Defend the Second Amendment!

Not only that, the arms they were concerned about the rights to bear (Blackpowder flintlocks)are not even considered firearms anymore. In many states you can buy one right off the shelf without a background check. Powder and balls too.

 

Way to get your balls powdered for sure

 

That was more hundreds of years ago and as far as I know today there is no militia, regulated or otherwise.

Todays individual gun nuts don't count as well regulated militia.

 

In regards to self defense - It's not about living in fear, it's about mitigating risk.

We don't all live in gated communities. Our mental health system is broken, drugs turn decent people into monsters, gang members don't have any regard for human life, criminal organizations are ruthless, poverty makes people do desparate things, and some people just don't have a consciounce. They don't care. There are evil people in every corner of the world. Some places are safer than others, but nobody is immune to crime. We wouldn't need prisons if that weren't the case.

I've had a gun pulled on me once, and held at knifepoint twice. Gun was pulled by a local gang member because I stood too close to his car, first knife incident was a homeless guy who was absolutely out of his mind, and the second knife incident was a fellow soldier on drugs....somebody trained to fight with a knife. How many times should I have to roll the dice with somebody incapable of rational thought? Violent criminals are not rational people, drug addicts are not rational people, gang bangers are not rational people, and not all mentally ill people can be cured, especially when they're dumped on the street with a smile and told, "Don't forget to take your meds. Bye".

The vast majority of gun owners will never need to use their gun for self-defense, but arguing against gun ownership for self-defense is like arguing against locking your doors at night because you haven't been robbed yet. Both are precautionary measures.

And besides, it's not the people who legally own guns you need to be afraid of.....

 

Russia has 1/10th the gun ownership of the US yet almost twice as many murders. Their population is less than half the US, so their murder rate is 400% that of the US.

It's also important to remember over 60% of gun deaths here are suicides. The majority of the remainder are gang related. Very few murders are committed with legally owned firearms.

 

[SIZE=11pt]Old[/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]Let’s get this straight you are saying that you quoted something that was directly about America in a thread that was about the US in a forum that is mainly inhabited by Americans with something that had nothing to do with the US or American?[/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]So it had nothing to do with what’s been discussed.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]I was pointing out that in an American context [the context of the thread] If you have a lot of people killed because there are many guns in circulation how does it help by putting more guns into circulation why not try and lessen the number of guns in circulation?[/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]Your reply to that was “even if guns of all types were eliminated from the face of the earth, do you really think that people would stop killing each other”[/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]Now in the context of the thread [the US gun issue] that seemed to imply you thought that the high level of homicides in the US was not about easy access to guns but to Americans wanting to kill each other more than others.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]If all you were saying in a general way that weapons existed before firearms were invented and that killings happened then you really get the award for stating the bloody obvious – but in the context of this thread the statement contributes nothing.[/SIZE]

 

[SIZE=11pt]Old[/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt][/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]Such figures are usually presented in per 100,000 of people so as the give a proper comparison.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]per 100,000 the homicide rates are [/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]London - 0.86[/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]In England and Wales, 1.0[/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]Let’s compare with your list of US States for 2013 [FBI][/SIZE]
[SIZE=11pt]Alabama – [/SIZE][SIZE=11pt]7.2[/SIZE]
[SIZE=11pt]Hawaii – 1.5[/SIZE]
[SIZE=11pt]Vermont, 1.6[/SIZE]
[SIZE=11pt]North Dakota 2.2[/SIZE]
[SIZE=11pt]South Dakota 2.4[/SIZE]
[SIZE=11pt]Montana, 2.2[/SIZE]
[SIZE=11pt]Wyoming, 2.9[/SIZE]
[SIZE=11pt]New Hampshire, 1.7[/SIZE]
[SIZE=11pt]Maine, 1.8[/SIZE]
[SIZE=11pt]Idaho, 1.7[/SIZE]
[SIZE=11pt]Rhode Island, 2.9[/SIZE]
[SIZE=11pt]Alaska, 4.6[/SIZE]
[SIZE=11pt]Delaware, 4.2[/SIZE]
[SIZE=11pt]Iowa, 1.7[/SIZE]
[SIZE=11pt]Utah, 1.7[/SIZE]
[SIZE=11pt]West Virginia, 3.3[/SIZE]
[SIZE=11pt]Nebraska, 3.1[/SIZE]
[SIZE=11pt]Oregon, 2.0[/SIZE]
[SIZE=11pt]Connecticut, 2.4[/SIZE]
[SIZE=11pt]New Mexico, 6.0[/SIZE]
[SIZE=11pt]Minnesota, 2.1[/SIZE]
[SIZE=11pt]Kansas, 3.9[/SIZE]
[SIZE=11pt]Massachusetts, 2.0[/SIZE]
[SIZE=11pt]Mississippi, 6.1[/SIZE]
[SIZE=11pt]Arkansas, 5.4[/SIZE]
[SIZE=11pt]Washington, 2.3[/SIZE]
[SIZE=11pt]Wisconsin, 2.8[/SIZE]
[SIZE=11pt]Nevada, 5.8[/SIZE]
[SIZE=11pt]Kentucky, 3.9[/SIZE]
[SIZE=11pt]Colorado 3.4[/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt][/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]So let’s see London has a murder rate of around 1 per 100,000 and according to the FBI the nearest to that of your ‘peaceful’ States is Hawaii with 1.5 and Alabama has a rate of [/SIZE][SIZE=11pt]7.2[/SIZE]
[SIZE=11pt]Oh and population density is usually taken in as a factor the argument been that higher density increases the likelihood of crime [including murder] so the lower the density the lower the rates should be.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]The population density of London is [/SIZE][SIZE=11pt]5,285 people[/SIZE][SIZE=11pt] per sq km (The averages for England and the UK were 411 and 263 people per sq km respectively)[/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]The population density of Hawaii is 84.4 [/SIZE][SIZE=11pt]per sq km and Alabama is 39.9 per sq km [/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]What was your point again? [/SIZE]

 

Paw

Thank you – your post makes my point for me.

risk.

You feel at risk, threatened, fearful.

Monsters and evil that is ruthless and cruel – you certainly come across as frightened and even later in your post you go on to say people should be afraid.

I’m saying that many Americans see the frightening symptoms of a number of social and economic problems and their reply is to get a gun – but why not correct the social and economic problems so the frightening symptoms go away and then its likely people wouldn’t be so fearful and feel they needed a gun.

 

Once again you go where no one has gone before.....
I've been talking about the right to own personal firearms, not the right of the individual to own a state of the art bomber equipped with the latest in laser guided missiles and bombs so he can use them for "solving social problems" in another country.

 

What?

Let's check your figures, shall we.

"[SIZE=9pt]I live in London it has a population of around 7.5 million and it only had 175 homicides between Apr-2005 to Apr-2006."[/SIZE]

Now isn't that 75 x 100,000 and if you divide 75 into your 175 homicides, that gives you 2.333 per 100,000 not 0.86 as you are now saying.

"What was your point again?"

So my point is that you seem to play a little fast and loose with the numbers if it'll "prove" your point.

Seeing as, even using your numbers that still leaves 12 States with better numbers than your beloved London.
[SIZE=11pt](Hawaii – 1.5, Vermont - 1.6, North Dakota - 2.2[/SIZE], [SIZE=11pt]Montana - 2.2[/SIZE], [SIZE=11pt]New Hampshire - 1.7[/SIZE], [SIZE=11pt]Maine - 1.8[/SIZE], [SIZE=11pt]Idaho - 1.7[/SIZE], [SIZE=11pt]Iowa - 1.7, Utah - 1.7, Oregon - 2.0, Minnesota - 2.1[/SIZE], [SIZE=11pt]Massachusetts - 2.0[/SIZE])
Also it may be of interest to you that out of that list [SIZE=11pt]Vermont,[/SIZE] [SIZE=11pt]Montana,[/SIZE] [SIZE=11pt]New Hampshire, [/SIZE][SIZE=11pt]Idaho and [/SIZE][SIZE=11pt]Oregon[/SIZE] are open carry states.

 

Old

Oh for fuck sakes - ok if anything I seem to have over stated it in 2005 some other figures have 2005 at 168 murder giving a rate of 2.2 and I believe it was high that year because of the London bombings [July 7th 2005]

It had dropped to 121 by 2011 [rate of 1.5] and I believe the figures for 2013 were 89 but by then the population of London had grown to 8.3

83 into my 89 homicides is a rate of 1.07 I think

TO REPEAT

So let’s see London has a murder rate of around 1 per 100,000 and according to the FBI the nearest to that of your ‘peaceful’ States is Hawaii with 1.5 and Alabama has a rate of 7.2

Oh and population density is usually taken in as a factor the argument been that higher density increases the likelihood of crime [including murder] so the lower the density the lower the rates should be.

The population density of London is 5,285 people per sq km (The averages for England and the UK were 411 and 263 people per sq km respectively)

The population density of Hawaii is 84.4 per sq km and Alabama is 39.9 per sq km

What was your point again?

 

Paw
Thank you – your post makes my point for me.

No, It doesn't.

risk.
You feel at risk, threatened, fearful.

Feeling at risk does not equate to threatened and fearful, no matter how much you want it to or are you also saying that Americans that buy smoke alarms are feeling "threatened, fearful".

Monsters and evil that is ruthless and cruel – you certainly come across as frightened and even later in your post you go on to say people should be afraid.

The plain truth is... there are "monsters and evil that is ruthless and cruel" and no matter how much you belittle and demean people for being "afraid" of such ones, doing so does not make them go away.

Such as; "Terrorists gun down 12 at French newspaper" and France already has the fairly restrictive gun laws you are recommending for the US.


I’m saying that many Americans see the frightening symptoms of a number of social and economic problems and their reply is to get a gun – but why not correct the social and economic problems so the frightening symptoms go away and then its likely people wouldn’t be so fearful and feel they needed a gun.

Once again with this ... strawman argument.
First, you imply that the only reason for Americans to buy a gun is their "fear" of "social and economic problems". But Americans have many different reasons to "get a gun" and few "get a gun" just for the reason you delineate.

Next you imply that "social and economic problems" can be easily dealt with and that because Americans can "get a gun" they feel that they don't have to deal with or correct "social and economic problems". This is so ... well stupid, that I can't believe you keep bringing it up. There is no correlation with gun ownership and dealing with "social and economic problems".
"Hey I own a gun so that prevents me doing anything to solve "social and economic problems"." Yeah right! Like not owning a gun some how makes a person more socially responsible.

Last you imply that if Americans could only solve their "social and economic problems", as if any other country has done so, they would no longer feel the "need" for a gun but as has been pointed out to you innumerable times, Americans have many reasons for gun ownership that have nothing to do with fear or "social and economic problems".

 

Don't go fucking another guy's woman. Says so in the bible.

Morale of the story: if you plan on screwing around you better get yourself some heavy ordnance. :dizzy2:

 

[SIZE=12pt]Old[/SIZE]

I seems i have to keep pointing out to people that just saying ‘no it doesn’t’ or ‘you’re wrong’ or ‘that’s stupid’ - IS NOT a rational, reasonable or logical counter argument.

I’ve pointed out that many people who say they have guns for personal protection seem motivated by fear – I mean if they were not fearful they wouldn’t feel they needed a lethal weapon for personal protection.

And you I mean at first you say it’s not true then in the next breath you tell people they should be afraid and that the frightening things are not going away.

 

i have no trouble understanding what you are saying and if it appears I have gone where no one has gone before it is a reflection on the way you haven.considered what I have said in larger terms. No one else in this thread thinks im off base here. Our own police forces carry guns with the idea of protecting social order.

 

This problem may be worse than I thought....

 

funny it used to be below the threashold of what we accept to be natural causes as in the cas of accidents. Now that is changing because auto safety has improved and peace of mind hasnt.

 

I would like to point out that the conclusion offered by the headline is not indicative of the information found on the graph above. Gun deaths aren't even at their historical highs it is traffic deaths that have fallen to the level of gun deaths.