Oslo Bombing

[il Padrino Ute]

The problem is that there's no way to differentiate between the two. People buy handguns through legal means and then kill people with them. You use "legal purchase" as your theoretical dividing line but the reality shows that gun violence is frequently committed by people who obtained weapons through legal means.

No one's talking about "forcing" you to not have something. We need laws that prevent people from doing stupid things within the sphere of other people who may be affected when the risks are just too high, like they are with guns, not unlike how we have laws against driving 150 MPH on the freeway or lighting off bottle rockets in the middle of the city.

What part of the 2nd Amendment do you not understand?

[il Padrino Ute]

You'd put a handgun in the hand of everyone, it seems. What if the McDonald's drive thru worker was carrying a gun? What if the librarian was carrying a gun? What if the professor was carrying a gun? Rather than solve the problem of guns your answer (speaking generally, not directly to you, UT) continues to be to put guns in more and more peoples' hands. It's not a sustainable model, though! The scales will tip. Hell, they've already started to tip. The more guns you put out there, the more people are going to use them! We can't keep saying things like "What if the pilots had had handguns?" Making judgements based on hindsight is foolish. In doing so we lose sight of the practical and simple answer, which is to work to remove the risk altogether, not just spread it out across more people.

It seems that you don't like the idea that if the pilots had been armed, 911 may not have happened. It seems you don't like the idea that if teachers had been armed, Columbine and VT may not have happened.

The only risk that comes with disarming the citizenry is that it leaves them vulnerable to government and criminals. That's far worse than carrying a weapon.

[il Padrino Ute]

LOL. Force you to NOT have something? Do you speak English? Does that even make sense?

Yeah, that was poorly written. I should have said violate the constitutional right to own a weapon.

[PaloAltoCougar]

What part of the 2nd Amendment do you not understand?

I realize you weren't asking me, and this subtopic really ought to go in another thread, but I don't understand the purpose of the introductory clause, nor do I understand what is meant by "infringed." Read strictly, any law that places even the most modest or trivial term or condition on the ownership of weapons would violate the Second Amendment, but advocacy for unrestricted access to weaponry seems insane. Assuming no one here is arguing for that, at what point do legislated conditions become an unconstitutional infringement?

[il Padrino Ute]

I realize you weren't asking me, and this subtopic really ought to go in another thread, but I don't understand the purpose of the introductory clause, nor do I understand what is meant by "infringed." Read strictly, any law that places even the most modest or trivial term or condition on the ownership of weapons would violate the Second Amendment, but advocacy for unrestricted access to weaponry seems insane. Assuming no one here is arguing for that, at what point do legislated conditions become an unconstitutional infringement?

I just want to know why some here believe the answer is to ban handguns, rather than punish those who break the law. This site is a very good source of the laws for each state. There are about 300 different state and federal laws that are on the books right now. Enforcing the existing laws is the answer, not restriction.

As to what point does legislation become an unconstitutional infringement, the answer is going to vary, depending on who you ask. I say that banning handguns is an infringement. Others disagree. My question to those is how much are they willing to cede before they think anything is an unconstitutional infringement?

[bluegoose]

I just want to know why some here believe the answer is to ban handguns, rather than punish those who break the law.

I don;t think the answer to your question is that profound. Sure, you can make stricter penalties for criminals who break the law, even going as far as life without the possibility of parole or capital punishment. But for those that kill others, you can't un-pull that trigger. No amount of punishment can bring back those who's lives were taken by the shooter. You can't kill the killer x number of times for each innocent life that he has stolen.

I think the idea is that fewer handguns means fewer opportunities for crazies to get their hands on a weapon and to remove someone's opportunity at life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Its not that crazy of a concept.

[Devildog]

Try owning a decent folding knife in England.

They don't have a bill of rights... and they can't own a good pocket knife either.

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/UK-...00812415195043

edit*

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. Benjamin Franklin

[Uncle Ted]

I think the idea is that fewer handguns means fewer opportunities for crazies to get their hands on a weapon and to remove someone's opportunity at life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Its not that crazy of a concept.

Russia, for example, has very low gun ownership (4 for every 100 people) but a very high homicide rate (18 out of every 100,000 people). Brazil has very restrictive gun laws compared to the United States and has a homicide rate of 27 (out of every 100,000 people). On the other hand, Switzerland has one of the highest gun ownership rates in the world (male citizens ages 20 to 30+ are required to keep a government issued gun in their homes and take yearly mandatory training) but one of the lowest homicide rates (less than one). The US homicide rate is about 5.


[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Russia"]Crime in Russia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia@@AMEPARAM@@/wiki/File:Homicide_rate_by_country.svg" class="image"><img alt="" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/59/Homicide_rate_by_country.svg/350px-Homicide_rate_by_country.svg.png"@@AMEPARAM@@commo ns/thumb/5/59/Homicide_rate_by_country.svg/350px-Homicide_rate_by_country.svg.png[/ame]

[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Brazil"]Gun politics in Brazil - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland"]Gun politics in Switzerland - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia@@AMEPARAM@@/wiki/File:Firing_range_HDR.jpg" class="image"><img alt="" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/60/Firing_range_HDR.jpg/220px-Firing_range_HDR.jpg"@@AMEPARAM@@commons/thumb/6/60/Firing_range_HDR.jpg/220px-Firing_range_HDR.jpg[/ame]

[Viking]

People have a basic right to defend themselves and their families.

Americans have the right to own guns because we are citizens and not subjects. The founding fathers recognized that we are a free people.

Humans haven't always had the rights we take for granted, other people died to make and keep it so.

You can't legislate your way to utopia.

Thank God for the people that will never sit back and allow others to strip away their protected rights and freedoms.

*edit, added videos

[YOUTUBE]_YY5Rj4cQ50[/YOUTUBE]


[YOUTUBE]joBMq6b4MmE&feature=related[/YOUTUBE]

Oh please. What's thebdifference between a handgun and a grenade?

I have nonissuenwith shotguns and rifles but you're fooling yourself if you think you need a handgun to protect yourself.

[il Padrino Ute]

I don;t think the answer to your question is that profound. Sure, you can make stricter penalties for criminals who break the law, even going as far as life without the possibility of parole or capital punishment. But for those that kill others, you can't un-pull that trigger. No amount of punishment can bring back those who's lives were taken by the shooter. You can't kill the killer x number of times for each innocent life that he has stolen.

I think the idea is that fewer handguns means fewer opportunities for crazies to get their hands on a weapon and to remove someone's opportunity at life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Its not that crazy of a concept.

No, fewer handguns only means less opportunity for law abiding citizens to be able to own one. People who want to get a handgun for the purpose of killing innocents will always find a way to do it.

According to this site, one person dies every 48 minutes due to a drunk driver. Is the answer to ban alcohol and/or cars? If one believes the answer it to ban hand guns, then to be consistent, the answer is to ban alcohol and/or cars.

[il Padrino Ute]

Oh please. What's thebdifference between a handgun and a grenade?

I have nonissuenwith shotguns and rifles but you're fooling yourself if you think you need a handgun to protect yourself.

The difference between a handgun and a grenade is that a grenade will hurt more than just the intended target, while a handgun will only stop the intended target.

[Green Monstah]

Oh please. What's thebdifference between a handgun and a grenade?

I have nonissuenwith shotguns and rifles but you're fooling yourself if you think you need a handgun to protect yourself.

You've been outside the borders of the Republic for far too long. Come home to Texas, brother.

[bluegoose]

No, fewer handguns only means less opportunity for law abiding citizens to be able to own one. People who want to get a handgun for the purpose of killing innocents will always find a way to do it.

According to this site, one person dies every 48 minutes due to a drunk driver. Is the answer to ban alcohol and/or cars? If one believes the answer it to ban hand guns, then to be consistent, the answer is to ban alcohol and/or cars.

Drunk driving and what just happened in Holland and recently in Virginia and Arizona are not the same thing, and you know it.

[DU Ute]

The difference between a handgun and a grenade is that a grenade will hurt more than just the intended target, while a handgun will only stop the intended target.

Yes, no one ever misses their intended target with a handgun, and I'm sure no one ever makes a wrong split-second decision about whether shooting their intended target is the right thing to do.

[Devildog]

you're fooling yourself if you think you need a handgun to protect yourself.

That's funny... you obviously don't know me very well.