Gun rights - for or against?
- Thread starter LeonT
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
So many typical garbage arguments for "gun rights".
From interactions with Americans, the argument for gun control is not a total outright ban on guns, but rather a regulation of the distribution of these weapons.
This is what comes into conflict with the Second Amendment which protects the right to keep and bear arms.
If people need to undergo driving tests to drive a car, then why is there no background checks for gun owners? In the USA, only 6 states out of the 50 require background checks at all points of sale.
The usual dumb arguments that deflect attention to the real issues-
"Guns don't kill people, people kill people."
Gun whiner - A person can harm another person through a truck, a knife, pen, apple, pineapple - should we regulate these items?
A gun is a lethal weapon with a potential to cause far worse damage than a knife. What is the use of a gun? To shoot. What is the use of a truck (or car)? Transportation.
Also, these items are regulated by airports across the world. Would you like to fly in an aircraft with someone who has never had a background check and carrying a "weapon" with them?
Oh and don't think of your typical redneck. Why don't we push the boundaries of race further? Would you like to sit next to a man of Arabic origin who has a gun in an aircraft, without any checks?
"A good guy with a gun could have stopped it."
So it isn't bad enough that this argument surfaces up right after a tragedy, statistically speaking the incidences of an armed civilian stopping a shooter has been low.
At the Pulse shooting at Orlando, there was a police officer off duty who shot at the attacker at the entrance. However he wasn't able to stop the man from getting in and had to call for back up.
This is the same Florida where a legally blind man who was cleared of murder, after shooting his drinking buddy went on to petition for getting his guns back and won.
This is the sort of stupidity that is rampant in the world of guns in America.
Can a human being have the right to bear arms to protect his/her self - yes, sure, meh. Can he/she live in society without regulation? Questionable.
From interactions with Americans, the argument for gun control is not a total outright ban on guns, but rather a regulation of the distribution of these weapons.
This is what comes into conflict with the Second Amendment which protects the right to keep and bear arms.
If people need to undergo driving tests to drive a car, then why is there no background checks for gun owners? In the USA, only 6 states out of the 50 require background checks at all points of sale.
The usual dumb arguments that deflect attention to the real issues-
"Guns don't kill people, people kill people."
Gun whiner - A person can harm another person through a truck, a knife, pen, apple, pineapple - should we regulate these items?
A gun is a lethal weapon with a potential to cause far worse damage than a knife. What is the use of a gun? To shoot. What is the use of a truck (or car)? Transportation.
Also, these items are regulated by airports across the world. Would you like to fly in an aircraft with someone who has never had a background check and carrying a "weapon" with them?
Oh and don't think of your typical redneck. Why don't we push the boundaries of race further? Would you like to sit next to a man of Arabic origin who has a gun in an aircraft, without any checks?
"A good guy with a gun could have stopped it."
So it isn't bad enough that this argument surfaces up right after a tragedy, statistically speaking the incidences of an armed civilian stopping a shooter has been low.
At the Pulse shooting at Orlando, there was a police officer off duty who shot at the attacker at the entrance. However he wasn't able to stop the man from getting in and had to call for back up.
This is the same Florida where a legally blind man who was cleared of murder, after shooting his drinking buddy went on to petition for getting his guns back and won.
This is the sort of stupidity that is rampant in the world of guns in America.
Can a human being have the right to bear arms to protect his/her self - yes, sure, meh. Can he/she live in society without regulation? Questionable.
Last edited:
T
The answer is YES. I would fly on an airplane way more often if I knew that lawful American citizens were allowed to carry on flights.
This is what the media would have you believe, I'm afraid. There are many instances of armed citizens (the NRA members perk up their ears) who stopped violence. They are rarely reported because they are not news. Nothing tragic happened because the armed citizen stopped something from happening. Also, the media is perfectly capable of reporting only what they want to report...but maybe that's just my opinion
You're from India, right? I do not have a problem with you posting here. I do have a leetle problem with you indiscriminately slurring Americans.
This is what the media would have you believe, I'm afraid. There are many instances of armed citizens (the NRA members perk up their ears) who stopped violence. They are rarely reported because they are not news. Nothing tragic happened because the armed citizen stopped something from happening. Also, the media is perfectly capable of reporting only what they want to report...but maybe that's just my opinion
You're from India, right? I do not have a problem with you posting here. I do have a leetle problem with you indiscriminately slurring Americans.
K
The answer is YES. I would fly on an airplane way more often if I knew that lawful American citizens were allowed to carry on flights.
This is what the media would have you believe, I'm afraid. There are many instances of armed citizens (the NRA members perk up their ears) who stopped violence. They are rarely reported because they are not news. Nothing tragic happened because the armed citizen stopped something from happening. Also, the media is perfectly capable of reporting only what they want to report...but maybe that's just my opinion
You're from India, right? I do not have a problem with you posting here. I do have a leetle problem with you indiscriminately slurring Americans.
This is what the media would have you believe, I'm afraid. There are many instances of armed citizens (the NRA members perk up their ears) who stopped violence. They are rarely reported because they are not news. Nothing tragic happened because the armed citizen stopped something from happening. Also, the media is perfectly capable of reporting only what they want to report...but maybe that's just my opinion
You're from India, right? I do not have a problem with you posting here. I do have a leetle problem with you indiscriminately slurring Americans.
Totally agree with you on "slurring Americans" not to mention the reference to "rednecks".
The answer is YES. I would fly on an airplane way more often if I knew that lawful American citizens were allowed to carry on flights.
This is what the media would have you believe, I'm afraid. There are many instances of armed citizens (the NRA members perk up their ears) who stopped violence. They are rarely reported because they are not news. Nothing tragic happened because the armed citizen stopped something from happening. Also, the media is perfectly capable of reporting only what they want to report...but maybe that's just my opinion
You're from India, right? I do not have a problem with you posting here. I do have a leetle problem with you indiscriminately slurring Americans.
This is what the media would have you believe, I'm afraid. There are many instances of armed citizens (the NRA members perk up their ears) who stopped violence. They are rarely reported because they are not news. Nothing tragic happened because the armed citizen stopped something from happening. Also, the media is perfectly capable of reporting only what they want to report...but maybe that's just my opinion
You're from India, right? I do not have a problem with you posting here. I do have a leetle problem with you indiscriminately slurring Americans.
Slurring?
I don't recall "slurring" any Americans.
I am quite sure I called arguments (may or may not be from Americans. I don't discriminate) stupid.
T
Well, some of the information that I gleaned is from independent studies not necessarily media reports.
Slurring?
I don't recall slurring any Americans.
I am quite sure I called arguments (may or may not be from Americans. I don't discriminate) stupid.
Slurring?
I don't recall slurring any Americans.
I am quite sure I called arguments (may or may not be from Americans. I don't discriminate) stupid.
From what I've heard, people are very capable of biased independent studies, as well lol.
Well, Perhaps you were not slurring Americans. I am definitely ready to give you more than the benefit of the doubt. But looking back on what you said, there are some stereotypes that us independent Americans can find quite offensive
From what I've heard, people are very capable of biased independent studies, as well lol.
Well, Perhaps you were not slurring Americans. I am definitely ready to give you more than the benefit of the doubt. But looking back on what you said, there are some stereotypes that us independent Americans can find quite offensive
Well, Perhaps you were not slurring Americans. I am definitely ready to give you more than the benefit of the doubt. But looking back on what you said, there are some stereotypes that us independent Americans can find quite offensive
Thanks for giving me the benefit of the doubt. I would like to give you some food for thought.
What stereotypes are you finding specifically offensive as an American? The term redneck?
Did you find this stereotype equally offensive - that an Arabic man sitting on an airplane would require further background checks?
And that is a reality, further cemented by Trump's travel diktats.
(I was actually not going to respond on this thread - I have to catch a flight in the early afternoon. I am starting my 4th of July celebrations early - nice little beach, possibly fireworks, getting a tan etc.)
If you are going to criticize someone else's country, you should at least get your facts straight.
ALL states are REQUIRED to do a background check on ALL sales from licensed gun dealers. ALL sales have to go through the NICS (Federal) instant background check system. ALL of them. Any violation of these laws is a FEDERAL offense.
Highly offensive to most gun owners.... you should be ashamed.. but I'm pretty sure, given your racially biased post history that you are not.
If I referred to people of Indian descent as "dot-faces", "or turban-heads", you'd very likely be offended. But, unlike you, I would not ever do that.
No, this is the sort of stupidity we get from people who have no concept of personal liberties. When you come from a third-world country with no individual freedoms, and no training/teaching about what the US is all about, you hear these types of ignorant rants about our freedoms.
And, again, you conveniently ignore the facts about "regulations"..... there are more regulations on gun ownership than you (as a gun-hating non-owner) could believe.
ALL states are REQUIRED to do a background check on ALL sales from licensed gun dealers. ALL sales have to go through the NICS (Federal) instant background check system. ALL of them. Any violation of these laws is a FEDERAL offense.
Highly offensive to most gun owners.... you should be ashamed.. but I'm pretty sure, given your racially biased post history that you are not.
If I referred to people of Indian descent as "dot-faces", "or turban-heads", you'd very likely be offended. But, unlike you, I would not ever do that.
No, this is the sort of stupidity we get from people who have no concept of personal liberties. When you come from a third-world country with no individual freedoms, and no training/teaching about what the US is all about, you hear these types of ignorant rants about our freedoms.
And, again, you conveniently ignore the facts about "regulations"..... there are more regulations on gun ownership than you (as a gun-hating non-owner) could believe.
T
I don't really mind being called a redneck! Though some Americans probably do. I was more speaking the stereotype that it would be a problem to push the boundaries of race to an Arab man with a gun. Like I said before, I have no problem with an Arab American citizen with a gun, just like I don't have a problem with a Native American, Caucasian, Mexican, or Asian American citizen with a gun. It DOES bother me that the racist canopy was spread over everyone. But offended? Nah, I've got a pretty thick skin. You'd have to be going pretty good to offend me .
Enjoy your vacation!! That sounds like a blast! (get a little tanned for me while you're at it...my blonde complexion just burns and I can't tan to save my life).
.Enjoy your vacation!! That sounds like a blast! (get a little tanned for me while you're at it...my blonde complexion just burns and I can't tan to save my life
).
Let's take the case if Australia, a western, English speaking first nation that banned guns after a mass shooting.
"Since major gun law reforms were introduced in Australia, mass shootings have not only stopped, but there has also been an accelerating reduction in rates of firearm-related homicide and suicides, a landmark study has found.It has been two decades since rapid-fire long guns were banned in Australia, including those already in private ownership, and 19 years since the mandatory buyback of prohibited firearms by government at market price was introduced. A handgun buyback program was later introduced, in 2003.
Researchers from the University of Sydney and Macquarie University analysed data on intentional suicide and homicide deaths caused by firearms from the National Injury Surveillance Unit, and intentional firearm death rates from the Australian Bureau of Statistics. For the period after the 1996 reforms, rates of total homicides and suicides from all causes were also examined to consider whether people may have substituted guns for alternative means.
From 1979 to 1996, the average annual rate of total non-firearm suicide and homicide deaths was rising at 2.1% per year. Since then, the average annual rate of total non-firearm suicide and homicide deaths has been declining by 1.4%, with the researchers concluding there was no evidence of murderers moving to other methods, and that the same was true for suicide.
The average decline in total firearm deaths accelerated significantly, from a 3% decline annually before the reforms to a 5% decline afterwards, the study found.
In the 18 years to 1996, Australia experienced 13 fatal mass shootings in which 104 victims were killed and at least another 52 were wounded. There have been no fatal mass shootings since that time, with the study defining a mass shooting as having at least five victims.
The 1996 reforms introduced in Australia came just months after a mass shooting known as the Port Arthur massacre, when Martin Bryant used two semi-automatic rifles to kill 35 people and wound 23 others in Port Arthur, Tasmania. The reforms had the support of all major political parties.
The lead author of the study, Professor Simon Chapman, said a similar study had been conducted 10 years ago, and that the researchers had repeated it to see if gun-related deaths were continuing to decline, finding that they had.
I’ve calculated that for every person in Australia shot in a massacre, 139 [people] are shot through firearm-related suicide or homicides, so they are much more common,” Chapman said.
“We found that homicide and suicide firearms deaths had been falling before the reforms, but the rate of the fall accelerated for both of them after the reforms. We’ve shown that a major policy intervention designed to stop mass shootings has had an effect on other gun-related deaths as well.”
He said the researchers had chosen to publish the results in an American medical journal not just because the title was a prestigious one, but also because the findings would have a greater impact.
However, he does not believe the findings will have an impact on gun ownership laws in the US.
“The US is a good example of where evidence is going to take longer to prevail over fear and ideology,” he said."
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jun/23/australias-gun-laws-stopped-mass-shootings-and-reduced-homicides-study-finds
"Since major gun law reforms were introduced in Australia, mass shootings have not only stopped, but there has also been an accelerating reduction in rates of firearm-related homicide and suicides, a landmark study has found.It has been two decades since rapid-fire long guns were banned in Australia, including those already in private ownership, and 19 years since the mandatory buyback of prohibited firearms by government at market price was introduced. A handgun buyback program was later introduced, in 2003.
Researchers from the University of Sydney and Macquarie University analysed data on intentional suicide and homicide deaths caused by firearms from the National Injury Surveillance Unit, and intentional firearm death rates from the Australian Bureau of Statistics. For the period after the 1996 reforms, rates of total homicides and suicides from all causes were also examined to consider whether people may have substituted guns for alternative means.
From 1979 to 1996, the average annual rate of total non-firearm suicide and homicide deaths was rising at 2.1% per year. Since then, the average annual rate of total non-firearm suicide and homicide deaths has been declining by 1.4%, with the researchers concluding there was no evidence of murderers moving to other methods, and that the same was true for suicide.
The average decline in total firearm deaths accelerated significantly, from a 3% decline annually before the reforms to a 5% decline afterwards, the study found.
In the 18 years to 1996, Australia experienced 13 fatal mass shootings in which 104 victims were killed and at least another 52 were wounded. There have been no fatal mass shootings since that time, with the study defining a mass shooting as having at least five victims.
The 1996 reforms introduced in Australia came just months after a mass shooting known as the Port Arthur massacre, when Martin Bryant used two semi-automatic rifles to kill 35 people and wound 23 others in Port Arthur, Tasmania. The reforms had the support of all major political parties.
The lead author of the study, Professor Simon Chapman, said a similar study had been conducted 10 years ago, and that the researchers had repeated it to see if gun-related deaths were continuing to decline, finding that they had.
I’ve calculated that for every person in Australia shot in a massacre, 139 [people] are shot through firearm-related suicide or homicides, so they are much more common,” Chapman said.
“We found that homicide and suicide firearms deaths had been falling before the reforms, but the rate of the fall accelerated for both of them after the reforms. We’ve shown that a major policy intervention designed to stop mass shootings has had an effect on other gun-related deaths as well.”
He said the researchers had chosen to publish the results in an American medical journal not just because the title was a prestigious one, but also because the findings would have a greater impact.
However, he does not believe the findings will have an impact on gun ownership laws in the US.
“The US is a good example of where evidence is going to take longer to prevail over fear and ideology,” he said."
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jun/23/australias-gun-laws-stopped-mass-shootings-and-reduced-homicides-study-finds