Why do so many hate guns/constitution?

TurtleDude said:

well the purpose of a knife is to sever so I don't find that point about destruction worthy of consideration.

Click to expand...

Cutting carrots and shooting a deer are quite different in their destructive purposes, wouldn't you say? I understand the point you're trying to make, but it kind of rings hollow when comparing removing a tag from clothing and shooting another person (in aggression or defense)

and most of those who push for more laws have been proven dishonest in their true motivations. Public safety is not advanced by disarming those who don't cause the vast majority of problems with guns

Click to expand...

And like I said, proportionally speaking, very few people believe in complete gun confiscation. Perhaps those who do speak loudest, but most do not support that. I'm sure you're well aware of that.

But most people DO support finding ways to further reduce gun violence in America. The smartest of those realize A) gun violence will never be 0% and B) the reasons for gun violence are many and varied and not just "because a gun is available". Still, however, there's nothing to say we can't tackle poverty, violence in popular culture AND legislation which makes it harder for people to obtain a gun for evil reasons.

I know this post got off track, I'm just trying to explain why you see more advocates for gun control than for baseball bat control.

Slyfox696 said:

Cutting carrots and shooting a deer are quite different in their destructive purposes, wouldn't you say? I understand the point you're trying to make, but it kind of rings hollow when comparing removing a tag from clothing and shooting another person (in aggression or defense)

And like I said, proportionally speaking, very few people believe in complete gun confiscation. Perhaps those who do speak loudest, but most do not support that. I'm sure you're well aware of that.

But most people DO support finding ways to further reduce gun violence in America. The smartest of those realize A) gun violence will never be 0% and B) the reasons for gun violence are many and varied and not just "because a gun is available". Still, however, there's nothing to say we can't tackle poverty, violence in popular culture AND legislation which makes it harder for people to obtain a gun for evil reasons.

I know this post got off track, I'm just trying to explain why you see more advocates for gun control than for baseball bat control.

Click to expand...

same as knifing someone to death versus shooting a tin can or a piece of paper

lots of people who CLAIM they don't want confiscation only do so because they have calculated the political costs

As I have noted

IF YOU believe

1) that laws that impede or prevent honest people from buying or possessing firearms actually reduce crime

2) and those methods of reducing crime are more important than the rights of honest gun owners

then you have already made all the decisions necessary to support an outright ban or confiscation



tell me how you keep people who already face 5-10 years in federal prison for merely possessing a firearm, from further getting guns without harassing honest gun owners?


I think a major reason why we see more advocated for gun control is due to politics. The national association of baseball bat users aren't supporting conservative candidates with massive amounts of lobbying

TurtleDude said:

same as knifing someone to death versus shooting a tin can or a piece of paper

Click to expand...

Except the primary purpose of a knife is not to stab someone, it's to do things like cut carrots or remove tags (most knives, at least). That's the point I've been making.

lots of people who CLAIM they don't want confiscation only do so because they have calculated the political costs

Click to expand...

Using the same line of logic, I could just as easily claim you don't want gun restrictions because you support people dying, you just don't say that because you have calculated the political costs.

Making a statement about the supposedly secret intentions of another is not a viable argument.

I think a major reason why we see more advocated for gun control is due to politics.

Click to expand...

I would argue it's the thousands of homicides we see every year which is far more likely the reason.

The national association of baseball bat users

Click to expand...

Doesn't exist.

aren't supporting conservative candidates with massive amounts of lobbying

Click to expand...

It doesn't exist and it wouldn't have to, since baseball bats aren't responsible for 68% of homicides in this country. Assuming baseball bats would qualify under "blunt objects", blunt objects were only responsible for less than 4% of homicides in 2014.

No, I'm pretty certain the reason you hear more about gun control is due to the disproportionate amount of times a gun is used in a homicide. Also, that whole "a bat has a different primary use" thing.

Slyfox696 said:

Except the primary purpose of a knife is not to stab someone, it's to do things like cut carrots or remove tags (most knives, at least). That's the point I've been making.

Using the same line of logic, I could just as easily claim you don't want gun restrictions because you support people dying, you just don't say that because you have calculated the political costs.

Making a statement about the supposedly secret intentions of another is not a viable argument.

I would argue it's the thousands of homicides we see every year which is far more likely the reason.

Doesn't exist.
It doesn't exist and it wouldn't have to, since baseball bats aren't responsible for 68% of homicides in this country. Assuming baseball bats would qualify under "blunt objects", blunt objects were only responsible for less than 4% of homicides in 2014.

No, I'm pretty certain the reason you hear more about gun control is due to the disproportionate amount of times a gun is used in a homicide. Also, that whole "a bat has a different primary use" thing.

Click to expand...

your first statement renders your argument void. Just as their are firearms designed for defensive or offensive uses, there are knives designed for killing. and lots and lots and lots of Americans carry knives for self defense

Gaugingcatenate said:

So, you are saying in European wartime, there is none of that you killing others stuff going on, eh? Gosh, you folks are really really sophisticated then, if that is true. I have heard it from validated sources that, however, that is not quite the case. More like tens of millions were killed by others. You don't get a time out exclusion just because you folks have such horrific bloodletting known as wars.

And that is what you said originally about the high numbers, right, killing of oneself and others?

You hide, try, behind rules you do not get to make up. Fact is, more people violently kill other people in Europe than we ever even thought about here.

Undeniable.

Click to expand...

And not just in Europe.

There is the irony of Flogger.. a Brits argument about bloodthirsty americans. He comes from a country that was responsible for the abject subjugation of whole countries. The British people historically are responsible for the deaths of,far more innocent people.. in more countries.. than Americans ever dreamed of.

And the further irony is... how did they in part accomplish this? By denying the people they subjugated access to arms to defend themselves and their freedom.

jaeger19 said:

And the further irony is... how did they in part accomplish this? By denying the people they subjugated access to arms to defend themselves and their freedom.

Click to expand...

This is incorrect.

Actually, the British left local customs regarding private ownership of weapons intact over nearly all parts of their colonial empire. That meant that some, or many, colonial subjects had easier access to private weapons than many British did back home.

jaeger19 said:

He comes from a country that was responsible for the abject subjugation of whole countries.

Click to expand...

Was this verbage found on the ground after an Occupy rally?

Abject subjugation by the British was extremely rare (if not non existant). And, no the US colonies were not held in "abject subjugation" (they did, however, want something more and better). Rather, the British used economic, political and social carrots and sticks to gain and control their empire. Force was a last resort.

The British empire was then run through local elites as intermediaries. These local elites largely ran their areas as per historical custom. In some case, the British actually banned more extreme local customs. This is not to say that "all was good" in the British empire, just that the leftist version is not accurate.

TurtleDude said:

your first statement renders your argument void. Just as their are firearms designed for defensive or offensive uses, there are knives designed for killing.

Click to expand...

The majority are not. However, there are many laws (I believe on both state and federal level) which either regulate knives or outright ban types of them. So not only do knives have other primary purposes, not only do they not represent the vast majority of homicides, they also are regulated and some are banned.

So...it makes a lot more sense for people to advocate for stronger gun laws than for laws for other weapons, including knives. Which is why you hear much more about gun regulation than baseball bat regulation.

Slyfox696 said:

The majority are not. However, there are many laws (I believe on both state and federal level) which either regulate knives or outright ban types of them. So not only do knives have other primary purposes, not only do they not represent the vast majority of homicides, they also are regulated and some are banned.

So...it makes a lot more sense for people to advocate for stronger gun laws than for laws for other weapons, including knives. Which is why you hear much more about gun regulation than baseball bat regulation.

Click to expand...

there are no federal bans on knives but there is the stupid switchblade law that probably cannot survive heller. heller's reasoning and the incorporation of the 2nd to the states will probably destroy many of them

off to a gunshop TTYL

TurtleDude said:

there are no federal bans on knives but there is the stupid switchblade law

Click to expand...

But there are bans at the state level and regulations on both levels, correct? So would that not explain, in addition to the primary purpose and the lower percentage of homicides, why you see more advocating for stronger gun laws than knife laws?

off to a gunshop TTYL

Click to expand...

Enjoy. God knows my father sure does.

Cryptic said:

This is incorrect.

Actually, the British left local customs regarding private ownership of weapons intact over nearly all parts of their colonial empire. That meant that some, or many, colonial subjects had easier access to private weapons than many British did back home.

Was this verbage found on the ground after an Occupy rally?

Abject subjugation by the British was extremely rare (if not non existant). And, no the US colonies were not held in "abject subjugation" (they did, however, want something more and better). Rather, the British used economic, political and social carrots and sticks to gain and control their empire. Force was a last resort.

The British empire was then run through local elites as intermediaries. These local elites largely ran their areas as per historical custom. In some case, the British actually banned more extreme local customs. This is not to say that "all was good" in the British empire, just that the leftist version is not accurate.

Click to expand...

Please.

You seem to be following a leftist version that big government Britain brought peace prosperity and Education to backwards peoples and not the fact that they subjugated their colonies economically, militarily, etc.

Order was endangered by armed Africans, according to settlers, who
convinced the governments of Great Britain, the Cape Colony, and the
Colony of Natal to implement disarmament. In 1859, Natal required all
Africans to register their firearms with the lieutenant governor. This did
not totally disarm Africans, but it was a crucial first step. In 1878, the
Cape passed legislation allowing the governor to disarm entire districts.
Disarmament occurred at the same time as Britain was attempting to unify
the chiefdoms, colonies, and republics of South Africa under one form of
government. Confederation became a famous failure, while disarmament
became a patchy success.
Descriptions of insecurity and risk intensified during the 1870s, as
South Africa’s mineral revolution raised the stakes for settlers, Africans,
and Britons alike. At the Cape, the governor, Sir Bartle Frere, who is
most famous for starting the Anglo–Zulu War, also attempted to change
opinions about the importance of guns for modern civilization. He moved
to disarm Africans, claiming that “in a well-ordered community where the
police protects the unarmed, the carrying of arms is entirely superfluous.”

Click to expand...

Slyfox696 said:

The majority are not. However, there are many laws (I believe on both state and federal level) which either regulate knives or outright ban types of them. So not only do knives have other primary purposes, not only do they not represent the vast majority of homicides, they also are regulated and some are banned.

So...it makes a lot more sense for people to advocate for stronger gun laws than for laws for other weapons, including knives. Which is why you hear much more about gun regulation than baseball bat regulation.

Click to expand...

unfortunately for you.. it does not make sense to advocate for stronger gun laws since the only effect is to hamper citizens who are responsible from protecting themselves and does little to stop those willing to disobey the law.

matchlight said:

It's pretty clear that many Europeans and other foreigners who post on sites like this one envy and resent the United States. That envy and resentment, part of which I think comes from the realization that their countries are no longer very relevant in world affairs, usually takes the form of pretending to be more cosmopolitan and sophisticated than us Americans.

Click to expand...

I don't think they envy the US at all, I've been abroad, so that point is very clear. They see US as bombastic interlopers who can't handle our own problems in the first place, and they see US as imploding.

jet57 said:

I don't think they envy the US at all, I've been abroad, so that point is very clear. They see US as bombastic interlopers who can't handle our own problems in the first place, and they see US as imploding.

Click to expand...

Very true... I have been abroad as well., This is generally the attitude.. right up until something in the world becomes a problem for them and then the cry is "what is the US doing, they need to help"

.

jet57 said:

I don't think they envy the US at all, I've been abroad, so that point is very clear. They see US as bombastic interlopers who can't handle our own problems in the first place, and they see US as imploding.

Click to expand...

I've been abroad, too, and I do not give a damn how this or that resident of some irrelevant nation views the United States. Instead of envying and resenting America, they would do well to worry about their own little countries. But if any of them want some of the anti-American leftists who are taking up space in this great nation, they are welcome to them.

jaeger19 said:

unfortunately for you.. it does not make sense to advocate for stronger gun laws since the only effect is to hamper citizens who are responsible from protecting themselves and does little to stop those willing to disobey the law.

Click to expand...

Why is it so hard for some people to take the time to learn what is being discussed before you regurgitate the same rhetoric I've already read a million times before? Is it really so hard for them to read back just a few posts to find out what the hell they're responding to?

jaeger19 said:

Please.

You seem to be following a leftist version that big government Britain brought peace prosperity and Education to backwards peoples and not the fact that they subjugated their colonies economically, militarily, etc.

Click to expand...

Please note that I said "nearly all"- South Africa was small portion of the British Colonial empire. What was the British fire arms policy in the US colonies, or colonial Canada?

As I stated, in nearly all cases, the the British followed the customary norm regarding weapons. This could range from almost no restrictions, (pre revolt US colonies) to restricting full weapons rights to those groups deemed to be generally loyal. Local rulers in pre colonial times had also followed this practice

Thus, it is difficult to say that the British dominated colonial nations via "removal" of weapons rights when unrestricted rights regarding weapons never existed in those places to begin with. In short, some populations in question had limited weapon's rights before the British, and retained limited weapons rights after British "abject" subjugation.

jaeger19 said:

You seem to be following a leftist version that big government Britain brought peace prosperity and Education to backwards peoples and not the fact that they subjugated their colonies economically, militarily, etc.

Click to expand...

The contention that Britain did not hold their colonies in abject subjugation is usually assosciated with right wing claims, not left wing . As far as being subjugated, the colonial peoples were subjugated, but they were not in "abject" sujugation as you claim. I surprisingly large number of these "subjugagated" peoples were also strangely willing to serve in the British military.

jet57 said:

I don't think they envy the US at all, I've been abroad, so that point is very clear. They see US as bombastic interlopers who can't handle our own problems in the first place, and they see US as imploding.

Click to expand...

ignorance and stupidity is a world wide disease apparently. funny how so many of them want to move here

jaeger19 said:

Very true... I have been abroad as well., This is generally the attitude.. right up until something in the world becomes a problem for them and then the cry is "what is the US doing, they need to help"

.

Click to expand...

arrogant Britain decided to show its displeasure over the carnage of the great war by a grass roots disarmament by British citizens in the 1920s and 1930s. while lords and ladies kept their "fowling pieces" many Brits gave up owning Military rifles, handguns etc. and I suppose some of them thought they were superior to us Yanks who kept amassing private arms

all until the threat of a Nazi invasion and then American citizens were asked to send-as gifts-weapons to the Brits so they had individual arms to fend of the expected Hitler invasion. My Grandfather, a highly decorated artillery captain in the AEA, 1917-1918 sent a few guns over there-one or two at least were military rifles (A3 and a P17 IIRC)

once we helped crush the Nazis, the British attitude towards defensive weapons resurfaced culminating with the collective panty soiling after Dunblane about 19 years ago

matchlight said:

I've been abroad, too, and I do not give a damn how this or that resident of some irrelevant nation views the United States. Instead of envying and resenting America, they would do well to worry about their own little countries. But if any of them want some of the anti-American leftists who are taking up space in this great nation, they are welcome to them.

Click to expand...

Well, you made my case very clearly - thank you. Said people in other countries are not irrelevant in their own countries - you are. Their opinions of US count very much as they are opinions about perceptions of our thinking and our actions. Unpopular thinking and actions have led to war, so the opinions of other countries is very much to be considered the way we once viewed nazi Germany and the Soviet Union. And when did I ever intimate that ours was not a great nation? Many many leftists on our history have fought for and died for this country. So your "leftist" rhetoric mean nothing against reality.