Can someone explain the argument for gun control

Whoa, did that famous LRC poster from Seattle move to the dirty south?

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/03/us/yoga-studio-shooting-florida.html

who are "they" exactly again?

no, you don't have a legitimate reason to call anyone 'animals' you are just interested in hyperbole to get folks all riled up... again, very mature of you.

Maybe they are just self defending themselves.. that's why everyone owns guns, right?

Cheers!

TheRunningTroll wrote:

rockersp wrote:

interesting.

so how do you explain why the murder rate is America is so much higher than in all its peer countries?

Logically, your explanation would have to be that Americans are born killers - an American with a screwdriver would kill just as easily as an American with a handgun.

is that your explanation for the far higher murder rate in America than her peers?

Or are you reasonable and understand that the murder rate in America is high because it is far too easy to get a gun?

The United States is #84 in the world for homicide rate per 100,00 people(4.88 per 100,00 ) and the violent crime rate in the U.S has been going down for a decade despits rhe number of guns increasing. Have you purchased a gun to actually be able to give a valid opinion?

Troll.

our place at #90 is among third world nations, without law and order. Mongolia, Zambia, that kind of thing.

Our peer nations have a homicide rate 1/5th that of the US.

So your view seems to be that Americans are homicidal maniacs and would be slaughtering each other with box cutters if guns weren't easy to get. You feel Americans are that violent and uncontrollable.

And I don't understand your explanation for why the French and Irish are not murdering each other with a sharpened toothpicks.

You must feel that European culture is vastly superior to American culture, since their murder rate is 1/5th that of the US.

You can sit there and type nasty things about the US, but I don't have to sit here and take it.

(BTW I own a rifle)

huh?!? wrote:

TheRunningTroll wrote:

Guns are simple enough and accessible enough to be used by anyone. RPGs, grenades, and nuclear weapons are not.

huh?!?

your argument makes Zero sense.

So Amendments only protect things that are 'simple enough and easy to access?"

Accessibility has nothing to do with it. Either you support the legal right to own nukes or you are in support of infringing on citizens rights to bear arms.

which is it?

you fail to accurately quote what I said and fall back to the most extreme example you have. "simple enough and accessible enough to be used by everyone" would include firearms. Guns can be used by anyone and can be purchased by anyone. nuclear weapons can not. I'm done responding to you ?you are an imbecile.

Do you suggest that people who legally own guns are the reason our murder rate is what it is? surely you don't actually think that.

mylegshurt wrote:

huh?!? wrote:

huh?!?

your argument makes Zero sense.

So Amendments only protect things that are 'simple enough and easy to access?"

Accessibility has nothing to do with it. Either you support the legal right to own nukes or you are in support of infringing on citizens rights to bear arms.

which is it?

you fail to accurately quote what I said and fall back to the most extreme example you have. "simple enough and accessible enough to be used by everyone" would include firearms. Guns can be used by anyone and can be purchased by anyone. nuclear weapons can not. I'm done responding to you ?you are an imbecile.

you have the logical understanding of a 9 year old.

and remember to log back in next time you aren't pretending to be another poster, lol

your legs should hurt... wrote:

mylegshurt wrote:

No I refer to them as animals because they don't value human life and murder each other in the streets every day.

who are "they" exactly again?

no, you don't have a legitimate reason to call anyone 'animals' you are just interested in hyperbole to get folks all riled up... again, very mature of you.

Maybe they are just self defending themselves.. that's why everyone owns guns, right?

Cheers!

When I say they i am referring to the people in places like Chicago that are involved in gang violence or even here in Columbus. For example, just within the last week there was a drive by shooting. I'd be willing to bet anything the person that did that didn't legally obtain that gun.

it's a combination of things. What I've seen is that around 40% of gun crimes are committed with legal guns. 60% with illegally obtained guns.

I answered your question. You answer mine.

Why do not the French and British slaughter each other with hammers at exactly the same rate Americans slaughter each other with guns?

mylegshurt wrote:

When I say they i am referring to the people in places like Chicago that are involved in gang violence or even here in Columbus. For example, just within the last week there was a drive by shooting. I'd be willing to bet anything the person that did that didn't legally obtain that gun.

and i'm willing to bet that gun was legally manufactured and initially legally sold.

I know you'll claim that you don't understand the relevance of that, but you do.

mylegshurt wrote:

rockersp wrote:

when a really angry, homicidal person wants a gun, it would be much harder for him to get it.

not sure why this is so hard.

In reality said angry, homicidal person is going to attempt to kill regardless of if they have a gun and there is no better way to stop them than a hollow point to the chest.

In that case, why do you think homicidal tendencies vary so much by country? In particular, why are they higher in the USA than other developed countries?

The 2nd Amendment simplified: guns are good; they help Americans to kill things. That's what makes America great. Killing things. Like people.

All other arguments are sophistry.

Uncle Bob's nephew wrote:

Trying to ban guns, or take guns away from law abiding citizens in the USA will never work as there are just too many out there on the market. Outlawing just the "assault weapon" gun won't work easily either as an "assault weapon" and a standard deer hunting rifle are essentially the same thing as far as mechanics are concerned.

It would be much easier instead to ban all ammunition sales as well as gun powder and reloading supplies. As the years go by old ammo supplies would be gone or used. Yes, "my uncle Bob" probably has 4,000 rounds of this and 7,000 rounds of that stored in his basement but for all practical reasons he's probably not the one you need to worry about.

Well...I'm not for banning all guns, BUT your assertion that taking guns away from law abiding citizens will never work is bogus. Make the laws and fines stiff enough, and people would turn in their guns, and those who won't (because some won't) would put themselves at serious risk.

Australia got rid of guns in their country in a flash. It COULD happen here too...it doesn't matter how many are out there, and if it ever did, it would be because of someone like Trump who is a despot wannabe. Trump is more of a danger to gun rights than any mainstream Democrat. He has already made the NRA more nervous than Obama ever did.

Read what I wrote again.

mylegshurt wrote:

I have yet to hear a legitimate answer. Inform me

That way the Oligarchs don't have to worry about anyone fighting back.

Animals don't kill for sport or for revenge or because of mental illness. Only to protect themselves or for food. I guess they are more civilized than we are.

With all these legal guns out there for self defense, I'm still waiting for a good guy to pull out their AK whatever and stop one of these random mass shootings. Most of those "animals" in Chicago at least have a reason to go after their targets. But purposely obtaining a large arsenal to get as many random people as you can is what everyone is trying to prevent.

More guns are used to accidentally harm someone in the house than they are to prevent

a crime.

There is no argument, it's settled law for over 200 hundred years.

U.S. Constitution says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

If that's not clear enough, the Connecticut Constitution written in 1818 says "Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state.”

40 States have Constitutional Right to Bear Arms

http://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/beararms/statecon.htm

Bobby1 wrote:

There is no argument, it's settled law for over 200 hundred years.

U.S. Constitution says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

If that's not clear enough, the Connecticut Constitution written in 1818 says "Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state.”

40 States have Constitutional Right to Bear Arms

http://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/beararms/statecon.htm

So a bunch of guys in 1776 tell you how you should live today. Now that's what I call an enlightened country.

Bobby1 wrote:

There is no argument, it's settled law for over 200 hundred years.

U.S. Constitution says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

If that's not clear enough, the Connecticut Constitution written in 1818 says "Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state.”

So Bobby, you support citizens owning surface to air missiles, rocket launchers and .50 cal machine guns?

If not, why do you support the infringement of the right to bear those arms?

Bobby1 wrote:

There is no argument, it's settled law for over 200 hundred years.

U.S. Constitution says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

not sure you know this, but the modern interpretation of the 2A is new. Until our lifetimes few thought the 2A meant individuals had a constitutional right to own guns. SCOTUS didn't rule on it til 2008. The language is ambiguous, and previous generations have interpreted it differently.

And unless you are fine with people land mining their lawns and walking around with surface to air missiles, you think there is an argument also.

So there is an argument - a very large argument. It hasn't been settled for over 200 years.

"For more than a hundred years, the answer was clear, even if the words of the amendment itself were not. The text of the amendment is divided into two clauses and is, as a whole, ungrammatical: “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” The courts had found that the first part, the “militia clause,” trumped the second part, the “bear arms” clause. In other words, according to the Supreme Court, and the lower courts as well, the amendment conferred on state militias a right to bear arms—but did not give individuals a right to own or carry a weapon."