Mass Shooting at Connecticut Elementary School

[BoMac]

Even if stockpiling assault rifles in the 21st century to protect against the rise of a tyrannical government was a valid argument, the 2nd Amendment calls for a "well regulated" militia.

It seems to me that most gun supporters are focusing primarily on the constitutionality of the "right to bear arms" instead of the "well regulated" part.

It is just too easy for people to obtain guns in the U.S. And while it's likely that tragedies will continue to occur, it doesn't mean we shouldn't implement some stricter rules to make guns harder to get.

[Eighties]

Originally Posted by BoMac

Even if stockpiling assault rifles in the 21st century to protect against the rise of a tyrannical government was a valid argument, the 2nd Amendment calls for a "well regulated" militia.

It seems to me that most gun supporters are focusing primarily on the constitutionality of the "right to bear arms" instead of the "well regulated" part.

It is just too easy for people to obtain guns in the U.S. And while it's likely that tragedies will continue to occur, it doesn't mean we shouldn't implement some stricter rules to make guns harder to get.

Finally some sort of agreement.

[Caleb8844]

Originally Posted by BoMac

Even if stockpiling assault rifles in the 21st century to protect against the rise of a tyrannical government was a valid argument, the 2nd Amendment calls for a "well regulated" militia.

It seems to me that most gun supporters are focusing primarily on the constitutionality of the "right to bear arms" instead of the "well regulated" part.

It is just too easy for people to obtain guns in the U.S. And while it's likely that tragedies will continue to occur, it doesn't mean we shouldn't implement some stricter rules to make guns harder to get.

Most reasoned conservatives would be completely fine with stricter rules on getting guns. I know I would be. As I said a few times in this debate, extensive background checks on those purchasing fire arms is something I would certainly support.

But it seems like that's not enough for most on the left, or for most people here.

[Pearl]

Originally Posted by Eighties

Liberals resorting to name calling, and other immature tactics, how typical.

People on both sides are capable of that.

[Diemen]

Alright, folks. Let's everyone take a deep breath, check that urge to insult the opposing side, and try and get back to a level-headed, civil discussion here.

[Diemen]

Originally Posted by Eighties

Liberals resorting to name calling, and other immature tactics, how typical.

So glad you're rising above the fray by not insulting them ba-- oh, wait.

[Jive Turkey]

Know what everyone needs, gang? A cupcake picnic. Let's make it happen

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by Caleb8844

We're getting dreadfully off topic here. Bottom line: revolutions have occurred across the globe. They're obviously possible..even with a shortage of carrier pigeons. I don't think there's any need to sit down and discuss the actual minutia of it.

as long as you are ok with this remote but, yes, potentially a remotely possible possibility as justification for the radically higher rates of homicide in the US than anywhere else in the Western world.

just say you're ok with it. at least admit that -- i wish gun owners/supporters would just say, "sure it's a tragedy when children are gunned down, but i really like my guns, so i guess that's a trade off i'm willing to make."

[Irvine511]

freedom:

Price Middle School Shooting: Multiple Injuries In Attack At Southeast Atlanta School

[Caleb8844]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

as long as you are ok with this remote but, yes, potentially a remotely possible possibility as justification for the radically higher rates of homicide in the US than anywhere else in the Western world.

just say you're ok with it. at least admit that -- i wish gun owners/supporters would just say, "sure it's a tragedy when children are gunned down, but i really like my guns, so i guess that's a trade off i'm willing to make."

That's not what I'm saying at all.

I'm saying that, from 1994-2004 (the entire period the assault weapons ban was active), the number of violent crimes was between 1.3-1.9 million. In 2011, it was 1.2 million.

From 1994-2004, the total number of murders was between 15,500-23,330. In 2011, it was 14,612.

From 1994-2004, the total number of assaults was between 847,000-1.1 million. In 2011, it was 751,131.

Violent crime over the years has declined at a very steady rate, with or without an assault weapons ban. If I thought a ban would actually do anything besides restrict freedom, I'd be all for it. However, statistics say it won't.

As an aside, lets not forget when columbine, the most famous of these type of incidents, occurred: 1999, right in the middle of the assault weapons ban.

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by Caleb8844

That's not what I'm saying at all.

I'm saying that, from 1994-2004 (the entire period the assault weapons ban was active), the number of violent crimes was between 1.3-1.9 million. In 2011, it was 1.2 million.

From 1994-2004, the total number of murders was between 15,500-23,330. In 2011, it was 14,612.

From 1994-2004, the total number of assaults was between 847,000-1.1 million. In 2011, it was 751,131.

Violent crime over the years has declined at a very steady rate, with or without an assault weapons ban. If I thought a ban would actually do anything besides restrict freedom, I'd be all for it. However, statistics say it won't.

As an aside, lets not forget when columbine, the most famous of these type of incidents, occurred: 1999, right in the middle of the assault weapons ban.

there are many, many, many reasons for the drop in crime since the early 1990s above and beyond the assault gun ban. and the statistics you cite don't do what you think that they do.

how is freedom for you contingent upon owning an assault weapon?

[Caleb8844]

We've hashed this out several times in this thread.

And saying brushing out my points by saying "the statistics you cite don't do what you think they do" isn't a rebuttal; it's slightly offensive condescension.

The numbers say that violence is decreasing at a constant rate, regardless of assault weapons bans.

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by Caleb8844

We've hashed this out several times in this thread.

And saying brushing out my points by saying "the statistics you cite don't do what you think they do" isn't a rebuttal; it's slightly offensive condescension.

The numbers say that violence is decreasing at a constant rate, regardless of assault weapons bans.

you're assuming that i support a ban on assault weapons as a way of reducing crime.

i don't.

i support a ban on assault weapons because they make rare mass shootings even worse, and there's no reason why untrained citizens should have access to weapons made for warfare.

[Caleb8844]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

i support a ban on assault weapons because they make rare mass shootings even worse

Yet four of the top five most deadly school shootings in the last decade or so didn't involve an assault weapon.

[LemonMelon]

I find concealed weapons as upsetting as assault rifles, to be honest. If you require a weapon to defend your property, why does it need to be a concealed?

[Caleb8844]

Originally Posted by LemonMelon

I find concealed weapons as upsetting as assault rifles, to be honest. If you require a weapon to defend your property, why does it need to be a concealed?

This confuses me as well.

[Eighties]

Originally Posted by LemonMelon

I find concealed weapons as upsetting as assault rifles, to be honest. If you require a weapon to defend your property, why does it need to be a concealed?

It's a tactical advantage. element of surprise, stuff of that sort. Also shouldn't worry too much about people with those sorts of permits. They have to go through proper courses to receive that permit.

[Eighties]

Originally Posted by LemonMelon

I find concealed weapons as upsetting as assault rifles, to be honest. If you require a weapon to defend your property, why does it need to be a concealed?

I just did my homework and it comes to find out in some states pepper spray and other none leather weapons need that permit to be concealed apparently

[Eighties]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

no reason why untrained citizens should have access to weapons made for warfare.

So could you agree with the proper courses, training, and test it's okay for one to own a weapons of "militaristic features" ?

[Diemen]

Would you agree to mandating proper courses, training and tests before one could own such a weapon?