Do you think that the US should change the constitution to ban firearms?

[KoreBolteR]

no ..the fbi stats page identifies the majority of victems are killed by an acquaintance

dictionary.com defines acquaintance as:

1. Knowledge of a person acquired by a relationship less intimate than friendship.

2. A person whom one knows.

like in resevoir dogs? :E

 

[PvtRyan]

Why guns should be banned? Because I don't see a reason not to honestly. Like Stern said, there's no other western country where people feel they need the right to arm themself in order to insure their safety.

Would I feel safe packing a gun? Probably, if I was the only person, but not if everyone or a large percentage is also armed.

 

[CptStern]

I fail to understand the preoccupation with "gun crimes" as opposed to "knife crimes", or "blunt object trauma crimes". Perhaps your concern is that if criminals didn't have access to firearms, they would be less able to put their fellow citizens at risk? If this was true, wouldn't prisons be a safe place? The criminals in a prison certainly have no access to weapons such as firearms or knives. However, I assure you that prisons are not safe havens. The inmates regularly assault one another with improvised tools and bare hands. Despite the absence of firearms, it is still a dangerous, even deadly place to be. Why? Because activities such as shootings, stabbings, rape, and other violent crimes are not the result of an inanimate object such as a baseball bat or gun, but the result of human behavior, human personalities. A criminal with no firearm is no less capable of or willing to visit violence upon his fellow man, as evidenced by my prison example.

umm noooo ...because gun related deaths are more than triple that of knives, or any other weapon

 

[No Limit]

umm noooo ...because gun related deaths are more than triple that of knives, or any other weapon

I haven't read much of this thread but I figured I'd chime in since this is probably the only thing you and I disagree on.

The simple reason for that is that guns are a lot easier to kill people with; however, getting rid of them would hardly stop people from killing.

People kill people for a reason, they don't look at their gun and say "oh, I have this gun, might as well make use of it and blast the first person I see". Not having that gun would still allow them to kill a person almost as easily (stabbing, arson, poisoning, beating to death with almost anything out there). However, that is beside the point since even if our government outlawed guns most people (at least the people that would kill someone) would still be able to get them pretty easily; just as is the case with drugs there days.

 

[No Limit]

you're more likely to be shot by someone you know than a stranger

That is exactly right and backs up my point; that people kill for a reason, they don't just pick some random person off the street.

 

[CptStern]

I haven't read much of this thread but I figured I'd chime in since this is probably the only thing you and I disagree on.

The simple reason for that is that guns are a lot easier to kill people with; however, getting rid of them would hardly stop people from killing.

I agree, but it certainly would bring down the number of those that are murdered ..the stats support that conclusion

People kill people for a reason, they don't look at their gun and say "oh, I have this gun, might as well make use of it and blast the first person I see". Not having that gun would still allow them to kill a person almost as easily (stabbing, arson, poisoning, beating to death with almost anything out there).

yes but it takes a lot more to beat a person to death (psycologically) than it does to pull a trigger

However, that is beside the point since even if our government outlawed guns most people (at least the people that would kill someone) would still be able to get them pretty easily; just as is the case with drugs there days.

I agree ....damned if you do, damned if you dont

still, I cant help but think that there are many people who wouldnt care about that distinction, specifically those cases that involve children killed by firearms

 

[No Limit]

I agree, but it certainly would bring down the number of those that are murdered ..the stats support that conclusion

Are you talking about the stats that say more people kill with guns? It is not accurate to think that when you ban firearms all the people that were going to kill with a gun will suddenly not kill at all.

yes but it takes a lot more to beat a person to death (psycologically) than it does to pull a trigger

This isn't true. A normal build person can beat someone to death with a bat in a couple of hits.

I agree ....damned if you do, damned if you dont

still, I cant help but think that there are many people who wouldnt care about that distinction, specifically those cases that involve children killed by firearms

I agree with you that there would A LOT less accidental deaths. But honestly, can you ban something simply on the fact that accidents will happen (usually by pure stupidity on the users actions)? I hate to bring up logic but by that logic you might as well ban everything in this world and return to living in caves. Oh no wait, accidents will still happen.

Most people that legally own a gun are responsible people that know how to take care of that gun. Anyone that isn't responsible shouldn't own that gun; so if you are for more regulation on who actually is allowed to have a gun I would be all for that as long as it isn't too exclusive.

 

[CptStern]

Are you talking about the stats that say more people kill with guns? It is not accurate to think that when you ban firearms all the people that were going to kill with a gun will suddenly not kill at all.

I agree ..not all but some will be deterred ..the stats point to that: the weapon of choice is overwhelmingly firearms

This isn't true. A normal build person can beat someone to death with a bat in a couple of hits.

yes but pyscologically speaking it is much more difficult to kill someone with your hands/blunt object ect than it is to pull a trigger

I agree with you that there would A LOT less accidental deaths. But honestly, can you ban something simply on the fact that accidents will happen (usually by pure stupidity on the users actions)? I hate to bring up logic but by that logic you might as well ban everything in this world and return to living in caves. Oh no wait, accidents will still happen.

I agree, accidents will still happen ..but there still has to be co-relation between the availaibility of guns and the number of people killed each year by guns ..the stats support that because in no other country where guns laws are stricter than in the US that has as many gun related deaths

Most people that legally own a gun are responsible people that know how to take care of that gun. Anyone that isn't responsible shouldn't own that gun

yes but that's not how it is in reality

 

[Nightfall]

I agree, but it certainly would bring down the number of those that are murdered ..the stats support that conclusion

I agree ..not all but some will be deterred ..the stats point to that: the weapon of choice is overwhelmingly firearms

May I ask what stats? I disagree that criminals will be deterred. For example, DC has an outright ban on all firearms. It is also the murder capital of the United States. New York and Chicago also have much more gun control than other places in the USA, yet still have much higher violent crime rates. These places have instituted very tight gun control or outright bans as you desire, but their murder rates have not fallen. In fact, their murder rates have risen since they instituted these draconian restrictions. Conversely, states like Vermont or Alaska, both of which allow any adult to carry a handgun with no permits or license, have low murder rates.

Considering the above, I'd like to know exactly what stats make you think a firearms ban would reduce murder rates.

 

[CptStern]

on the previous page ..from the fbi stats ..I'm too lazy to do your work for you

 

[Kommie]

Anyhoo, I just read the entire title of this thread, and I'll have to say no again. We wouldn't have to change the constitution in order to ban firearms. The 2nd amendment (our "right to bear arms") does not say we have the right to bear arms. It says each state has the right to form a militia. It's simply one interpretation of the constitution that says we have the right to bear arms. So we wouldn't have to change the constitution, just reinterpret it and pass a few bills.

http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_Am2.html
ALL of my history books say exactly that as well.

 

[Eg.]

how about this, no. keep the guns.

 

[Steve]

Anyhoo, I just read the entire title of this thread, and I'll have to say no again. We wouldn't have to change the constitution in order to ban firearms. The 2nd amendment (our "right to bear arms") does not say we have the right to bear arms. It says each state has the right to form a militia. It's simply one interpretation of the constitution that says we have the right to bear arms. So we wouldn't have to change the constitution, just reinterpret it and pass a few bills.

http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_Am2.html
ALL of my history books say exactly that as well.

Hmm...wonder where I got THAT crazy idea from. Oh well. As I said, I'm not very good at this...I just do it for the exercise.

 

[RZAL]

We wouldn't have to change the constitution in order to ban firearms. The 2nd amendment (our "right to bear arms") does not say we have the right to bear arms. It says each state has the right to form a militia. It's simply one interpretation of the constitution that says we have the right to bear arms. So we wouldn't have to change the constitution, just reinterpret it and pass a few bills.

True, the US Supreme Ct has never interpreted the 2nd Amend. to be a personal right, nor have they Incorporated it into 14th Amend Due Process Clause. Then again no one ever gave them the right to act as a legislative body, they just gave it to themselves when they create Judicial Review (Marbury v. Madison). They also looked right over the 10th Amendment:The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. Its nice to be King and make your own rules, who cares about separation of powers when you can just dictate the law of the land.

If you take a comprehensive look at American history, you'll find not to long ago the 2nd Amendment wasn't only a personal right, it was illegal not to own a gun. You will also see the right in all the States Constitutions. Today I believe there are only two states that still recognizes the right to bear arms as being individual rights. Anyhow this is the extra short version, if you like to know more the information is out there.




The Patriot "Freedom is not Free"

 

[burner69]

And if your constitution gave you the right to rag pigs?

I think when a lot of people are wound up getting shot each year you need to reconsider what's more important. At least make it much harder to get a gun, and tone down a lot of the pro-gun stuff I've seen. No advertising etc.

 

[Kommie]

And if your constitution gave you the right to rag pigs?

I think when a lot of people are wound up getting shot each year you need to reconsider what's more important. At least make it much harder to get a gun, and tone down a lot of the pro-gun stuff I've seen. No advertising etc.

Then we will rag pigs! IT WOULD BE OUR RIGHT AS AMERICANS, AND YOU SISSY NON-PIG-RAGGING FOREIGNERS WOULD BE DAMNED. What does rag mean?

Anyway on a serious note, It is hard enough as it is to get a gun. It isnt as if everyone in america has a gun and goes around shooting people. As a matter of a fact it's hardly a problem at all.
And according to a study, by Prof. John Lott of the University of Chicago, showed that by adopting "shall issue" concealed carry handgun laws, 31 states have reduced murders, on average, by 7.7 %, rapes by 5 %, aggravated assaults by 7 % and robbery by 3%. I think the positives far outweigh the negatives.

 

[Steve]

True, the US Supreme Ct has never interpreted the 2nd Amend. to be a personal right, nor have they Incorporated it into 14th Amend Due Process Clause. Then again no one ever gave them the right to act as a legislative body, they just gave it to themselves when they create Judicial Review (Marbury v. Madison). They also looked right over the 10th Amendment:The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. Its nice to be King and make your own rules, who cares about separation of powers when you can just dictate the law of the land.

If you take a comprehensive look at American history, you'll find not to long ago the 2nd Amendment wasn't only a personal right, it was illegal not to own a gun. You will also see the right in all the States Constitutions. Today I believe there are only two states that still recognizes the right to bear arms as being individual rights. Anyhow this is the extra short version, if you like to know more the information is out there.




The Patriot "Freedom is not Free"

Jeez...it seems every time I admit I'm wrong, 2 more people come and shove it down my throat! Read the whole thread and gimme a freakin' break!

*runs away crying*

 

[Kommie]

Jeez...it seems every time I admit I'm wrong, 2 more people come and shove it down my throat! Read the whole thread and gimme a freakin' break!

Yeah give him a break or I will shoot you. (that last part is a joke)

FBI statistics claim that most of the people killed by guns are criminals, either i.e. breaking into a home, or shooting other criminals (gangs). I just wish I could find a source.

True, the US Supreme Ct has never interpreted the 2nd Amend. to be a personal right, nor have they Incorporated it into 14th Amend Due Process Clause. Then again no one ever gave them the right to act as a legislative body, they just gave it to themselves when they create Judicial Review (Marbury v. Madison). They also looked right over the 10th Amendment:The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. Its nice to be King and make your own rules, who cares about separation of powers when you can just dictate the law of the land.

Their rulings CAN be challenged and they are on a daily basis. THEY are the SUPREME COURT for cryin' out loud.

 

[RZAL]

And if your constitution gave you the right to rag pigs?

I think when a lot of people are wound up getting shot each year you need to reconsider what's more important. At least make it much harder to get a gun, and tone down a lot of the pro-gun stuff I've seen. No advertising etc.

Rag pigs???? Tone down pro-gun stuff I've seen, No advertising etc????

What about all the anti-gun stuff I have seen? or all the I need to conform to the euro standards and so fourth???? I just don't understand why so many people want everyone else to be just like them, whats a matter with being your own person?
And who says its not hard to get a gun? Do think laws will stop guns? Laws will stop guns just like laws have stopped drugs, or laws have stopped vehicle deaths, or laws have stopped criminals.

We can RAG PIGS all night long, but laws wont stop guns....





The Patriot "Freedom is not Free"

 

[Steve]

What exactly is involved in "ragging a pig"?

 

[RZAL]

Jeez...it seems every time I admit I'm wrong, 2 more people come and shove it down my throat! Read the whole thread and gimme a freakin' break!

*runs away crying*

Well you are, but your not wrong....sorry didn't mean to shove it down your throat.

Your not wrong by todays Supreme ct rulings, but you are on the original intent. The Supreme ct can make its own rules so I can't say their wrong.......since we play by their rules.



The Patriot "Freedom is not Free"

 

[RZAL]

Yeah give him a break or I will shoot you. (that last part is a joke) FBI statistics claim that most of the people killed by guns are criminals, either i.e. breaking into a home, or shooting other criminals (gangs). I just wish I could find a source. Their rulings CAN be challenged and they are on a daily basis. THEY are the SUPREME COURT for cryin' out loud.

You missed me, try again.....

If you want some interesting reading check out Judicial Review Marbury v. Madison. Why would you have separation of powers (the 3 branches of government) when the Supreme ct could just override the legislative branch by creating case law?

And what is Rag Pigs?


The Patriot "Freedom is not Free"

 

[Kommie]

You missed me, try again.....

If you want some interesting reading check out Judicial Review Marbury v. Madison. Why would you have separation of powers (the 3 branches of government) when the Supreme ct could just override the legislative branch by creating case law?

And what is Rag Pigs?


The Patriot "Freedom is not Free"

they leave it to the people then overrule or sustain existing laws thats their primary job (if say they are unconstitutional) If we did not have a group such as this our country would have so many absurd, ignorant, racist, elitist, laws it would be unbelievable. I admit it is a bit off but the supreme court is the lesser of the two evils.

 

[Nightfall]

on the previous page ..from the fbi stats ..I'm too lazy to do your work for you

The stats you cited do not show that tight gun control restrictions will reduce violent crime, shootings included. They just show murder rates and the like, and weapons used. They don't show a correlation between gun bans and violent crime reduction.

 

[TheAmazingRando]

Try to ban me from keeping my Carbine, I'll shoot ya.

 

[Locust]

Look at it this way: if a dude breaks into a house and is shot by the owner, that is one less criminal in the world. If every criminal were shot, the crime rate would be zero. You must strike fear into the heart of those who do injustice, kind of like Batman does. The only way to do this is to make the criminal know that if he chooses to steal or break into a house, there may be a greater price for him to pay than he was expecting, such as a shotgun blast to the chest.

 

[KoreBolteR]

Look at it this way: if a dude breaks into a house and is shot by the owner, that is one less criminal in the world. If every criminal were shot, the crime rate would be zero. You must strike fear into the heart of those who do injustice, kind of like Batman does. The only way to do this is to make the criminal know that if he chooses to steal or break into a house, there may be a greater price for him to pay than he was expecting, such as a shotgun blast to the chest.

i dont think that wud be the way of getting rid of the criminals..well not all of them anyway.

what we need is tougher jail sentances, more cameras on the streets and alleyways, more police, and tougher laws. simple as that. and if they didnt make the jails like 5 star hotels, that would help.

 

[Desertrat]

CptStern, a couple of points:

1. Assuming "children" means age 14 and under, the number of accidental deaths from firearms per year in the U.S. has declined since the 133 of 1993; CDC data shows approximately 100 per year, more recently. Car wrecks, incidentally, take some 3,500 children's lives per year. Drowning accounts for another 1,100 or so. IIRC, the total from all causes approximates some 6,000 and thus accidental deaths from firearms--admittedly tragic--is statistically insignificant.

2. The total of all ages, accidental death from firearms, is around 1,000 to 1,100 per year. Again, CDC.

US homicides are roughly 50,000 per year. Some 11,000 are via handguns; approximately 3,000 to 4,000 via rifles and shotguns. Thus roughly one-third of all homicides are via firearms. The remainder are predominantly via knives and club-type instruments, although a surprising number are from fists and feet. (These numbers are admittedly approximate, although they are not in error by any notable amount.)

'Rat

 

[Tr0n]

Look at it this way: if a dude breaks into a house and is shot by the owner, that is one less criminal in the world. If every criminal were shot, the crime rate would be zero. You must strike fear into the heart of those who do injustice, kind of like Batman does. The only way to do this is to make the criminal know that if he chooses to steal or break into a house, there may be a greater price for him to pay than he was expecting, such as a shotgun blast to the chest.

Let he who is without sin cast the first sone.

 

[Iapetus]

Another point:

A criminal with a gun is more dangerous that one without.

BUT: a "victim" with a gun is much more dangerous to attack.

A large, tough thug, armbed with nothing more than a baseball bat, or a bottle, or their hands and feet, can attack (and potentially kill) another person with almost no risk to themselves. If there are several attackers, they are even safer.

If the intended victim is armed, then - even if the criminals have firearms themselves - they are at serious risk if they attack, even if they still outnumber their victim.

I live in London, UK (where we have some of the strictest anti-gun laws in the world).

Just a couple of days ago, near where I live, two men were held hostage and tortured for four hours in a bar by two other men.

Shortly before that, in North London, a man was set upon by a gang armed with knives and baseball bats. He escaped, but when he was being treated by paramedics, the gang returned, forced their way into the ambulance, and killed him.

Last year, in a tourist spot in central London, six unarmed youths beat to death an unarmed man in an unprovoked attack. (He was gay; they hated gays).

In all those cases, no guns were used, but had the victims been armed, they might still be alive.


On the other hand, there have been several firearms incidents near where I live in the past few months (most recently an armed robbery with shots fired at police). Gun laws didn't stop these crimes. Nor do all the posters in shop windows saying "Guns kill - don't have them".

In fact, UK gun crime has risen dramatically since all handguns were banned in 1997. (I don't think one caused the other, but the ban just seems to be completely useless at stopping shootings).


Incidently, the man beaten to death by the homophobes was a survivor from a bomb attack against a gay pub a few years ago. If you want to murder lots of people, there are more effective (and harder to legislate against) ways of doing it than with firearms.

 

[Tr0n]

Bomb attack against a gay pub? wtf? :|

 

[KoreBolteR]

yeah but thats just London...

 

[CptStern]

Look at it this way: if a dude breaks into a house and is shot by the owner, that is one less criminal in the world. If every criminal were shot, the crime rate would be zero. You must strike fear into the heart of those who do injustice, kind of like Batman does. The only way to do this is to make the criminal know that if he chooses to steal or break into a house, there may be a greater price for him to pay than he was expecting, such as a shotgun blast to the chest.

that's not very christian-like ..you cant pick and choose which aspect of your religion you're supposedly faithful to:

"Thou shalt not kill." 10 commandments

"Love thy neighbor as thyself." proverbs 19:18

"But I tell you not to resist an evil person. But whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also." Matthew 5:39



and how can anyone misinterpret this great proverb:

"If thou meet thine enemy's ox or his ass going astray, thou shalt surely bring it back to him again. Proverbs 23:4

:E


this makes a little more sense:

Shame on him who strikes, greater shame on him who strikes back. Let us live happily, not hating those who hate us. Let us therefore overcome anger by kindness, evil by good, falsehood by truth. Do not hurt others in ways that would be hurtful to yourself.
- Buddhist wisdom

 

[Tr0n]

It's not Thou shalt not kill....it's Thou shalt not murder.If remember it was thou shalt not murder on the 10 commandments and since it was in hebrew...when people translated it.What came out was "Thou shalt not kill."

So really it's "Thou shalt not murder."

Ether way stern has a point on the buddhist thing...but damn vengeance feels so good.

 

[firemachine69]

Then we will rag pigs! IT WOULD BE OUR RIGHT AS AMERICANS, AND YOU SISSY NON-PIG-RAGGING FOREIGNERS WOULD BE DAMNED. What does rag mean?

Anyway on a serious note, It is hard enough as it is to get a gun. It isnt as if everyone in america has a gun and goes around shooting people. As a matter of a fact it's hardly a problem at all.
And according to a study, by Prof. John Lott of the University of Chicago, showed that by adopting "shall issue" concealed carry handgun laws, 31 states have reduced murders, on average, by 7.7 %, rapes by 5 %, aggravated assaults by 7 % and robbery by 3%. I think the positives far outweigh the negatives.

That study was just mirrored after Bill C-68 was passed in Canada (and Australia if I understand correctly), violent crime rates went UP. Anti-gun folks use the "average crime is down", and ignore the true hard facts, they distort it to their views, ala 'Michael Moore' style.

No one's gonna even TRY to touch you if they even THINK you're packing. Forget actually using it. 99% of criminals don't want to be confronted with a gun (duh, I don't like guns being pointed at me either). That, or they're on a suicide mission. Now that they know that 99.9999% of citizens up here don't have concealed licenses, let alone carrying, you see it even in my town, people getting jumped. Very not cool.

 

[RZAL]

they leave it to the people then overrule or sustain existing laws thats their primary job (if say they are unconstitutional) If we did not have a group such as this our country would have so many absurd, ignorant, racist, elitist, laws it would be unbelievable. I admit it is a bit off but the supreme court is the lesser of the two evils.

I agree its the lesser of the two evils. It may be a tad off but next week they could say guns are illegal or they could say guns are legal. Thats what the Dems are affraid of when it comes to the abortion issue. The US Supreme ct. has done good in America, even though they side tracked what the founders wanted, (well at least some of them).



The Patriot "Freedom is not Free"

 

[Iapetus]

Bomb attack against a gay pub? wtf? :|

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/384148.stm

that's not very christian-like ..you cant pick and choose which aspect of your religion you're supposedly faithful to:

"Thou shalt not kill." 10 commandments

"Love thy neighbor as thyself." proverbs 19:18

"But I tell you not to resist an evil person. But whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also." Matthew 5:39

...this makes a little more sense:

Shame on him who strikes, greater shame on him who strikes back. Let us live happily, not hating those who hate us. Let us therefore overcome anger by kindness, evil by good, falsehood by truth. Do not hurt others in ways that would be hurtful to yourself.
- Buddhist wisdom

Well, if for religious reasons you would rather let yourself be murdered, tortured, raped, enslaved etc rather than even threaten harm to your attacker/oppressor, that is your choice.

But what gives you the right to force that decision on other people?

Taking that argument to its logical conclusion, you wouldn't just ban firearms, you'd ban people taking self defence classes, and punish people who tried to defend themselves more severely than the attackers themselves.

Surely you don't mean that?

 

[firemachine69]

Well, I don't believe in religion. So none of his quotes apply to me.

BTW if you're dead, kinda hard to hate back, isn't it?

 

[CptStern]

Well, if for religious reasons you would rather let yourself be murdered, tortured, raped, enslaved etc rather than even threaten harm to your attacker/oppressor, that is your choice.

I'm not religious so I dont have to live by that dogma, but he is

But what gives you the right to force that decision on other people?

who? who am I forcing?

Taking that argument to its logical conclusion, you wouldn't just ban firearms, you'd ban people taking self defence classes, and punish people who tried to defend themselves more severely than the attackers themselves.

nope just firearms, I'm a realist

 

[Tr0n]

I'm not religious so I dont have to live by that dogma, but he is



who? who am I forcing?



nope just firearms, I'm a realist

Well if you was a realist you know banning firearms ain't gonna happen in this country.

So...everyone stop bitching about it.

Esp people out of our country....It's our 2nd amendment right.So shut your traps.