night, meanwhile the cinema is desert and your desire of "freedom" massacre cant be satisfied.
Male 14,331
@piperfawn
[quote]HumanAction your freedom end where the freedom of another person start. What about the freedom of people that dont want guns around? [/quote]
SO because you dont like something it should be banned LOL! When are your politicains banning fat people or ugly people? Freedom doesnt mean I dont like something ban it.
Male 2,357
@piperfawn: "What about the freedom of people that dont want guns around?"

Ahhh... but you misunderstand the meaning of the word liberty. It is commonly defined as "the power to do as one pleases".

This suggests that allowing individuals to carry weapons (affecting themselves) provides liberty. Restricting them from doing it reduces liberty. Your argument is the typical liberal argument which is fallacious when discussed as a liberty. You have the right to control YOURSELF, not others.
Male 2,357
@piperfawn: "HumanAction 236 years minus 150( less or more). 236 years ago didnt exist submachines guns, sniper rifles, grenades, assault rifles and so on."

Correct, though it takes you to 1776 (this might not mean anything to you). This is the year the Declaration of Independence was signed as is COMMONLY regarded as the year the United States was founded.

They had muskets back then. Muskets are guns - which is what I have been referencing during this entire argument (see previous posts).

Even if we did want to strictly limit the conversation to semi-automatic weapons, or even fully-automatic weapons, weve been doing pretty well over here since.
Male 5,141
HumanAction your freedom end where the freedom of another person start. What about the freedom of people that dont want guns around?
Speaking clear, weaponry in your country is a business that move lot of money. Touching that market can obstruct the river of money related to it. Is a nice thing to talk about vitues as freedom, but allow me to have some doubt about the purity of this feeling.
Male 14,331
@NOCASH

[quote]Others on here just seem to think they are the end all be all with their opinions about this topic.[/quote]

You should look at yourself.
Male 5,141
HumanAction 236 years minus 150( less or more). 236 years ago didnt exist submachines guns, sniper rifles, grenades, assault rifles and so on.
Male 14,331
@Angilion

So when the know it all has no argument you result to insults of intellect. You have no rebuttal do you. The UK has a higher crime rate then Sweden and they can own guns.
Male 2,357
@piperfawn: Though a very simplified explanation - yes. I would rather accept the associated increase in homicides than give up the liberty to make my own choices in life. There are many of us who view liberty as the most sacred of virtues - even moreso than life itself.

If the government decided that creating a national speed limit of 20 MPH would save lives (which it undoubtably would), would you be willing to sacrifice that liberty? I assume not because it is something dear to you. Similarly, uns are dear to many US citizens.

This opinion and viewpoint may seem absurd to you, but remember, your viewpoint seems absurd to me.

"Well if its like that your country dont have future, is allready dead."

Weve been doing alright for the last 236 years. Im not too worried about your prediction.
Male 5,141
HumanAction so basicaly you are sayng that your people prefere an homicide done with a gun, cause the possession of gun satisfy your desire of freedom, than a crime without firearms,that maybe dont end with a death, cause crime without firearms dont assuage your wish of freedom. Well if its like that your country dont have future, is allready dead. All you have to do is just waiting until the last two standing will shoot the last bullet.
Male 2,357
@Angilion: Unfortunately, too many people become obsessed with the notion that increasing gun quantity will result in less gun misuse. Common sense dictates that, as we increase the saturation of any item, then the incidence of misuse for that item will rise as well.

Those who argue that more guns result in lower gun-related crimes are being foolish (though there may be evidence that it results in lower total crime). The true argument here is simply that we like guns; we like being able to own and carry guns; and, we see the increased homicide rates as acceptable for that liberty.

Regarding the charts, thats a fair take on it. Unfortunately, because of the increased fatality in gun-related crime, I believe that considering homicide statistics alone will only cast a negative view of guns. There is evidence that increased gun saturation correlates with higher homicide rates, though lower total crime rates.
Male 423
HumanAction, I was referring to what McGovern had said in that paragraph not yourself, you sure your not having trouble reading? Im just poking holes at you now haha, but seriously you make valid points and I can respect that and your views. Others on here just seem to think they are the end all be all with their opinions about this topic.
Male 12,365
[quote]If gun bans worked the UK should have lower crime rates then Sweden it doesnt.[/quote]

Are you really that ignorant and stupid?

I mean, seriously, does your statement really seem rational to you?
Male 12,365
[quote]In the meantime, I shall see if I can find a violent crime rate chart for European countries.[/quote]

Its much harder than that.

Youd need to find comparisons *measured the same way and with the same definition of "violent crimes"*.

Which is impossible, since no such thing exists. In some cases, theyre not even counted the same way in all parts of the same country.

As far as I know, its impossible to have an accurate like-for-like comparison of violent crimes in different countries. The only one that it might be possible for is homicide, simply because its relatively easy to count the bodies. Even then, there are possible differences. For example, one place might include homicides ruled to be reasonable force in the overall figures and another place might not. One place might include unintentional homicides in the overall figures and another place might not. Etc.
Female 3,726
I havent read the last three pages so Im not sure what you guys are debating but really, this S-hit has got to stop! What the hell is the answer?
Male 14,331
If gun bans worked the UK should have lower crime rates then Sweden it doesnt.
Male 12,365
[quote]Basically, the "point" you make isnt a point - its acceptable collateral damage for the liberty to bear arms.[/quote]

Thats an argument I can respect because its honest. There arent many who will acknowledge that minimal gun control results in many more deaths (deliberate and accidental) while supporting it.

Im not convinced that the benefits are worth the cost in lives, but I like your honesty.

Also, I dont think that UK-style gun control is possible in the USA anyway. Different cultures, different geography. So I think its a moot point whether it would be better or worse *for the USA*. I think its better *for the UK*. Different laws may be appropriate in different places.
Male 5,141
dm2754 yes you caught me.... im from Mars. Ohh guys ty for the present you send me, i think i will use your rover landed today as a lawnmower... ;-)
Male 2,357

Your previous comment clearly lacked critical words and was therefore incomprehensible. I am fairly certain that - given the manner in which I speak and/or write - my reading ability is not at fault. Perhaps your ability to string together a sequence of sensible and meaningful words is the true culprit in our misunderstanding?

"Psychos will kill regardless, you are right."

How am I right? I never said this... My point has been, and always will be, that our culture values the government-protected individual liberties of its citizens moreso than many European countries. As a society, we have an acceptable margin-of-misuse with guns.

Ive also contended that many European countries (and Canada) have rates multiple that of the US in total violent crime. There are both pros and cons to gun rights.
Male 4,142
dont feed the trolls
we know piperfawnis lieing about being from Europe.
she\he\it has mad no real points just palying games
Male 14,331
Heres Europes sense ban guns for the protection of everyone but then procede to allow people to buy overpriced and powered sports cars to drive at dangerous speeds. Your politicians and some places royalty dont seem to have much of a problem with armed gaurds though do they?
Male 5,141
NOCASH"if these are some of the types people you send over seas to resolve conflicts its no wonder why the world thinks America is #1 (sarcasm)."
Yeeees completly right. At this point i think that USA spread war all over the world to send the lot of his crazy inhabitants out of country for a while.
Female 7,992
Okay- whilst I understand that the imposition of strict gun laws is not now possible for the US- the horse has indeed bolted, I also understand that psycho killers will happen anywhere, BUT when guns are freely avaiable it makes things like this happen far more often. to therefore suggest than gun control is bad is ridiculous- so those countries who have strict gun laws want to keep them.
Male 423
Im well aware of what happens in my own city and its tragic plain and simple, you guys still seem to have no issue trumping us with something bigger and better every time though. That shooting was believed to be gang related, people who decided to dedicate themselves to a life of poor choices and crime, your aurora incident has no real answers or clear motives yet and this recent one just seems to a misdirected hate crime. If your itching that bad to go on a muslim shooting spree at least try to actually kill some muslims.
Male 14,331
@NOCASH

Not sure where you see that I dont have much to say. Your gun laws sure did help alot of nothing for that Toronto shooting. Youd have to take off the rose colored glasses to see that though.
Male 4,142
@piperfawn
are you haveing fun TROLLING
Male 1,558
What do you expect-limitless guns,too many "differences" and the "I am right" mentality.
Male 423
I stand by my comment HumanAction, it is fairly straight forward and it would probably come as a surprise to you how many people would agree with me on you guys not being crowd favourites believe it or not, maybe its your reading ability.

McGovern doesnt seem to have much to say about the topic anymore, just go off on some unrelated tangent as usual. Psychos will kill regardless, you are right. You just dont seem to mind giving them incredibly easy access to the tools they need to do it.

The fact that this guy is an Army vet and someone I would usually show a lot of respect and gratitude for makes it all the more unsettling as well, if these are some of the types people you send over seas to resolve conflicts its no wonder why the world thinks America is #1 (sarcasm).
Male 546
Ill bet it was the Tea Party that did this?
Male 14,331
@piperfawn

That "assualt weapon" you mention is also used in many target shooting events because it is extremely accurate.

@NOCASH

I said club the seals not yourself! Deranged psychos will find a way to kill laws or not.
Male 2,357
@NOCASH: OK - I give up. Ive read your comment three times now and it is still unintelligible. Perhaps youd care for another go at it?
Male 423
Are you saying America is full of deranged psychos then McGovern? No wonder you guys hold such high stature in regards to what the rest of the world thinks of you.
Male 2,357
@piperfawn: "i think you miss the point"

This is a silly thing to say, as it is overly dismissive without offering any intelligence to the conversation. I could very easily turn around and say that I think YOUVE missed the point.

Relaxed gun laws have been shown to correlate to two things: increased homicide rates, and decreased total crime rates (including total violent crime).

I am not arguing that removing guns, or increasing restrictions wont decrease homicide rates. I am arguing that there is a margin-of-misuse deemed acceptable in order to maintain the right to possess and bear arms. We are still well within that margin.

I offer my links to show that focusing on too specific of statistics makes us think only of the cons, while there exists many pros.
Female 2,549
The shooter mistook Sikhs for Muslims?
This lot needs more then Gun control, start with a lesson in Geography.
Male 5,141
McGovern1981 i dont give a frack about classes. Also a 9 mm could be dangerous. Btw the kid in Aurora had assault rifles, rifles used by military.
Male 5,141
HumanAction i think you miss the point. Criminal actions will never be stopped, they are part of human behavior. Free gun policy just tend to have a really higer percentage of succes in your criminal action and also a possibility that the crime lead to an homicide. If a criminal with a knife go against a kung fu master the criminal is screwed. If a kid with assault riffle go against Chuck Norris, Chuck Norris die.
Male 14,331
[quote]In any case i wish you good luck next time you will go to the supermarket, maybe you will be able to avoid the bullets of the M-60 that your fellow citized have just buy to do a massacre[/quote]

Once again someone with no knowledge of the laws preaching what should be done. Thats a class 3 weapond look up THE LAWS!
Male 14,331
Heres one for the UK.....

“That rifle on the wall of the labourer’s cottage or working class flat is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays there.”
- George Orwell

Imagine if he could see you now bet hed say TOLD YOU SO!!
Male 2,357
@piperfawn: Of course they are... please, elaborate. In the meantime, I shall see if I can find a violent crime rate chart for European countries. Last time I checked, the UK was the world leader (with 2000+/100k).
Male 5,141
Male 2,357
@piperfawn: Yes, lovely - though I believe weve addressed this already. Since you care so much for recent statistics, allow me to share these:

Canada Total Violent Crime Rate - 1,231/100k

US Total Violent Crime Rate - 403.6/100k

Like Ive said - Pros and cons.
Male 5,141
Better datas and nearest to our time.
Please note that "Roughly 16,272 murders were committed in the United States during 2008. Of these, about 10,886 or 67% were committed with firearms."
Male 2,357
@piperfawn: "You have the higest crime rate involving firearms in the world"

Well what an incredibly silly thing to say. If Country A makes driving a car illegal, and Country B makes it legal, then we will see higher incidents of car crashes in Country B... duh.

Basically, the "point" you make isnt a point - its acceptable collateral damage for the liberty to bear arms. Unfortunately, many Europeans (and some Canadians) seem unable to grasp that concept.

Quite frankly - we like guns and we accept the pros and cons of being free to choose whether or not to purchase/carry them. In the US, we very highly value the individual liberties of our citizens. In many European countries, and in Canada, total violent crime rates are multiples of the US total violent crime rate - pros and cons folks.
Male 5,141
dm2754 the point is: just cause people tend to act criminal we ,USA ,have a brilliant idea...let give guns to whoever want. This gonna solve the problem right?
In any case i wish you good luck next time you will go to the supermarket, maybe you will be able to avoid the bullets of the M-60 that your fellow citized have just buy to do a massacre. If you are happy with that is ok for me since are your balls on the dish and not mines.
Male 6,737
I see the IAB MURICUUUUH Gun Club are out in force and trying, as ever, to deflect criticism from other countries.

The only thing that can be a defence to the US gun culture here is that there was an armed officer at the scene promptly.
Male 14,331
@NOCASH

Yes the issue is you can ban all you want but murders will find a way to kill people if theyre set on killing. Now go club some seals and tend to your own matters.
Male 4,142
@piperfawn
ya it doesnt have death by car either or death by AIDS

you dont know what you are taking about.

the point is yes we kill with guns because we have guns. you guy have to find some other weapon to kill each other with.

its like im taking to a 10yr old here
Male 14,331
“Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest. If we want the Arms Act to be repealed, if we want to learn the use of arms, here is a golden opportunity. If the middle classes render voluntary help to Government in the hour of its trial, distrust will disappear, and the ban on possessing arms will be withdrawn.”
- Mohandas K. Gandhi

People are the issue not machines.

@piperfawn

Youre a buffon people cant get grenades in the USA look at the laws before pretending you know them.
Male 423
Theres an issue here that needs to be addressed plain and simple, everything is not alright, do you people not feel the need to prevent these kinds of incidents from happening? Or are you just happy to ignore the reality and say as long as I have my gun Ill feel safe.
Male 4,142
okay more like 300,000 a day
Male 4,142
jtrebowski
its on tv and the radio and i work a cross from the news paper building so i see the news ticker all day there is no way to get a way from it.

as for insensitive. do you cry every time you that some strangers died?

on a good day only 3.2 billion people die
Male 5,141
dm2754 lol and what your link pretend to explain? First of all that are data of "death by murder" and not "death by firearm". You can read just that about firearms"VI. GUNS AND HOMICIDE
Two thirds of all 1992 US murders were accomplished with firearms. Handguns were used in about half of all murders."
Oh and datas of 1990? Lol
Take a look at "SELECTED WORST CITIES
MURDER (LATE-1990s)
EUROPE AND USA" Wow the first extra USA city come after 6 USA city with nearly a 1/4 percentage of the first. Congratulation.
Male 4,142
@piperfawn
you dont know what you are taking about.
Male 3,369
@dm2754: "@jtrebowski
Columbine was on the news everyday for two drating yaers.
the Batman shooting was on the news every day but today. "

You gotta see how your original comment came across as a bit insensitive. If you dont want to hear about this stuff, turn off the tv.
Male 4,142
Male 7,123
This is terrible. Easy access to firearms is not, surely, the main issue here?
Male 14,331
“The measures adopted to restore public order are: First of all, the elimination of the so-called subversive elements. … They were elements of disorder and subversion. On the morrow of each conflict I gave the categorical order to confiscate the largest possible number of weapons of every sort and kind. This confiscation, which continues with the utmost energy, has given satisfactory results.”
- Benito Mussolini, address to the Italian Senate, 1931

Male 5,141
dm2754 You know, is not so difficult to cross the border of your state buy an arsenal of military weapons and go back in your state. No matter at all what your state laws are if the neighbour state dont have any regulation or allow a 16 year old to buy grenades.
Oh and McGov i dont care at all about your try to put this discussion in politic. Is not about repubblicans and democrats, is about common sense.
Male 4,142
the USA not in the top ten
death by murder
Male 14,331
Youd think a greasball would understand the road to fascism considering they did it once.....
Male 4,142
@piperfawn
leave the USA law to the Americans. stick to Europe laws of wherever youre from because you dont know what you are taking about.
Im not aloud to Owen a gun of any kind in colorado

where do you live? it must be nice to live somewhere where no one is ever murdered.
Male 14,331
[quote]They are legal guns owners cause you dont have laws about guns[/quote]

Yes we do do more research and open your own eyes.
Male 5,141
dm2754 They are legal guns owners cause you dont have laws about guns, if you dont understand that all discussion is a useless sophism.You can use all falsehood you want but one thing remain, USA have something like little less than 10.000 kills per years by guns.You have the higest crime rate involving firearms in the world. If you sum the data of the rest of the world you cant reach your level. Open your eyes.
Male 39,531

The second amendmant makes all the others possible.
Male 14,331

Hey lets ban murder!!! Oh ya...
Male 4,142
Batman shooter James Holmes legal gun owner
Matthew Murray. (a coworker of mine) legal gun owner
Michael Ratzmann may be a legal gun owner too ( dont know.
it sad there people lost their loved ones but is the only news? do we have to hear only bad news every day.
what about a the wonderful news that happens?
Male 14,331
[quote]if you dont do something about your guns laws you will never hear anything at all cause you will be all dead.[/quote]

ROFL!!!!!
Female 1,516
This was just a few minutes from my house... so sad.
Male 4,142
@jtrebowski
Columbine was on the news everyday for two drating yaers.
the Batman shooting was on the news every day but today.

@piperfawn your naively is so cute.
Male 423
Im glad I live in Canada where crap like this seems to be a lot less frequent.
Male 22
@dm254 What a terrible thing to say. @piper the people who obey the gun laws arent the problem.
Male 2,214
Piperfawn you are correct. If we dont change the laws so average citizens can carry,we will all be gunned down.
Male 3,369
dm2754: "good now well stop hearing about the Batman shooting"

um....WHAT?
Male 3,369
""Why cant people just show each other love and care and treat each other as humans?"

And that, my friends, is the question we all should be asking ourselves.
Male 5,141
dm2754 if you dont do something about your guns laws you will never hear anything at all cause you will be all dead. Its imbelivable that the country that pretend to rule the world have such horrible things. You go to a cinema, to a church , at school and you dont know if you will back at home. Remember what is your country next time you decide to invade a foreign one.
Male 4,142
good now well stop hearing about the Batman shooting
Male 5,141
Link: 7 Killed In Shooting At Sikh Temple In Wisconsin [Rate Link] - Oh no! America, not again. Pls stop all that. Sources says the shooter is an Army vet and also alleged white supremacist