Supreme Court says Americans have right to guns

[Walsingham]

Up yours America! The murder capital where low-life criminals are legally allowed to own guns and the homicide rates are the highest in the world.

I know Honduras, Colombia, Bolivia, Venezuela, and El Salvador are in America, but that's not the America we're talking about. And Jamaica is technically the Carribean.

 

Johannesburg is the muredr capital last time I checked. More violent deaths in Rio each year than in Iraq.

[taks]

Since nearly all firearms-related violence exclusively involves pistols and revolvers, it is clear to me that we need to ban the small guns and free up ownership of really big ones.

um, it involves illegal pistols and firearms. banning the legal ones won't do a whole lot of good for those.

 

taks

[taks]

Up yours America! The murder capital where low-life criminals are legally allowed to own guns and the homicide rates are the highest in the world.

i'm not sure where you got that. criminals are not legally allowed to own handguns (well, felons are not). and, check around, crime isn't typically committed using legally licensed and registered guns. duh.

 

**** hoc ergo propter hoc. with this therefore because of this. yet again someone confuses correlation and causation, and you don't even have the correlation part correct. you and mkreku xard go to the same school?

 

taks

 

edit: oops, reference to xards food "statistics," not mkreku.

Edited June 27, 2008 by taks

[mkreku]

Yes, task has read statistics, he knows more about everyone else about everything!

 

I'm fine with Americans having guns. It's like a modern form of Darwin's theory..

[Xard]

edit: oops, reference to xards food "statistics," not mkreku.

 

Instead of statistics I could've said numerous researches and surveys and my point wouldn't have changed.

[Laozi]

The way to reduce gun violence isn't to restrict the rights of gun ownership, its to set limits on the manufacturing of guns and fine companies when their products are used in violent crime.

[Calax]

particularly working on the ease at which you can turn a semi auto into a full auto.

 

It seemed easy enough on law and order (which isn't the best resource for this but hey :D )

[taks]

The way to reduce gun violence isn't to restrict the rights of gun ownership, its to set limits on the manufacturing of guns and fine companies when their products are used in violent crime.

there ya go, make the company responsible for the actions of other people. so, what happens when someone commits a crime with a butter knife?

 

taks

[Enoch]

i'm not sure where you got that. criminals are not legally allowed to own handguns (well, felons are not). and, check around, crime isn't typically committed using legally licensed and registered guns. duh.

I hear this justification quite often and it has never made much sense to me. Guns don't come out of a factory "illegal." All illegal guns were legal guns at some point, until they were moved across state lines, stolen, sold privately to dodge background checks/registration, etc. A reduction in the supply of legal guns will reduce the supply of illegal guns.

 

As I said above, if I were to pick between a state of society with freely-available handguns and one without, I think the latter is far more preferrable. But, in America, that's not the choice before us-- there are just far too many weapons already out there for a flat prohibition to work.

 

Instead, what is needed is more consistency in regulation and enforcement, so that it's not quite so easy for someone to buy weapons in a "We Heart Gunz" state and bring them in to a jurisdiction that is more careful about who is allowed to carry deadly weapons. The federal laws currently on the books do some of that, but they've proven to be really tough to enforce and could use some refinement and strengthening.

[taks]

Instead of statistics I could've said numerous researches and surveys and my point wouldn't have changed.

you still don't get it, do you.

 

these sorts of "studies" are statistical in nature. statistics cannot show causation, only correlation. therefore, NO STATISTICAL STUDY CAN SHOW ONE THING CAUSES ANOTHER, only that they are correlated.

 

in other words, if you had reworded thusly, your comment would have been just as ill-informed and nonsensical. the best any such thing could show would be that two things are correlated, which is contrary to either of your moronic positions.

 

and mkreku, the mere fact that i'm the only one (of you, xard and krezack) that understands this extremely simple concept is proof enough of my point. stats 101. mkreku, you must have attended the same school, too.

 

taks

Edited June 27, 2008 by taks

[taks]

I hear this justification quite often and it has never made much sense to me. Guns don't come out of a factory "illegal." All illegal guns were legal guns at some point, until they were moved across state lines, stolen, sold privately to dodge background checks/registration, etc. A reduction in the supply of legal guns will reduce the supply of illegal guns.

which is immaterial. they're still going to make guns, for law enforcement or whatever, including in countries that don't have any gun laws. those will still end up on the street. simple econ after that, a reduction in supply will not change demand, and the only outcome is that it will cost more to get an illegal gun, or they will go to further extremes to acquire them.

 

Instead, what is needed is more consistency in regulation and enforcement, so that it's not quite so easy for someone to buy weapons in a "We Heart Gunz" state and bring them in to a jurisdiction that is more careful about who is allowed to carry deadly weapons. The federal laws currently on the books do some of that, but they've proven to be really tough to enforce and could use some refinement and strengthening.

i don't disagree with this.

 

taks

[Enoch]

I hear this justification quite often and it has never made much sense to me. Guns don't come out of a factory "illegal." All illegal guns were legal guns at some point, until they were moved across state lines, stolen, sold privately to dodge background checks/registration, etc. A reduction in the supply of legal guns will reduce the supply of illegal guns.

which is immaterial. they're still going to make guns, for law enforcement or whatever, including in countries that don't have any gun laws. those will still end up on the street. simple econ after that, a reduction in supply will not change demand, and the only outcome is that it will cost more to get an illegal gun, or they will go to further extremes to acquire them.

Unless demand for illegal guns is completely inelastic (and there is no reason to believe that it is), those higher prices will lead directly to there being fewer illegal guns sold on the street, and thus fewer guns being used in crimes. As you say, it's simple econ.

 

Sure, you'll never eliminate the market for them entirely, but you can't base policy on all-or-nothing scenarios.

[Tale]

fine companies when their products are used in violent crime.

 

This has to be one of the most nonsensical things I've heard. How in the world does a gun manufacturer have any control or even influence with regards to that?

 

Edit: That was a bit of exaggeration. This was not one of the most nonsensical things I've heard. Recently I read "Right to bear arms is really the right to murder and kill. Sometimes even ourselves." Now THAT is one of the most nonsensical things I've heard.

Edited June 27, 2008 by Tale

[taks]

Sure, you'll never eliminate the market for them entirely, but you can't base policy on all-or-nothing scenarios.

nor can you base policy on simple correlations, which is ultimately my point. even if you are correct that the number of guns on the street will go down, there's no way to definitively state that such a response will result in fewer gun-related crimes. not all guns, illegal or otherwise, get used in crime, for that matter.

 

i'd be willing to bet (guessing here) that demand from criminals, those willing to actually use a gun, is rather inelastic either way. illegal guns are extremely expensive already. these are people that have no qualms stealing. they thus have no problem stealing to get enough to fund the higher price of an illegal (and banned) weapon. automatic weapons are all but banned in the US but still we see them on the street, involved in violent crime as well.

 

taks

[taks]

btw, speaking of correlations, it should be noted that the US also has an alarmingly high rate of serial killers compared to other nations. why? nobody knows. they aren't necessarily gun related, either. could it be that there is something about US culture that breeds such things, including violent crime? perhaps. perhaps it's just that these things are reported more here than in other countries (next to impossible to prove one way or another). lots of unknowns with the crime/gun thing.

 

another correlation is an extremely high drug conviction record. i recall reading that 60% of all convicts are there for drug-related crimes. it would not be surprising to also look at violent crime/drug connections and see they are often connected. would relaxing/modifying drug laws also reduce violent crime? i'm pretty sure we've had some heated debates on this issue in here as well.

 

taks

[taks]

btw, mkreku, i never said "i know more because i have a background in statistics." quite the contrary. you have simply constructed a strawman, though i will admit you did it unknowingly due to a failure to get the original point. you completely misunderstood the context of the argument that i had made, which noted that i was dismayed at how little people know about things statistical in nature, which was evidenced by the fact that the guy with a background (me) was the only one that knew why xard's comments were nonsensical. they don't teach such things in school, not even college, unless you choose certain fields. xard follows it up with another comment in this thread furthering the notion that he does not understand. that you continue to defend such things is evidence of your inability to grasp the concept (and you keep harping on something i never said anyway). laozi kicks it up a notch with yet another example.

 

such things should be taught, but they aren't. it is partly because of this lack of education on simple statistical (and logical) concepts that politicians are able to run roughshod over our liberties because we don't know that correlation and causation are not one in the same. study A shows this therefore we need this law. 20 years later study B shows study A was flawed, so now we need this new law. it is maddening.

 

the simpsons had a really good episode on it once... i don't recall the details but lisa told homer something about a correlation between something and a lack of alligators in springfield, and homer said "see, it's working." she rolled her eyes in dismay.

 

taks

[Enoch]

the simpsons had a really good episode on it once... i don't recall the details but lisa told homer something about a correlation between something and a lack of alligators in springfield, and homer said "see, it's working." she rolled her eyes in dismay.

 

Homer: Well, there's not a bear in sight. The Bear Patrol is sure doing its job.

Lisa: That's specious reasoning, Dad.

Homer: Thank you, sweetie.

Lisa: Dad, what if I were to tell you that this rock keeps away tigers.

Homer: Uh-huh, and how does it work?

Lisa: It doesn't work. It's just a stupid rock.

Homer: I see.

Lisa: But you don't see any tigers around, do you?

Homer: Lisa, I'd like to buy your rock.

Link.

[Meshugger]

F*** YEAH!

 

//EDIT ffs, just replace the stars with 'you know what' and a capital 'F' and you'll see the video.

Edited June 27, 2008 by Meshugger

[taks]

THAT WAS IT!!! thanks, enoch. made my day. i loved the simpsons back then... tired of it now. futurama is my gig these days.

 

taks

[Laozi]

The way to reduce gun violence isn't to restrict the rights of gun ownership, its to set limits on the manufacturing of guns and fine companies when their products are used in violent crime.

there ya go, make the company responsible for the actions of other people. so, what happens when someone commits a crime with a butter knife?

 

taks

 

 

I think we can agree that firearms should not be sold like butter knives, right?

 

Gun manufactures ship their guns out of the country knowing full well they're selling to people who plan to make those guns available on the black market in the US. By fining them you force them to take a active hand in the distribution of their products. Also making it illegal to export guns wouldn't be a bad idea.

 

Its simple and heavy handed, Taks, and I understand your argument, but guns are pretty unique in what they're used for, pretending that all products are the same until they get to the hands of the consumer just doesn't really fly here.

 

I'd answer Tale's post too, but he's a tard

[Laozi]

Oh, and I heard the other day that they did manage to pry Charleston Heston's gun from his cold dead hand.

[SteveThaiBinh]

If I lived in a gun-blighted city, I would expect to have the right to get together with a group of like-minded friends, form a political party, stand for election on a platform of gun control and, if elected, implement that platform. So how exactly does one go about amending the US constitution?

[Gfted1]

So how exactly does one go about amending the US constitution?

 

 

I believe it takes an act of Congress to amend the constitution but I dont know how the process gets started.

 

EDIT: From Wiki:

 

[edit] Amendments

The authors of the Constitution were clearly aware that changes would be necessary from time to time if the Constitution was to endure and cope with the effects of the anticipated growth of the nation. However, they were also conscious that such change should not be easy, lest it permit ill-conceived and hastily passed amendments. Balancing this, they also wanted to ensure that an overly rigid requirement of unanimity would not block action desired by the vast majority of the population. Their solution was to devise a dual process by which the Constitution could be altered.[13]

 

Amending the Constitution is a two-part process: amendments must be proposed and then they must be ratified. Amendments can be proposed one of two ways. The only way that has been used to date is through a two-thirds majority vote in both houses of Congress. Alternatively, two-thirds of the legislatures of the States can call a Constitutional Convention to consider one or more amendments. This second method has never been used, and it is unclear exactly how, in practice, such a Constitutional Convention would work.

 

Regardless of how the amendment is proposed, the amendment must be approved by three-fourths of states, a process called ratification. Depending on the amendment, this requires either the state legislatures or special state conventions to approve the amendment by simple majority vote. Amendments generally go to state legislatures to be ratified, only the Twenty-first Amendment called for special state conventions.

 

Unlike many other constitutions, amendments to the U.S. constitution are appended to the existing body of the text without altering or removing what already exists. There is no provision for deleting either obsolete text or rescinded provisions.

Edited June 27, 2008 by Gfted1

[Tale]

Gun manufactures ship their guns out of the country knowing full well they're selling to people who plan to make those guns available on the black market in the US. By fining them you force them to take a active hand in the distribution of their products. Also making it illegal to export guns wouldn't be a bad idea.

 

Its simple and heavy handed, Taks, and I understand your argument, but guns are pretty unique in what they're used for, pretending that all products are the same until they get to the hands of the consumer just doesn't really fly here.

 

I'd answer Tale's post too, but he's a tard

This is the US. Gun manufacturers don't ship guns out of the country for the guns to get shipped back in. The Black Market for guns in the US comes from guns sold to licensed dealers that are then improperly sold, sold at gun shows, or from guns that are stolen.

 

Issues with licensed dealers improperly selling guns is a problem of licensing and enforcement. Not the sale from manufacturers.

Edited June 27, 2008 by Tale

[Laozi]

Well, first an amendment is suggested or proposed

it needs a 2/3 vote in both house of congress or to be proposed in a special national convention to be approved for the ratification process

 

then it need to make its way through congress carrying a 3/4 majority to be ratified, or it can be approved in special state conventions if 3/4 of the states approve

 

Once an amendment is proposed it has 7 yrs. to be ratified before it just goes away.

 

The special state conventions will never happen because we could technically abolish the constitution in them if we were inclined