[Tommy_Vercetti]

Originally Posted by Li Ching Yuen

Wow. Just wow.

I really can't believe I've just read this. If there was any way I could report this to authorities and get you mentally examined I would.

Explain how I am wrong? You do realize that most of the world is still not ruled by democracy? We still even have many theocracies in the 21st century.

[abraxas21]

Originally Posted by Tommy_Vercetti

Like I said, 9,484 people is nothing compared to 313+ million. And the large percentage of that 313+ million that legally own weapons.

thats a pretty lame argument. we shouldn't we worried because 9,484 human lives aren't that many relative to the population of the country?

[Tommy_Vercetti]

Exactly. Strip the citizens of their right to defend themselves because say 1 in 30,000+ people die a violent death because of firearms.

Where does it stop if you have that mentality?

[cobalt60]

Anyone note that the Norway shootings were at this time last year? What are the gun laws in Norway may I ask?
Never mind - look what I found http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...ater-massacre/

[abraxas21]

Originally Posted by Tommy_Vercetti

Exactly. Strip the citizens of their right to defend themselves because say 1 in 30,000+ people die a violent death because of firearms.

Where does it stop if you have that mentality?

the question you need to ask yourself is this: in which society are you less likely to get shot? the one where only a very tiny fraction has guns and it's very difficult to get one or the one in which a whole bunch of people have guns and have easy access to get one?

[abraxas21]

Originally Posted by cobalt60

Anyone note that the Norway shootings were at this time last year? What are the gun laws in Norway may I ask?
Never mind - look what I found http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...ater-massacre/

your point is?

[tangerine_dream]

Originally Posted by abraxas21

your point is?

The point is that gun laws doesn't deter criminals from committing violent acts but will instead disarm the peaceful majority who use their guns responsibly and are constitutionally guaranteed the right to bear arms.

You're welcome.

[buddyholly]

Originally Posted by Tommy_Vercetti

Exactly. Strip the citizens of their right to defend themselves because say 1 in 30,000+ people die a violent death because of firearms.

Where does it stop if you have that mentality?

Have you completely missed the point that it was deaths/million citizens? Meaning that in the country with the most lax gun laws you are many times more likely to get shot than in a country with tight gun laws.

Which means: the more lax the laws the more likely you will be shot.

Or to turn your argument upside down: the more freedom you give people the right to defend themselves, the more likely they are to be shot. Makes you kinda wonder why people want the right to defend themselves - all it does is get you killed.

(I am not sure if the quoted numbers are shooting deaths, but I doubt it makes a significant difference.)

[buddyholly]

Originally Posted by tangerine_dream

The point is that gun laws doesn't deter criminals from committing violent acts but will instead disarm the peaceful majority who use their guns responsibly and are constitutionally guaranteed the right to bear arms.

You're welcome.

I have always understood that the US constitution was talking about the right to bear arms in an organized militia and the founding fathers did not have in mind that everyone would be running around with their own concealed weapons and accountable to no-one.

Any comments on that? It does not seem to get mentioned much by the anti-gun lobby, but to me seems a crucial point.

[abraxas21]

Originally Posted by tangerine_dream

The point is that gun laws doesn't deter criminals from committing violent acts but will instead disarm the peaceful majority who use their guns responsibly and are constitutionally guaranteed the right to bear arms.

You're welcome.

some will, but i assure you the vast majority will not.

the norway case was an exception in what could be termed as an anti gun society. anders brevik went as far as to prepare his strike for several years, including the act of traveling all the way to prague just to try to get guns. he was a nutcase, albeit a highly determined one.

question is: are all criminal and nutcases as determined as brevik? they certainly are not and for that reason it is convenient to make it difficult to get access to weapons. most criminals aren't that sophisticated. several explode in passionate acts and grab whatever is at their disposal to harm others. others are more deliberate in their crimes but still i'm sure some restrictions would dissuade them. others will act still. there will always be a minority of breviks around the world. this isn't perfect but the least you can do is to try to limit the number of possible gun related deaths to the minimum

[tripwires]

Originally Posted by Tommy_Vercetti

If you can't understand why it's a bad thing for the government to be the only people who have weapons, then there's absolutely no point in having a discussion about gun laws.

Would that be because you can't explain it? You have to realise that not everyone comes from your country (I know, what a shocker), and in some civilised and modern societies, the idea that citizens should have the right to own guns is actually completely counter-intuitive. Only my government has weapons and it's wonderful because I don't walk down the streets wondering if I'd get caught in a shoot-out between rival gangs or some shit. Does this not make any sense to you?

The US has always been a country where the citizens were well-armed. As opposed to the rest of the world, where not only is tyranny still the dominant form of government, but the free societies of all the modern states came after ours and in most cases, as a direct or indirect result over time.

Oh yes, absolutely. The USA is the shining beacon of the world, an example to which the rest of us plebeians should all aspire.

What is the correlation between the right to bear arms and a non-tyrannical government? Some of the most free societies in the world do not have the same lack of gun control as the US - or are you telling me that countries like the United Kingdom and Australia aren't democracies and are ruled by a tyrannical government?

Originally Posted by Tommy_Vercetti

Explain how I am wrong? You do realize that most of the world is still not ruled by democracy? We still even have many theocracies in the 21st century.

Which other flourishing democracy has the same lack of gun control as the United States?

If the right to own guns were that important to one's ability to defend oneself, how many of those movie-goers in Denver were actually able to defend themselves against a guns-wielding lunatic who opened fire at them indiscriminately?

[buddyholly]

Originally Posted by cobalt60

Anyone note that the Norway shootings were at this time last year? What are the gun laws in Norway may I ask?
Never mind - look what I found http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...ater-massacre/

The fact is that the Norwegian guy had to plan this carefully. He was not someone who acted on impulse over something relatively trivial. In the US people can feel violent over something small, and go out and kill before they have time to calm down.

[tripwires]

Originally Posted by buddyholly

The fact is that the Norwegian guy had to plan this carefully. He was not someone who acted on impulse over something relatively trivial. In the US people can feel violent over something small, and go out and kill before they have time to calm down.

Not to mention the fact that it's disingenuous to use the Norwegian case as an example of how strict gun controls do not prevent mass shootings. This was an isolated incident that took place in a country where shooting sprees are highly rare and unusual; in contrast, there have been a lot more high profile shooting cases in the United States, the most obvious ones being Columbine and Virginia Tech. I'm actually struggling to find other cases of mass shootings in Norway besides Anders Breivik; in contrast, I found this pertaining to the United States: http://edition.cnn.com/2012/07/20/us...ine/index.html

This excerpt from an editorial in the Chicago Sun-Times sums it up pretty well:

But in Norway, this was not the latest mass shooting in a predictable string. In Norway, nobody is bracing for the next inevitable assault. In Norway, as in other European nations, when there is a mass shooting, they say this was “like America.”

(http://www.suntimes.com/opinions/138...d-america.html)

[Time Violation]

Originally Posted by Tommy_Vercetti

The US has always been a country where the citizens were well-armed. As opposed to the rest of the world, where not only is tyranny still the dominant form of government, but the free societies of all the modern states came after ours and in most cases, as a direct or indirect result over time.

US, the leader of the free world I agree with Li Ching Yuen, you could use some help, it's a known condition after all

[Li Ching Yuen]

I'm honestly amazed that you found the composure to answer in detail to these extremely ignorant posts in here, Trip.

Props and well said, it's my point of view as well