Are you talking hunting firearms too?

I really like you Putin. In response to all the people who will argue that the 2nd amendment is important I will make this point. No it's not. Virtually no other country guarantees a right like that, and unlike what Americans seem to think, it has virtually no impact on actual real liberty or quality of life. It seems to me as though Americans are conditioned to dogmatically defend completely meaningless rights, and then shout "Freedom" from the rooftops, without actually evaluating the ways in which they aren't free in their day to day life. "Sure, I need to work 5 jobs just to help pay my children's medical bills, and I have virtually no safety net if I lose any of those jobs, but if I do manage to get enough surplus pay, I might be able to buy an assault rifle! Yay freedom!"

The 2nd amendment doesn't protect an individual right to own guns. The founders didn't conceive of it that way, the Courts never thought of it that way. It's a collective right (and an outdated one). The point was that people at the time were afraid of a Standing Army and thought the militias would be disbanded if the Constitution was ratified. Obviously people aren't afraid of that anymore, so the amendment is about as relevant as the one against cities being forced to quarter soldiers (the 3rd amendment).

"Are you talking hunting firearms too?"

Yes, there is no 'constitutional right' to hunt. Just like there is no constitutional right to fish.

I'll tell you what. Hunting firearms could be rented, not owned. They can only be used seasonally, in restricted areas (no where near populated areas). And only people who pass a rigorous safety course can use them.

Fucking hippies.

^Fucking rednecks.

The US, Yemen, and Finland:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:World_map_of_countries_by_number_of_guns_per_100_residents.png

Many of the guns that result in ER care level injuries are illegally obtained or kept, so banning them would have little effect on those statistics.

It doesn't actually say what the colours mean... Just what countries are included in that colour; very misleading.

"Many of the guns that result in ER care level injuries are illegally obtained or kept, so banning them would have little effect on those statistics."

1 - Evidence?
2 - If guns were banned, it'd be much easier to monitor which guns were legal or illegal, since they'd all be illegal.
3 - The production and sale of guns would be illegal, so gun distributors would be shut down, therefore making it much harder to illegally obtain a gun, since there'd be a lot fewer of them. The lack of guns would raise the blackmarket price prohibitively. Say goodbye to cheap guns.

Tell us something, Putin: are you also in favor of disarming all government police, as well?

They are, after, all, more likely than members of the general public to use their guns in the process of committing a crime. In all fairness, they should be disarmed first.

For what it's worth it seems to have gone OK in the UK.

Shock: Yeah, they don't do a difference between handguns and hunting rifles. Pretty stupid, but I liked the funny lumping of of countries.

Finland by the way is the only country in Scandinavia with Virginia Tech type school shootings.

No, but although it is obvious which end US is on, it doesn't say. Nor does it say how many guns per hundred each colour means. For all we know, USA could have less than Argentina. (unless we take into account prior knowledge)

I disagree--the Right to Bear Arms is a fair one for a society that's supposed to be free, I'd say.

Some bad may come of it, but in a case such as this, more bad can come from retarding and retracting those rights.

Now, that's NOT to say that anyone should be allowed to own a gun, or any kind of gun.

If you want to protect yourself and you feel a regular pistol is the way to go, fine, get clearance for it keep it safe and be responsible.

If you want a hunting rifle, fine, I don't think I'll ever hunt, doesn't seem like my kind of thing, but if that's what you want to do, you have the right, enjoy the wilderness.

That does NOT entitle anyone to an assault rifle or AK-47 or pockey rocket.

"Tell us something, Putin: are you also in favor of disarming all government police, as well?"

No. Disarming law enforcement is a terrible idea in a society as violent as ours. Not surprised you'd propose that though. Terrible, reflexively anti-government proposals are your forte.

"They are, after, all, more likely than members of the general public to use their guns in the process of committing a crime."

Of course you wouldn't happen to have evidence that police are committing more crimes than those charged for crimes using a weapon, would you? Of course not. Because such a statistic is self-evidently absurd.

"more bad can come from retarding and retracting those rights."

This is just rhetoric. Substantiate this point. Are western democracies without personal gun ownership not free?

"such a statistic is self-evidently absurd."

My, that's an amazing amount of faith in the system for someone who claims The State is constantly out to get you. Apparently the government is only evil when it's persecuting communist activists; when it's persecuting anyone else, eh <shrug>, who cares. I recommend you have a gander at this, for starters:

http://www.injusticeeverywhere.com/?page_id=4135

It's full of statistical figures I'm sure will keep you in particular entertained. Just keep in mind they're only track cases where charges are actually filed against a police officer, which of course is a fairly rare occurrence in comparison to the volume of crimes they actually commit (most police crimes, of course, are quietly swept under the rug).

"This is just rhetoric. Substantiate this point. Are western democracies without personal gun ownership not free?" I've used this argument a million times Putin, it never works, though I appreciate the valiant effort. So many right wing talking points in the US could be so easily debunked if anyone, ANYONE bothered to do even the slightest bit of research on Canada or Europe. The US is almost always the last western democracy to adopt virtually everything, often by a matter of decades, and yet republicans staunchly refuse to look at the examples set by other western democracies. Instead they continue to cry blue murder, claim that things will never work, and refuse to examine readily available evidence right in front of their eyes. It's astounding.

Alright, I'll attempt to substantiate my point.

WHY is it necessary to give people the option to carry arms if so they wish for democracy to remain intact?

It isn't.

But then neither is owning a car.

In both cases, owning a car and owning a gun--or, to be perfectly clear, to have the CHOICE of owning one of those, I'm NOT saying every single member of society has to have one or both for this to be a democracy that functions--we are dealing with something that is a factor in someone's livelihood.

Cars today contribute to out livelihood immeasurably--without the right to own a car, many would lose their jobs (particularly here in So. Cal, where most commute long distances and so need their cars) and convenience would be hindered and so, too, would the right to HAPPINESS.

Which is the key here.

"On Liberty" by John Stuart Mill, to paraphrase the relevant quote here:

Your happiness is an individual, inalienable right, you have the right to be happy AS LONG AS your happiness does not DIRECTLY harm someone else; if you DO harm someone else in the course of your happiness, and impair THEIR right to happiness, the State has the right to intervene and stop you.



So long as "I don't drive drunk or hurt anyone crashing, I have the right to enjoy my right to drive a car, and all the happiness that entails.

And so long as they don't shoot innocent bystanders or hold up banks, people have the right to possess guns to defend themselves--and feel happiness in their feeling of security, true or not--or go hunting or whatever else.

SOME people wioll crash their car and be drunk.
SOME people will shoot innocent people and hold up banks.

But unless you expect us to all act like angels, Putin, you cannot take away a right simply because it MAY cause harm to others (ANOTHER key point of "On Liberty."



So, if it makes them happy and they don't harm anyone, why take away that right, unless:

-You wish to take it way because of the idea that bad things MIGT happen with SOME, and I've jsut adressed that point aboive, or

-You don't believe happiness is a paramount right, in which case, I must ask--does security outrank happiness in your book? And if so...well, if I'm in a ;police state and secure, but not happy, do I CARE that I'm "safe?"

We have no guns here in Australia and it rocks. There are hardly any murders, you don't feel unsafe on the street etc etc. Peace, love and chilling out everywhere.

I have to say, living here in Los Angels County, and walking through the streets...

I don't feel unsafe knowing I'm in one of the most gun-infested areas on the planet.

Be alert, don't make yourself a target, and you'll usually be fine.

It's simple. If you want to ban guns you have to repeal the Second Amendment. There's no other way to do it. If you can get the popular and institutional support to change the Constitution then go for it, but until then there is a right to bear arms.

If you oppose guns focus on the one thing that can change it. Anything else would be a waste of time.

"My, that's an amazing amount of faith in the system for someone who claims The State is constantly out to get you. Apparently the government is only evil when it's persecuting communist activists"

Yes, the state is out to get political radicals. That's pretty self-evident. The state is not out to get everyone for the fun of it, as you seem to think. Why should they bother people who pose no threat to it politically? But you think being scanned at an airport is 'tyranny', so why do I even bother arguing with you about this.

"http://www.injusticeeverywhere.com/?page_id=4135"

"4,861 Unique reports of police misconduct tracked"

Really, so according to you there are less than 4,861 cases per year of people using weapons to commit a crime in the country. Um, your argument is laughable. In 2000, according to the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) in 2000, 533,470 victims of serious violent crimes (rape and sexual assault, robbery, and aggravated assault) stated that they faced an offender with a firearm. In 2009, there were 9,146 people murdered by firearm. It's not "faith in the system" that makes your claim absurd. It's the fact that your own data don't even come close to backing up your usual barrage of anti-government talking points.

http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/offenses/expanded_information/data/shrtable_08.html
http://www.policyalmanac.org/crime/archive/firearms_and_crime.shtml

So...are you just going to totally ignore my/John Stuat Mill's counterargument, Putin, and pull up your own bits and pieces of rhetoric and your own stats without adressing the explanation and susbstatiation you asked for?

Rather easy for you to win an argument when you ignore the other points people make, I must say...

Christ, Obi, I was responding to posts in sequential order, (Tolstoy's came before yours). I'm not a machine. Calm down.

So your argument boils down to: guns make gun owners happy, and not all gun owners are going to harm society, therefore, gun ownership should be allowed.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but that's the essence of it, right? Toys make people happy.

What logically follows is that every person has the "right" to own dangerous objects, so long as they don't use said dangerous objects to harm others and owning it "makes the owners happy".

The argument spuriously equates the happiness of gun owners with the overall happiness of society as a whole. But the presence of guns increases the insecurity of society as a whole. Even if they're not used, they scare other people. There's the threat that they will be used. It decreases public happiness and increases public anxiety. The increased number of guns and gun owners increases the likelihood that they will be used. Therefore, the public has a right to restrict or ban their usage.

Can you provide evidence that Americans are "happier" than countries without gun ownership, and can you link that happiness to the legality of private gun ownership? I don't think you can do either of these things. So, I don't think your goal is societal 'happiness' at all. It's a kind of self-absorbed, anti-social happiness of particular individuals who don't particularly about how their recreational activities threaten others. But rights are meaningless without some kind of social purpose to those rights.

"Happiness is a warm gun". http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qE2Vdcv9Q_o

"t's simple. If you want to ban guns you have to repeal the Second Amendment. There's no other way to do it. "

Wrong. So long as state militias/national guards are preserved, the 2nd amendment is not violated. The 2nd amendment does not protect a personal right to own guns. If it did, it'd explicitly say so, like the Vermont state constitution did in the 1780s. "Bear arms" is a military phrase, it refers explicitly to the formation and upkeep of militia.