Will the Second Amendment survive?

[Beevee]

I haven't read all the threads on this subject but another shooting in another mall doesn't seem to bother too many Americans who seem to think it acceptable as long as they maintain the right to bear arms.

Now, it's strange to me that not one of the eight people who unfortunately died in Omaha, Nebraska returned fire. They had the right to bear arms but obviously weren't carrying. Or does it mean one has the right to bear arms as long as they are confined to the house. In which case, as soon as arms are taken from a house, is a crime being committed?

Sorry, but my conception of the 2nd amendment is the thought by Americans that they act in a more responsible manner and can bear arns whereas people in any other democratic country cannot and that obviously isn't so. Every American knows that next week it will be repeated somewhere else.

Now I know this happens in Canada too and lifestyles are similiar. But Canadians do not have such sweeping powers to bear arms and consequently the pro rata murder rate is much lower. Doesn't that say something?

Furthermore the media encourages the use of arms by not questioning the rights and wrongs of the 2nd amendment. Why? Could it be that the owners of these media and news outlets are all in favour of it as they see themselves as prime targets because of their perceived wealth?

I don't have any answers but conversely I don't believe sufficient Americans ask the right questions.

[Radar]

Originally Posted by Beevee

I haven't read all the threads on this subject but another shooting in another mall doesn't seem to bother too many Americans who seem to think it acceptable as long as they maintain the right to bear arms.

Now, it's strange to me that not one of the eight people who unfortunately died in Omaha, Nebraska returned fire. They had the right to bear arms but obviously weren't carrying. Or does it mean one has the right to bear arms as long as they are confined to the house. In which case, as soon as arms are taken from a house, is a crime being committed?

Sorry, but my conception of the 2nd amendment is the thought by Americans that they act in a more responsible manner and can bear arns whereas people in any other democratic country cannot and that obviously isn't so. Every American knows that next week it will be repeated somewhere else.

Now I know this happens in Canada too and lifestyles are similiar. But Canadians do not have such sweeping powers to bear arms and consequently the pro rata murder rate is much lower. Doesn't that say something?

Furthermore the media encourages the use of arms by not questioning the rights and wrongs of the 2nd amendment. Why? Could it be that the owners of these media and news outlets are all in favour of it as they see themselves as prime targets because of their perceived wealth?

I don't have any answers but conversely I don't believe sufficient Americans ask the right questions.

The rate of violent crimes in general is higher in nations that prohibit gun ownership, including Canada, Australia, and the UK.

[ZenGum]

Originally Posted by Radar

The rate of violent crimes in general is higher in nations that prohibit gun ownership, including Canada, Australia, and the UK.

Radar, can you provide some evidence for this claim?

Wikipedia offers the following list of murder rates per 100,000 people (most recent data):

USA: 5.9
UK: 2.03
Canada: 2.01
Australia: 1.28

You're MUCH more likely to be murdered if you live in the US than one of the other countries you claim have higher levels of violent crime.

Meanwhile this site (NationMaster, they say their figures come from the CIA world factbook) gives figures for assaults per 1,000:
US: 7.569
UK: 7.459
Canada: 7.118
Australia: 7.024

Which are more pretty much the same. What this says to me is that these cultures are about equally violent, but in the US the violence is more likely to lead to death.

This site also gives the figures for robberies per 1,000 (which combine violence with property crime)

UK: 1.574
USA: 1.385
Australia: 1.160
Canada: 0.823

Ok, second out of four, but first for assaults and clear first in murders. I suspect that this is simply because it is so much easier for an assault to become a murder when one or both parties have guns.
Maybe this is the price the USA chooses to pay in exchange for the benefits of an armed populace, and that is the decision of those who live there, that is, you and not me.
But you will be more persuasive if you can keep your facts correct and refrain from disparaging other countries.

[icileparadise]

Wait, I'm not an American but I thought the 2nd Ammendment says right to bear arms and militia meant: ( and here's my gap in understanding) At that time the said Amendt. was written the American militia defeated the Brits. To me the militia in the 2nd Amendt actually refers to the Armed forces as it was then - The USA Army as it is known today? N'est pas?

[Radar]

Originally Posted by icileparadise

Wait, I'm not an American but I thought the 2nd Ammendment says right to bear arms and militia meant: ( and here's my gap in understanding) At that time the said Amendt. was written the American militia defeated the Brits. To me the militia in the 2nd Amendt actually refers to the Armed forces as it was then - The USA Army as it is known today? N'est pas?

At the time of the founders, we had an army AND militias. The army was not enough to defeat the British, and it was the militias that allowed America to win.

[regular.joe]

I'm not sure what you would call me in this debate. I personally own a 7MM Magnum hunting rifle. I have stored in my house almost 1000 rounds of 5.56 match ammunition. I do not advocate a ban on all guns. I do think it is imperative that there is a large pool of well trained, educated marksman within the US population. Hell, every houshold in Iraq is allowed to own an AK-47. Trust me, that is not the problem in Iraq. The presence of US troops in Iraq exacerbates the problem, they being there are not the real problem. The problem in Iraq is selfishness and self seeking. On many levels.

There are letters written as a historical record from The Congress directly following the ratification of the Constitution. The gist of one of these letters is that the ratification process was long and difficult. That every state had to give something up to become a part of the whole. It had to become an unselfish project. The questions had to be what would be best for the greater, and long term good.

In the debate on guns, the real question is what is best for the greater good? I obviously don't have all the answers on this question. I'm not sure if any one person does. I do appreciate well reasoned, even passionate debate.

Aliantha, Australia is a fine place, if I were a single man....lol. I digress, our histories are different.

[Beevee]

I have one question to Regular Joe.

Why do you need 1000 rounds of ammo? Wouldn't 100 be sufficient? Or do you believe there are at least 1000 animals in the vacinity for you to kill?

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Originally Posted by Beevee

Why do you need 1000 rounds of ammo? Wouldn't 100 be sufficient? Or do you believe there are at least 1000 animals in the vicinity for you to kill?

Is there any pressing reason in morality or physics not to have 1000 rounds?

Now I'll get snarky: how many rounds in a brick of .22LR? Secondarily, how big is that brick, and how heavy?

How big a plastic bottle to stow 2500 beebees for a Red Ryder Daisy BB gun?

[classicman]

Target shooting maybe?

[regular.joe]

I can easily shoot 80 to 100 rounds in about 1/2 a day on the range, practicing for a rifle match. 10 days worth of shooting is not much really. Don't worry, I only use one target.

Radar, have you been to Iraq?

Another shooting in another mall, is why we should ban guns?

There was another death on the highway somewhere in the U.S. up to 40,000 a year...every year. We are not banning cars anytime soon.

Guns serve a purpose, cars serve a purpose. Right now, those purposes outweigh the need to ban either one.

[Radar]

One does not need to go to Iraq to know what is happening there and what has happened in the past. That is the beauty of modern technology and communication methods.

Luckily I finished my time in the military before the first gulf war and were I still in and ordered to go to Iraq now, I'd refuse that unlawful order because I took my oath seriously.

[Radar]

http://www.reason.com/news/show/28582.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/192016.stm

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...icle568214.ece

[ZenGum]

Originally Posted by Radar

http://www.reason.com/news/show/28582.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/192016.stm

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...icle568214.ece

I'm not impressed.
All these articles still agree that the US leads the list for murders and rapes.
You haven't got anything about Canada or Australia.

[Radar]

Originally Posted by ZenGum

I'm not impressed.
All these articles still agree that the US leads the list for murders and rapes.
You haven't got anything about Canada or Australia.

I'm not trying to "impress" you. I picked the first 2 or three articles that showed up on google.

By all means go to fuckinggoogleit.com so you can learn how to look things up for yourself.

[Aliantha]

Originally Posted by Radar

I'm not trying to "impress" you. I picked the first 2 or three articles that showed up on google.

By all means go to fuckinggoogleit.com so you can learn how to look things up for yourself.

Are you pissed off because your claim was false Radar (and any idiot knows it is without even bothering to look up fuckinggoogle.com), or are you pissed off because you can't find anything substantial to back up your false statement?

You and UG are both on the same slippery slide here. That's patently obvious.