Man arrested with rifle in Denver

[Falcon]

Back then it might have been possible to overthrow the government with force, but today it is pretty much impossible. Citizens might have guns, but the government has the army, the navy, and the air force. It doesn't matter how many guns you have, they are useless against tanks and all the other goodies the military has. Not to mention that if you even plan to stir up trouble in Washington, the CIA, FBI, and the NSA would be on your ass. Yea good luck with that. In my opinion that amendment is outdated.

The idea is that everyone rose up and rebelled. Say, Bush imposed martial law and canceled the elections and swore himself in as President even longer. That might cause a big enough uproar that the entire country rose up against him and his ways. There are how many millions of people here? And the military may total a million across the board...

Right, but then you'd have to take into account all the people who knows nothing or doesn't care for politics. Also, not everyone owns a gun. Also numbers don't really mean much, if the white house had tanks surrounding it would you dare try to get through? I sure as hell wouldnt. And iago is right, look at how controversial the Patriot Act was, yet it still got passed and nobody dared rebel over that. I guess my point is that most people are afraid of the federal government and just accept whatever it decides to do.

[leet_muffin]

In a republic form of government, the laws reflect the will of the people, so I guess that if around 67% of America agrees (In reality, I know that it's 67% of congress, and that doesn't necessarily reflect 67% of america) that guns should be banned, I'd be fine with that amendment being passed.

The main reason that I say this is that I'm a big supporter of states rights, and any power of this size that is given tot he federal government should be done on an amendment level, which is much more difficult than a bullshit executive decree.

[CrAz3D]

You're pulling a CrAz3d argument, that something is ok because it's legal. I think the others in the thread are looking to dig a little deeper than that.

I believe this thread's topic is that guns ARE legal, therefore this man was OK to have a gun.


A new topic might be that guns are good because bad guys will ALWAYS have them. Period.  End of story.

[iago]

I believe this thread's topic is that guns ARE legal, therefore this man was OK to have a gun.

That isn't what was being discussed, though.

[CrAz3D]

And I continued onto the off-topic topic...

[Sidoh]

A new topic might be that guns are good because bad guys will ALWAYS have them. Period.  End of story.

This is a false dichotomy.  There are more than the two states "Bad guys do have guns" and "Bad guys don't have guns".  It's much more analog than this.  Some criminals may always have the means to obtain firearms regardless of law, but that doesn't mean that more restrictive laws won't result in fewer criminals having them.  It's also worth noting that pointing out facts like these is a fairly meaningless effort.  Statistics are the only real way to determine what's optimal, imo.

The number of murders per capita involving handguns is over 30x higher in the US than it is in the UK.  I did a fair amount of research on this subject a year ago.  I don't think I had sufficient data to make a solid conclusion, but from what I did find, it did seem like there was a direct correlation between the strictness of firearm laws and murders per capita (period, not just those involving firearms).  I'd be interested in seeing more recent numbers from a variety of sources.  Most of the ones I obtained were collected from government statistics agencies.

[CrAz3D]

A new topic might be that guns are good because bad guys will ALWAYS have them. Period.  End of story.

This is a false dichotomy.  There are more than the two states "Bad guys do have guns" and "Bad guys don't have guns".  It's much more analog than this.  Some criminals may always have the means to obtain firearms regardless of law, but that doesn't mean that more restrictive laws won't result in fewer criminals having them.  It's also worth noting that pointing out facts like these is a fairly meaningless effort.  Statistics are the only real way to determine what's optimal, imo.

The number of murders per capita involving handguns is over 30x higher in the US than it is in the UK.  I did a fair amount of research on this subject a year ago.  I don't think I had sufficient data to make a solid conclusion, but from what I did find, it did seem like there was a direct correlation between the strictness of firearm laws and murders per capita (period, not just those involving firearms).  I'd be interested in seeing more recent numbers from a variety of sources.  Most of the ones I obtained were collected from government statistics agencies.

More restrictive laws FOR CRIMINAL ACTS involving guns, yes.  I support that.  Example: execute someone that commits a violent felony while armed with a firearm.  The answer is to punish the bad guys, NOT the good guys.

[Sidoh]

A new topic might be that guns are good because bad guys will ALWAYS have them. Period.  End of story.

This is a false dichotomy.  There are more than the two states "Bad guys do have guns" and "Bad guys don't have guns".  It's much more analog than this.  Some criminals may always have the means to obtain firearms regardless of law, but that doesn't mean that more restrictive laws won't result in fewer criminals having them.  It's also worth noting that pointing out facts like these is a fairly meaningless effort.  Statistics are the only real way to determine what's optimal, imo.

The number of murders per capita involving handguns is over 30x higher in the US than it is in the UK.  I did a fair amount of research on this subject a year ago.  I don't think I had sufficient data to make a solid conclusion, but from what I did find, it did seem like there was a direct correlation between the strictness of firearm laws and murders per capita (period, not just those involving firearms).  I'd be interested in seeing more recent numbers from a variety of sources.  Most of the ones I obtained were collected from government statistics agencies.

More restrictive laws FOR CRIMINAL ACTS involving guns, yes.  I support that.  Example: execute someone that commits a violent felony while armed with a firearm.  The answer is to punish the bad guys, NOT the good guys.

I'm speaking exclusively of laws pertaining to the limitation of access to firearms.

[CrAz3D]

That would have to limit the initial possession of them (all out ban), which is virtually nearly impossible given the number in existence currently and the trafficking that would come from Mexico/Canada/etc.

Further, the murder rate WITH firearms in the UK has gone up since they banned handguns, hasnt it?  As with the DC handgun ban IIRC.

[Sidoh]

That would have to limit the initial possession of them (all out ban), which is virtually nearly impossible given the number in existence currently and the trafficking that would come from Mexico/Canada/etc.

Further, the murder rate WITH firearms in the UK has gone up since they banned handguns, hasnt it?

I'm not convinced a simple ban is the right solution, but I do think more restrictive laws would lower murder rates in the US.  It's obvious that the effect immediately after its implementation probably won't be desirable, but it's immediate results I'm concerned with.

I'm not sure.  I think I've heard that thrown around before, but even so, it's more important to look at the trend.  If it spiked when they were banned, but has started to decline, then the spike is somewhat irrelevant.  If it's spiked and plateaued, then it probably wasn't a good solution.

[CrAz3D]

More restrictive in terms of purchase?  Like WHO can purchase?

UK gun ban failure:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article2328368.ece

However, perhaps most telling is the massive increase in gun violence, disclosed on 25 January of this year (Homicides, Firearm Offences and Intimate Violence 2005-06, Home Office). Buried at page 36 . . . we find [that] . . . gun-related killings and injuries (excluding airguns) have increased by over fourfold since 1998.

(Ban was created in 1997)

DC ban failure:
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/lott200409290839.asp

during the almost 30 years since the ban, the murder rate has only once fallen below what it was in 1976.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/17/Dchomicidechart.svg & http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/dccrime.htm
Although, it does appear that the murder rate increased slowly until Clinton was elected, EXPLODED, and has now leveled off to 29 per 100k.