March 4, 2018 3:37 pm at 3:37 pm #1480658
I can ask you the same question in reverse
Do you have proof that it isn’t a benefit?
But I want to take issue with your analogy to nuclear weapons
I’ve repeatedly said that the argument against assault rifles is based on the idea that they are inherently more dangerous, and that is false
That makes the comparison to nuclear weapons apples and oranges. A clear distinction exists between nuclear weapons and rifles.
No such clear distinction exists between an ar and a ruger 14March 4, 2018 3:55 pm at 3:55 pm #1480662
I also don’t understand pushing the point about checks and balances of govt tyranny
You know there is a second amendment. Your entire point is knegid the amendment. You may disagree with the amendment. You may want to uproot it. But as of now it’s the law.March 4, 2018 3:55 pm at 3:55 pm #1480663
Mentsch1, it is true that some non-assault rifles are as dangerous as assault rifles. And gun control proponents want to ban those also.March 4, 2018 3:56 pm at 3:56 pm #1480664
I am quite surprised that none of the posters here has mentioned the most relevant research on this subject (as far as I can see.) Comparing countries with gun laws to those without are not accurate at all since there are many many factors which influence murder rates, such as culture or police corruption. And if you do check all the world statistics, you can see that there is in fact no correlation between gun laws and murder rates. However if you compare homicide rates before and after gun regulations in the same country, then you will find consistently that homicide rates go up after the ban. They may go down again years later due to other factors such as putting more police on the street.
Just Google “Murder and homicide rates before and after gun bans. ”
But this clearly shows that gun laws are dangerous and we should fight them with the same intensity that those who are trying to remove our defense from violence, however well intentioned they may be.March 4, 2018 3:57 pm at 3:57 pm #1480666
“Do you have proof that it isn’t a benefit?”
that what isnt a benefit?
Of course there is a benefit to owning guns. They are fun I get it, I’ve gone shooting it is an absolute blast.
Driving 100 mph near school zones is a blast too. However both are dangerous and although I am an excellent driver and can avoid hitting pesky kids for the sake of society, my right to drive is curtailed although Iam otheriwise a law abiding citizen.
I get the appeal to guns, I dont really gt the needing it to overthrow the government part, I just dont understand how it works.
“But I want to take issue with your analogy to nuclear weapons”
It’s not an analogy. I’m pointing out that the 2nd amendment isnt absolute. and that all (I hope) agree there isnt an absolute right to own any “Arm” regardless of the consequences.
It is just a question of what arms owned by which people are included.
“I’ve repeatedly said that the argument against assault rifles is based on the idea that they are inherently more dangerous, and that is false”
note, I never made an argument against assault rifles.March 4, 2018 5:48 pm at 5:48 pm #1480681
They are a blast
Midwest, take note . If you ever go through a difficult time it’s better then therapy
But I have a problem with your new analogy
Driving a car 100 is an active endangerment to people and laws exist that punish wrong doers
Gun ownership is passive. And laws already exist that penalize people for using them in a way that endangers others. Just like driving 100 in a school zone will get you arrested so will discharging any weapon irresponsibly.March 4, 2018 5:51 pm at 5:51 pm #1480701
There have been a lot of questions posed here about the effectiveness of firearms regulations, causes of shootings, etc. Unfortunately, we haven’t had any reliable gun violence research in decades, since Congress (backed by NRA money) passed the Dickey Amendment to prevent the CDC for doing research on it and there isn’t a lot of private money around to go against the tide.
Let’s refund research by the CDC and find out what’s actually going on. Then we can make better-informed decisions. Relying on the examples of Australia, Sweden, etc. is better than nothing. but we need info on our own country and culture. Why is the NRA afraid to let that research be conducted? What are they afraid will be found?March 4, 2018 5:52 pm at 5:52 pm #1480704
By the way, where does anyone get the tsedrait idea that the 2nd amendment was to enable people to oppose their own government? The brand-new United States had enough troubles without encouraging its own citizens to rise up against it. The militias were intended to help the legitimate central government, which couldn’t afford an adequate standing army, defend against foreign invaders and local internal rebellions. When you think “militia” in that historical context, think “National Guard.” Do you think the National Guard exists to allow its members to rebel against the Department of Defense? The tyranny they were worried about was the tyranny that England would have liked to reimpose, not their own government in Philadelphia (DC wasn’t built yet).
And what good does having an AR-15 do a white nationalist “militia” when they’re facing the might of the US Army? Ask the ISIS what happened to them in Fallujah. Or ask Saddam Hussein – he had an army too but it wasn’t up to ours. We have the biggest armed forces in the world – several times over. A bunch of guys hiding out in the mountains are going to overthrow it? The Vietnam war wasn’t won by guerrillas. It was won by the North Vietnamese regular army with abundant logistical support from the Soviet Union. It was the ultimate “proxy war,” And we lost because we could never get our priorities – moral or military – straight. I remember it in real time on the evening news, and from my friends who came back. It’s all a video game fantasy.March 4, 2018 7:48 pm at 7:48 pm #1480727
I lived in Brooklyn during the 70’s – 80’s and did have a transport permit for my long guns. I owned my first long gun at the age of 16 and used the weapon at the armory off of Eastern Parkway (with my dad and members of a certain Jewish organization). When I was older, I graduated to snub-nosed revolvers and so on. I left the boundaries of New York City for Long Island and, eventually, I went south to Florida the ‘make my day’ state; where we have armed guards for our Jewish day schools and our shuls as well. Here is the deal with owning weapons; get proper training, and updated training when needed, respect your weapons and do not think for one second that you are a LEO (unless you are! my dad is, retired now). Every responsible gun owner will report the same; in a high-stress situation, no matter how much training one has, each person will react differently to the stressful event. Additionally, the NRA does not sell or provide weapons for their members.March 4, 2018 7:49 pm at 7:49 pm #1480729
” Comparing countries with gun laws to those without are not accurate at all since there are many many factors which influence murder rates”
When there are many countires the “many factors” become part of the “background” It becomes harder to argue that More guns leads to less crime, France is an exception because their police are corrupt, england is an exception because of their “culture” etc etc.
“And if you do check all the world statistics, you can see that there is in fact no correlation between gun laws and murder rates.”
Nope, and it isnt true on the State level either See “Gun Ownership as a Risk Factor for Homicide in the Home” in NEJM 10/7/93 the study that may have led to the NRA pushing for a shutdown on the CDC studying the issue.
See “State-level homicide victimization rates in the U.S. in relation to survey measures of household firearm ownership, 2001-2003.” Social Science and Medicine. 2007; 64:656-64. where they looked at state level and controlled for other factors
“if you compare homicide rates before and after gun regulations in the same country, then you will find consistently that homicide rates go up after the ban.”
Nope. Australia. Even if it is true in some countries, it isnt “consistently”
“They may go down again years later due to other factors such as putting more police on the street.”
oooook. so lets have stricter gun laws AND put more police on the street. We will skip the inital spike and jump ahead to the lower homicide rates they have. sounds like a plan!March 4, 2018 7:50 pm at 7:50 pm #1480730
“But I have a problem with your new analogy”
Yes I have problems with it too.
It i s far from perfect. There are other examples (none of which are perfect) I have a high alcohol tolerance. I drive better with BAC of 0.2% than most people do without alcohol. Yet I can’t if my BAC is above 0.08% (what an arbitrary number!) I get arrested. Just an innocent otherwise law abiding citizen deprived of my right to drink what I want. and dont get me started on me passively having an open drink in my car. I love airing out the tannins of my wine on my drive home, yet even if I dnt drink I get arrested. Al lbecause of crimes committed by OTHER drunk drivers.
The point is and it seems you agree with most of this:
There is a shooting problem in this country
There has to be a way to improve
The second amendment is not absolute
sometimes we have to give up things we may enjoy for the betterment/safety of society.
(I dont know exactly what needs to be given up, buying guns at young age? buying without a license? Buying without a background check)March 4, 2018 10:30 pm at 10:30 pm #1480793
Ubiq -“There is a shooting problem in this country”
Only with the criminals, Not with the gun-carrying law-abiding citizens.
“There has to be a way to improve”
YES!! If anyone commits murder – that understands the meaning of it (around 8-10 y.o.), they should get the death penalty; or at least Life imprisonment, with NO possibilty for parole!
This will knock the murder rate by hundreds!
“The second amendment is not absolute;”
I agree! We should amend the Constitution – that every adult must be armed, to prevent all this crime!
Sometimes we have to give up things we may enjoy (NO Weapons) for the betterment/safety of society.
Now I’m gonna repeat from Page 1, because n/o commented:
“Now let’s take the murder capital in the US – it’s E. St. Louis, Ill. I’m sure a lot of their murders are from guns. And a lot of them are perps under 21. So would your idea of Gun Control stop most killings in the USA?!? LIBERALS – Stop Dreaming!!!”March 5, 2018 7:48 am at 7:48 am #1480873
No need to pick a fight We already agree, its ok to be liberal welcome to the true pro-life party take a deep breath yo u will be fine. You already said You agree with Trump ” “Comprehensive Background Checks with an emphasis on Mental Health. Raise age to 21 and end sale of Bump Stocks” Now Trump has said police can confiscate guns without first going through court sytem. I assume you agree with this, since you seem to agree with Trump no matter what (including that some people at Neo-Nazi Rallies are very fine people)
You already mentioned your silly idea to improve. It is silly because neither countries nor states that have capital punishment have a lower homicde rate. So while it was a good thought, it just isnt true.March 5, 2018 11:17 am at 11:17 am #1480916
Ubiq -“Now Trump has said police can confiscate guns without first going through court sytem. I assume you agree with this, since you seem to agree with Trump no matter what”
It’s the first time I heard of this. Take away guns from who – regular citizens or criminals?
“Raise age to 21”
I agree with this; but it won’t stop the Killing in the US! The criminals don’t care. And that was my point!
“It is silly because neither countries nor states that have capital punishment have a lower homicde rate. So while it was a good thought, it just isnt true.”
Stop with your deceit! The reason that they don’t is because they don’t have the death penalty in every case of Murder! If they did, the murder rate would drop tremendously!March 5, 2018 12:12 pm at 12:12 pm #1481001
“Take away guns from who – regular citizens or criminals?”
Here is his fulll quote: “Or, Mike, take the firearms first and then go to court. Because that’s another system. A lot of times by the time you go to court, it takes so long to go to court, to get the due process procedures. I like taking the guns early. Like in this crazy man’s case that just took place in Florida. He had a lot of firearms. They saw everything. To go to court would have taken a long time. You could do exactly what you’re saying but take the guns first, go through due process second.”
He wa responding to PEnce who had said “if an individual is reported to be a potential danger to themselves or others. Allow due process so no one’s rights are trampled but the ability to go to court, obtain an order and collect not only the firearms but any weapons in the possession.”
“but it won’t stop the Killing in the US”
Nobody said it would.
” If they did, the murder rate would drop tremendously!”
Do you have any data to support, that which has been debunked over and overMarch 5, 2018 12:54 pm at 12:54 pm #1481024
Ubiq -“Do you have any data to support, that which has been debunked over and over”
Stop with the liberal lies!
In Saudi Arabia they execute people for crimes, eg. Murder, Drug pushings, etc.
From a UK newspaper online:
“In 2014 they executed 153 criminals.”
From one of the commentors:
“I spent 10 years there, and about the only good thing to be said for the place is that it is basically free of violent crime.”March 5, 2018 2:03 pm at 2:03 pm #1481075
“In Saudi Arabia”
that is one country whose data may or may not be accurateMarch 5, 2018 4:16 pm at 4:16 pm #1481198
Ubiq -“In Saudi Arabia”
“that is one country whose data may or may not be accurate”
Their executions are public events, so what is not accurate? Are you saying that they’re pretending? That there is a lot of crime there?
Obviously you missed my previous post.
Here it is again – the guy obviously lives in the Western World:
“From one of the commenters:”
“I spent 10 years there, and about the only good thing to be said for the place is that it is basically free of violent crime.”March 5, 2018 4:33 pm at 4:33 pm #1481261
Who says the people executed are actually criminals?March 5, 2018 5:31 pm at 5:31 pm #1481323
Midwest2 -“The Vietnam war wasn’t won by guerrillas. It was won by the North Vietnamese regular army with abundant logistical support from the Soviet Union.”
Wrong! Your getting off the subject.
Anyways, It was lost because of no morale in the army. I had an instructor who was an officer. Because of the Liberals – the politicians weren’t supporting it anymore. And there was a lack of morale because it was a guerrilla warfare!March 5, 2018 5:31 pm at 5:31 pm #1481334
Yidd23 -“Who says the people executed are actually criminals?”
Anything can be.
But you’re missing the point!
Why must I repeat myself?
“Here it is again – the guy obviously lives in the Western World:”
“From one of the commenters:”
“I spent 10 years there, and about the only good thing to be said for the place is that it is basically free of violent crime.”March 5, 2018 5:32 pm at 5:32 pm #1481343
“so what is not accurate”
Their crime rate. They may deliberately downplay their crime rate to appear safer than they are.
I’m not saying that they do. Just that one country doesn’t serve to undo literally hundreds of studies.
““I spent 10 years there, and about the only good thing to be said for the place is that it is basically free of violent crime”
“Obviously you missed my previous post.
Here it is again – the guy obviously lives in the Western World:
“From one of the commenters:””
I saw that, and while I was tempted to laugh at using “one of their commentators” as a legitimate source.It may be true. At any rate as mentioned that is the exception not the rule. There are many factors that can explain it, even if true. Perhaps being a more religious country might have something ot do with it.March 5, 2018 9:07 pm at 9:07 pm #1481771
Ubiq -“.Just that one country doesn’t serve to undo literally hundreds of studies.”
What studies are you talking about?
I looked at the statistics and the only country that gun control worked is Austraila.
(Homocide) In England, Wales, Ireland & Jamaica, it either went up or stayed the same!
So why don’t you say Saudi Arabia is the Rule and Austraila is the Exception?!?March 5, 2018 10:17 pm at 10:17 pm #1481805
From Wikipedia militia
At the time of the drafting of the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights, a political sentiment existed in the newly formed United States involving suspicion of peacetime armies not under civilian control. This political belief has been identified as stemming from the memory of the abuses of the standing army of Oliver Cromwell and King James II, in Great Britain in the prior century, which led to the Glorious Revolution and resulted in placing the standing army under the control of Parliament. During the Congressional debates, James Madison discussed how a militia could help defend liberty against tyranny and oppression. (Source I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789) Though during his presidency, after enduring the failures of the militia in the War of 1812, Madison came to favor the maintenance of a strong standing army.March 5, 2018 10:22 pm at 10:22 pm #1481800
“What studies are you talking about?”
There are many
Here is the first hit on google:
DO EXECUTIONS LOWER HOMICIDE RATES?: THE VIEWS OF LEADING CRIMINOLOGISTS*
MICHAEL L. RADELET & TRACI L. LACOCK (caps are sic)
“So why don’t you say Saudi Arabia is the Rule and Austraila is the Exception?!?”
What? Saudi Arabia llike Australia regulates guns (though not nearly to the same extent)l
you are confusing apples and oranges. This thread is about gun control. You argue that capital punishment is the best deterrence ok, and proof from Saudi Arabia. Fine.
Though now I’m thoroughly confused. If more guns deters crime, and capital punishment deters crime. The US should have one of the lowest crime rates of the Western World!? Yet it isnt so.
why not?March 5, 2018 10:23 pm at 10:23 pm #1481808
In Pennsylvania, John Smiley told the ratifying convention that “Congress may give us a select militia which will in fact be a standing army”, and worried that, [p.34] with this force in hand, “the people in general may be disarmed”.  Similar concerns were raised by Richard Henry Lee in Virginia. In his widely-read pamphlet, Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republican, Lee warned that liberties might be undermined by the creation of a select militia that “[would] answer to all the purposes of an army”
It is clear from historical sources that the militia was to function as checks and balances against a tyrannical centralized army. It may have functioned as an additional army resource (like the national guard) but it’s individuality was deliberate in the checks and balance system.March 6, 2018 12:41 am at 12:41 am #1481826
Ubiq -“If more guns deters crime, and capital punishment deters crime. The US should have one of the lowest crime rates of the Western World!? Yet it isnt so.”
It’s very simple in my mind. Why does more guns deter crime? And why does strict capital punishment, like Saudi Arabia has, deter crime?
For the same reason! If the perp thinks he’ll/she’ll be killed because of their action – it’s a big deterrent!March 6, 2018 12:59 am at 12:59 am #1481846
Ubi, one thing is certain, an executed murderer will never murder again.
RY, they are all almost certainly guilty of something for which a Ben Noach is liable for the death penalty.March 6, 2018 7:52 am at 7:52 am #1481876
“t is clear from historical sources that the militia was to function as checks and balances against a tyrannical centralized army. ”
Again, so how does this work. My friends and I oppose the tyrannical taxes opposed on us We are opening fire on the IRS. Are you in? This is our constitutional given right
In other words, who decides when the centralized army has become tyrannical?
Is there any armed uprising in >230 years of US history that you support?March 6, 2018 7:52 am at 7:52 am #1481877
Midwest and ubiq
Our country basically had seven “founding fathers”. Three (Hamilton, Madison, John jay ) wrote the federalist papers to promote the constitution (signed in 1787)
These papers (about 85 articles) talk about the intent of the militia (among other things)
It is clear that the intent was to have an armed populace to counter a centralized standing army. I believe the papers even state that they should have similar weapons. (And yes we have already rehashed the nuclear weapon and cannon question)
An interesting article came out two years ago in “the week” (a slight left of center publication).
Google “the week Hamilton solved America’s gun problem”
The gist is that we should mandate that all gun owners join militias and mandate the militias to take care of training and mental screening etc
It’s an interesting article
But my main point is that it has all the the quotes from the federalist papers to prove that armed citizens to counter a standing army was the intent of the founding fathers.
Another point is the disingenuous (or sheer ignorance) of the left and even leftist courts to suggest that the fathers wanted to protect hunting .March 6, 2018 10:33 am at 10:33 am #1481896
“It’s very simple in my mind. …
For the same reason! If the perp thinks he’ll/she’ll be killed because of their action – it’s a big deterrent!”
Yes I get that. Though simple things arent always true.
and neither is born out by data.
Also using your simplistic argument suicide bombings wouldnt exist. Of course the factors involved are quite different, but death isnt automatically a detterrent. IT isnt so simpleMarch 6, 2018 10:34 am at 10:34 am #1481898
Who decided it when the founding fathers declared independence?
Who decided it when the south seceded ?
Change happens and sometimes it’s just a few (or even one good orater) that motivate the populace to demand change. The winners of these wars are labeled fathers, the losers , traitors or terroists or madman.
As I’ve said, specifically in the second amendment issue, if the govt decided to confiscate weapons I believe we will see another revolution, and my money is on the guys with the guns.March 6, 2018 11:08 am at 11:08 am #1482031
“Who decided it when the south seceded ?”
The Southern States.
So yo u are saying they were right. and Lincoln was wrong in his for waging a war of Northern Aggression?March 6, 2018 11:37 am at 11:37 am #1482056
I didn’t say they were correct , as I’ve said from a frum standpoint (my litmus test of right or wrong) the founding fathers were mored bmalchus and implicit in murder of British soldiers.
My guess is the founding fathers would have thought they were correct to start the cw.
My guess is that if the founding fathers were transported to the age of SJW / abortion rights etc that we live in they would think us fools for not revolting sooner
The bottom line like I said at the outset
This is the way they believed and lived and they framed the constitution accordinglyMarch 6, 2018 11:39 am at 11:39 am #1481895
“It is clear that the intent was to have an armed populace to counter a centralized standing army”
Absolutely no argument there. I never argued that point. My argument is that today 230 years later practicly it doesn’t make sense
I would counter
1) Intent isnt quite as important as what is written (ask Scalia) it says “militia”
Congress currently defines “militia as ” (Militia: Composition and Classes), paragraph (a) states: “The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard” (United States Code, Title 10 (Armed forces), section 246 )
Unless that definition is deemed unconstitutional a private citizen is not included in the 2nd amendment (although their intent may have been otherwise).
2) “And yes we have already rehashed the nuclear weapon and cannon question)”
We have , though I’m not clear why you believe those arent protected. (you said they arent but havent explained why not, and more importantly what right we have to ban them) and makes your postiion HARDER to sustain since clearly you agree that practicly speaking you dont actually want citizenry to beable to put down the government. So the relying on the “intent” is really a charade, as while true historically you clearly dont actually think that it is good practical policy
You also havent explained in practical terms how this intent carries out
who decides when the centralized army has become tyrannical?
Is there any armed uprising in >230 years of US history that you support?
“Google “the week Hamilton solved America’s gun problem””
I’ve read that article and agree completely (those deemed unable of joining eg mental problems, criminalrecords lose their guns)March 6, 2018 12:45 pm at 12:45 pm #1482074
Based on intent
The national guard is technically part of the militia discussed during the constitutional era
There was to be organized and unorganized militias (discussed in some of the federal paper quotes)
The national guard is officially controlled by the state not the federal govt
And officially is armed to the teeth
So the intent is still thereMarch 6, 2018 1:06 pm at 1:06 pm #1482090
Ubiq -“Also using your simplistic argument suicide bombings wouldnt exist. Of course the factors involved are quite different, but death isnt automatically a detterrent. IT isnt so simple”
The mentality of a suicide bomber is vastly different than a criminal. The perp is only interested in him/herself (that’s why he/she commits burglary, wipes out another drug pusher), while the bomber wants to go to the next world! The perp cares about his/her’s survival in this world. That’s why more armed citizens & a serious death penalty, is a strong deterrent!March 20, 2018 1:24 pm at 1:24 pm #1495112
midwest2 -“Dick’s Sporting Goods… They say they are particularly strong on this since the Parkland shooter bought a shotgun from them in 2017, and while it wasn’t the gun used in the shooting, “It could have been.”
While it’s good that the Deputy took down the Shooter in today’s shooting, it didn’t have to happen.
I’ve posted many times already – that schools need to have Metal Detectors to enter them!
Why hasn’t it been done?!?March 20, 2018 1:48 pm at 1:48 pm #1495120
Mentsch, POTUS can federalize the Guard. eisenhower, for example, did this during the Little Rock crisis.March 20, 2018 4:17 pm at 4:17 pm #1495265
A few points on the Maryland shooting:
1. A handgun was used, not an assault rifle. It also appears that the shooter was targeting a specific person – his ex-girlfriend – and not out to stage a massacre. I think it will turn out to be a personal conflict, not a mentally ill person out to kill as many as possible. In fact, this does not qualify as a mass shooting, since fewer than four people were shot.
2. The person who stopped the gunman was the school resource officer – a sworn, professional police officer – not an armed teacher or staff person. Handling a crisis situation requires a lot more training than simply knowing which end of a gun the bullet comes out of.
3. This incident might also qualify as what is usually known as “suicide by cop.” The shooter knows that he will be targeted and killed by law enforcement and deliberately provokes it as a way of committing suicide.
And yes, Avi, Eisenhower did federalize the Guard, much to the unhappiness of the local authorities. (I watched it on TV.) Remember, it’s the NATIONAL guard, and a lot of the fighting in Iraq was done by Guard units who had been mobilized for national service. In peacetime they usually do things like help out in disasters, but they are a military force which answers to the Commander in Chief.March 20, 2018 4:17 pm at 4:17 pm #1495290
Health – a lot of schools do have metal detectors, but then you have to remember to do things like keep all the other doors locked. And keep a guard on the door, since with an AR-15 you can simply blow the lock off the door. Those things shoot through walls. I worked in an office where they had one for security, and the idiot who used it used to keep leaning it carelessly up against the wall, despite being warned that if it slipped it could kill someone next door.
Metal detectors are good, especially in urban situations where people can bring handguns to school in their backpacks. But no metal detector is going to be proof against an AR-15. You need a coordinated plan to keep a school safe.March 20, 2018 4:41 pm at 4:41 pm #1495346
with an AR-15 you can simply blow the lock off the door
No one does that in real life. Extremely difficult and extremely dangerous.March 20, 2018 4:44 pm at 4:44 pm #1495375
Extremely difficult and extremely dangerous.
Yeah, but it’s so much fun!March 21, 2018 12:52 am at 12:52 am #1495470
Midwest2 – “but then you have to remember to do things like keep all the other doors locked.”
You’re living in pre-historic times. They actually have one-way doors & they’re very common!
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.