[GundamFan0083]

Originally Posted by Ledgem

Hear that, everyone? GundamFan0083 says that we have enough laws on the books. The ultimate authority on gun laws and the dictator of society says that we have enough, so wrap it up - no more gun laws.

Get real. Society determines whether we have enough laws - not you.

Nice childish start to your retort.
All of the relevent studies on the subject have shown that gun control has failed to deter violent crime.
Therefore, there is no need to pass any more useless laws.
"Society" as you keep referring to it, doesn't make the rules in a constitutional republic. The contract that created that republic does.
Our contract, the constitution, protects the right of citizens to own weaponry and SCOTUS has upheld that.
So stop with the useless claptrap about me being a dictator.
I didn't hold the SCOTUS at gunpoint to make them judge in favor of Heller and I wasn't even alive when the Miller case was decided on (1939).

For better or for worse, laws aren't set in stone.

Thank goodness, because there are many gun laws that need to be overhauled and/or repealed in this country.

Oh, how wonderful. I'm sorry that I don't live in that black and white world, as nice as it sounds. I support freedom, but I don't do so blindly. If misuse of guns begin to threaten people's freedom to live their lives without having to worry about some random madman gunning them down, then I think that their place in society should be re-evaluated.

That is a fallacy.
Freedom does not garauntee you any semblance of safety or protection from attack. That is propaganda perpetuated by morons like those at the DailyKos.
Freedom is not free, it's price is eternal vigilance and that includes in your daily life.

The way you've presented it, you're basically arguing for the freedom to own a toy that can injure and kill others. What a freedom to have.

Anyone who refers to a firearm, or any weapon, as a toy needs to do some serious growing up.

I don't claim that anyone is stupid. Have you never been in a movie theater? Have you never felt the adrenaline rush when you thought that you were going to die?

I'll stop you right there.
I've been in a similar situation, as I already mentioned and my instinct was to flee when I was not armed, and to fight when I was, so yes I would fight in that situation.
What others would do is known only to them.

I'm not...grounded to reality.

Clearly you're not, just by what you post.

How many times do I have to repeat this line? I am not arguing that a ban on guns will affect the rates of violence. Read that over a few times, I don't want any pro-gun advocate to try and argue that point with me again on this thread unless I really do use it as an argument.

That's because if you had to argue based on the effects of gun control on crime you would have to admit your argument is lost.
Non-partisan studies have already determined gun control has no effect on violent crime.
Suicides yes, it does reduce suicide of men over 55, but that's not the issue here.

I agree with you in terms of reducing violence and crime, but your waving off gun control only works if you assume that the purpose of banning guns is to reduce crime and violence.

And that's not what I've been arguing.

I don't think you know what you're arguing.
You come off like a hoplophobe because you want to restrict/ban firearms but not due to crime?
See, that's how I know you're not thinking logically about this.
You keep posting about how you don't want to hear about violent crime, and then start talking about how we need to reduce deaths by firearms because of violent crime.
Which is it?
Your argument is a nonsequitor, you lead in with "I'm not talking about violent crime," only to say later "if we can just stop all the deaths from firearm related violence."
It makes you look like a schizophrenic.

I'm not going to deny that some people - perhaps many people - operate based off of fear. I'd appreciate it if you'd be open enough to admit and accept that some people have moved beyond that, and are not primarily motivated by fear.

Why would I be open to accepting a lie?

The reason why it's a big deal is because the world has changed a lot since the country's founding. Weaponry and combat equipment has advanced. The weapons that the government holds cost too much for individuals to have access to, they require too much training to operate and maintain, and they're far too dangerous to allow into the hands of just anyone in society. (Go ahead and argue that last point - I know you want to - and tell me why you think your neighbor should be allowed to own a nuclear warhead.)

You just stepped on a landmine Legem.
The founders of this country owned cannons, and in some cases merchant-marine warships, so don't go into what kinds of weapons they owned. And don't give me the "the founders knew nothing of rapid fire weapons" because I already blew that stupid argument out of the water in this thread.

There is a litmus test for what arms are allowed and the US vs. Miller case created it.
That test is as follows.
Is a weapon useful to the militia?
To answer that, we need to know what kinds of weapons the militia are supposed to have.
That is determined by Article 1, section 8, of the US constitution.
The weapon must be:

a) In general use by military forces of the day.
b) Useful to uphold the laws of the Union.
c) Useful to put down insurrections.
d) Useful to repel invasions.

That's it.
Is a nuclear weapon good for any of that?
No.
Is a chemical weapon good for any of that?
No.
Is a biological weapon good for any of that?
No.
How about a tank?
Not all three of them, probably just one, so no.
How about a warship?
No.
How about a jet fighter?
Again, just one of them (invasion), so no.
How about an attack helicopter?
No.
How about an APC?
Maybe, depends what it is armed with, so that one is conditional.
Grenades?
Smoke only, frag or other types would only be useful to repel an invasion.
Assault rifle?
Yes, it can be used for all three.
Semi-auto military style weapon?
Absolutely.
Hunting weapons?
No, they cannot adequately perform two of the three tasks (invasion and insurrection).

The opinion handed down by SCOTUS in US vs. Miller is what set the presedence for that litmus test.

Do you really think that armed citizens could unite and organize enough to take down the government? Really?

Depends.
If only a few hundred thousand were to fight?
Then no.
If say, 10% of gun owners fought.
Then absolutely yes, this government would be overthrown.

If I'm a serf, what does that make you - a paranoid, antisocial man who needs the grown-up version of a security blanket in order to leave his house?

I'm not the one worried about somebody jumping out at me and gunning me down.
That paranoia belongs to people who are afraid of firearms and thus calling for gun control.
Secure persons aren't afraid of inanimate objects, they are only concerned with things that can actually hurt them--you know, other people.

Wow, I never expected to find this trash written on AnimeSuki.

Truth hurts doesn't it?
I've been comparing your arguments to those on BradyCampaign, GunPolicyCenter, and other sources of hoplophobic propaganda. Funny how your posts mirror what is on those sites.
You labeled yourself a collectivist, so you only have yourself to blame for that.
Collectivism is not compatible with the US constitution nor the Declaration as it protects "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (taken from John Locke).
So yes, collectivism by its very nature is anti-American.

I lean against it, particularly since I am keenly aware of police brutality.

Holy crap we agree.

But then I hear about these fools who talk about civil war, or our own home-grown terrorists who want to rip up the government. I do not identify with those people. They are not fighting for me, and I do not want them to impose their way of life upon me. They might as well be the Taliban, wanting to impose Sharia law. When I read those types of news articles, I begin to lean toward feeling that it's all right. I trust the police more than I trust those types of people.

This is why I fight so hard for the right to own arms.
I see it as a deterent to exactly that kind of scenario.
I don't want to live under a right-wing Theocracy any more than you do, and I sure as hell don't want to live under a statist government of any kind.

I know of the "armed society is a polite society" concept. I don't think that it's an unrealistic notion, either.

That quote was from Heinlein. He was a staunch supporter of the 2nd amendment.

However, the way this is worded is revealing. The idea that an armed society is a polite society means that everyone treats everyone else with respect and care, because they know that a confrontation could lead to a worst-case scenario where someone dies or is seriously hurt. If you say "I feel at peace because if someone attacks me, I can defend myself," your statement indicates that you're already thinking about being attacked. This isn't about a polite society - this is now about you getting attacked, and being able to ward off your attacker. I think you know the definition of paranoia. I don't think that this man is paranoid, but those are some paranoid thoughts.

Being aware of your surroundings and being prepared at all times is the first rule of most Martial Arts (Tai Kwon Do, Krav Maga, Judo, Kung Fu, and Shotokan Karate).
Are those practitioners all paranoid?
My teacher of Krav Maga instructs all of his students to purchase a firearm and learn how to use it.
Does that make him paranoid?
No, it doesn't, nor does it make me or anyone else who wishes to be safe in our daily lives. You cannot take back a bad situation once it starts, and if you cannot escape, you must deal with it. If you face an attacker with weapon, and you lack equal force, you are probably going to be injured or killed.

Here we are back at violent crime again.
I thought your argument wasn't about homicide?

I don't need to make that claim, because your counter-argument makes absolutely no sense.

And your straw man burns because the small percentage that use firearms irresponsibly are...you guessed it...criminals.
You have said numerous times in your last post alone, that you ARE NOT CONCERNED about violent crime.
So stop trying to use it as a basis for your argument.
You cannot have it both ways.

Wow, "only 600 deaths per year." 600 is larger than my entire high school population was. I suppose you could have dropped a bomb on my school and people would have said "ah what ever, it was less than 600 kids that died."

600 get's you all weepy huh?
Gee, how many lives have been terminated by abortion?
Oh that's right, about 53 million, but that doesn't bother you correct?
That's a lot of fetuses that would have become people.
Now I ask you again, how can you support abortion on the one hand, but get bent out of shape by 600 people dying accidentally on the other?
I have no problem with the deaths of 53 million babies who were unwanted, I also have no problem with accidents since you know, they're accidental.

Are you out of your mind? The fact that the number is "only" 600 (a number seems damn big to be for being limited to accidental shooting deaths) means that gun legislation should be a low priority compared to other areas of society. We're not arguing about what legislative priority should be, though. This thread is all about guns.

No, this thread is about gun control.
The fact is, using that fuzzy logic of yours, we should ban everything from cars, to fatty foods, to unprotected sex, anal sex, anything that can cause death.
And you call me paranoid, that's funny.

So tell me, if those 600 deaths could be reduced to zero, don't you think that it would be worth it? Oh, we don't necessarily need to restrict guns in order to get that number down to zero... but don't you think it's worthwhile to avoid preventable deaths?

Not when the lives saved by guns considerably outweighs the number accidentally taken by them.
No.

I thought you said it was because I was an anti-American, freedom-hating socialist

No I said you were a hoplophobe, there's a difference.
And I would never call you a communist, they at least know the value of guns.
Mao: "Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun."
Smart man, a monster, but smart nonetheless.

In all seriousness, what is so hard to understand here? A large number of people die or are seriously injured each year of multiple causes. If we can do something to prevent those from happening, why shouldn't we?

Of which guns are only a very small portion--accident wise--since you aren't talking about violent crime, right?

I don't particularly care about gun ownership. I care about guns that are used inappropriately.

Who cares what you care about?
Who appointed you dictator for life?

So deflate that sense of self-important authority and rejoin the rest of us.

Pot...meet kettle.

Seriously though, why do police have guns? Surely you realize that an armed police force is not a universal feature of societies that have police. So why do our police have guns?

Because of Richard Nixon's fucking drug war, that's why.
It turned the gangs in this country into millionaires overnight and allowed them the money to arm themselves to the teeth with military weapons.
You want to reduce deaths from firearms, end the drug war.

What do you mean, "not many"? Are the criminals in Colorado honorable or something?

No, they're just scared shitless of being shot.

Security blanket. Were you safer when you were shot at in the Applebee's parking lot? Fat lot of good your gun did then, didn't it? And yet because that asshole was allowed to have a gun and because he couldn't keep his shit together, bullets were fired your way. Yet somehow you say you feel safer? This seems very short-sighted to me.

You butched that one.
I lived in Mass back then and couldn't own a gun, neither could the guy that shot at me.
He didn't follow the law, I did.
I had to run for my car and get out of there as fast as I could.
After that I promised myself I would never be a victim...ever.
That's part of why I moved out here to CO.
When I got accosted at the 7/11, my revolver saved my life.
Those two men were armed, and there is no way I was going to risk having to rely on their "kindness" to stay alive.
So yes, in my case, I'd probably be dead right now if not for my .357.

Based on the webpage that you linked, 600 people are killed from firearm-related accidents. The number of homicides linked to hanguns is approximately 8,000, and there's about another 3,000-4,000 homicides linked to "other guns". But go ahead and tell me about how 11,000-13,000 lives is nothing compared to auto accidents or some completely unrelated thing that people die from.

So now you're talking about homicides again?
See, this is why I told you you lost the argument.
You can't even follow your own line of thinking.
You're all over the place, jumping from safety, to crime, to society's duties, and all manner of other nonsense when only one thing needs to be addressed.
Does gun control effect crime?
No, every study shows it does not.
End of debate.