Shooting at First Baptist Church in Texas

[Tambora]

Sounds good.

How should we determine who's responsible enough to have a gun?

You can't.
You can only react to one that irresponsibly uses theirs and take action against that individual.

 

[Nihilo]

Criminals don't have the right to keep and bear arms. If you want to sell one of your guns, which is your right to do, because you own it; and you place an ad for your gun, and a random person shows up to buy it from you, what if that person is a criminal?

 

[Nihilo]

"Not your job?" :think:

 

[Tambora]

Criminals don't have the right to keep and bear arms. If you want to sell one of your guns, which is your right to do, because you own it; and you place an ad for your gun, and a random person shows up to buy it from you, what if that person is a criminal?

Barely breaking the surface of the reasons many of these gun laws cannot be realistically enforced.

 

[WatchmanOnTheWall]

These stats are absolutely meaningless in regards to what I said. Look at what I said again:
"Did you know that murder is not defined by the type of weapon that is used but by the motive of criminal committing the act."

No you didn't understand. I meant that by looking at the stats, via the links, you could establish what percentage fits with your theory. You can't just make claims without backing it up with proof. And you can't expect others to do the work for you, especially the other debater. But despite that I still tried to help get you started. But you showed no understanding of this let alone any thanks. No wonder you like guns.

 

[WatchmanOnTheWall]

Statistics don't show any such thing. Statistics show that there are more murderers per capita in America than in many other countries. Correlation does not prove causation.

You'll have to prove your claim with stats.

 

[WatchmanOnTheWall]

Made up.

Here are some I found that might help you.

In 2017 the US has 36 deaths per day because of guns:
https://twitter.com/GunDeaths/status...7Ctwgr^tweet

While in the UK during 2013 there were only 0.28: http://www.gunbabygun.com/many-peopl...data-examined/

US Pop. 323.1 million (2016) 5x the UK Pop. 64.13 million (2013)

Therefore 7.2 deaths per day compared to 0.28 per 64 million per day.

Or

36 deaths compared to 1.4 deaths per 323.1 million per day.

 

[WatchmanOnTheWall]

​

No you didn't, you warped insane satanist. How did your family take it, when you told them that if their lives are ever in peril that you'll just sit on your hands?

I'm laughing so much at you.

It sounds like the wild west there.

But I suppose, if there's any truth in what you are portraying, then no wonder you would say such crazy things. :CRASH:

 

[WatchmanOnTheWall]

Where are your stats on the number of innocent victims lives that are "saved" everyday due to legally owned firearms?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ulpcv-xJpA look at minute 11:14

everready

Right okay if you want to prove your point with stats, then it's up to you to provide them, you can't expect the other debater to do the work for you to try and prove your point. Otherwise that would be just me debating on my own. Have you never done this before?

Also that clip showed no stats and it ended 2 seconds after the point you said to look at. Are you a comedian? Because your post altogether was very funny.

 

[WatchmanOnTheWall]

Coulda shoulda woulda, is not an argument.

We have to be able to protect ourselves now.
And right now your wife (based on a hypothetical that you have a wife) would be better protected if she had a gun.
Why on earth would you want to leave your wife LESS protected just because YOU wished upon a star that a law should have been different?????????????

You are not reading my posts. See post #237 & #242.

Can't debate someone who won't or can't engage.

 

[WatchmanOnTheWall]

The problem isn't with the general public having guns, it's with the nuts and the bad guys having guns.

No the problem is determining who are the nuts and the bad guys within the general public. Why have you not realised this?

 

[WatchmanOnTheWall]

Okay, Watchman, there are several issues with your claims. First, let us examine this particular posit of evidence.

You are using two different countries, with two different years (a four year difference, too), and very different laws. So, your comparative statistics of deaths per day is immediately flawed, as it has too many inconsistencies in the variables. Thus, this stat can easily be rejected.

Also, cars kill more people than guns each year. But you are not calling for only the military and police forces to use cars. So, deaths associated with a particular inanimate object is the base of your argument, then you should be more for the banning of cars than guns.

Let us now move on to your first reply to me, as well as the subsequent clarification given to various other comments:

So, why would the founding fathers not have altered the second amendment after the revolution? Could it be that they knew the only way that civilians could defend themselves from tyranny was to be armed (I am being rhetorical)?

Why trust my word on it? Let us review some historical quotes from those who made the Constitution.

Samuel Adams, Massachusetts Ratifying Convention, 1788: "The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms."

Alexander Hamilton, Federalist Papers, No. 28: "If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense."

Thomas Jefferson, Letter to John Cartwright, 5 June 1824: The Constitution of most of our stated (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."

Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book quoting Cesare Beccaria, 1744-1776: The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined no determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage then to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."

Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776: "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."

George Mason, Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 17878: "I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."


(I had these quotes handy, as I recently had to reply to the claim that "if the founding fathers knew how it would be today, they would not have made such a law.")

From these quotes, we can clearly see that the second amendment is about preventing tyranny and enabling the common citizen to be able to defend their lives and rights.

Lastly, you keep relating guns to crime, yet you are not examining the complete spectrum of gun use. Here are some more factual statistics for you:

Guns used 2.5 million times a year in self-defense. Law-abiding citizens use guns to defend themselves against criminals as many as 2.5 million times every year -- or about 6,850 times a day. [1] This means that each year, firearms are used more than 80 times more often to protect the lives of honest citizens than to take lives.

Of the 2.5 million times citizens use their guns to defend themselves every year, the overwhelming majority merely brandish their gun or fire a warning shot to scare off their attackers. Less than 8% of the time, a citizen will kill or wound his/her attacker.

As many as 200,000 women use a gun every year to defend themselves against sexual abuse.

Even anti-gun Clinton researchers concede that guns are used 1.5 million times annually for self-defense. According to the Clinton Justice Department, there are as many as 1.5 million cases of self-defense every year. The National Institute of Justice published this figure in 1997 as part of "Guns in America" -- a study which was authored by noted anti-gun criminologists Philip Cook and Jens Ludwig.

Armed citizens kill more crooks than do the police. Citizens shoot and kill at least twice as many criminals as police do every year (1,527 to 606). And readers of Newsweek learned that "only 2 percent of civilian shootings involved an innocent person mistakenly identified as a criminal. The 'error rate' for the police, however, was 11 percent, more than five times as high.
(sources: https://www.gunowners.org/sk0802htm.htm)

http://americangunfacts.com/

In conclusion, the founding fathers intended the amendment to be interpreted just they way they wrote it, and the way that we interpret it. So, it should not have been abolished. Guns save more lives than they take. Criminals don't obey the law, so gun laws wouldn't affect them; after all, it is illegal to commit murder, but that did not stop them, did it? Thus, guns are necessary for defense, from criminals and governments, and to abolish them would be an act of ignorance and tyranny.

I never said abolish. I said; "as I have already said in this thread the US government should have amended the second amendment after there was no longer a threat from the British, and I will clarify this further by adding that more amendments could have and should have been made to reflect the changing threats to the country and to the individuals within the country but instead the US have gone on for over 300 years with the same stock ruling which is just madness."

You are still holding onto what the leaders of the US said over 300 years ago. But this ignores any subsequent leadership since then that has disagreed. It's the proportion of US citizens who reverence the second amendment as holy scripture who have not understood that the best way to run a country is for the laws that govern the country can be challenged and changed, as with most other countries around the world.

The stats prove that countries with tighter gun control have less deaths. That is fact. To agruee against this is madness.

 

[WatchmanOnTheWall]

View attachment 26025

No, tighter gun control does not happen like that. It is a gradual step by step process that eventually aims to bring the amount of guns on all sides down. Have you ever been to a country that has very few guns? It feels much safer.

 

[glassjester]

You are still holding onto what the leaders of the US said over 300 years ago.

:think:

 

[CabinetMaker]

No you didn't understand. I meant that by looking at the stats, via the links, you could establish what percentage fits with your theory. You can't just make claims without backing it up with proof. And you can't expect others to do the work for you, especially the other debater. But despite that I still tried to help get you started. But you showed no understanding of this let alone any thanks. No wonder you like guns.

Your links only deal with gun deaths. Do you honestly think that only gun deaths count as murders? That is what you seem to be claiming.

 

[The Barbarian]

Your links only deal with gun deaths. Do you honestly think that only gun deaths count as murders? That is what you seem to be claiming.

It's still by far the most popular mode:


1. Firearms 10,129

2. Knives or cutting instruments 1,817

3. Other weapon or weapon not stated 1,005

4. Personal weapons (hands, fists, feet, etc.) 869

5. Blunt objects(clubs, hammers, etc.) 647
https://top5ofanything.com/index.php?h=cd8296da

There's a good reason we don't arm our troops with baseball bats. Guns are just really, really efficient ways of killing people.

That being said, if all guns disappeared, we'd probably be killing about the same number of people.

At least that's how it worked in the past.

 

[WatchmanOnTheWall]

Your links only deal with gun deaths. Do you honestly think that only gun deaths count as murders? That is what you seem to be claiming.

No they didn't if you had of looked there was more about deaths by suicide, murder and accident etc. And again rather than back up you claims you are still sounding off. Have you never debated before?

 

[glassjester]

That being said, if all guns disappeared, we'd probably be killing about the same number of people.

So how do you reduce that?

 

[Tambora]

No they didn't if you had of looked there was more about deaths by suicide, murder and accident etc. And again rather than back up you claims you are still sounding off. Have you never debated before?

It might be a good thing that you don't have a wife since you wouldn't want her to be better protected.

 

[CabinetMaker]

No they didn't if you had of looked there was more about deaths by suicide, murder and accident etc. And again rather than back up you claims you are still sounding off. Have you never debated before?

Plenty.
My theory is that murder is act that is carried out with many different weapons and sometimes no weapon at all. Do you deny this fact? According to you, your links even support this "theory." Please do explain why need more statistics to back up an obvious fact.