PRO

Where Your Ideas can change Minds

Please visit our new forum at

http://www.4forums.com

CON


YouDebate.com Forum
» back to YouDebate.com
Register | Profile | Log In | Lost Password | Active Users | Help | Board Rules | Search | FAQ |
Custom Search
» You are not logged in.   log in | register

  YouDebate.com Forum
   Gun Control Debates
     2nd amendment=anachronism
       Why gun rights are nonsense

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
mjd1982

|      |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
+1

Rate this post:

As a non american, it is astonishing to me that many americans cannot realise that the more guns there are in a society, the more people die from gun violence.

The principles upon which the 2nd amendment were created are no longer applicable- hence it is the definition of an anachronism.The Amendment does not deal with the right to bear handguns, but the right to bear arms. Back when the law was framed, guns did mean simple arms. However now, arms includes anything up to weapons of mass destruction. Clearly, no sane person is going to advocate that anyone who can afford it should have the right to keep and bear WMDs. So instantly it goes down the bin.

If we be kind and say ok, just handguns, again, nonsense. Firstly, as many people die of accidental handgun deaths in the Us as die from all gunhomicides in the UK per 1000 people; secondly, though it is fine to protect your family, guns get overwhelmingly used for violence, not deterrence; hence the 12000 gun homicides per year.

This is expounded in more depth here ; I think the arguments are pretty elementary.


-------
TheDailyMohsin.com
 


Posts: 4 | Posted: 12:56 PM on April 17, 2009 | IP
JSF16

|       |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Would banning guns do anything?  No. Guns like stens, were designed to made cheaply and easily by novices. Come on, no one is allowed uzi's or glocks, but gangs have them anyway. Banning guns would just kill hunting and assure that government will not survive another election.


-------
Everyone says expect the unexpected, but since now everyone expects the unexpected, the unexpected is now the expected and the expected is the unexpected. So if you are expecting the unexpected, you are actually expecting the expected, so if you start expecting the expected, you will be expecting the unexpected. So everyone should start expecting the expected again and the expected will be expected and the unexpected will be unexpected again, then we can start expecting the unexpected again.
 


Posts: 103 | Posted: 11:18 PM on April 17, 2009 | IP
Skittles

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Why should we get rid of "guns"? It sounds like we should be trying to get rid of criminals. After all, they are the ones that pull the trigger, or stab with a blade, or swing a bat, or throw a punch. I have never seen an unloaded firearm physically arm itself, choose a target, and fire with intent to kill. I have also never seen a knife cut my steak all by itself or a baseball bat hit a ball without the baseball player or a boxer win a match without fists. If you really care about others living (and are not just scared for yourself because you sound like you don't own a firearm) then get rid of anything and everything that could used as ANY form of weapon. Cutlery, baseball bats, beer bottles, golf clubs, playing cards (because of that one guy in X-Men), and oh yeah, guns should all be taken away from us to prevent any kind of death. Don't even mention cigarettes.
 


Posts: 2 | Posted: 5:07 PM on May 10, 2009 | IP
hopnpop

|     |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from JSF16 at 11:18 PM on April 17, 2009 :
Would banning guns do anything?  No. Guns like stens, were designed to made cheaply and easily by novices. Come on, no one is allowed uzi's or glocks, but gangs have them anyway. Banning guns would just kill hunting and assure that government will not survive another election.



If you're going to reference guns, do more homework.  Glocks are sold (legally, mind you) nearly everywhere.  There's nothing special about a Glock other than very high quality.  The biggest gang to tote Glocks that I know of is the police dept.  And Uzi makes a variety of handguns, legal handguns.  The Uzi you think of would be the altered machine pistol you've seen in movies.  Yes, they are out there but I don't believe machine guns would account for much in the way of gun crime other than being caught in posession of one.

And would banning guns outright do anything?  Of course it would - it would make countless numbers of good, law-abiding citizens who have some strange interest in self-preservation....criminals.



-------
If it has to come down to either him or me - I'll send flowers.
 


Posts: 9 | Posted: 10:18 PM on May 14, 2009 | IP
hopnpop

|     |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from mjd1982 at 12:56 PM on April 17, 2009 :
As a non american, it is astonishing to me that many americans cannot realise that the more guns there are in a society, the more people die from gun violence.

The principles upon which the 2nd amendment were created are no longer applicable- hence it is the definition of an anachronism.The Amendment does not deal with the right to bear handguns, but the right to bear arms. Back when the law was framed, guns did mean simple arms. However now, arms includes anything up to weapons of mass destruction. Clearly, no sane person is going to advocate that anyone who can afford it should have the right to keep and bear WMDs. So instantly it goes down the bin.

...though it is fine to protect your family, guns get overwhelmingly used for violence, not deterrence; hence the 12000 gun homicides per year.

This is expounded in more depth here ; I think the arguments are pretty elementary.



First, it is astonishing to me that as a non-American, you think there's a place for your opinion in the affairs of other nations.  I have my opinions, as everyone is entitled to have, but I don't feel that one should advocate on issues in a country where he doesn't reside.

Simple logic may tell you that less guns = less crime.  That DOES sound logical.  However, statistics are showing just the opposite.  Gun ownership in America is at an all-time high.  The number of civilians with CCW/CPL permits is at an all-time high.  There are more people legally carrying now than ever.  And gun violence is now at a 22-year low.  Every prediction from the liberals about "right to carry" laws and the demise of the D.C. ban leading to more violence and blood in the streets - has been found to be untrue.  

And you are under the assumption that if I could afford it, I could buy and keep a WMD?  That's rediculous on a comical level.  I thought this was a realistic talk about gun rights here.  And I'll bank your 12,000 homocides a year to 2.5 million DEFENSIVE handgun uses per year.  And you agree that it's understandable to protect your family, but the most effective means by which to do that is with a handgun.  I like having the best tool for the job, myself.


-------
If it has to come down to either him or me - I'll send flowers.
 


Posts: 9 | Posted: 10:46 PM on May 14, 2009 | IP
chris42

|      |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Guns are used more for deterence than anything else.  The problem is, that this is hard to collect data on this.  Most times, a bad guy goes to do something bad, a person pulls a gun.  The bad guy realizes that he should changes his mind and runs away.  

No real reason to notify authorities.  
 


Posts: 3 | Posted: 1:19 PM on June 18, 2009 | IP
frank

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

the 2nd had its mean and use in the old days.
since the indian wars are over, the 2nd has no more use.
it must be repealed, firearm posession should be a privilage and not a right based on need
and good behavour AFTER mendatory training and licensing of owner with registration of arms in federal registration system.
 


Posts: 12 | Posted: 09:59 AM on July 13, 2010 | IP
America4ever

|      |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Well first off if you think the 2nd amendment is outdated then the 1st Amendment is also outdated

Americans rights are not granted by government they are given to us by God.

Gun Registration is Un American and Un Constitutional not only that but its racist  
 


Posts: 2 | Posted: 9:11 PM on October 17, 2010 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from America4ever at 8:11 PM on October 17, 2010 :
Well first off if you think the 2nd amendment is outdated then the 1st Amendment is also outdated

Americans rights are not granted by government they are given to us by God.

Gun Registration is Un American and Un Constitutional not only that but its racist  



I call parody on this guy.

Nobody can be this dense.

No less a right-winger than Antonin Scalia has claimed that the constitution should be interpreted in light of the time it was written in, and understood as if we were living in those times.

Which means, if Scalia is going to be rational, logical, and consistent, that he should only support the owning of muskets, and that speech is not money and that corporations are not persons.  But we all know that Scalia is not rational, logical or consistent.


-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 9:09 PM on October 18, 2010 | IP
Paladin201

|      |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

More guns = more violence = more crime

This fallacy has been advanced more times than anyone can count.  In 2009, the first full year of Obama's administration, Americans purchased a record 14 million guns.  Yet, during that same period, violent crime in America fell by 5%, based on FBI statistics.  In fact, violent crime in America has been on the decline since 1992.  Yet during that time, gun ownership has steadily decreased.  The only places in America which are experiencing an increase in crime, are those cities which have gun bans in place.  

Mjd1982...the reasons many Americans "cannot realise that the more guns there are in a society, the more people die from gun violence" is that it is simply not true.  
 


Posts: 2 | Posted: 11:31 AM on November 16, 2010 | IP
SilverStar

|        |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from hopnpop at 9:18 PM on May 14, 2009 :
Quote from JSF16 at 11:18 PM on April 17, 2009 :
Would banning guns do anything?  No. Guns like stens, were designed to made cheaply and easily by novices. Come on, no one is allowed uzi's or glocks, but gangs have them anyway. Banning guns would just kill hunting and assure that government will not survive another election.



If you're going to reference guns, do more homework.  Glocks are sold (legally, mind you) nearly everywhere.  There's nothing special about a Glock other than very high quality.  The biggest gang to tote Glocks that I know of is the police dept.  And Uzi makes a variety of handguns, legal handguns.  The Uzi you think of would be the altered machine pistol you've seen in movies.  Yes, they are out there but I don't believe machine guns would account for much in the way of gun crime other than being caught in posession of one.

And would banning guns outright do anything?  Of course it would - it would make countless numbers of good, law-abiding citizens who have some strange interest in self-preservation....criminals.




It is my belief that when JSF16 was referring to Glocks he was referring to the very specific Glock 18 which is something like a really inaccurate sub-machine gun. which if you have a class III license you can legally own along with other machine guns and short barreled rifles. however in order to have a class III license you have to be pretty much a saint.

Banning guns doesn't remove them from criminals it only stops law abiding citizens from have them. in the U.S. the places with the strictest gun control also have the highest level of violent crimes.

Lastly, were I live, in a more rural part of PA, there are no local police. the only police are the state police who take a minimum of 15 minutes to get here. I know this because I've timed them on many occasions. in the time it takes them to get to you some one could have already killed you taken anything that they wanted and had time to wipe off their finger prints before the cops show up. I don't know about you but knowing that the cops are 15 minutes away i would rather have my trusty shotgun with me. it is a lot faster and I have never met some one that wanted to argue with the person holding a 12 gauge.


-------
Darkside Enterprises were the impossible meets possible.

Tread softy and carry a big stick, preferably an AT4
 


Posts: 681 | Posted: 2:53 PM on November 30, 2010 | IP
firechild

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The funny thing about Americans is they can't comprehand a world outside the US. For most people, in most parts of the world, there is no reason to consider owning a firearm. I lock my doors at night, I sleep well without the thought that someone is going to come into my house in the middle of the night. I'm not saying it doesn't happen but it is not common at all. Generally people who do break into houses here do not carry weapons as they know there will be no firearms in the house. Two unarmed people coming face to face is generally enough to scare off a burglar. People are going to break into houses no matter what, the only difference is that if people are breaking into houses where there may be a gun, they are going to carry a weapon of their own resulting in a much larger chance of things ending in someone's death.
 


Posts: 86 | Posted: 12:54 AM on December 6, 2010 | IP
SilverStar

|        |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

In America you are more than 3 time less likely to have some one break in your home while your home. the only time that that happens is almost always when the intruder thinks your away. you are also more likely to live too far away from the police for them to help you. were I live it take a minimum of 15 minutes for the police to arrive, that is more than enough time for the intruder to make a clean get away with half of my stuff. and still have time to kill me. I believe that every one should be able to take care of your self. the fall of man kind is when a person can not take care of themselves. the police should only be there to take care of those too disable to take care of themselves.


-------
Darkside Enterprises were the impossible meets possible.

Tread softy and carry a big stick, preferably an AT4
 


Posts: 681 | Posted: 2:19 PM on December 7, 2010 | IP
firechild

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from SilverStar at 05:19 AM on December 8, 2010 : the fall of man kind is when a person can not take care of themselves.


I disagree. I think the fall of mankind is when each person is so scared of their own society that they feel they must own a firearm to protect themselves. When society is dictated by paranoia society is falling.
 


Posts: 86 | Posted: 5:44 PM on December 7, 2010 | IP
SilverStar

|        |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

for almost all of mankind existence we have had some form of weapon to protect our selves. what you are worried about is the fall of the kind of civilization we live in now. it is increasingly common for people to need to get an "expert" to fix things and to defend themselves. it makes me wonder, have we lost the one advantage over other animals that we have the one thing that makes us different, our ability to find creative ways to solve a problem.

As far as seeing a need for being armed, i believe that you are fullish to buy a gun after you get mugged, get the gun first so it doesn't happen. the police aren't here to protect you, they are here to pick up the pieces after the fact. it is such a shame the the news does not run stories about people that defend themselves with guns, but only run stories about people using guns in crimes.

were I live it is almost never, by never i mean that i have never heard of it happening, that some one breaks in while your home. most burglaries in this area consist of your car getting broken into. yet every single house has a gun in it. guns don't cause violence, the don't kill people, they don't even hurt people. however people kill, cause violence, and hurt other people. a gun is nothing more than a matching designed to move lead really fast. a gun can not aim its self. maybe instead banning guns we should ban criminals.


-------
Darkside Enterprises were the impossible meets possible.

Tread softy and carry a big stick, preferably an AT4
 


Posts: 681 | Posted: 10:02 AM on December 10, 2010 | IP
firechild

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

"Guns don't kill people, people kill people".

What absolute rubbish.

People with guns kill people. WMDs don't kill people either based on that argument but the US is quite happy to invade other nations at the slightest hint they might have them, yet they'll allow every resident of their country to own a firearm. In Australia very few people own guns, most that do live in the country and own a rifle to get rid of goats, foxes, feral cats and roos. Australians in general are not at all concerned that someone is going to confront them with a gun or that they might have to defend themselves with a firearm. By allowing every citizen to own a gun, the US has caused the problems for itself. Give every person a gun and there are many who are going to misuse that right.
 


Posts: 86 | Posted: 5:43 PM on December 12, 2010 | IP
SilverStar

|        |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Under your logic if there were no guns than than people wouldn't kill people. what about the thousands of years were we massacred each other with out guns. my examples that a lack of guns does not stop criminals are the Vikings. they didn't have guns yet they were real good at killing people. the American Indians, they didn't have guns and they were very good at killing people, and the Aztecs they didn't have guns yet not only did they kill people they eat them. guns just make it possible for some one that is weaker to more easily kill some one. which is why they are so good for defense. the fear of getting shot will make most people run away so many people don't even need to fire a shot to defend themselves, they simply point the gun at the would be criminal. They also allow the elderly to defend themselves against would be thugs.

And in the US most of your criminals don't go to the local gun store to buy a gun. they buy illegal stolen guns, or they buy one from a straw buyer (some one that legally buys a gun to sell to some one that can't normally get one) both are illegal in the US. In the US the idea is haven't done anything wrong? than sure you can have a gun. but your drug dealers, violent criminals, rapists, murders, no they can not have one.

(Edited by SilverStar 12/19/2010 at 11:47 AM).


-------
Darkside Enterprises were the impossible meets possible.

Tread softy and carry a big stick, preferably an AT4
 


Posts: 681 | Posted: 11:42 AM on December 19, 2010 | IP
zutty

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

To me it is obvious that easy access to guns is just flat out wrong! Only a soldier or a cop should be able to own a gun. Case close, in my mind it is just a simple thing.
 


Posts: 1 | Posted: 12:06 PM on January 10, 2011 | IP
Dutch

|      |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

If they were the only ones who could get them, this would be no issue. But as it as, the criminals are also getting them and the police can't protect everyone.


-------
"If God wished for us to be concerned for the plight of toads, he would have made them cute and fluffy."

-Dave Barry
 


Posts: 13 | Posted: 6:24 PM on January 10, 2011 | IP
SilverStar

|        |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

so what makes a cop or soldier so special? are they more human than me? also murder was no less common before guns, just quieter. i would not want to live in a world were i have to really on another to protect me.


-------
Darkside Enterprises were the impossible meets possible.

Tread softy and carry a big stick, preferably an AT4
 


Posts: 681 | Posted: 1:31 PM on March 5, 2011 | IP
knhk

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from zutty at 11:06 AM on January 10, 2011 :
To me it is obvious that easy access to guns is just flat out wrong! Only a soldier or a cop should be able to own a gun. Case close, in my mind it is just a simple thing.


Your wrong.  Case closed in my mind.


 


Posts: 10 | Posted: 03:11 AM on March 28, 2011 | IP
knhk

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from mjd1982 at 11:56 AM on April 17, 2009 :
As a non american, it is astonishing to me that many americans cannot realise that the more guns there are in a society, the more people die from gun violence.

The principles upon which the 2nd amendment were created are no longer applicable- hence it is the definition of an anachronism.The Amendment does not deal with the right to bear handguns, but the right to bear arms. Back when the law was framed, guns did mean simple arms. However now, arms includes anything up to weapons of mass destruction. Clearly, no sane person is going to advocate that anyone who can afford it should have the right to keep and bear WMDs. So instantly it goes down the bin.

If we be kind and say ok, just handguns, again, nonsense. Firstly, as many people die of accidental handgun deaths in the Us as die from all gunhomicides in the UK per 1000 people; secondly, though it is fine to protect your family, guns get overwhelmingly used for violence, not deterrence; hence the 12000 gun homicides per year.

This is expounded in more depth here ; I think the arguments are pretty elementary.



As a non-american your also not going to understand my right to tell you to take a dive in a swimming pool filled with rocks.  Both my right to tell you off and my right to own guns make perfect sense.  In the context of my country your wrong and I am right.


 


Posts: 10 | Posted: 03:26 AM on March 28, 2011 | IP
higgins_tad

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from firechild at 10:54 PM on December 5, 2010 :
The funny thing about Americans is they can't comprehand a world outside the US. For most people, in most parts of the world, there is no reason to consider owning a firearm. I lock my doors at night, I sleep well without the thought that someone is going to come into my house in the middle of the night. I'm not saying it doesn't happen but it is not common at all. Generally people who do break into houses here do not carry weapons as they know there will be no firearms in the house. Two unarmed people coming face to face is generally enough to scare off a burglar. People are going to break into houses no matter what, the only difference is that if people are breaking into houses where there may be a gun, they are going to carry a weapon of their own resulting in a much larger chance of things ending in someone's death.



Perhaps it is non-Americans that cannot understand the life of liberties that we are afforded by the constitution? Even by your own admission, gun crimes don't generally happen. That would lead me to believe, as a rational thinker, that it does happen. Would you say the same?

IF and WHEN it should happen to me, I would like (and do) the ability to be able to defend myself and my family from an attacker. They do not have to enter with a firearm. They could be carrying a knife, a bat or another item that could be used as a weapon. I, for one, will not go quietly to anyone meaning to do harm.

I m a proud gun owner, with a concealed carry permit that often times carries in public and you would never know that I was ready to not only protect myself, but to protect those around me as well.
 


Posts: 4 | Posted: 10:22 PM on January 17, 2013 | IP
OptimisticFuture

|     |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Hello, Everyone.  

This is my first debate post and like most pro-gun advocates I am more than beside myself that we are even seriously considering this as legislation in the United States.  No offense intended to the non-american citizen, but in the UK you do not have a United States Constitution with its Amendment that gives the "FUNDAMENTAL - RIGHT"----Not a fundamental privlege to own a firearm.  Nowhere in it does it say that it is to be limited by a government in the size, functionality or potential purpose.  Quite the contrary---the right was given to protect against a tyrannical government.  I've heard the current occupant of the white house ridicule this statement by laughing and saying that "we are the people".  I am not so sure anymore.  I am by no means advocating an uprising.  I have spent my entire adult life defending the Constitution of the United States (34 plus years - in the "ARMED FORCES").  I have been involved in actions in Lebanon in the early 80"s, Bosnia (early 90's) and the latest in Iraq (2004-2006).  When this occupant of the white house ridicules the purpose of that constitution, I become upset to say the least.  If you would study a little history (I think it still may be taught in schools--sometimes accuratetly), you will know that a little man with a moustache from Austria said that to "Win a Country, You Must First Disarm their citizens".  If you do not believe that an armed citizenry can prevail----listen to the news--preferably Fox or CNN --you choose, to see what's happening in Syria.  I think the rebellion is holding up nicely due to an armed citizenry---even against warplanes and tanks.  So to tell me that guns in the hands of law abiding citizens should be controlled---I THINK NOT.  This is not the opinion of a redneck, hillbilly, but that of a MAN WHO LOVES HIS COUNTRY and is sick and tired of those who think you can reduce crime by outlawing certain types of guns.  I'm sorry, but that is just plain and simple---Moronic.
 


Posts: 2 | Posted: 8:47 PM on April 5, 2013 | IP
    
[ Single page for this topic ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

Topic options: Lock topic | Unlock topic | Make Topic Sticky | Remove Sticky | Delete thread | Move thread | Merge thread

 

© YouDebate.com
Powered by: ScareCrow version 2.12
© 2001 Jonathan Bravata. All rights reserved.