[Kaijo]

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

Because if the system fails, we need to have parity with at least infantry so that we may remove said dictator.
It is as simple as that.
Without arms to wage war against such a dictatorship we have little or no chance of removal.

Yes, this is repeated over and over: "we need arms to wage war against a dictatorship that may happen." But I haven't had anyone tell me exactly how that will happen. Tell me how your shotgun or rifle, is going to defend us against a plane that is bombing us. Or a drone. Or an armored tank rolling through the streets.

That comment is ridiculous.
The Mohajadeen defeated the Soviet military with only small arms, after 27 years of war and the Soviets were using tanks, attack helicopters, and the like. In fact, we are losing in Afghanistan to similar forces.

You are forgetting all the assistance the mujahideen got. The US, Turkey, Britsish, Swiss, and China, among others, provided tons of weapons (guns and missiles... the latter of which we aren't legally allowed to possess) to Afghanistan. And this was a case of invasion by another power; the mujahideen simply annoyed the Soviets for 27 years until they got fed up and left.

So, are you saying that you expect the US people to get assistance from other countries if our president becomes a dictator? That our best hope is to annoy him for 27 years and he, the government, and the military that is against us... will just leave?

Yes, primarily because the "gun murders" in the US aren't not broken down by illegal firearms, criminal on criminal murders, and gang related murders. If we are going to talk about infringing on the rights of law abiding citizens, then we have to find the numbers for them. Meaning how many murders are non-gang, non-criminal on criminal, and non-legal weapons.
That becomes something of a chore and then attempting to compare that to the UK which uses their own method of criminal statistics poisons the waters even further.
Thus it really does become an "apples to oranges" scenario since we are talking about making policy based on statistics that are not compatible in the first place when any attempt at being specific is tried.
Thus we are stuck with generalities like violent crime.

Sorry, but you can compare someone killed by a gun in one country, vs. someone killed by a gun in another country. That's apples to apples. Whether they were shot by a gang member, or a family member, or a stranger is irrelevant right now. The fact of the matter is, the UK has VASTLY less gun death than the US has. No ifs, ands, or buts.

That is a complete non sequitur.
The crime reports within the US are uniform, and thus states can be compared.

And you'd be surprised to find that hospitals and police around the world keep cause of death certificates, and thus it is a simple matter to go through and find out how many died via guns. Thus, those statistics are comparable. Look, we're talking about gun death. You wandered off and attacked the strawman of violent crime. You did a good job knocking down the strawman, though.

What we are actually left with is the question: "Does this policy infringe on the rights of citizens?"
Short answer with regard to current gun control proposals is yes.
As I have already illustrated.

So, regardless of who is injured, terrorized, harmed, or killed... the only thing that matters is that I have a gun?

Who is tossing out the data?
I'm just using the data that is most compatable because it is the only way I've seen thus far to make any sort of accurate comparison.
The UK has been declared the most dangerous country in Europe, and according to the Telegraph has more violent crime than the US. I'd say they would know.

Okay, so one news article, we're starting to get somewhere. Still, you're hung up on the violent crime strawman argument. As your video noted before, though, the UK covers a TON of crime under the violent crime label. If I shoplift and bump into a clerk on the way out, that's a violent crime in the UK. I wonder... would people trade MUCH less gun deaths, for an increase in shoplifting? I know I would. I wonder what those mothers of Newtown children would say?

Which is precisely why we need armed teachers, guards, and administrators in schools.
That way, it doesn't matter what the weapon of choice is, there is a chance of reducing the number of dead significantly. Whereas no ban on any gun will do that as even Mayor Bloomberg has admitted with regard to the Newtown shooting.

Really? There was an armed officer at Columbine. He wasn't able to prevent much. Virginia Tech had an entire armed security force.... and they weren't able to prevent anything. There was a shooting at Fort Hood, a damn military base, and the soldiers all around weren't able to prevent it. The first armed officer to engage the shooter, wasn't able to stop him, either.

Look, in the best case of armed personnel at a school, the shooter *still* manages to kill someone people before being shot. In the best case of banning/heavily regulating... that person might kill or injure one or two people with a knife, before being subdued.

And you're forgetting all those teachers and administrators who are NOT comfortable using a gun, or having one near their children. Would you propose shoving a gun into their hand anyway? Force them to do something they don't want?

No, you have to deal with the reality that the 2nd amendment hasn't been repealed or revised.
There is no such thing as "gun crime" that is another made up term used by hoplophobes.

Seriously? You think "gun crime" is a made-up term, designed to inflame? What do you call a crime where someone has died or been injured by a gun?

If a handgun ban would work, Chicago wouldn't be the warzone it is right now.
CCW permits have worked best, and that is the path we as a nation need to follow, lest the violent crime skyrocket and get worse.

Because it is easy to get guns from states where there is no ban. Buy in Arizona, casually walk across the states to Illinois, and sell the guns on the streets. The only way a gun ban will work, is across the entire US, since we do much better at securing our borders. Yes, not 100%, but since the US is one of the biggest producers of guns, without us, the number of guns around will plummet dramatically.

I already have, whether you'll accept it or not is moot.

I told you, "Do thing A, and you can change my mind." You did thing B and said, "I have done thing B, which is what you said will change your mind." Where A and B are different things. I will repeat: Do thing A. Change wikipedia if you feel it's sources are wrong. If the sources really are wrong, then you have a duty to change it, to stop it from spreading false information! Once you do, my mind will change. That is what it will take.

Wikipedia is NOT a valid source of information, especially when dealing with politically charged subjects such as gun control.

Not this argument again... Look, you don't understand how wikipedia works. Yes, it can have false information, but that is when you go to where the sources are. Does the information have a source? Does the source actually have that information in it? If yes, then the wikipedia information is valid. Wikipedia is only as good as it's sources... and people willing to invest the time to correct it when it is wrong. Wikipedia is merely the avenue for verifiability, for the collection of of sources, to give information on a topic.

Your job is to attack the source, not wikipedia. You can attack wikipedia when there is no source, or when the source is wrong or does not give the information wikipedia quotes it has having. You currently have not done any of this.

Oh, well, here is one for you by Professor Gary Kleck and Don B. Kates.

Ooh, finally! Well, this is book I'd have to buy, unless I can find it online to read. But I can look up some reviews and read summaries. It seems to be the work of two criminologists, who, according to the summaries, wanted to cut through the extreme rhetoric on both sides to get to the truth. Sounds good so far. Let's see what some reviews say...

In one chapter, they dissect the methods of the gun control movement and conclude, perhaps with some reason, that the limited gun control measures currently being sought are part of a strategy toward banning all handguns. But this position is derided as the result of the "absolutist" and "prohibitionist" views of "anti-gun zealots." The authors argue that this zealotry has pushed the NRA into opposing even moderate gun controls, such as licensing and registration, for fear of eventually losing their right to own guns. Their attack on the "liberal media bias" may convince some readers, but the authors take it to a ridiculous extreme: the media's depiction of gun owners is a "bigoted stereotype that would be recognized and denounced as such if directed against gays, Jews, African-Americans or virtually any group other than gun owners." - Publishers Weekly

Huh, where have I heard the term "liberal media bias" before... Fox news, was it? I gotta say, when they hit such notes, it doesn't bode well for their cause. In any event, they don't seem as even-handed as they might claim. Found this pro-gun review, too, which talks about how great the book is, and has this gem:

"The book contains chapters on all the important topics. Kates begins with an excellent review of the role played by doctors and medical publications. He demolishes the fake studies and exposes the hijacking of medical research to support a political agenda. Numerous quotes document the often ludicrous claims of anti-gun "researchers" and the blatant censorship of information by medical journals. His use of the term, "overt mendacity" is a polite way of saying that the anti-gun doctors simply lied."

Wow, all those medical doctors are lying? They are involved in a huge conspiracy? Why isn't the media reporting on this!? Oh, that's because it is the liberal media, and they are complicit, right? Every single doctor and media person (other than Fair and Balanced Fox news) is in on the great conspiracy!

And yes, it has to be a conspiracy, because any "lying" on medical papers will be caught, or exposed in another paper. Never underestimate the ego of a scientist, who can show up another scientist by showing him to be wrong. I'll let people judge for themselves, this book and what it says. And I shall read through it myself when it arrives, but I gotta say, I have my doubts.

Now, are you going to read through all 15 sources on wikipedia?

That is correct, and the police currently have military-grade arms, so you just made my point for me that miliary arms are what are protected and thus any ban on them is unconstitutional.

So, you agree that I should be allowed to own a surface-to-air missile, as that is a military grade arm in service today. That if the government tried to ban citizens from having them, that would be an infringement on the 2nd amendment, right? So, will you stand with me in telling the government that I should be allowed to own as many surface-to-air missiles as I want? That my purchases of them should not be observed or tracked in any way, shape or form?

After all, I want my right to bear arms to defend myself and my family from possible government tyranny, and the government has planes and helicopters and drones.

You know, I'll close with this:

"So this isn't really about the constitution or efficacy of regulation or intruder defense. it's about how perilously close some people in this country feel they are living to a tyrant's rule.... But now I get it, now I see what's happening. So this is what it is. Their paranoid fear of a possible dystopic future prevents us from addressing our actual dystopic present. We can't even begin to address 30,000 gun deaths that are actually, in reality, happening in this country every year. Because a few of us must remain vigilant against the rise of imaginary Hitler." - Jon Stewart, Scapegoat Hunter