I have a crazy idea. How about we keep the second amendment, and address the actual root of the issue that motivates some people to use guns against the greater good. Too complicated? Never mind then. I sometimes get optimism seizures, so don't mind me.
They will beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks. (U.N art display slogan) And those who beat there swords into plowshares will plow for those who dont (anon, and full of common sense)
Yeah, I think he's right . . . I'm not some right-wing nutcase by the way (more like a left-wing nutcase) but having citizens that are armed is a good idea. I wish it were more liberal over here in Britain.
True, but even the text as it is implies there is a right to bear arms: it simply says that that the needfulness of a militia is a reason for why that right should not be infringed. Of course, the constitution is quite clear that people have a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness - AMONGST other rights - and I would say to anyone, how can we defend our rights to life and liberty without the right to arm ourselves?
It also implies that the right is given by something greater than the state, or nation. "shall not be infringed" sounds to me like it wasn't given. And what isn't given cannot be taken away.
Indeed. I was kinda hoping to angle at that in my post. The rights are natural rights. The writers of it came from the background understanding of law which basically says that governments cannot give freedoms, but by definition only curtail man's natural freedoms. Of course, we accept the limits of law as they are beneficial. But yes, no one can GIVE anyone a right (despite what some say in the Continental tradition). And the rights to self-defence and life and liverty cannot be bargained away.
Exactly. That is what anti gunners must understand. We need to focus on laws that keep guns out of the hands of certain people, not everyone. I am liberal, but I only support certain kinds of gun control. I support gun control laws that keep guns in the hands of law abiding citizens, but out of the hands of criminals.
Secondly, your murder statistics are not very good either, and considering your country is modern and 'enlightend' they should also be considered terrible.
(Why can't I post links?)
Go to nationmaster(dot com) and do a search for 'murders per capita' and check out the stats.
Look at Sweden and see how every adult male is required to keep a fully automatic rifle and two hundred rounds of ammo in his home at all times. Yet they have very little violence. How about since Australia and Europe imposed strict gun laws gun crime, rape, and home invasion has increased year to year.
And did you hear about that crazy shooting that went down there a month or so ago?
By this sort of logic it would be a safer world if everyone had nuclear weapons yet you don't see the US promoting this lunatic idea, do you? Think about that while you're stroking your coc-- in mean gun.
That was not Sweden that was Finland. Also look at there complete gun crime rate and there firearm ownership statistics and there gun laws. Guess what they are lower than countries with strict gun control laws. You are allowed to ride a bike down the street with a full auto rifle on your back and bring them into restaurants and guess what? Very little crime.
Oh your a Canadian makes sense now. You automatically have no decision on our firearm laws just as we don't have any say so on yours. That's how it should be. How come the AFT has declared that gun control does not deter crime at all?
Your on the inter-web now buddy. It's the World Wide Web, not the USA web.
And WTF does deterring crime have to do with it? They don't ban things to deter crime they do it because there f'in dangerous. Sure, it may not deter crime but it facilities it making it a whole lot easier to kill someone. I like the old days where if you were going to kill someone you had to look'em in the eyes and slit there throat.
What about cars they are dangerous in the wrong hands and cause deaths? What about peanuts they kill more than international terrorism a year so why not ban them? How about knives, there are more stabbings because knives are even easier to get than guns?
Not all firearms are made specifically to kill people either. I have firearms designed for competition shooting. Can they kill someone? Yes but it is not the firearm that kills it is the person who desires to kill that does the killing. Knives are more deadly than a firearm so why not ban them first. Plus they don't even get a serial number so there is no way to trace them.
Yes I love my firearms and I will not ever give them up. They protect families who use them correctly and I use them for home protection ,self defence (which means I carry one daily), and competition shooting. Also almost a hundred years ago there was damn near no gun laws and civilians were able to buy a full auto in a drug store and yet less gun crime than today. The guns are the same.
Bloomberg's comments seem innocent enough when you don't look at the bigger picture. "Taking illegal guns off the streets..." Who decides what guns are illegal Mr. Mayor? A law-abiding citizen, like myself, will be put in prison if I happen to be walking down the street with an otherwise legal firearm if I do not have the city's permission to have it (a permit)
You play on the people's ignorance. You make them think that ONLY violent criminals are affected. The fact of the matter is that NYC's gun laws do little to deter criminals from having them. It does, however, make people like me not carry them in NYC.
Who cares that criminals prefer unarmed victims? It obviously doesn't deter them from crime otherwise the US would be the safest country as opposed to one of the most crime ridden countries. Maybe they also prefer a quick entry and get away so we should set up shops so it is more difficult to get in and out. What kind of logic is this?
It seems to me that if both the criminal and the victim have guns than the likely hood of a shooting is much higher.
Well if your Mickey Mouse logic were assumptions are pulled out of your ass and actual studies are ignored, then yes the United States one of the most crime ridden countries on the planet.
Actually compared to other nations because we have a higher population we have less crime by percentage. So we are in a safer nation. Just look at the actual studies instead of the statistics people pull out of there asses to get attention. It is a civilians duty to protect there lives nobody else's. Even the supreme court says that the police have no obligation to protect a civilians life there job is to enforce the law.
The studies I've seen say the US has the hightest amount of criminals (that's 'convicted' criminals - ie people in jail) per person than ANY other country in the world (including third world countries). If you get all your stats from pro-gun sites or something than maybe I can excuse this kind of ignorance.
Look at the studies and compare the population of those country's. Yes we have more crime, but we also have more people therefor we are going to have more of everything. Also look at statistics again. Cars kill more people in accidents each year than firearm crime and accidents. Should cars be banned also?
Firstly, above I was speaking of your prison populations 'PER PERSON' and it is unbelivable high, more than 7 times what it is here in Canada. Go to wikipedia and type in 'prison population statistics', (i'm having troble posting this comment with a link).
okay lemme give you some perspective, I am a criminal, I have done some very serious crimes -If I know a house has guns in it then I won't break in. period. now back when I was in highschool I broke into rich peoples houses and stole valuables (yes I know I'm a bad person) and I actaully didn't break in to one house because they had a sign that said "don't worry about the dog, beware of owner" and it had a pistol on it. guns deter crime.
And I bet that if you knew one of the houses had a deranged lunatic in it you would have avoided that house too. So wait a minute... if every house had a deranged lunatic in it than maybe we can decrease crime significantly!!!! Deranged lunatics Deter Crime!!!!
You pro-guns dudes need to take a class in introductory logic or something.
it comes down to this: man with weapon kills man with no weapon -cavemen knew this- if you want to survive you need weapons... by the time the cops arrive you will be dead in a confrontation with a gunman b/c you couldn't defend yourself
I think we've 'evolved' past the cave man stage. I think you are a romantic for some 'old west' scenario to be revived.
I think if you compare the stats of people who have successfully defended themselves in this scenario (and therefore saved their own life) compared to people who get accidently shot (much more frequent) I think you'll find it would be safer if there were less guns. But I'm sure this doesn't convince you.
Then how come the places with the highest gun rate in the US are the places with the strictest gun control. Yet in Virgin Utah where by law adults have to own firearms there is no crime at all?
How come Canada, with much stricter gun laws then the US has 3 times less the murders per capita than the US.
Also I'm very interested that these states require people to own guns, I had no idea. How can a government force people to buy certain products, sounds very undemocratic. I am now imagining a country that requires people to buy crack. BTW, what are the stats regarding accidental shootings? Did you hear about the one the other day where a guy got shot by his dog? :)
I agree people who are going to leave there firearms around where accidents can happen should not own firearms. If you are going to leave a loaded firearm somewhere out of your reach or sight and something else can get it you don't deserve that firearm or any other. I myself cannot speak on the concept of accidental discharges because I have never had one or known anyone personally who has. And everyone besides my mother I socialize with owns a firearm.
Can I ask you if you think there should be a line drawn somewhere as to the types of weapons civilans should be allowed to carry? Machine guns? Bazookas? Nuclear Warheads? Where do you draw the line and what kind of rational do you use to draw that line?
Personal small arms should be legal for anyone to own. Machine guns should not be illegal and actually are not in the US. There are 240,000 privately owned machine guns in the US last time checked in 1995. There is a background check and a tax stamp to get one but they can be legally obtained. And there have only been two cases of criminal acts done with machine guns since 1934 and one was done by a police officer.
Religion has nothing to do with it. Self defence is everything to do with it. Let me give you my perspective on this. Someone is trying to break into my house where me my wife and daughter are. They may or may not have a weapon I don't know because I dont know them. Would I rather have a phone and have to wait for someone or my 357 and take care of my family myself. I take the latter. I bet you don't know the first thing about Satanism either.
I know more than you think I know. I despise religion probably just as much as you (while being fascinated by it), but I feel philosophies like Satanist and Ayn Randist make a huge mistake by worshiping themselves. I might have become a Satanist when I was in high school cause it seems like the right teenage rebellious thing to do.
If it was all about teenage rebellion then they would allow minors into the Church instead you cannot join until you reach adulthood. What do you find a mistake about worshipping yourself?
I would say that I agree with most of the tenets of Satanism (Materialism, Individualism, Enlightened Self Interest, Freethought - I heard a great interview with Peter Gilmore recently) but even if I agreed with everything I don't like the idea of signing up to a philosophy and defining yourself through it (and joining a group where you share beliefs to me is the opposite of Individualism). Then you start to become like the religious - dogmatic.
See you don't define yourself through Satanism. Satanism defines you. I am a Satanist because of who I am. I am first and last. Second the only reason I joined was the be supportive of the FIRST outspoken Satanic organization that stands up for our natural rights. Satanists are not all the same either. We all believe in the same philosophy yes but the reasons for it are different and some things we believe are different also. But the philosophy is still there.
And when you're talking about worship I believe the point of it is to worship something that is beyond the self such as something abstract like god (not real though) or democracy or mankind, or, if I 'had' to choice something, would be the scientific method (and a value I admire is humility which appears at odds with Satanism). To put it bluntly, the worship of self leads to self-righteousness and dogmatism and therefore the ability reason and communicate effectively.
See we do believe ourselves to be better than some. I see nothing wrong with that. We dont believe everyone is equal. Yes I am self righteous. But only applies to my life. I understand as other Satanists do that what is good and right for me might be evil and wrong for others.
I agree that everyone isn't equal and that morality can 'sometimes' be relative. So what? Do you believe that there are things that are good and wrong for societies? Or does the individual always trump the state?
They had less gun crime even before the new laws took effect. This is not because of there laws they have less crime it is because of there society. Different societies have different outcome in crime and other social problems. Banning weapons only takes them from civilians who will never miss treat them.
Wrong criminals are not held the same way as a civilian. They are not treated the same way. Did you know in the US a felon looses most of there rights in this country. Past or previous criminals are not equal to law abiding civilians.
No I mean criminals if you are not yet convicted yet they know by seeing you do something or have enough evidence against you then you are definitely treated very different from everyone. You are not considered a civilian or a citizen by most after that.
Actually I live in a very safe place. My town that I live in has very little crime. The point of carrying a firearm though is not because there is a lot of crime or that I plan on ever needing them to defend myself or others. It is the fact I would rather be prepared for something that might never happen than be unprepared for something that can happen.
Do you carry a gas mask around with you as well. Bio-warfare is a growing concern in the US so I'm sure you use the same logic concerning this threat as well. Maybe you should be allowed to carry around your own biological weapons too. You know, just in case.
No because bio warfare doesn't happen in the US every day somewhere here. Crime does. Crime is everywhere and has a sever chance of happening compared to biological weapons being used. Did you know international terrorism statistics are actually quite low. Crime is not and criminals are everywhere. I would rather be prepared for a likely occasion. It is my responsibility to protect my family (wife and daughter) and myself nobody else's. The supreme court ruled that in 1971.
I own a an isreali gas mask.. lol.. just in case.. I'm serious though. I agree about all the accidents, but I think they wouldn't happen often if people were safer and actual cared about gun safety: you have to treat every gun like it's loaded and never point it at anything you don't intend to shoot or leave it where a child can reach it.. etc
I was being a little tongue in cheek in that last post but seriously, if you believe that lack gun control laws (or a populace of gun owners) deters crime (though I would argue that if it does deter crime it's because the populace is in a state of fear) than does extrapolating this logic to countries make sense? If all countries, by this logic, had nuclear arms (something the US will go to war to prevent) then would that mean the end to war and therefore World Peace?
World peace is impossible and only idiots are on a crusade to achieve it. I believe in personal defence. It is my job to protect my family and myself nobody else. If I am not there protector then why should I expect anyone else to defend there lives?
Nothings impossible. Although I don't see it happening in our life time I do think societies can make social and moral progress. Only idiots can look at history and not see that.
Yes we make progress but there is no way to make everyone on the planet happy at the same time. Someone will be pissed and always willing to do harm. We are devious destructive animals and the law abiding ones should never be denied the right to protect there lives.
If you gave everyone the right drug at the right time you could make everyone happy (that's just one example) - but yes, mostly I agree with you on that point and I agree that nobody should be denied the right to protect thier lives (of course!), but equating 'the denial of the right to protect your life' with 'gun control' is ridiculous and far-fetched at best.
Drug use does nothing except destroy your life. It makes you unable to control your natural actions the drug controls you in a compulsive state when you are not on it or by making you act different when you are. Wrong if a criminal attacks someone then the victim should have the right to protect themselves with the best tool possible and that is a firearm. To deny them the right of that is to deny them the right to self defence.
Now you're being much too general and dogmatic (and sounding like a religious zealot). Some drugs save lives (penicillin) and relieve pain. Others make people more focused and alert (caffeine, etc). Others help people function more naturally/normal (Ritalin, anti-psychotics, etc). Others help people relax (alcohol), become more social and general make life more enjoyable (for me pot). Sometimes people want to suppress their so called 'natural actions'.
See I was talking narcotics. Also pot is a narcotic and I do consider it wrong for myself and Satanists. You are not one and I cannot say what is right or wrong for you. I am speaking on terms of for my life.
If you're a Satanist then you can't speak to the morality of other Satanists (as my understand of the philosophy goes). That's that slippery slop I was talking about. Rape is universally wrong - but as a Satanist you cannot say that because as a Satanist your philosophical a moral relativist.
My morals are what Satanism is based on. I knew all along what I believed growing up and didn't know it was called anything. I learned when I was a little over ten it was called Satanism. My beliefs dictate what I am not the other way around. For our society rape is wrong and in my beliefs because it destroys your life. If it was universally wrong there would be no rapists because they to would think it was wrong.
If it was universally wrong it won't mean that there would be no rapists, it would mean that there would be no curcimstances where raping would be 'right' or 'good' or 'not wrong'.
The drug use you are talking about is called 'drug abuse' and is extremely rarer than proper drug use. It seems the argument that you won't accept for gun control you now accept for drug use. The reason I found this video is I like Jacob Sullums views on drug use/reform (check out his interview with Bill O'Reilly). Also this view doesn't seem to be in line with the libertarian/ individualistic views of Satanism that you claim to hold.
Narcotics cause destruction in your life on a mental physical and emotional level. Not just because what they do to you but what they cause. Arrest and conviction. That keeps you from remaining free and living your life for yourself. There is the problem. Destruction of your life. Your only life. That is why it is wrong in my opinion.
Very austere of you. Do you abstain from alcohol as well?
I very much dislike the fact that I am considered a criminal because of my personal choice of substance, but I don't let the government dictate how to live my life, I do what I can to change the law.
I engage in seldom use of alcohol but refuse to indulge to the point I even get a buzz off it. I drink certain things I think taste good. And if you are to get the laws changed it will no longer destroy your life unless you allow it to turn to a compulsion instead of indulgence.
I also believe in personal defense too and protecting your family, but the crime you are 'protecting' your family against just doesn't occur at a statistically frequent enough amount to warrant getting a gun and getting all paranoid. I have a more likely chance of my house getting hit by lighting but I don't put a lightning rod on my house because the odds just aren't there.
I am not paranoid I am prepared just as a police officer carries a firearm just in case. I carry one just in case so I can just call them when I take care of everything. They are not always around. Also yes this crime that warrants this from happening does happen on a frequent rate. That is why 48 states can issue concealed carry permits to average civilians and 35 of them must issue them if someone passes the requirements.
Carrying a firearm because you have been a victim of a violent crime in the past is a little late. If you carried a firearm (and would use it if needed) someone would never have been a victim in the first place.
If you want to know stats how come the place in the world with the least gun crime is also the place with the least gun laws. Sweden. You can walk into a restaurant there with a full auto machine gun and hang it on a coat rack and yet there are no shootings happening there on a daily basis.
Also what stats are you referring to I have yet to see any? You have been asking questions which I have answered.
I have pointed you to two pages with stats, one was NationMaster and the other was Wikipedia. Both show the US to have terrible Murder rates and crime rates (per capita). BTW I hate to blow your bubble but the place with the least gun crime (and murders) in Japan which has very strict gun control laws.
(I want to post all kinds of links but the post just hangs when there is a link in it)
I just read a typical US story about a Japanese person who while in the US walked into the wrong house by mistake and the owner pulled a gun on him and said 'freeze', but because he didn't know that term he moved forward and got shot. These stories are much, much more typical then "home owner saves family from crazed criminal with gun" stories. The Japanese were not happy.
That shows the Japanese person was stupid for not knowing English before coming here and stupid because he should not have gone into someone else's home. I have moved into new neighborhoods and never mistaken my house. I myself will draw my firearm with the intent to use it if NEEDED. It is always a last resort. I will only pull the trigger if life is in danger. Call me crazy but I would rather have a dead criminal than a dead victim.
People come here (and there) to learn English, you should be flattered. It's an honest mistake he made (oh, but if you've never done it before then the guy must be stupid - a consequence of selfish, self aggradizing philosophies?).
BTW, two more stories this week from your country about stray bullets hitting children. Have you read any stories about civilans saving the day with their guns this week? in the last month?
Most likely from criminals and then them having a firearm for use in a crime is illegal. Yes actually I have. I have had to save lives with my firearms before and I would not have changed a thing. Luckily the guy waited there until the police showed up so I didnt have to pull the trigger. Also I have heard on many occasions of citizens stopping crimes with there right to carry.
But have you ever stopped to consider that if guns were hard (or impossible) to get then this criminal wouldn't have been able to get one in the first place?
Yes I do live in a safe place compared to other places. Also have you ever considered if an attacker was to attack a 90 pound female to rape her. If a firearm was illegal and impossible to possess then she cannot protect herself. To deprive the right to firearm ownership is to deprive your right to self defence.
"To deprive the right to firearm ownership is to deprive your right to self defence."
I can use this kind of logic too.
"To deprive people the right to narcotics is to deprive you the right to choice and freedom". "If everyone had crack then crack related crime would go down". "If we can educate the children on how to use heroin safely then deaths can be averted".
Wrong because those things turn into compulsions and end up controlling you. They will destroy and cause harm no matter what you do to avoid it. Firearms do cause harm at times but in my opinion harm is deserving at times. Firearms are not a compulsion they do not control you the shooter controls them. And I weight 220
First off did you know most of these sites keep out the Sweden exception. Most gun crime studies refuse to look at them also. They have a 100% gun ownership rate in there country look at there crime statistics for owning that many firearms and how little crime. Also look at how many firearms they own. One of the fewest countries with more firearms than the US.
Just because they all own guns doesn't mean that is the reason that they have lower crime statistics. The fact is (I just looked it up on a few different sites) that Sweden does have stricter gun laws than the US (but not neihbouring countries, and here's another quote for you...
"In Sweden, civilians can only get firearm permits if they have a hunting license or are members of a shooting club approved by authorities and have no history of violent crime"
And guess what EVERY male from 18 to 35 is a registered member of the military by law and is required to possess a full auto rifle and 100 rounds of ammo at all times. They have to be members of the shooting clubs so they can qualify on a monthly basis like some officers in the US have to. Yes they have to be a member of the shooting club but also they legally have to be members.
Google Sweden and gun control and read up on it again. Maybe you're confusing Sweden with another country but I can't confirm what you're saying anywhere. Find a link and post it.
I have. Males 18 to 35 by law have to be registered members of the military and upon joining are ISSUED firearms and ammo that they MUST keep at all times. They HAVE to practice on a regular basis and qualify. They are registered members of the shooting clubs by law so they can practice there shooting for the military they are by law forced to join.
I don't. I looked it up and colaborated in a several different sites. I am convinced you are confusing Switzerland and Sweden. Don't just say I'm wrong. Google "Sweden Gun Control" or "Sweden Gun Laws". If you google the former the first site you will come up with is a "PRO"-gun site which compares US and Switzerland (because Switzerland has the stats that you're arguing for) and also mentions Sweden's lower gun ownership rates.
The false belief that 'everyone' in Sweden owns guns is because all 'healthy' adult males are required to join the military (therefore required to carry a gun). This reasoning fails because not everyone stays in the military forever. A small percentage of the population, at any one time, are members of the military and when someone fulfills their military obligations they turn in the gun they were issued. Same goes for Switzerland.
Wrong look up the military code in Sweden when you are finished serving your military career. Officers keep there pistols and soldiers keep there rifles.
If I pointed you to independent studies would you even look at them? Are you open enough to change your mind about things (even as a Satanist)? If many and/or large studies showed that having guns increases the likelyhood of a homicide occuring would you get rid of them for your families sake?
Or does what you want trump the saftey of those around you? (speaking in the hypothetical if guns were actually dangerous - of course)
No firing a gun does not give me a high. It simply relaxes me. Also I have looked at the studies but you have to realize that these studies are done by anti gunners and also include drug dealers mishaps and accidental discharge of illegal possessed firearms. The statistics are lower if you ONLY look at them from legal gun owners. Also I know that a firearm will protect me and my family so no I will not get rid of them.
I would rather have a firearm in my hand if someone attacks my family than a phone. The firearm gets there quicker. Also my two year old already knows not to touch firearms and my wife wouldn't let me get rid of them anyway.
Not to mention I have already looked at the studies you speak of. As a firearms owner I need to watch for those who are trying to take my ABILITY to defend my family.
Well the studies I looked at conviced me, although I realize there is the temptation for 'both' sides to misrepresent the data, but it's important to find the most indepentant data and not assume it's biased because it doesn't say what you would hope. On the face of it saying lenent gun laws reduce crime seems patently ridiculous and I don't think the data is in your favour on this point.
I found the exact opposite in the studies that I looked at (which claimed to be unbiased). Again, I could point you to that study, but I don't think you're interested in the data, as you've made evident already. Ultimately, you like you're guns, they make you relax and feel safe, and with the philosophy that you hold - that is all that matters in the end. "Morality is relative" so I don't even know why we're having this discussion anymore.
Yes morality is relative. And the reason why we are still having this discussion is because you think the studies are correct. Understand that they have all rounds fired from criminals to begin with. They cannot legally have a firearm anyway and guess what that makes there statistics different for a legally purchased firearms and legal uses. Show me a statistic of only accidental discharges and murders from those firearms and I guarantee it will be lower.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
If you allow a population free access to guns then criminals will get them, so the data as to represent that. And in the US criminals and the mentally disabled can get guns at gun shows with no background check (a loop-hole your government seems it does not want to plug).
Wrong all firearms at gun shows sold by licenced dealers are required to do a backgrounds check and in my state private pistol sales even through a non dealer has to have a background check also. Also it shows in other nations where it is impossible to get a firearms legally that criminals can still get them through the black market.
Also look at FBI statistics less than three percent of firearms used in crimes are bought at gun shows. Another thing criminals get there firearms illegally through the black market to use against vulnerable citizens so why should a citizen not be able to arm themselves to protect themselves?
Thanks Lord, I see where you stand on this issue and persuading you is probably not and good use of my time. I can see where you are coming from and I hope you can see where I'm coming from as well. It's been a pleasure discussing this with you. Have a nice life.
I have a crazy idea. How about we keep the second amendment, and address the actual root of the issue that motivates some people to use guns against the greater good. Too complicated? Never mind then. I sometimes get optimism seizures, so don't mind me.
ZeerosFate 1 month ago
They will beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks. (U.N art display slogan) And those who beat there swords into plowshares will plow for those who dont (anon, and full of common sense)
TheStrazy 9 months ago
Guns are way too cool to be illegal.
CountArtha 11 months ago
Yeah, I think he's right . . . I'm not some right-wing nutcase by the way (more like a left-wing nutcase) but having citizens that are armed is a good idea. I wish it were more liberal over here in Britain.
MarxBakuninMe 3 years ago 2
The original text said also implied that being in a militia is not a prerequisite for the ownership of firearms.
Then again, being in a militia would sure help. They wouldn't pick on us if our gun culture was that strong.
T850CSM101a1676 4 years ago
True, but even the text as it is implies there is a right to bear arms: it simply says that that the needfulness of a militia is a reason for why that right should not be infringed. Of course, the constitution is quite clear that people have a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness - AMONGST other rights - and I would say to anyone, how can we defend our rights to life and liberty without the right to arm ourselves?
BryanAJParry 3 years ago 2
It also implies that the right is given by something greater than the state, or nation. "shall not be infringed" sounds to me like it wasn't given. And what isn't given cannot be taken away.
T850CSM101a1676 3 years ago
Indeed. I was kinda hoping to angle at that in my post. The rights are natural rights. The writers of it came from the background understanding of law which basically says that governments cannot give freedoms, but by definition only curtail man's natural freedoms. Of course, we accept the limits of law as they are beneficial. But yes, no one can GIVE anyone a right (despite what some say in the Continental tradition). And the rights to self-defence and life and liverty cannot be bargained away.
BryanAJParry 3 years ago
Anyway, I'm watching this again, and he said support for gun control is declining. Good or bad?
T850CSM101a1676 3 years ago
Guns don't kill people.
People with guns kill people.
mismos00 4 years ago
Exactly. That is what anti gunners must understand. We need to focus on laws that keep guns out of the hands of certain people, not everyone. I am liberal, but I only support certain kinds of gun control. I support gun control laws that keep guns in the hands of law abiding citizens, but out of the hands of criminals.
zcm007attack 3 years ago
Secondly, your murder statistics are not very good either, and considering your country is modern and 'enlightend' they should also be considered terrible.
(Why can't I post links?)
Go to nationmaster(dot com) and do a search for 'murders per capita' and check out the stats.
mismos00 4 years ago
i can tell you first hand .. criminals like gun control. :)
o0oprickyo0o 4 years ago 2
Why not just take a look at the statistics and compare all the countries with strict gun control laws to the US and see which has the most crime?
How do you square that circle with your twisted logic?
mismos00 4 years ago
Look at Sweden and see how every adult male is required to keep a fully automatic rifle and two hundred rounds of ammo in his home at all times. Yet they have very little violence. How about since Australia and Europe imposed strict gun laws gun crime, rape, and home invasion has increased year to year.
Lord666Belial 4 years ago
And did you hear about that crazy shooting that went down there a month or so ago?
By this sort of logic it would be a safer world if everyone had nuclear weapons yet you don't see the US promoting this lunatic idea, do you? Think about that while you're stroking your coc-- in mean gun.
mismos00 4 years ago
That was not Sweden that was Finland. Also look at there complete gun crime rate and there firearm ownership statistics and there gun laws. Guess what they are lower than countries with strict gun control laws. You are allowed to ride a bike down the street with a full auto rifle on your back and bring them into restaurants and guess what? Very little crime.
Lord666Belial 4 years ago
Oh your a Canadian makes sense now. You automatically have no decision on our firearm laws just as we don't have any say so on yours. That's how it should be. How come the AFT has declared that gun control does not deter crime at all?
Lord666Belial 4 years ago
Your on the inter-web now buddy. It's the World Wide Web, not the USA web.
And WTF does deterring crime have to do with it? They don't ban things to deter crime they do it because there f'in dangerous. Sure, it may not deter crime but it facilities it making it a whole lot easier to kill someone. I like the old days where if you were going to kill someone you had to look'em in the eyes and slit there throat.
mismos00 4 years ago
What about cars they are dangerous in the wrong hands and cause deaths? What about peanuts they kill more than international terrorism a year so why not ban them? How about knives, there are more stabbings because knives are even easier to get than guns?
Lord666Belial 4 years ago
Cars aren't made specifically to kill people.
Peanuts aren't grown specifically to kill people.
Knives aren't made specifically to kill people (although I am aware that they can be).
mismos00 4 years ago
Not all firearms are made specifically to kill people either. I have firearms designed for competition shooting. Can they kill someone? Yes but it is not the firearm that kills it is the person who desires to kill that does the killing. Knives are more deadly than a firearm so why not ban them first. Plus they don't even get a serial number so there is no way to trace them.
Lord666Belial 4 years ago
Just say that you love your guns and you don't want to give them up. At least I can wrap my head around that.
mismos00 4 years ago
Yes I love my firearms and I will not ever give them up. They protect families who use them correctly and I use them for home protection ,self defence (which means I carry one daily), and competition shooting. Also almost a hundred years ago there was damn near no gun laws and civilians were able to buy a full auto in a drug store and yet less gun crime than today. The guns are the same.
Lord666Belial 4 years ago
Bloomberg's comments seem innocent enough when you don't look at the bigger picture. "Taking illegal guns off the streets..." Who decides what guns are illegal Mr. Mayor? A law-abiding citizen, like myself, will be put in prison if I happen to be walking down the street with an otherwise legal firearm if I do not have the city's permission to have it (a permit)
danpauselius 4 years ago
You play on the people's ignorance. You make them think that ONLY violent criminals are affected. The fact of the matter is that NYC's gun laws do little to deter criminals from having them. It does, however, make people like me not carry them in NYC.
Guiliani = Bloomberg = UnAmerican gun laws.
danpauselius 4 years ago
Youtube = Penn and Teller Gun Control Part 1 Penn and Teller Gun Control Part 2 Penn and Teller Gun Control Part 3
Youtube = John Stossel Links Gun Control to Higher Crime Rates
Youtube = Gun Myths
Remember, "Criminals prefer an unarmed public."
the8jrfan 4 years ago
i agree criminals do prefer unarmed victims
typevx 4 years ago
I prefer unarmed criminals.
Who cares that criminals prefer unarmed victims? It obviously doesn't deter them from crime otherwise the US would be the safest country as opposed to one of the most crime ridden countries. Maybe they also prefer a quick entry and get away so we should set up shops so it is more difficult to get in and out. What kind of logic is this?
It seems to me that if both the criminal and the victim have guns than the likely hood of a shooting is much higher.
mismos00 4 years ago
Well if your Mickey Mouse logic were assumptions are pulled out of your ass and actual studies are ignored, then yes the United States one of the most crime ridden countries on the planet.
frisco1529 4 years ago
I'm critizing the logic - this isn't my logic about criminals prefering unarmed victims. Where are you coming from?
mismos00 4 years ago
Actually compared to other nations because we have a higher population we have less crime by percentage. So we are in a safer nation. Just look at the actual studies instead of the statistics people pull out of there asses to get attention. It is a civilians duty to protect there lives nobody else's. Even the supreme court says that the police have no obligation to protect a civilians life there job is to enforce the law.
Lord666Belial 4 years ago
The studies I've seen say the US has the hightest amount of criminals (that's 'convicted' criminals - ie people in jail) per person than ANY other country in the world (including third world countries). If you get all your stats from pro-gun sites or something than maybe I can excuse this kind of ignorance.
mismos00 4 years ago
Look at the studies and compare the population of those country's. Yes we have more crime, but we also have more people therefor we are going to have more of everything. Also look at statistics again. Cars kill more people in accidents each year than firearm crime and accidents. Should cars be banned also?
Lord666Belial 4 years ago
Look at the studies. OK I did, here they are.
Firstly, above I was speaking of your prison populations 'PER PERSON' and it is unbelivable high, more than 7 times what it is here in Canada. Go to wikipedia and type in 'prison population statistics', (i'm having troble posting this comment with a link).
mismos00 4 years ago
okay lemme give you some perspective, I am a criminal, I have done some very serious crimes -If I know a house has guns in it then I won't break in. period. now back when I was in highschool I broke into rich peoples houses and stole valuables (yes I know I'm a bad person) and I actaully didn't break in to one house because they had a sign that said "don't worry about the dog, beware of owner" and it had a pistol on it. guns deter crime.
typevx 4 years ago
And I bet that if you knew one of the houses had a deranged lunatic in it you would have avoided that house too. So wait a minute... if every house had a deranged lunatic in it than maybe we can decrease crime significantly!!!! Deranged lunatics Deter Crime!!!!
You pro-guns dudes need to take a class in introductory logic or something.
mismos00 4 years ago
it comes down to this: man with weapon kills man with no weapon -cavemen knew this- if you want to survive you need weapons... by the time the cops arrive you will be dead in a confrontation with a gunman b/c you couldn't defend yourself
typevx 4 years ago
I think we've 'evolved' past the cave man stage. I think you are a romantic for some 'old west' scenario to be revived.
I think if you compare the stats of people who have successfully defended themselves in this scenario (and therefore saved their own life) compared to people who get accidently shot (much more frequent) I think you'll find it would be safer if there were less guns. But I'm sure this doesn't convince you.
mismos00 4 years ago
Then how come the places with the highest gun rate in the US are the places with the strictest gun control. Yet in Virgin Utah where by law adults have to own firearms there is no crime at all?
Lord666Belial 4 years ago
How come Canada, with much stricter gun laws then the US has 3 times less the murders per capita than the US.
Also I'm very interested that these states require people to own guns, I had no idea. How can a government force people to buy certain products, sounds very undemocratic. I am now imagining a country that requires people to buy crack. BTW, what are the stats regarding accidental shootings? Did you hear about the one the other day where a guy got shot by his dog? :)
mismos00 4 years ago
I agree people who are going to leave there firearms around where accidents can happen should not own firearms. If you are going to leave a loaded firearm somewhere out of your reach or sight and something else can get it you don't deserve that firearm or any other. I myself cannot speak on the concept of accidental discharges because I have never had one or known anyone personally who has. And everyone besides my mother I socialize with owns a firearm.
Lord666Belial 4 years ago
Can I ask you if you think there should be a line drawn somewhere as to the types of weapons civilans should be allowed to carry? Machine guns? Bazookas? Nuclear Warheads? Where do you draw the line and what kind of rational do you use to draw that line?
mismos00 4 years ago
Personal small arms should be legal for anyone to own. Machine guns should not be illegal and actually are not in the US. There are 240,000 privately owned machine guns in the US last time checked in 1995. There is a background check and a tax stamp to get one but they can be legally obtained. And there have only been two cases of criminal acts done with machine guns since 1934 and one was done by a police officer.
Lord666Belial 4 years ago
So you draw the line at machine guns? No Bazookas, rocket launchers or nuclear weapons. That sounds reasonable coming from a satanist.
mismos00 4 years ago
Religion has nothing to do with it. Self defence is everything to do with it. Let me give you my perspective on this. Someone is trying to break into my house where me my wife and daughter are. They may or may not have a weapon I don't know because I dont know them. Would I rather have a phone and have to wait for someone or my 357 and take care of my family myself. I take the latter. I bet you don't know the first thing about Satanism either.
Lord666Belial 4 years ago
I know more than you think I know. I despise religion probably just as much as you (while being fascinated by it), but I feel philosophies like Satanist and Ayn Randist make a huge mistake by worshiping themselves. I might have become a Satanist when I was in high school cause it seems like the right teenage rebellious thing to do.
mismos00 4 years ago
If it was all about teenage rebellion then they would allow minors into the Church instead you cannot join until you reach adulthood. What do you find a mistake about worshipping yourself?
Lord666Belial 4 years ago
I would say that I agree with most of the tenets of Satanism (Materialism, Individualism, Enlightened Self Interest, Freethought - I heard a great interview with Peter Gilmore recently) but even if I agreed with everything I don't like the idea of signing up to a philosophy and defining yourself through it (and joining a group where you share beliefs to me is the opposite of Individualism). Then you start to become like the religious - dogmatic.
mismos00 4 years ago
See you don't define yourself through Satanism. Satanism defines you. I am a Satanist because of who I am. I am first and last. Second the only reason I joined was the be supportive of the FIRST outspoken Satanic organization that stands up for our natural rights. Satanists are not all the same either. We all believe in the same philosophy yes but the reasons for it are different and some things we believe are different also. But the philosophy is still there.
Lord666Belial 4 years ago
And when you're talking about worship I believe the point of it is to worship something that is beyond the self such as something abstract like god (not real though) or democracy or mankind, or, if I 'had' to choice something, would be the scientific method (and a value I admire is humility which appears at odds with Satanism). To put it bluntly, the worship of self leads to self-righteousness and dogmatism and therefore the ability reason and communicate effectively.
mismos00 4 years ago
See we do believe ourselves to be better than some. I see nothing wrong with that. We dont believe everyone is equal. Yes I am self righteous. But only applies to my life. I understand as other Satanists do that what is good and right for me might be evil and wrong for others.
Lord666Belial 4 years ago
I agree that everyone isn't equal and that morality can 'sometimes' be relative. So what? Do you believe that there are things that are good and wrong for societies? Or does the individual always trump the state?
mismos00 4 years ago
Both! What is better for the society is usually better for yourself at the same time.
Lord666Belial 4 years ago
They had less gun crime even before the new laws took effect. This is not because of there laws they have less crime it is because of there society. Different societies have different outcome in crime and other social problems. Banning weapons only takes them from civilians who will never miss treat them.
Lord666Belial 4 years ago
Criminals ARE civilians.
mismos00 4 years ago
Wrong criminals are not held the same way as a civilian. They are not treated the same way. Did you know in the US a felon looses most of there rights in this country. Past or previous criminals are not equal to law abiding civilians.
Lord666Belial 4 years ago
You mean 'convicted' criminals. Nearly everyone has commited at least one (mostly minor) crime in they're life.
mismos00 4 years ago
No I mean criminals if you are not yet convicted yet they know by seeing you do something or have enough evidence against you then you are definitely treated very different from everyone. You are not considered a civilian or a citizen by most after that.
Lord666Belial 4 years ago
I don't think you'd have this mentallity if you lived in a safer place.
mismos00 4 years ago
Actually I live in a very safe place. My town that I live in has very little crime. The point of carrying a firearm though is not because there is a lot of crime or that I plan on ever needing them to defend myself or others. It is the fact I would rather be prepared for something that might never happen than be unprepared for something that can happen.
Lord666Belial 4 years ago
Do you carry a gas mask around with you as well. Bio-warfare is a growing concern in the US so I'm sure you use the same logic concerning this threat as well. Maybe you should be allowed to carry around your own biological weapons too. You know, just in case.
mismos00 4 years ago
No because bio warfare doesn't happen in the US every day somewhere here. Crime does. Crime is everywhere and has a sever chance of happening compared to biological weapons being used. Did you know international terrorism statistics are actually quite low. Crime is not and criminals are everywhere. I would rather be prepared for a likely occasion. It is my responsibility to protect my family (wife and daughter) and myself nobody else's. The supreme court ruled that in 1971.
Lord666Belial 4 years ago
I own a an isreali gas mask.. lol.. just in case.. I'm serious though. I agree about all the accidents, but I think they wouldn't happen often if people were safer and actual cared about gun safety: you have to treat every gun like it's loaded and never point it at anything you don't intend to shoot or leave it where a child can reach it.. etc
typevx 4 years ago
I was being a little tongue in cheek in that last post but seriously, if you believe that lack gun control laws (or a populace of gun owners) deters crime (though I would argue that if it does deter crime it's because the populace is in a state of fear) than does extrapolating this logic to countries make sense? If all countries, by this logic, had nuclear arms (something the US will go to war to prevent) then would that mean the end to war and therefore World Peace?
mismos00 4 years ago
World peace is impossible and only idiots are on a crusade to achieve it. I believe in personal defence. It is my job to protect my family and myself nobody else. If I am not there protector then why should I expect anyone else to defend there lives?
Lord666Belial 4 years ago
Nothings impossible. Although I don't see it happening in our life time I do think societies can make social and moral progress. Only idiots can look at history and not see that.
mismos00 4 years ago
Yes we make progress but there is no way to make everyone on the planet happy at the same time. Someone will be pissed and always willing to do harm. We are devious destructive animals and the law abiding ones should never be denied the right to protect there lives.
Lord666Belial 4 years ago
If you gave everyone the right drug at the right time you could make everyone happy (that's just one example) - but yes, mostly I agree with you on that point and I agree that nobody should be denied the right to protect thier lives (of course!), but equating 'the denial of the right to protect your life' with 'gun control' is ridiculous and far-fetched at best.
mismos00 4 years ago
Drug use does nothing except destroy your life. It makes you unable to control your natural actions the drug controls you in a compulsive state when you are not on it or by making you act different when you are. Wrong if a criminal attacks someone then the victim should have the right to protect themselves with the best tool possible and that is a firearm. To deny them the right of that is to deny them the right to self defence.
Lord666Belial 4 years ago
Now you're being much too general and dogmatic (and sounding like a religious zealot). Some drugs save lives (penicillin) and relieve pain. Others make people more focused and alert (caffeine, etc). Others help people function more naturally/normal (Ritalin, anti-psychotics, etc). Others help people relax (alcohol), become more social and general make life more enjoyable (for me pot). Sometimes people want to suppress their so called 'natural actions'.
mismos00 4 years ago
See I was talking narcotics. Also pot is a narcotic and I do consider it wrong for myself and Satanists. You are not one and I cannot say what is right or wrong for you. I am speaking on terms of for my life.
Lord666Belial 4 years ago
If you're a Satanist then you can't speak to the morality of other Satanists (as my understand of the philosophy goes). That's that slippery slop I was talking about. Rape is universally wrong - but as a Satanist you cannot say that because as a Satanist your philosophical a moral relativist.
mismos00 4 years ago
My morals are what Satanism is based on. I knew all along what I believed growing up and didn't know it was called anything. I learned when I was a little over ten it was called Satanism. My beliefs dictate what I am not the other way around. For our society rape is wrong and in my beliefs because it destroys your life. If it was universally wrong there would be no rapists because they to would think it was wrong.
Lord666Belial 4 years ago
If it was universally wrong it won't mean that there would be no rapists, it would mean that there would be no curcimstances where raping would be 'right' or 'good' or 'not wrong'.
mismos00 4 years ago
If it was universally wrong then everyone would see it as such.
Lord666Belial 4 years ago
The drug use you are talking about is called 'drug abuse' and is extremely rarer than proper drug use. It seems the argument that you won't accept for gun control you now accept for drug use. The reason I found this video is I like Jacob Sullums views on drug use/reform (check out his interview with Bill O'Reilly). Also this view doesn't seem to be in line with the libertarian/ individualistic views of Satanism that you claim to hold.
mismos00 4 years ago
Narcotics cause destruction in your life on a mental physical and emotional level. Not just because what they do to you but what they cause. Arrest and conviction. That keeps you from remaining free and living your life for yourself. There is the problem. Destruction of your life. Your only life. That is why it is wrong in my opinion.
Lord666Belial 4 years ago
Very austere of you. Do you abstain from alcohol as well?
I very much dislike the fact that I am considered a criminal because of my personal choice of substance, but I don't let the government dictate how to live my life, I do what I can to change the law.
mismos00 4 years ago
I engage in seldom use of alcohol but refuse to indulge to the point I even get a buzz off it. I drink certain things I think taste good. And if you are to get the laws changed it will no longer destroy your life unless you allow it to turn to a compulsion instead of indulgence.
Lord666Belial 4 years ago
I also believe in personal defense too and protecting your family, but the crime you are 'protecting' your family against just doesn't occur at a statistically frequent enough amount to warrant getting a gun and getting all paranoid. I have a more likely chance of my house getting hit by lighting but I don't put a lightning rod on my house because the odds just aren't there.
mismos00 4 years ago
I am not paranoid I am prepared just as a police officer carries a firearm just in case. I carry one just in case so I can just call them when I take care of everything. They are not always around. Also yes this crime that warrants this from happening does happen on a frequent rate. That is why 48 states can issue concealed carry permits to average civilians and 35 of them must issue them if someone passes the requirements.
Lord666Belial 4 years ago
Carrying a firearm because you have been a victim of a violent crime in the past is a little late. If you carried a firearm (and would use it if needed) someone would never have been a victim in the first place.
Lord666Belial 4 years ago
By this logic you should be safest living within the gangs in LA or something.
You still didn't address any of the REAL stats I pointed you to. I think I know the reason to that though.
mismos00 4 years ago
If you want to know stats how come the place in the world with the least gun crime is also the place with the least gun laws. Sweden. You can walk into a restaurant there with a full auto machine gun and hang it on a coat rack and yet there are no shootings happening there on a daily basis.
Also what stats are you referring to I have yet to see any? You have been asking questions which I have answered.
Lord666Belial 4 years ago
I have pointed you to two pages with stats, one was NationMaster and the other was Wikipedia. Both show the US to have terrible Murder rates and crime rates (per capita). BTW I hate to blow your bubble but the place with the least gun crime (and murders) in Japan which has very strict gun control laws.
(I want to post all kinds of links but the post just hangs when there is a link in it)
mismos00 4 years ago
I just read a typical US story about a Japanese person who while in the US walked into the wrong house by mistake and the owner pulled a gun on him and said 'freeze', but because he didn't know that term he moved forward and got shot. These stories are much, much more typical then "home owner saves family from crazed criminal with gun" stories. The Japanese were not happy.
mismos00 4 years ago
That shows the Japanese person was stupid for not knowing English before coming here and stupid because he should not have gone into someone else's home. I have moved into new neighborhoods and never mistaken my house. I myself will draw my firearm with the intent to use it if NEEDED. It is always a last resort. I will only pull the trigger if life is in danger. Call me crazy but I would rather have a dead criminal than a dead victim.
Lord666Belial 4 years ago
People come here (and there) to learn English, you should be flattered. It's an honest mistake he made (oh, but if you've never done it before then the guy must be stupid - a consequence of selfish, self aggradizing philosophies?).
BTW, two more stories this week from your country about stray bullets hitting children. Have you read any stories about civilans saving the day with their guns this week? in the last month?
mismos00 4 years ago
Most likely from criminals and then them having a firearm for use in a crime is illegal. Yes actually I have. I have had to save lives with my firearms before and I would not have changed a thing. Luckily the guy waited there until the police showed up so I didnt have to pull the trigger. Also I have heard on many occasions of citizens stopping crimes with there right to carry.
Lord666Belial 4 years ago
I thought you lived in a safe place?
Well then I congratulate you on saving lives.
But have you ever stopped to consider that if guns were hard (or impossible) to get then this criminal wouldn't have been able to get one in the first place?
mismos00 4 years ago
Yes I do live in a safe place compared to other places. Also have you ever considered if an attacker was to attack a 90 pound female to rape her. If a firearm was illegal and impossible to possess then she cannot protect herself. To deprive the right to firearm ownership is to deprive your right to self defence.
Lord666Belial 4 years ago
And how much do you weigh?
"To deprive the right to firearm ownership is to deprive your right to self defence."
I can use this kind of logic too.
"To deprive people the right to narcotics is to deprive you the right to choice and freedom". "If everyone had crack then crack related crime would go down". "If we can educate the children on how to use heroin safely then deaths can be averted".
mismos00 4 years ago
Wrong because those things turn into compulsions and end up controlling you. They will destroy and cause harm no matter what you do to avoid it. Firearms do cause harm at times but in my opinion harm is deserving at times. Firearms are not a compulsion they do not control you the shooter controls them. And I weight 220
Lord666Belial 4 years ago
First off did you know most of these sites keep out the Sweden exception. Most gun crime studies refuse to look at them also. They have a 100% gun ownership rate in there country look at there crime statistics for owning that many firearms and how little crime. Also look at how many firearms they own. One of the fewest countries with more firearms than the US.
Lord666Belial 4 years ago
Just because they all own guns doesn't mean that is the reason that they have lower crime statistics. The fact is (I just looked it up on a few different sites) that Sweden does have stricter gun laws than the US (but not neihbouring countries, and here's another quote for you...
"In Sweden, civilians can only get firearm permits if they have a hunting license or are members of a shooting club approved by authorities and have no history of violent crime"
mismos00 4 years ago
And guess what EVERY male from 18 to 35 is a registered member of the military by law and is required to possess a full auto rifle and 100 rounds of ammo at all times. They have to be members of the shooting clubs so they can qualify on a monthly basis like some officers in the US have to. Yes they have to be a member of the shooting club but also they legally have to be members.
Lord666Belial 4 years ago
Google Sweden and gun control and read up on it again. Maybe you're confusing Sweden with another country but I can't confirm what you're saying anywhere. Find a link and post it.
mismos00 4 years ago
I have. Males 18 to 35 by law have to be registered members of the military and upon joining are ISSUED firearms and ammo that they MUST keep at all times. They HAVE to practice on a regular basis and qualify. They are registered members of the shooting clubs by law so they can practice there shooting for the military they are by law forced to join.
Lord666Belial 4 years ago
Gun rate vs. Intentional gun deaths per 100,000
Sweden -- 20% (2.27%)
Canada -- 26% (3.95)
Finland -- 50% (6.65)
USA -- 40% (13.47)
(See a correlation?)
mismos00 4 years ago
Sweden has more firearm ownership than 20%. Wherever you got that info you are wrong.
Lord666Belial 4 years ago
I don't. I looked it up and colaborated in a several different sites. I am convinced you are confusing Switzerland and Sweden. Don't just say I'm wrong. Google "Sweden Gun Control" or "Sweden Gun Laws". If you google the former the first site you will come up with is a "PRO"-gun site which compares US and Switzerland (because Switzerland has the stats that you're arguing for) and also mentions Sweden's lower gun ownership rates.
mismos00 4 years ago
Then I might be mistaken and I apologize for that. I might be confusing it with the Swiss. Change all the times I said Sweden to Switzerland.
Lord666Belial 4 years ago
The false belief that 'everyone' in Sweden owns guns is because all 'healthy' adult males are required to join the military (therefore required to carry a gun). This reasoning fails because not everyone stays in the military forever. A small percentage of the population, at any one time, are members of the military and when someone fulfills their military obligations they turn in the gun they were issued. Same goes for Switzerland.
mismos00 4 years ago
Wrong look up the military code in Sweden when you are finished serving your military career. Officers keep there pistols and soldiers keep there rifles.
Lord666Belial 4 years ago
If I pointed you to independent studies would you even look at them? Are you open enough to change your mind about things (even as a Satanist)? If many and/or large studies showed that having guns increases the likelyhood of a homicide occuring would you get rid of them for your families sake?
Or does what you want trump the saftey of those around you? (speaking in the hypothetical if guns were actually dangerous - of course)
Does firing a gun give you a high?
mismos00 4 years ago
No firing a gun does not give me a high. It simply relaxes me. Also I have looked at the studies but you have to realize that these studies are done by anti gunners and also include drug dealers mishaps and accidental discharge of illegal possessed firearms. The statistics are lower if you ONLY look at them from legal gun owners. Also I know that a firearm will protect me and my family so no I will not get rid of them.
Lord666Belial 4 years ago
continued....
I would rather have a firearm in my hand if someone attacks my family than a phone. The firearm gets there quicker. Also my two year old already knows not to touch firearms and my wife wouldn't let me get rid of them anyway.
Lord666Belial 4 years ago
Not to mention I have already looked at the studies you speak of. As a firearms owner I need to watch for those who are trying to take my ABILITY to defend my family.
Lord666Belial 4 years ago
Well the studies I looked at conviced me, although I realize there is the temptation for 'both' sides to misrepresent the data, but it's important to find the most indepentant data and not assume it's biased because it doesn't say what you would hope. On the face of it saying lenent gun laws reduce crime seems patently ridiculous and I don't think the data is in your favour on this point.
mismos00 4 years ago
Look at the places that have lax gun laws in the US and you will find those with laxer laws has severely less crime.
Lord666Belial 4 years ago 2
I found the exact opposite in the studies that I looked at (which claimed to be unbiased). Again, I could point you to that study, but I don't think you're interested in the data, as you've made evident already. Ultimately, you like you're guns, they make you relax and feel safe, and with the philosophy that you hold - that is all that matters in the end. "Morality is relative" so I don't even know why we're having this discussion anymore.
mismos00 4 years ago
Yes morality is relative. And the reason why we are still having this discussion is because you think the studies are correct. Understand that they have all rounds fired from criminals to begin with. They cannot legally have a firearm anyway and guess what that makes there statistics different for a legally purchased firearms and legal uses. Show me a statistic of only accidental discharges and murders from those firearms and I guarantee it will be lower.
Lord666Belial 4 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
If you allow a population free access to guns then criminals will get them, so the data as to represent that. And in the US criminals and the mentally disabled can get guns at gun shows with no background check (a loop-hole your government seems it does not want to plug).
mismos00 4 years ago
Wrong all firearms at gun shows sold by licenced dealers are required to do a backgrounds check and in my state private pistol sales even through a non dealer has to have a background check also. Also it shows in other nations where it is impossible to get a firearms legally that criminals can still get them through the black market.
Lord666Belial 4 years ago
Also look at FBI statistics less than three percent of firearms used in crimes are bought at gun shows. Another thing criminals get there firearms illegally through the black market to use against vulnerable citizens so why should a citizen not be able to arm themselves to protect themselves?
Lord666Belial 4 years ago
Thanks Lord, I see where you stand on this issue and persuading you is probably not and good use of my time. I can see where you are coming from and I hope you can see where I'm coming from as well. It's been a pleasure discussing this with you. Have a nice life.
mismos00 4 years ago