#28 Quick Question For President Obama About Gun Control

[profreewill]

Well said!

[diginit3]

Because one of our royalty was injured.Forget the constitution. Just because one idiot went nuts, We ALL must pay! I'm very sad for the loss of the little girl. But to emphasize the fact that our heirarchy was assaulted is simply unconstituional. We are ALL equal. Right? Our government works for us, Right? It IS time for change. What I want to know is that in a state where concieled carry is legal, Not one person there had a gun and could have stopped this moron before he fired 3 rounds.

[CQSlim]

The evidence is against you dude. You can "believe" what you want...but in the end the facts are the only thing that matters... Clever editing your post... Still have not pointed out the INDEPENDENT research to prove your point.

[CQSlim]

What criminal will say "OH SHIT! New law - better change my ways"? or "Damn gun free zones...oh well, on to the next target"? You CANNOT control criminals with laws. ONLY through better, effective policing, an efficient justice system, and a just government can crime be controlled.

[quedorf]

@CQSlim Well you can continue believing your silly ideas, and promote throwing guns at a already out of control problem, and I will stay here in Canada safe and sound, with proper gun control. Not really a problem of mine. It is a problem of yours, and the US's. (yes I know you are not from the US, but they have a problem as well). Also a intelligent person looks at the whole problem, and doesn't give one variable a free ride because he or she has a passion for it.

[Americcan]

@quedorf

If you exclude from the US crime stats, those persons whose elimination would make our demographics the same as Canada, then our crime rate would be much lower. The crime rate of caucasian Americans excluding those from Mexico is one of the lowest in the world.

[CQSlim]

Point me to the thesis or INDEPENDENT studies that proves your two countries. There is none. Great Brittain? Are you serious? Violent crme rate pre ban 70/100,000, post handgun ban 2250/100,000. There goes that little thumbsuck of yours disproved by official stats. Germany? Seriously? They do not allow naturalisation. No LPR immigration. And plenty of guns dude. Check it out. They had a gun ban during Hitlers reign yes, or is that what you reckon "success" is?

[quedorf]

@CQSlim Germany......? Where did I say Germany? Not even sure why you brought up Germany. Probably because you have this unstoppable urge to bring up Nazis, as this seem to be a favorite among the gun lobby. As well, look at the British crime survey of 2001 - 2002. You gave no sources for your figures, and as I said before, stats are useless unless used by someone who knows how to use them.

[lyonlove]

A single shot firearm can be just as deadly as one with a large capacity magazine! The fact is that control freaks don't want people armed because an armed people might not bow down to control freaks' commands!!! Disarmed people are slaves!! And any rational person would agree that slavery is NOT acceptable!!!

[InternetDisciple]

I'll try to answer your question for president Obama.

The reason that people should have less gun rights is that that would make it easier to strip even more rights away from you in the future.

[CQSlim]

Hoping Quedorf gets the point... Criminals dont do background checks...

[CQSlim]

Victims: 81% of all homicide defendants had an arrest record; 67% had a felony arrest record; 70% had a conviction record; and 54% had a felony conviction. -Brian Reaves, "Felony Defendants in Large Urban Counties, 1998", Bureau of Justice Statistics, November 2001. 71% of gunshot victims have previous arrest records, 64% had been convicted of a crime, Each had an average of 11 prior arrests. -Richard Lumb, Paul Friday, City of Charlotte Gunshot Study, Department of Criminal Justice, 1994.

[DeadeyeKeith]

@CQSlim- Thanks for sharing!

[CQSlim]

The point remain that evil people will remain evil. All you doing is creating victims by restricting / punishing those without evil intent. America allready has a background check, right? 75-80% of murder arrestees have prior arrests for a violent (including non-fatal) felony or burglary. On average they have about four felony arrests and one felony conviction.Half of all murders are committed by people on "conditional release". Same goes for gunshot victims. How will restrictions "help"?

[eje1079]

Glad to see you back. That is an interesting question that we all wanna hear the answer to yet will probably never ever get it.

[nativenyerintexas]

Always a great video from you. We want more.

[quedorf]

So what you are saying is that you can't play your little game without a large capacity magazine. If everyone is held to the same regulations, why is this a problem. If everyone has to use smaller capacity mags, then everyone is on the same playing field. This question makes no sense.

[DeadeyeKeith]

@quedorf- You are completely missing the point. I use the USPSA as a real world example, but that is not the real problem. Let me break it down for you in Canadian speak. In your country you have the right to free health-care, correct? What if your right was stripped from you because drug dealers figured out a way to cheat the system and fund their nefarious activities through the health-care system? Does that compute?

[quedorf]

@DeadeyeKeith That is a poor example. This is a better example. Large capacity mags increase the possibility that a large number of deaths can occur in a single criminal event., The government realizes this, and since their purpose is to try and prevent these sort of events from happening, they decide that banning these mags is one step to improving the problem. But they do not want to restrict people from their hobbies, so they decide to allow a certain capacity...........

[DeadeyeKeith]

@quedorf- I think you don't like my example because it DOES apply. Your "example" is not an example. It is a reason and a bad one at that. Even if you want to call owning large capacity mags a privilege, why strip it from responsible citizens because of nutjobs who abuse their privilege?

[quedorf]

@DeadeyeKeith Simple. Because the government is trying to make the already unsafe US society, a little safer. They are actually trying to reduce the ridiculous gun problem in the US. Not kowtowing to a lobby group who follows the idea that as long a sit doesn't affect them, they loves their guns.

And no I don't like your example because it is totally foolish. Like I said, health care is NOT A RIGHT. And if it was killing innocent people on a regular basis.............

[DeadeyeKeith]

@quedorf- There isn't a gun problem in the US or anywhere else for that matter. There is a CRIME problem. Blaming the gun is just a ridiculous as California taking away toys in happy meals because parents don't want to argue with their children about what to eat. Put the blame where it should be. Criminals, not guns produce crime and bad parents produce criminals.

[quedorf]

@DeadeyeKeith The difference between us is that I will blame both people, and the easy acess to guns. I realize that crimes are committed due to many variables. I do not give any a free ride. It was said very well by a TV announcer on the Tuscon shooting. "I blame the first 10 bullets on the individual.... I blame the next 21 on the magazine" Not an exact quote.

[DeadeyeKeith]

@quedorf- The first 10 on the criminal and the next 21 on the mag? That has got to be one of the dumbest things I've ever heard. Why not just blame all 31 on the mag? Why do the first ten rounds in the mag get a pass?

[quedorf]

@DeadeyeKeith Because if the limit was 10 rounds, then 10 rounds would have been the maximum shot before requiring to reload,and that is when, for example, Loughner was stopped. It is common sense that 10 rounds will do less potential damage than 31. And as I said before, they still allow a certain size, because of those who do use them as a hobby. Would you prefer they ban all magazines? What is being said is that gun control will not solve all the problems, but will help.

[quedorf]

@DeadeyeKeith ..........because of being universal, then it should disappear. But it doesn't. The US's stupid gun laws do, and the only people who cannot see that are those who want unlimited access to guns, for whatever reason. Most every other first world country just shakes it's heads in disbelief.

[DeadeyeKeith]

@quedorf- I'm not interested in being universal. I'm interested in being free. Seriously, do you fear me and my gun?

[quedorf]

@DeadeyeKeith no I don't fear you and your gun. Like I told a guy who commented on here. I have no issue with guns.

[DeadeyeKeith]

@quedorf- Good and you shouldn't. I am a responsible citizen and neither my gun nor I am a threat to you. That being the case, why do you want MY "high capacity" mags banned? If I am no threat, then what difference does it make to you how many rounds I have in my gun?

[quedorf]

@DeadeyeKeith I am not concerned with how many rounds you have in your gun. I am concerned with how many rounds the Loughners have in their guns. I fI used your logic, then I am to assume you should be allowed with nuclear weapons in your home, because I am also assuming that you would be safe with that. If one is allowed, then everyone is allowed. Is this that hard of a concept to understand, or is the safety of the society you live in less important than your guns.

[serafine666]

@quedorf So... you're unconcerned about how many rounds a law-abiding person who is not going to shoot innocent people has in his gun... but... are deeply concerned about how many founds a person who, by definition, does not obey laws about limiting the size of his gun magazine, has in his gun? Laws only restrict those who obey them; in other words, the only people that will end up with smaller magazines are the people who, as far as you're concerned, can have as many bullets as they desire.

[quedorf]

@serafine666 I am sick of the "only law abiding citizens ..." argument. Why would I be concerned with a law abiding citizen having any size of mag? BUT I realize that in order to control the problem, they must be controlled for all, and not just those who intend illegal useage of them. Similar to the fact that with the Arizona shooting, one must wait till the shooter to shoot before he could be stopped, because up to that point he was obeying the law........

[serafine666]

@quedorf Precisely! But your law would only affect the people that you are not targeting; you are targeting the non-law-abiding who are going to go murder people but by definition, only those that abide by the law will be affected by it. Nothing short of Secret Service-level protection could have stopped Loughner so to use it as an excuse to deprive people of freedom is deeply cynical and perverse. The attack in Arizona is not a reason but merely the excuse in the pursuit of an offensive agenda.

[quedorf]

@serafine666 ..... Also where did I say that ANY person should have as large a mag as they desire? I did not. I only said that it does not concern me that someone who obeys the law has a large clip, not that they should. They should be banned for all.

[serafine666]

@quedorf Ah, so now you take a step back when someone exposes the implications of your statements. Interesting. You didn't say that anyone can have as large of a mag as they desire and, more importantly, I didn't SAY that you did. The implications of "I'm not concerned about how many rounds you have in your gun" said to a law-abiding citizen is that any amount of rounds in their gun would not concern you. If you meant differently, you ought to have said so.

[quedorf]

@serafine666 Read the whole comment before you make a jackass of yourself. It is not my problem that you do not understand simple english.

[serafine666]

@quedorf Well, see, I DID read the entire comment. Thus why my reply was so adroit and penetrating.

[quedorf]

@serafine666 You can think your reply was so very clever all you wish, but you are making no sense. My original comment said basically the EXACT same thing my later comment claimed, only you clearly did not read it all. If you did, you would have read "If one is allowed, then everyone is allowed". What is the implications of that in the proper context of the comment? What does concern mean? Of no interest of importance..........

[serafine666]

@quedorf As a favor to those I reply to, I politely ignore blatant logical fallacies, much as a polite person ignores flatulence. "If one [guns] are allowed, then everyone [nuclear weapons] is allowed" is a classic logical fallacy and thus deserves no attention or reply; to do either would be to treat it as a legitimate statement which a logical fallacy is not. If, by the way, this was not your meaning, you clearly failed to communicate in a comprehensible way.

[quedorf]

@serafine666 And lastly, why would I use the term everyone to refer to nuclear weapons. I do not know about you, but I think it is clearly refering to people.

[serafine666]

@quedorf Usually, that is the case but "one" is an ubiquitous term that can refer to an thing or a person; I read your analogy as an awkward attempt to make an analogy of things by mistakenly using a term that applies to people. "If one is allowed, then everyone is allowed" begs the logical questions:

If one of... what is allowed?

Then everyone is allowed to do... what?"

I answered the first question, based on context, as "if nuclear weapons" and the second question "to own high-capacity mags".

[quedorf]

@serafine666 I am tired of arguing "figures of speech". What you thought I was saying, is not what I was saying. Simple as that. I am intrigued what "degree of understanding" do you possess that I do not. You may be surprised.

[serafine666]

@quedorf Why would you be tired of doing something you have not yet done? And if you were not saying what you appeared to be saying, what was it that you said?

I very much doubt that. Unless you are pretending ignorance, your understanding of the issues surrounding gun control is comparatively limited versus my own. Your apparent comprehension is that of a simple observer, someone who can only see what is obvious but knows very little of what lays under the surface.

[quedorf]

@serafine666 Well I see you chose to ignore, or avoid the question I asked. Which is fair, because it is honestly none of my business. I am interested what experience you have with functional gun control around the world, or if you simply get your information from the propaganda pieces put out by lobby groups in the US. But I guess that is none of my business as well.

[serafine666]

@quedorf I don't see a question. I see a statement that you would be intrigued by what degree of understanding I possess that you do not (although that would be extraordinarily difficult to quantify) but a statement of interest is not a request for information or an answer.

I have no direct experience with gun control outside the United States, having never attempted to purchase or carry a weapon in another country. I rely on data that I have found concerning these policies and their history.

[quedorf]

@serafine666 Lastly, I have no issue with you feigning ignorance of what previous comments say, and refer to, but this is also not a literary english or creative writing course, and I am not being marked on this. So if you choose to play those games, I have no interest. If you asked what was being referred to, then great, but I have little time for wise-asses. You have been told what the earlier comment referred to, and I am also not repeating myself again. Play your games elsewhere.

[serafine666]

@quedorf As I have covered with you already, Quedorf, I am not ignorant of what previous comment say, having read them in their entirety. There is nothing to feign.

Actually, I have not been told this. You have told me the general subject being referenced but if the analogy you used with DeadeyeKeith was not a comparison of nuclear weapons to extended magazines, what WAS being compared? This is not a game; this is someone who can tell that you typo'ed trying to figure out what you meant to say.

[quedorf]

@serafine666 .....Meaning that it is of no importance to me what size a magazine a law abiding citizen has, if they are to be banned, then they should be banned for all. Not too sure where the ambiguity is.

[serafine666]

@quedorf Well, since your original statement did not say that, nor anything like it, the ambiguity is entirely in your statements. Yes, you said both of those things separately but not as a conjoined assertion; there was no explicit nor implicit connection between your lack of concern for the size of a law-abiding citizen's magazine and your belief that all magazines above a certain capacity ought to be banned.

[quedorf]

@serafine666 Sorry to disappoint, but those comments were part of a dialogue, and not intended towards you. If you do not understand the topic, then ask, do not assume. If you read the comment properly, you would have seen the topic was large capacity mags, and not nuclear weapons. Comments of 500 letters do not always follow the guidelines you may see in a more thourough debate.

[serafine666]

@quedorf I read the entire dialog, Quedorf, start to finish. Futhermore, I understand the topic quite well; I venture to say that I understand it to a degree that you do not.

I knew the subject was large-capacity magazines. Astonishingly enough, that is why I COMMENTED UPON your position concerning large-capacity magazines. However, I have no way of knowing whether you were trying to use nuclear weapons as a metaphor or simile to make your point; such usage is not uncommon in gun control debates

[quedorf]

@serafine666 Sorry, one post seemed to post several times. Ignore the duplicates...

[quedorf]

@DeadeyeKeith Lastly, as far as me wanting your high capacity mags banned, I really could care less. I live in Canada, and we do not have this problem. I just feel sorry for those who live in the US and live in fear due to the excessive violence in a society in love with guns.

[MikeReiner]

@quedorf I wasn't aware that as a US citizen I was in constant fear of excessive gun violence.

But hey, you live in a country where a man that used a gun to fend off arsonists on his own property was punished by his government, so things must be great up there.

[quedorf]

@MikeReiner Well if you properly read what I wrote, you would understand that I said I do feel sorry for those who DO feel fear of violent crime in the US. Since you DON"T, you do not fit the criteria, and thus I do not feel sorry for you. Quite simple isn't it?

Also there are countless whackadoodle anecdotes out there on all sides, and they serve no purpose. Canada's violent crime is staggeringly lower than the US, and that is what is important.

[etucker5007]

@quedorf The murder rate in Canada is half the US rate.

What makes you think limiting capacity will help anything. The VA Tech shooter had to reload around 20 times during his assault.

[etucker5007]

@quedorf

I just checked to make sure, the murder rate in Canada is exactly the same as the US for 2009

[quedorf]

@etucker5007 Where did you come up with this doosey. I think you will find that the murder rate in Canada in 2009 is pretty much as it always is at less than 2 per 100000, while US is approx 5 per 100000. You may want to check your sources.

[etucker5007]

@quedorf

Do a google search dude, the murder rate in Canada is 5 per 100000 in 2009

yes it has been historically lower, but not anymore apparently

[quedorf]

@etucker5007 Nope. You are still wrong. Intentional homicide rate in Canada in 2009 1.81 per 100000. Have no idea where you got your figures from.

[etucker5007]

@quedorf

Ok my bad, your right. I misread the paragraph. The murder rate in Canada was low before they had much gun control too.

[quedorf]

@etucker5007 Canada has had gun control in some form for years. Yes it grown throughout the years, but that is the way of these things work. The point is that the US has been stagnant, and the violent crime rate shows that. Yes guns are not the only problem and cause of the violent crime rate, but it is one.

[etucker5007]

The murder rate in the US is declining, its about half of what it was in 1993. Its really an oversimplification to say the murder rate is high in the US, because most murders happen in big cities.

For example, the murder rate in Washington D.C. is 24 per 100000 ( a 30 year low) has been as high as 80 per 100000. All guns were completely illegal there for 30 years.

Across the river in Arlington( where most guns are legal) murder rate is 1.5 per 100000

I just don't think guns cause crime.

[quedorf]

@etucker5007 All countries have big cities. And yes the rate is higher in cities than in smaller areas. Point is that the US still has a higher rate than most everywhere else. Also to say that guns are the only problem is over simplifying the problem, but like I said, they are not the only variable, but they are one. As far as not being the cause of the crime, that is arguable, but what isn't, is that when a crime is committed, and a gun is involved, the situation is escalated............

[etucker5007]

@quedorf

If you look at all the nations on Earth, the US is in the middle of the pack when it comes to murder rate.

The US has the 91st highest murder rate. The US is special, it is the only nation that allows such gun freedom, if guns are such a catalyst to crime the US should be at the #1 spot. But it isn't. In fact the US rate is low by international standards.

[quedorf]

@etucker5007 Problem is that in a proper comparison of countries, The US should only be compared to first world countries. As I said before, guns are not the only variable. Many of these countries with higher murder rates, have very large socio-economic problems. So no, your claim that due to the US's gun "freedom", the US should be #1 in murders is wrong. Guns are not the only variable, and there are more than one reason for struggling countries to have high rates.

[quedorf]

@etucker5007 .....A criminal walks into a place with a knife, he may attack one or two people. if he has a gun with 10 rounds, there are 10 potential deaths, while if he had 30 there are 30 potential deaths, and so on. So the gun did not directly cause the crime, but it did play a part. There are also cases where if the person did not have a gun available, they would not have committed the crime, and in these cases it could be argued that the gun did play a part in causing the crime.

[etucker5007]

@quedorf

Yes, but your assuming that the law can keep the crooks from getting guns.

[quedorf]

@etucker5007 I did not say that more restrictive gun laws will eliminate all problems, nor did I say it will prevent all crooks from obtaining guns. I only claim it will reduce the number of these crimes, and most of the rest of the first world shows just that.

[etucker5007]

@quedorf

You're also assuming that none of the would be victims are armed.

[quedorf]

@etucker5007 If the victims are armed, this can go one of two ways. It can prevent the crime, or it can escalate the crime. Same as in the Tuscon shooting the one fellow with a gun said he was ready to shoot the criminal, yet he did not, which is good because he would have shot a innocent man who had disarmed the shooter already. So yes there are times the gun can assist, but if you allow that, you have to allow that there are times the gun can cause more problems.

[etucker5007]

@quedorf

I think you are judging America unfairly.

I don't believe being unarmed is ever preferable. My point is simply this, any gun control laws can only affect the good guys.This is what they are learning in the UK, the shooting death rate has doubled since they banned guns in 1998.

[quedorf]

@etucker5007 How am I judging US unfairly? My point is this, if gun control laws only affect the good guys, then why do most first world countries with functional gun control almost universally have a much lower intentional homicide rate? Even the Uk has had a pretty much steady rate of approx 1.5 per. Even though I am loathe to use these stats, as they mean nothing on their own.

[etucker5007]

@quedorf

The situations you are describing are mass shootings, they are extremely rare. They seem like a huge problem because every single one makes front page news for a week. A total of 10-20 people die yearly in mass shootings, sometime less sometimes more. But even if you could prevent all mass shootings with more gun control( which you couldn't) I still think it is wrong to punish all gun owners for the sins of the few.

I would rather have freedom than security.

[quedorf]

@etucker5007 I am not only refering to mass shootings. Although if one looks into the information, the US has had 107 school shootings since the 60's, while europe has had 17. All approx. The US seems to talk alot about freedom, yet in reality there is no more freedom in US than in these countries with gun control. Only in the narrow view regarding guns. There are areas where these other countries have more freedom.

[etucker5007]

Benjamin Franklin once said "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

If history is any indication, no liberty or safety usually what they get.

BTW, I appreciate you being civil and not name calling or anything like that, even though we disagree.

[quedorf]

@etucker5007 I have found the word freedom is simply a catch phrase meaning that as far as things are as the status quo, guns are more important than people lives. And Ben Franklin has been dead for over 200 years. Times have changed.

I do try to be civil, as long as the "opponent" is civil. I prefer a civil discussion. I do not mind people disagreeing with me. Lets be honest, it would be a boring world if everyone agreed.

[quedorf]

@etucker5007 This seems not to have worked. I will try again............. I have found the word freedom is simply a catch phrase meaning that as far as things are as the status quo, guns are more important than people lives. And Ben Franklin has been dead for over 200 years. Times have changed.

I do try to be civil, as long as the "opponent" is civil. I prefer a civil discussion. I do not mind people disagreeing with me. Lets be honest, it would be a boring world if everyone agreed.

[etucker5007]

@quedorf

I think you are being unfair because you insist on comparing America only to nations with the lowest murder rate wile dismissing the 90 countries with higher rates as socioeconomic problems. European countries certainly have less freedom than the US, they pay much higher taxes, most have no right to speedy and fair trial, you cant buy a gun, much more permitting and business regulations, etc.

In France they can arrest you and hold you for years without charging you.

[quedorf]

@etucker5007 I compare the US to first world countries, because the US is a first world country. There is no value comparing it to third world countries, because there problems differ. If the US chooses to compare itself to those countries and set the bar with regard to them, then fine, but that shows a complete lack of effort on the US's part.

As far as the higher taxes. That is simply because of the social programs that these countries possess, that the US does not...........

[quedorf]

@etucker5007 ......In most European countries, the court system works similar to the Us's. The US does have restrictions that these countries do not. For example the US citizens cannot use their currency legally in Cuba.

[etucker5007]

@quedorf

In the UK it is illegal to kill anyone even if they are trying to kill you, many people are put in prison for defending their own lives.

Yes there are less murders in most other first world countries, but all of them had low murder rates before they had gun control. In Australia, the murder rate has always been about 2 per. and has only gone up since they passed gun laws. Same in the UK.

[quedorf]

@etucker5007 I am not sure where you got your info from, but in the UK citizens are allowed to use reasonable force, even deadly, for self defense. The important word is reasonable. As far as the defending their own lives and being put in prison, most of the anecdotes do not give the whole story. For example the Tony Martin case where he was sentenced to life. reason being is he shot one man in the back as he was running away. This is not reasonable force, as at this point he was in no danger.

[serafine666]

@quedorf He got his info from a cursory examination of UK law. The law provably does not count, as reasonable force, jabbing someone with a knitting needle if they're trying to hurt you; there is an instance of a set of knitting needles being confiscated as an illegal weapon The UK laws are exactly like the intricate and obsessively-detailed requirements that some cities levy on self-defense that curtail the citizen's ability to defend themselves in their own home: written to prevent the action.

[quedorf]

@serafine666 Why does confiscating needles from a plane, have anything at all to do with self defence, and what the laws say in the UK. The fact still remains that in a self defence position, a citizen CAN use deadly force if it is reasonable. Most countries have the same law, to prevent those from using deadly force when it does not apply.

[serafine666]

@quedorf By "plane" you must mean "train". Yeah.

'Cept like certain anti-gun municipalities in the United States, they define the conditions for self-defense such that an attacker has to have cornered you and put a gun to your head before self-defense is "reasonable". Sober municipalities that GENUINELY wish to see citizens free to protect their own lives use the "castle doctrine": illegal entry into your castle (property) authorizes you to use lethal force in your own defense.

[quedorf]

@etucker5007 The Intentional homicide rate in Australia is 1.2 in 2009, which dropped from 1.6 in 2000. Although these changes are not really stat significant. There has been a urban legend that after the gun buy back of 1997, the crime went up drastically, but a simple understanding of statistics shows that this is propaganda. In the UK numbers went up because of a change in the recording of crimes in the UK at the time of the Gun control laws. "figures do not lie, but liars figure"

[etucker5007]

@quedorf

It is irrelevant that Ben Franklin lived 200 years ago, we quote Shakespeare, Aristotle, Confucius many other people who lived much longer ago. Of course many Americans value freedom more than their own lives, my self included, is that really so surprising? Why else would so many people volunteer for the military. I would rather live with the threat of being shot that to give up gun freedom, the threat is small and the benefits are many. Life is too short to worry about that stuff.

[quedorf]

@etucker5007 No one uses Shakespeare, or the others you mention as people to base laws on. Simply they were artists and philosophers who were great thinkers of their time. We do not quote them because of their relevance to today. For example many of Confucius's sayings are clever, but if though of deeper, they do not relate to todays world, or contain flaws. .............

[quedorf]

@etucker5007 I do agree that many Americans do value freedom, as I do believe Canadians, British, Etc do. I just do not believe that most understand what freedom is, and have a twisted idea based on their own political and social leanings. Example. Most gun lovers think that a gun control system is a lack of freedom, but those who do not love guns believe that a country polluted with guns infringes on their freedom to live in a country free from guns in everyones hands........

[quedorf]

@etucker5007 .... A proper gun control system is a compromise between both sides.

I did get a little wordy here, and wrote a little too much. Sorry.

[etucker5007]

@quedorf

I'm basing my opinion on Australia on a news story I read, but every website on the internet seems to contradict the last. But in any case. If your goal is to save lives, gun control is a lousy way to do it. The suicide rate in Australia is almost 10 times what the murder rate is, their efforts are much better spent trying to prevent suicides if their goal is to save lives. Same in the US, 2,500,000 deaths yearly, only 10,000 are gun related murders.

[quedorf]

@etucker5007 The suicide rate is a different animal. The Australian suicicide rate is equivalent to pretty much all first world countries. These countries do attempt to lower this figure, but different strategies are needed. The reason the suicide rate is much higher is because their murder rate is so much lower. The Australian suicidde rate is actually lower than the US's, although fractionally.

[etucker5007]

If the anti-gun folks goal is to save lives, why not try to end heart disease which kills 600,000 yearly, or cancer which kills 500,000 yearly. In fact your odds of dying in any given year are 1 in 120. Your odds of being shot to death are 1 in 30,000. The real propaganda is the media giving weeks of news coverage to every mass shooting. Over 1,000 people have died in car accidents since the Arizona shooting. At best, the huge effort for more gun laws is a case of misplaced priorities

[quedorf]

@etucker5007 You mean that in your country they do not try to end heart disease, or cancer? (rhetorical question). In Canada millions and millions are spent each year on trying to end diseases such as this. But it is not an easy task. Improvements have been made. How is this even relevant to the gun problem?

As far as the traffic accidents, first these are accidents. They do put controls on to prevent deaths. And deaths have been prevented...............

[quedorf]

@etucker5007 ....But eliminated? No. Just as gun controls will not eliminate all deaths, but reduce. So yes all these things are being addressed by the powers that be, but in the US, people seem to want to give guns a pass. This is what makes no sense. Just because less people are being killed by guns than in car accidents, does not make it less important. Restrictions are put on cars and driving, and so should they be put on guns. This is what gun control is. Similar to Canada.

[etucker5007]

@quedorf

The bottom line is that I believe in individual freedom, there is no right to be safe. The courts have ruled continually that there is no right to be safe and that the police cannot guarantee safety. Nor can the police be sued for failing to respond or provide safety. You alone are responsible for the safety of you and your family.

The bottom line is that I believe in personal freedom and liberty, and that the individual has as much right to be armed as the government, you don't.

[serafine666]

@quedorf It's OK, I suppose, but what you represent as the position of the anti-gun people makes no sense. There is no such thing as a freedom to live in a country free from guns in everyone's hands and indeed, this is emphatically NOT what the gun controllers want based on their own words. What they desire is a system in which the government has total and unrestrained authority to decide who is permitted to have a gun. This is at odds with the entire POINT of permitting an armed citizenry.

[quedorf]

@serafine666 Making generalizations again.. I again ask, why gun control works in so many places, and in Canada we have gun control, yet many many people have and regularily use guns? Why does the US seem to be the only first world country with the need for armed citizens. Is it perhaps not a need, but a want, and a lack of concern for the ramifications of such a "freedom".

[serafine666]

@quedorf Gun control DOESN'T work. No criminal who would have used a gun is prevented from attaining a gun by gun control laws because those laws only control those who are inclined to obey laws. In fact, the US isn't the only first-world country with a need for armed citizens; it is merely the last one that supplies a need that all first-world countries share. This is because, unlike the European nations from which its initial citizens came, it has a parchment bastion against gun-grabbers.

[CQSlim]

@quedorf - Please give me just ONE example of somewhere gun control "worked" and made the place "safer". Gun control in any shape or form has never worked ANYWHERE in the world. Dont even try India, China, Brittain or Aus - it has not and there is plenty of proof. Even Canada are dropping the long gun registry as their own police said it is a waste of money and resources without any effect on crime. The US is the country with the MOST gun control laws in the world. 20,000+ You want more??

[quedorf]

@CQSlim You are wrong on the Canadian registry. The majority of the police organizations want to keep the registry. There are a vocal few who do want to get rid of it as you claim, but they are few and far between. This is another case of how information is twisted and then believed by those who want to beleive. And I never said anything about the US having no gun control laws. I claimed they were ineffective, and poor. First problem is they allow each state to make its own. No consitancy

[quedorf]

@CQSlim As far as where gun control worked. It helped both in GB and australia, if anyone was intersted in the actual facts. Yes you can get information saying oterwise, but most if this comes from groups pushing an agenda such as the NRA. The Aus attorney general actually wrote a letter to the NRA telling them to stop using misleading information. Stats are mostly used by those who do not understand them..................

[quedorf]

@CQSlim................... A question. Two countries, A and B. Country A's violent crime went up by 50 percent last year. Country B's violent crime went down by 50 percent last year. Which country is safer?

[quedorf]

@DeadeyeKeith ...........WAIT, that is what most countries already do. The health care example was simply not remotely appropriate, as it is not a right. Of course neither is large capacity mags.

[DeadeyeKeith]

@quedorf- You need to watch #2 in my QQFGCA series. Tell me, why is it that a 10 round magazine is a right, but and 11 round magazine isn't?

[quedorf]

@DeadeyeKeith Because the government has to set a point at which to have the cut off. Many people in the US are sick and tired of the gun problems. They want something to improve, and see's the rest of the first world as something they would like to work towards. Then there is the gun lobbies who actually hold most of the power resisting improvement.

[faithfulstronghold]

@quedorf Why the hell does it matter to you if you don't like guns don't get one stay the hell out of others business Nazi.

[quedorf]

@faithfulstronghold When did I say I did not like guns????? You are a typical gun fundamental, and assumes way to much. As well, maybe someday you should learn a bit about what a Nazi is. Might not make you sound so uneducated when you speak. Ever hear of Godwins law?

[CQSlim]

South Africa has extremely strict gun control laws. At our current violent crime rate, every citizen can expect to become a victim of violent crime at least once in his lifetime. Our rape statistics suggest all woman would be raped at least once, and one in every three woman, raped twice or more. The South African crime rates soared with the implementation of the Firearms Control Act.

I hope the Americans kick that commie bastard out come next elections...

[DeadeyeKeith]

@CQSlim- I sure hope we get rid of him too.

[pande4509]

Punish the masses for the sins of the few!!!!! Its become the American way.

[serafine666]

Because it'll make everyone FEEL BETTER, Keith! I mean, isn't that a good enough reason to make a law stripping people of freedom? Yanno, so someone out there feels better about there being smaller magazines?

Speaking of magazines, there's some pretty good-looking 75-round drum magazines floating around...

[Iamnotaparakeet]

It seems to be a general trend that whenever anyone abuses their freedom that the reflexive action on the part of desk job policy makers is to punish everyone in general. For instance, when my wife and I moved into our apartment there were not any restrictions against pets. One tenant in one of the complexes own by the management in operation didn't clean up after their ferrets, so the management decides to ban all pets whatsoever in response to one person abusing their freedom. It stinks.

[Mossy500A]

Because freedom is a concept that too many people have forgotten the meaning of, and/or don't know what it takes to maintain it.

The father of the little girl that was murdered at that store was hurt, but understood it was a price of being free. He said it is better than the alternative, which too many Americans want.

Good to hear from you again, Deadeye!

[levi79]

Duh!! Because nobody has to be resposible for their actions in todays candy ass lets talk about your feelinga society! Instead we make excuses for people high cap mags, video games, McDonalds. One day America will get it's balls back and make prisons like they used to be a flat out get your ass kicked for being a douchbag scary plae to be with a death sentence thats used. Instead of this awww poooor baby come here well feel sorry for you here because Oprah says we should talk about our feelings!

[apologeticsman]

good question, and sadly the answer is that when evil people do evil things, the natural human tendency is to take everyone's ability to do those things away. It's easier to just take all our toys away, than it is to punish just the guilty parties. The problem with this mindset is that when you take all people's rights away, the evil ones who do not care about the law will be the ones in control of the good ones, who do care about the law.

[VnazT]

And he's back!

[VinnyS914]

You have to be a U.S. citizen to be President.