• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Obama to Seek New Assault Weapons Ban

Yearly firearm murders by country per year:
Australia: 0.00002
Canada:0.00002
France: 0.00001
United Kingdom: 0.00002
Germany: 0.00002
Japan: 0.00003
United States: 0.00004
So, the disparity in gun murders, as adjusted for the number of guns, is not all that great.

Color me surprised. :roll:
 
So, the disparity in gun murders, as adjusted for the number of guns, is not all that great.

Color me surprised. :roll:
If that data is at least in the ball park, that's what I'm saying. So where do we go from here? If I'm off base, let's discuss it.
 
Last edited:
If that data is at least in the ball park, that's what I'm saying.
Yes.

See, I knew that. Thats why I asked him to post the numbers.
That they blow his argument of the water is why he didn't bother to try.

That's what happens when you don't let the truth get in the way of your ideology.
 
Yearly firearm murders by country per year:

Country |Murders|Population |Murders/Million |Guns/Million
Australia: |65 |21,600,300 |3| 155,000
Canada:| 165 |33,567,000 |5| 315,000
France: |255 |65,073,482 |4 |320,000
United Kingdom: |68 |61,612,300 |1 |56,000
Germany: |381 |82,062,200 |4.6 |300,000
Japan: |39 |127,704,000 |0.3 |<10,000
United States: |11,127 |305,887,000 |36 |900,000

Murders/Gun
0.00002
0.00002
0.00001
0.00002
0.00002
0.00003
0.00004

Hope my math is right.

You have statistically proven that the number of murders in a country is directly related to the number of guns in that country. You probably didn't intend that, but the truth has a sneaky way of revealing itself. Thank you:thanks
 
You have statistically proven that the number of murders in a country is directly related to the number of guns in that country. You probably didn't intend that, but the truth has a sneaky way of revealing itself. Thank you:thanks
You mean the truth that, gun for gun, the murder numbers are about the same?

Still waiting for you to support your argument.

Be sure to explain how, if the availability of guns is the explanation for the relatively high number of murders, how it is the number of guns goes up every year, and yet the number of gun murders is about the same as it was 35 years ago.

THEN tell us how banning 'assault weapons' will have any significant effect on this.

And THEN tell us how a ban on 'assault weapons' does not violate the Constitution.
 
Aside from the fact that the AA12 isn't the only 'assault weapon'...

...and that The Obama himself told us we didnt need to worry and there was no reason to run out and buy 'assault weapons'...

The AA12 can be used for any purpose that any other gun can be used. You might not be able to -legally- hunt with it because of the magazine, but it CAN be used for hunting, should you choose to do so.

Do police usually carry these sorts of weapons? Why should citizens be allowed to have them when law enforcement doesn't?
 
Do police usually carry these sorts of weapons? Why should citizens be allowed to have them when law enforcement doesn't?
How is that a relevant standard by which to determine what firearms are protected by the 2nd?

To answer your question:
Depending on the specific police department, police usually carry some sort of 'assault weapon' in the car, either in the passenger compartment or in the trunk.
 
So the majority of people with guns are suicidal :shock::2razz:


Boy, how did I figure you'd go there.


Do police usually carry these sorts of weapons? Why should citizens be allowed to have them when law enforcement doesn't?



Police here in Phoenix generally carry AR15s, and some full auto stuff.. (mp5s being the main one).
 
Police here in Phoenix generally carry AR15s, and some full auto stuff.. (mp5s being the main one).
The PD in the town I moved from had a USGI M14 and an M1928 Thompson SMG.
 
Oh really? explain these statistics

Yearly firearm murders by country:
Australia: 65 per year
Canada: 165
France: 255
United Kingdom: 68
Germany: 381
Japan: 39
United States: 11,127.

My explanation is it's because the firearm community in America refuses to act responsibly in creating legislation to limit the availability of guns. What's your explanation?

Limiting guns will not make people more responsible. Leaps of logic are common with you.

What do you not get, being a free people involves risk and danger. The world is not a padded room for you or anyone else to avoid danger in.

Why do you insist on giving up peoples rights just so you feel safe?
What do you plan on doing to stop the biggest murderer of the 21st century?

It seems you will let them keep all of their weapons with no problems.
 
20 times more violent than Australians? I think there's more than cultural aggression at work here.

No, Australians are thieves. Americans are violent.
 
You have statistically proven that the number of murders in a country is directly related to the number of guns in that country. You probably didn't intend that, but the truth has a sneaky way of revealing itself. Thank you:thanks
Haven't we then also proven that the elimination of guns does not lower a rate?
 
Haven't we then also proven that the elimination of guns does not lower a rate?

Well there's definitely a dependency of gun crime on number of guns. Say for instance, you had 0 guns; there would be zero gun crime as you can't have gun crime without guns (of course crime itself will not be zero..so long as there are humans in significant population there will be some amount of crime). At some point this dependency does saturate, if you add more guns or take away more guns you won't affect the rate too much. That's the spot we sit in now. To affect greatly the reduction in crime due to guns you would have to make a marked reduction in the physical number of guns available in the United States. That's going to take some rather draconian methods which would not be in our best interest if the government engaged in.

The point is not that guns enable gun crime, I mean no **** Sherlock. Thanks for the update. Crime in general will always exist, and in countries of great freedom, you will have a good amount of crime. Though crime can and does exist in areas of complete despotism, authoritarianism, etc. too; no free society will be without a good amount of crime. It's an innate consequence of freedom. So the point isn't the restriction of guns, the removal of guns; for to do so is an act of treason. The point is to understand what we can and can't do to affect the gun crime rate while refraining from infringing upon the rights of the individual. The individual does have the right to keep and bear arms, furthermore in this country we recognize that right. Now our government was primarily constructed for the protection and proliferation of our innate and inalienable rights; rightful government works towards these goals; treasonous and tyrannical government works against these goals. So at some level, we must accept as consequence of freedom that there will be gun crime. Like there will be incite to riot and libel and slander. Like there will be gangs and riots anti-government actions. Like there will be those whom hide illegal activities on their property knowing cops can't get to them without a warrant. Freedom carries with it significant consequence and responsibility. There will be people that murder with a gun, but that's not the gun's fault and that is not the fault of other gun owners. The person at fault is the one who pulled the trigger and it is with that person with whom we must take exception.

In a free society, everything is dealt with on an individual basis (which is why automatic sentencing is a very bad and dangerous practice). You can not go after the rights of others because some choose to abuse those rights. You have to go after the individual who committed the crimes; knowing that because you are free means that there will be crime. But I still say it sure as hell beats the alternative. Rather free than a slave I say.
 
How is that a relevant standard by which to determine what firearms are protected by the 2nd?

To answer your question:
Depending on the specific police department, police usually carry some sort of 'assault weapon' in the car, either in the passenger compartment or in the trunk.

Well none of these weapons were around when the 2nd amendment was created. The right to bear arms seems like it could be rather vague in it's original implications as compared to what is out there today.

I realize certain SWAT Teams and so forth carry assault type weapons when there is grave danger, but most policemen don't go to domestic disturbances with their assault weapons out in the open.

I think the right to bear arms should be different in different arenas. Everyday citizens should be allowed to have guns and even high powered weapons within some standard of reason, but when it's all too lethal, it's too lethal. Mostly it's the nuts who usually do all the damage with the really high powered weapons.
 
Seems to me that responsible gun owners, hunters, and law enforcement personnel would be first in line to advocate the control of assault weapons. These weapons have no practical use beyond murder. Firearms enthusiasts should take the lead in limiting access to dangerous weapons because they understand the responsibility and dangers of gun ownership.

There was an article in the New Yorker about the inventer of the AA12 automatic shotgun. Take a look at the video of this streetsweeper, and then explain to me why the NRA would approve its sale?
YouTube - AA12 Automatic Shotgun

Keep in mind that the expressed point and purpose of the 2nd amendment is to secure the state.

You seem to be of the opinion that guns are only for use against animals.

I don't know what data lead you to conclude that this nation needed to be secured against flying monkey armies or demonic bunnies, but may I suggest you lay off of both the pot and the Monty Python.

Yes, guns are made to kill people. That is their primary use. We buy guns so that we can kill people. That's what we want to be capable of doing.
 
Oh really? explain these statistics

Yearly firearm murders by country:
Australia: 65 per year
Canada: 165
France: 255
United Kingdom: 68
Germany: 381
Japan: 39
United States: 11,127.

My explanation is it's because the firearm community in America refuses to act responsibly in creating legislation to limit the availability of guns. What's your explanation?
The problem is you are comparing different cultures, it is apples and oranges.

In the UK gun violence has only increased with restrictions. Handguns were banned in the mid-90s but gun violence continued to grow until it peaked in the early 2000s. It is slightly lower now but it shows no sign of going back to the pre-ban levels.
 
This is one Americans will probably never solve, or completely let go.


It really is all of the above to be perfectly honest. Assault rifles simply have a few differences like select fire switches, shorter barrels for clearing, tactical changes, etc. But assault rifles fire the same rounds as typical hunting rifles, sub-machine guns? pistol rounds....they just do this at an increased rate of fire.

The original intent was to allow citizens the same rights to ownership that the government could exercise, merchant ships at the time of the constitutions writing had large cannons much like the federal troops, and I believe the original Howizters were legal for civilian ownership. That doesn't mean the pro 2nd side means people should have M-180 grenade attachments or artillery cannons without an explosives license, and no one should have nukes, but I digress, wanted to give you a sample of the thinking behind our side.

Thank you for responding with maturity and decency.
 
Well there's definitely a dependency of gun crime on number of guns. Say for instance, you had 0 guns; there would be zero gun crime as you can't have gun crime without guns (of course crime itself will not be zero..so long as there are humans in significant population there will be some amount of crime). At some point this dependency does saturate, if you add more guns or take away more guns you won't affect the rate too much. That's the spot we sit in now. To affect greatly the reduction in crime due to guns you would have to make a marked reduction in the physical number of guns available in the United States. That's going to take some rather draconian methods which would not be in our best interest if the government engaged in.

In relation to the gun/death statistics posted a bit earlier, it would be interesting to correlate those statistics to other forms of violent crime in the same countries. For instance, in Canada, I believe the stabbing rate is much higher than in the U.S., and Canada's gun violence rate is much lower than the U.S. one.

All this means is that if you remove access to one weapon, crime will compensate with another. The issue itself, I believe, is crime in general. How do you reduce the tendency to want to commit violent crime? Social programs? Tougher prison sentences? Educating the public? Etc.

While I have issues with guns, I don't agree that eliminating them will necessarily stop murders and reduce violent crime.
 
In relation to the gun/death statistics posted a bit earlier, it would be interesting to correlate those statistics to other forms of violent crime in the same countries. For instance, in Canada, I believe the stabbing rate is much higher than in the U.S., and Canada's gun violence rate is much lower than the U.S. one.

All this means is that if you remove access to one weapon, crime will compensate with another. The issue itself, I believe, is crime in general. How do you reduce the tendency to want to commit violent crime? Social programs? Tougher prison sentences? Educating the public? Etc.

While I have issues with guns, I don't agree that eliminating them will necessarily stop murders and reduce violent crime.
I can't find the gov't study that I read a while ago but as I said above when you look at Britain not only has knife crime greatly increased while guns have become more restricted but so has gun violence.

Now there are various reasons for this and it no doubt has a lot to do with increased amounts of immigrant gangs like Albanian people smugglers and West Indians drugs gangs and intercity knifings, often again amongst immigrants populations but it is still very interesting.
 
In relation to the gun/death statistics posted a bit earlier, it would be interesting to correlate those statistics to other forms of violent crime in the same countries. For instance, in Canada, I believe the stabbing rate is much higher than in the U.S., and Canada's gun violence rate is much lower than the U.S. one.
I would like to see uniform standards of reporting myself, however each country's major reporting agencies have different criteria, that makes things a little tricky when comparing countries to one another when it comes down to what is a victim crime versus what is a self crime(suicide) versus what is a homicide, but committed in self defense as a last resort(justifyable) when discussing rates of violence.

All this means is that if you remove access to one weapon, crime will compensate with another. The issue itself, I believe, is crime in general. How do you reduce the tendency to want to commit violent crime? Social programs? Tougher prison sentences? Educating the public? Etc.
This is something I've pondered myself, what I have bolded is what I believe would be the million dollar answer, if someone could cure criminal and violent tendancies they would be very wealthy IMHO, and, I would support government spending on said answer and the treatments.
 
Well none of these weapons were around when the 2nd amendment was created. The right to bear arms seems like it could be rather vague in it's original implications as compared to what is out there today.
Neither was CNN. Does the 1st amendment protect them?
Neither was the telephone. Does the 4th amendment protect yours?

I realize certain SWAT Teams and so forth carry assault type weapons when there is grave danger, but most policemen don't go to domestic disturbances with their assault weapons out in the open.
Ok... and?

I think the right to bear arms should be different in different arenas.
Equal protection. The right applies to everyone, in the same way, everywhere they happen to be.

Everyday citizens should be allowed to have guns and even high powered weapons within some standard of reason, but when it's all too lethal, it's too lethal. Mostly it's the nuts who usually do all the damage with the really high powered weapons.
You mean like a 6mm bolt-action rifle?
Charles Whitman - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Back
Top Bottom