Liberal arguments for supporting gun ownership rights

[Diuretic]

yea the reality is you rolled over......

Harry. It might give you a buzz to declare you'd fight for your rights and die if necessary. I hate to disappoint you but you probably - and hopefully - won't get that chance. You don't live in Somalia or Zimbabwe, you live in the United States. Now, I admit my knowledge of US history is very poor but I think I'm right in suggesting that since its inception the US has never had a dictator. Looking at the checks and balances in the US political system and noting that the military (and no dictator came to power without the help of the military) is sworn to uphold the constitution and not a party or a person, I'd say that the chances of the US being ruled by a dictator are extremely low. That only leave the nutter option.

I don't believe you're a nutter Harry (but if you're posting from a cabin in the wilds of Idaho I might be disavowed of that idea) but I do believe you like to indulge in a bit of internet forum hyperbole and that's essentially what the dying for your rights statement is about. Nothing wrong with a bit of hyperbole here - it actually adds a lot of colour, without it the mods would be running Beige Alerts on an hourly basis.

The "nutter option" is where someone who for some reason has decided that they are not going to comply with a law - whether it be paying tax, handing over a prohibited weapon, the prohibition on selling raw milk and so on - because they don't like it. Maybe I should call it the "selfish bastard" option. They have decided that a law, passed democratically, shouldn't apply to them. Usually they just spit the dummy (pacifier) and write letters to their politicians, the editor of the local paper, rant and rave on an internet forum that exists for those of a like mind and generally look eccentric but harmless. But there's always one that will hole up and taunt the gummint to come and get him or her. They're the ones that end up either surrendering and facing legal action or end up full of gummint bullets or sometimes decide their own bullet is preferable to gummint bullets. Thankfully the latter doesn't happen too often, usually the siege peters out and the would-be revolutionary sheepishly hands himself or herself up on national television. Like it or not, if you live in a society then its laws apply to you, none of us get to pick and choose which laws we'll obey.

So it was with the gun buybacks in Australia. You can taunt that we "rolled over". I'd simply point out that most people decided that they would obey the law. That's not "rolling over" Harry, that's being a good citizen.

 

[Missourian]

Harry. It might give you a buzz to declare you'd fight for your rights and die if necessary. I hate to disappoint you but you probably - and hopefully - won't get that chance. You don't live in Somalia or Zimbabwe, you live in the United States. Now, I admit my knowledge of US history is very poor but I think I'm right in suggesting that since its inception the US has never had a dictator. Looking at the checks and balances in the US political system and noting that the military (and no dictator came to power without the help of the military) is sworn to uphold the constitution and not a party or a person, I'd say that the chances of the US being ruled by a dictator are extremely low. That only leave the nutter option.

I don't believe you're a nutter Harry (but if you're posting from a cabin in the wilds of Idaho I might be disavowed of that idea) but I do believe you like to indulge in a bit of internet forum hyperbole and that's essentially what the dying for your rights statement is about. Nothing wrong with a bit of hyperbole here - it actually adds a lot of colour, without it the mods would be running Beige Alerts on an hourly basis.

The "nutter option" is where someone who for some reason has decided that they are not going to comply with a law - whether it be paying tax, handing over a prohibited weapon, the prohibition on selling raw milk and so on - because they don't like it. Maybe I should call it the "selfish bastard" option. They have decided that a law, passed democratically, shouldn't apply to them. Usually they just spit the dummy (pacifier) and write letters to their politicians, the editor of the local paper, rant and rave on an internet forum that exists for those of a like mind and generally look eccentric but harmless. But there's always one that will hole up and taunt the gummint to come and get him or her. They're the ones that end up either surrendering and facing legal action or end up full of gummint bullets or sometimes decide their own bullet is preferable to gummint bullets. Thankfully the latter doesn't happen too often, usually the siege peters out and the would-be revolutionary sheepishly hands himself or herself up on national television. Like it or not, if you live in a society then its laws apply to you, none of us get to pick and choose which laws we'll obey.

So it was with the gun buybacks in Australia. You can taunt that we "rolled over". I'd simply point out that most people decided that they would obey the law. That's not "rolling over" Harry, that's being a good citizen.

Would you give up your right to free speech without a fight?

What if it was just your right to freedom of speech that related to government affairs? Speaking out against the government could incite insurection. Heck that's just a small part of free speech, you'll hardly miss it.



How about giving up the right to assembly?

Ok, not willing to give that up. Well how about just if it's over 1,000 people, for safety sake? Surely you can simply break up that larger group into groups of 999 or less, no harm in that is there?



And religious freedom is great, but there are some verses in the Bible, Torah and Qur'an that the government believes are dangerous. Please turn in those books and get the government approved texts.



So which right do you think Americans should allow to be infringed?

Which ones are worth fighting for?



It is the Second Amendment that serves to guarantees all the others.

 

[Chris]

Would you give up your right to free speech without a fight?

What if it was just your right to freedom of speech that related to government affairs? Speaking out against the government could incite insurection. Heck that's just a small part of free speech, you'll hardly miss it.



How about giving up the right to assembly?

Ok, not willing to give that up. Well how about just if it's over 1,000 people, for safety sake? Surely you can simply break up that larger group into groups of 999 or less, no harm in that is there?



And religious freedom is great, but there are some verses in the Bible, Torah and Qur'an that the government believes are dangerous. Please turn in those books and get the government approved texts.



So which right do you think Americans should allow to be infringed?

Which ones are worth fighting for?



It is the Second Amendment that serves to guarantees all the others.

Bullshit.

Japan has no guns, and they have the same freedoms we do.

What a fantasy world you live in.

 

[del]

Bullshit.

Japan has no guns, and they have the same freedoms we do.

What a fantasy world you live in.

no they don't. they can't own guns.

you really are pretty fucking stupid.

 

[Chris]

So we are left with this:

"A similar trend was observed with firearm homicide rates, with 4.28 per 100,000 for federal checks; 4.02 per 100,000 for state checks; and 2.81 per 100,000 for local checks."

For the homicide rate it is .26 difference between the federal and the state and 1.21 difference between the federal and the local.
Literally 1 in 100,000, well within the statistical margin of error.


​

Local background checks cut the rates considerably.

I like the big fonts though. Doesn't change the facts, however.

Local Background Checks, Fewer Gun Deaths

 

[Missourian]

Local background checks cut the rates considerably.

I like the big fonts though. Doesn't change the facts, however.

Local Background Checks, Fewer Gun Deaths

LOL There are no facts, as you present no argument. 1 in 100,000 is not a considerable rate reduction. You just post a totally debunked link, just like your indoctrinators trained you to do.


I'm glad you enjoyed the fonts, now try accually reading them or try some original research of your own and you just might learn something.

 

[Missourian]

Bullshit.

Japan has no guns, and they have the same freedoms we do.

What a fantasy world you live in.

Your first original research might enable you to understand that citizens of Japan DO NOT enjoy the same freedoms we do.

Stop, Search and Seize​

In legal terms, illegal gun possession, much like the possession of illegal drugs, is a "consensual offense", as there is no "victim" involved who would lodge a complaint with the police. Japanese police have wide-ranging search-and-seizure powers in order to find illegal weapons. The Firearms Act permits a policeman to stop and search anybody, if the officer feels that there is "sufficient suspicion that a person is carrying a fire-arm, a sword or a knife," or if he feels that somebody "is likely to endanger life or body of other persons judging reasonably from his abnormal behavior or any other surrounding circumstances."[18] If a weapon is found, the policeman may confiscate it and even if the confiscation is later found to be in error, the confiscated firearm is sometimes not returned.

Ironically, the law allowing for special weapons searches is almost redundant, as routine searches by the police are commonplace. They can stop anybody they deem to look suspicious and ask them to show the contents of their purse, case or bag. Technically, citizens are not obligated to show the policeman what is in their bag, but given the Japanese culture of deferring to authority, plus the fact that a refusal could result in the citizen being taken in for further questioning, few refuse. Even if a policeman's search does discover a gun or any other illegal substance and the search is subsequently ruled illegal, it makes no difference to the case, as Japanese courts permit the use of illegally seized evidence.[19]

House Visits​

One of the most important duties carried out by the police is the so-called "house visit." Twice a year, "residence information cards" are filled in by police officers during door-to-door visits of each household within their precinct. These cards contain information about who lives in the house and which family member to contact in case of emergency, the relationship between the various occupants of the house, their occupations, working hours, and even the make of car they own.[20] As part of the home visits, all gun licensees are checked, to ensure that their gun has not been stolen or misused, that it is securely stored as per regulations, and that the licensees are emotionally stable.

However, police surveillance goes beyond house visits and checking up on license owners. Japanese police have a long-standing tradition of keeping tabs on the local populace and monitoring every aspect of life (a fact which came to light with the inclusion of such statistics as the disturbing "Background and Motives for Girls' Sexual Misconduct" in the the nation's official year-end police report.[21] Virtually every citizen is the subject of a police dossier of one form or another.

Is Japan a Police State?​

Virtually all Japanese citizens believe that the police should be respected and not questioned. Due to the esteem in which the police are held, the Japanese people willingly co-operate with them, and this co-operation also extends to obeying the laws which almost everyone believes in. The Japanese people, and even the large majority of Japanese criminals, voluntarily obey the gun control laws.

This is despite the fact that as well as not having the right to bear arms, citizens also have no right to privacy against police searches and many other rights are so restricted that Japan could easily be called a "police state."

If an individual is arrested, whatever the crime, the suspect may be detained - without bail - for a maximum of 28 days, before the prosecutor brings the suspect before a judge.[22] Bail can be denied if there is reason to believe it could interfere with the police's interrogation of the defendant.

Even if the initial 28 day detention period has expired, detention in a Japanese police station often continues, based on numerous pretexts, such as preventing the defendant from destroying evidence. Another common tactic is to re-arrest the suspect on another charge, called bekken taihou (別件大法; literally, "separate case, basic law"), which means a fresh 28-day detention period under interrogation. This "rearrest" often occurs whilst the suspect is still being held on the first charge. Some defendants may be held for several months without ever being brought before a judge. The courts approve around 99.5% of prosecutors' requests for extended detentions.[23][24]

During a suspect's detention, he may only receive visits from his criminal defense lawyer, and these meetings are strictly limited to 15 minutes at a time and between 1 to 5 visits, depending on the length of the detention. These visits can even be denied if they hamper the police investigation. During the same time, police can interrogate the suspect for up to 12 hours a day and complaints of abuse and torture are rife. [25][26] Amnesty International have called the Japanese police custody system a "flagrant violation of United Nations human rights principles".[27]

The Japanese legal system can best be described as "an omnipotent and unitary state authority." As all the law enforcement administrators in Japan are appointed and funded by the National Police Agency, the police are effectively protected from complaints from politicians or citizens.[28] The only check on the State's power is its own conscience.

These excessive police powers have a significant impact on the implementation of gun controls. The Japanese gun control laws exist within a society that currently has little need for guns for self-defense purposes. The powers of the Police make owning and hiding an illegal weapon extremely difficult. Add to that a criminal justice system based on a Government which possesses the seemingly inherent authority to do as it pleases, and it results in a society where almost everyone accepts nearly limitless, unchecked Government power, and people do not wish to own guns, even to resist oppression or to protect themselves should the criminal justice system ever break down.




Link

 

[Charles_Main]

Gee, I wonder why states with more violent crime would want to restrict guns?

Are you stupid. The numbers do not lie. States with less restrictive Gun laws have LESS VIOLENT CRIME.

is that easier for your brain to get around?

 

[Missourian]

And some more data on the firearm/suicide myth for you to mull over.

Gun Control and Suicide​

The situation within Japan also explodes the myth that "fewer guns means fewer suicides." Although the Japanese gun-suicide rate is one-fiftieth of America's, the overall suicide rate is nearly twice as high as America's.[29]

In particular, teenage suicide is 30% more prevalent in Japan than in America and on average two Japanese under the age of 20 kill themselves every day. Japan also suffers from double or multiple suicides, shinjuu (心&#20013. These can range from young lovers whose parents disapprove of their relationship, to unrelated groups of people who plan their "suicide-meetings" online. In addition, parents resigned to suicide often take their children with them, at the average rate of one per day, in so-called oyako-shinjuu (親子心中 "parent multiple suicides"). Some 17% of all Japanese officially defined as homicide victims are actually children killed by suicidal parents.[30]

This is one of the reasons that the official Japanese homicide rate is so low - if a Japanese mother kills her children and then herself, the police statistics sometimes record it as a family suicide, rather than a murder-suicide. Thus, Japan's tight-knit family structures, and social norms, also conspire to massage the true numbers relating to violent crime.

 

[Chris]

LOL There are no facts, as you present no argument. 1 in 100,000 is not a considerable rate reduction. You just post a totally debunked link, just like your indoctrinators trained you to do.


I'm glad you enjoyed the fonts, now try accually reading them or try some original research of your own and you just might learn something.

The difference between the pro gun states and the gun control states is much more than 1 in 100,000. Nice try at lying, but that doesn't really work. Click the link below for the state statistics....

National Firearm Injury and Death Statistics | Washington Ceasefire

 

[Tech_Esq]

Bullshit.

Japan has no guns, and they have the same freedoms we do.

What a fantasy world you live in.

Japan is about 5 minutes old as far as a democracy goes. Most of that time, they've been occupied (maybe all of it). Find a different comparison.

How about Switzerland (oh ooops, my bad).

 

[Missourian]

The difference between the pro gun states and the gun control states is much more than 1 in 100,000. Nice try at lying, but that doesn't really work. Click the link below for the state statistics....

National Firearm Injury and Death Statistics | Washington Ceasefire

LMBO, How can I be lying, that stat came from your link!

 

[Missourian]

The difference between the pro gun states and the gun control states is much more than 1 in 100,000. Nice try at lying, but that doesn't really work. Click the link below for the state statistics....

National Firearm Injury and Death Statistics | Washington Ceasefire

From your link (again):


How Are Victims Killed?

Homicide: 11,624 / 39% of All Fatalities
Suicide: 16,750 / 57% of All Fatalities
Unintentional Death (Accidental): 649 / 2% of All Fatalities



Members of the anti-gun public health community have written numerous articles that seek to blame an increase in suicide among young American males upon increased gun availability. They fail to tell their readers that while suicide among American males aged 15 to 24 increased 7.4% during 1980-1990, the increase in England was more than 10 times greater (78%), with car exhaust poisoning being the leading method of suicide in a nation where gun ownership is severely restricted.

 

[Chris]

Are you stupid. The numbers do not lie. States with less restrictive Gun laws have LESS VIOLENT CRIME.

is that easier for your brain to get around?

This is not true. Have you even looked at the state statistics?

The states with the most violent crime are pro gun states like South Carolina, Alaska, New Mexico, Nevada, Tennessee, Louisiana, etc....

Here are the state statistics...

State Rankings--Statistical Abstract of the United States--Violent Crime Per 100,000 Population - 2004

 

[Chris]

From your link (again):


How Are Victims Killed?

Homicide: 11,624 / 39% of All Fatalities
Suicide: 16,750 / 57% of All Fatalities
Unintentional Death (Accidental): 649 / 2% of All Fatalities



Members of the anti-gun public health community have written numerous articles that seek to blame an increase in suicide among young American males upon increased gun availability. They fail to tell their readers that while suicide among American males aged 15 to 24 increased 7.4% during 1980-1990, the increase in England was more than 10 times greater (78%), with car exhaust poisoning being the leading method of suicide in a nation where gun ownership is severely restricted.

Wow, that is really a stretch.

I kind of feel sorrow for you having to take car exhaust poisoning stats from England to use in your bogus argument.

Here is what my link actually says....

Local-level background checks were found to be associated with a 27 percent lower firearm suicide rate and a 22 percent-lower homicide rate in adults aged 21 years or older.

The retrospective study observed the association between the Department of Justice classification of agencies conducting firearm background checks for each state from 2002 to 2004, and firearm suicide and homicide rates for the same years from the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control.

Local Background Checks, Fewer Gun Deaths

 

[Missourian]

Wow, that is really a stretch.

I kind of feel sorrow for you having to take car exhaust poisoning stats from England to use in your bogus argument.

Only a stretch for you. It proves without any shadow of doubt that suicide rates have no relation to firearm ownership, just like all the other articles I posted.

So if gun ownership has no correlation with suicide rates, why does your "study" by a 3rd year medical student include them?

Because that was the only way to garner the conclusion the anti-2nd amendent group want to portray.

Here is what my link actually says....

Local-level background checks were found to be associated with a 27 percent lower firearm suicide rate and a 22 percent-lower homicide rate in adults aged 21 years or older.

The retrospective study observed the association between the Department of Justice classification of agencies conducting firearm background checks for each state from 2002 to 2004, and firearm suicide and homicide rates for the same years from the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control.

Local Background Checks, Fewer Gun Deaths

And here in red is what you conveniently don't post, straight from your link, with my comments in black. 1 out of 100,000 difference.

"Federal-level background checks are used as the only level of background checks in 21 states. Seventeen states use state-level background checks in addition to the federal checks. Only 12 states rely on local-level background checks, which consult local law enforcement offices, such as a sheriff's department, in addition to the federal system. States that performed only federal-level checks saw a firearm suicide rate of 11.64 people per every 100,000 in the population. States that performed state-level or local-level checks were found to have substantially lower rates of firearm suicides, at 8.45 and 5.74 per 100,000, respectively."


All this says is, at most, 6 fewer people didn't commit suicide with a gun. But those six could have hung themselves, taken poison or crashed into a truck head on. If someone is determine to end their life, they are going to find a way to do it.

"A similar trend was observed with firearm homicide rates, with 4.28 per 100,000 for federal checks; 4.02 per 100,000 for state checks; and 2.81 per 100,000 for local checks."

For the homicide rate it is .26 difference between the federal and the state and 1.21 difference between the federal and the local, likely well within the statistical margin of error.

 

[Chris]

Only a stretch for you. It proves without any shadow of doubt that suicide rates have no relation to firearm ownership, just like all the other articles I posted.

So if gun ownership has no correlation with suicide rates, why does your "study" by a 3rd year medical student include them?

Because that was the only way to garner the conclusion the anti-2nd amendent group want to portray.






And here in red is what you conveniently don't post, straight from your link, with my comments in black. 1 out of 100,000 difference.

"Federal-level background checks are used as the only level of background checks in 21 states. Seventeen states use state-level background checks in addition to the federal checks. Only 12 states rely on local-level background checks, which consult local law enforcement offices, such as a sheriff's department, in addition to the federal system. States that performed only federal-level checks saw a firearm suicide rate of 11.64 people per every 100,000 in the population. States that performed state-level or local-level checks were found to have substantially lower rates of firearm suicides, at 8.45 and 5.74 per 100,000, respectively."


All this says is, at most, 6 fewer people didn't commit suicide with a gun. But those six could have hung themselves, taken poison or crashed into a truck head on. If someone is determine to end their life, they are going to find a way to do it.

"A similar trend was observed with firearm homicide rates, with 4.28 per 100,000 for federal checks; 4.02 per 100,000 for state checks; and 2.81 per 100,000 for local checks."

For the homicide rate it is .26 difference between the federal and the state and 1.21 difference between the federal and the local, likely well within the statistical margin of error.

Thanks for proving my point.

Local background checks lowered the rate from 4.28 to 2.81 per 100,000. Of course if you look at the state by state rates, the effects are even more dramatic. Some of the pro gun states are almost four time higher than the more restrictive states. I notice that you continue to ignore that....

National Firearm Injury and Death Statistics | Washington Ceasefire

 

[Chris]

Rank
State
Total Number of Firearm Deaths 2004
Crude Firearm Death Rate 2004

The Ten States with the Highest rates of Firearm Violence

1 Louisiana
902
20.01

2 Alaska
117
17.79

3 Nevada
392
16.8

4
Mississippi
471
16.24

5
Arizona
897
15.63

6
New Mexico
389
15.19

7
Alabama
679
15

8
Arkansas
406
14.76

9
Tennessee
869
14.79

10
West Virginia
253
13.96

The Ten States With the Lowest Rates of Firearm Violence

Rank
State
Total Number of Firearm Deaths 2004
Firearm Deaths Crude Rate 2004
1
Massachusetts
206
3.22

2
Hawaii
41
3.25

3
Rhode Island
41
3.8

4
New York
951
4.93
5
Connecticut
173
4.94

6
New Jersey
454
5.23

7
New Hampshire
69
5.31

8
Iowa
195
6.6

9
Nebraska
119
6.81

10
Minnesota
363
7.12

 

[Charles_Main]

Take a closer look. Look at cities, and counties. Look at places with specific concealed carry allowed laws and look at their rates of violent crimes.

 

[Harry Dresden]

Harry. It might give you a buzz to declare you'd fight for your rights and die if necessary. I hate to disappoint you but you probably - and hopefully - won't get that chance. You don't live in Somalia or Zimbabwe, you live in the United States. Now, I admit my knowledge of US history is very poor but I think I'm right in suggesting that since its inception the US has never had a dictator. Looking at the checks and balances in the US political system and noting that the military (and no dictator came to power without the help of the military) is sworn to uphold the constitution and not a party or a person, I'd say that the chances of the US being ruled by a dictator are extremely low. That only leave the nutter option.

I don't believe you're a nutter Harry (but if you're posting from a cabin in the wilds of Idaho I might be disavowed of that idea) but I do believe you like to indulge in a bit of internet forum hyperbole and that's essentially what the dying for your rights statement is about. Nothing wrong with a bit of hyperbole here - it actually adds a lot of colour, without it the mods would be running Beige Alerts on an hourly basis.

The "nutter option" is where someone who for some reason has decided that they are not going to comply with a law - whether it be paying tax, handing over a prohibited weapon, the prohibition on selling raw milk and so on - because they don't like it. Maybe I should call it the "selfish bastard" option. They have decided that a law, passed democratically, shouldn't apply to them. Usually they just spit the dummy (pacifier) and write letters to their politicians, the editor of the local paper, rant and rave on an internet forum that exists for those of a like mind and generally look eccentric but harmless. But there's always one that will hole up and taunt the gummint to come and get him or her. They're the ones that end up either surrendering and facing legal action or end up full of gummint bullets or sometimes decide their own bullet is preferable to gummint bullets. Thankfully the latter doesn't happen too often, usually the siege peters out and the would-be revolutionary sheepishly hands himself or herself up on national television. Like it or not, if you live in a society then its laws apply to you, none of us get to pick and choose which laws we'll obey.

So it was with the gun buybacks in Australia. You can taunt that we "rolled over". I'd simply point out that most people decided that they would obey the law. That's not "rolling over" Harry, that's being a good citizen.

before i go into this any further Di,let me ask you.....was it a RIGHT to have guns at the house,in your constitution,or was it just ALLOWED,and your PM and co. decided it was time to restrict them,and changed the law.....