[MartinSE]

Originally Posted by Byte1

Did I say anything about justifying children dying every year? Is getting rid of guns going to stop children from dying every year? I think that the idea of children dying by being shot in schools is just an excuse for those that wish to impel their personal fears and beliefs on others. If they really cared about children they would not be so cavalier about ignoring the majority of citizens rights. If they really cared about the children's safety, they would protect them at the schools instead of attempting to change the masses to their will. Like I said before, harden the physical security and get over the idea of being able to stop mental illness. Murders have been committed since the beginning of mankind and it will never stop. Best way to stop murderers is to put them down when they commit the crime. The best way to protect is physical security. The best way to deter is to put fear into the Perp so they won't commit the crime to begin with. If someone wishes to break into my home to steal, they will NOT do so if they know I am home and armed. Why do they prefer females over males when they carjack? Because they fear strength in any form. They are cowards by nature and prey on the weak.
Like I said before, when you can show me where more folks are killed by guns than saved by guns, we can have an honest discussion on the subject of firearms.

Well, two things.

1. There is no evidenced that punishment is a deterrent to crimes. Countless studies have shown that.

2. And how many of those lives saved by guns were BECAUSE the other guy had a gun? Sort of a self fulfilling solution. We need guns because people have guns. And I go back, no other country in the world has this problem. Not other county in the world has the guns we do. I understand correlation does not equal causation - but it also doesn't negate the possibility.

And in both England and Australia following mass shootings laws were pass controlling guns and the mass shooting virtually stop. Another data point.

[montysl]

Originally Posted by MartinSE

Since the government has Nukes, cruise missiles, drones, sidewinders, and M1Abrams people should have those too in order to "take back the government" ?

You assume, wrongly I believe, that our current armed forces (citizens all) would use weapons like this against other citizens of their own country, even if ordered to.
When sworn in, we swear to protect and defend THE CONSTITUTION. NOT the government. And especially not a government (or individuals) gone haywire enough to consider killing its citizens for exercising their Constitutional rights.

[jimbomaybe]

Originally Posted by MartinSE

Well, two things.

1. There is no evidenced that punishment is a deterrent to crimes. Countless studies have shown that.

2. And how many of those lives saved by guns were BECAUSE the other guy had a gun? Sort of a self fulfilling solution. We need guns because people have guns. And I go back, no other country in the world has this problem. Not other county in the world has the guns we do. I understand correlation does not equal causation - but it also doesn't negate the possibility.

And in both England and Australia following mass shootings laws were pass controlling guns and the mass shooting virtually stop. Another data point.

"1. There is no evidenced that punishment is a deterrent to crimes. Countless studies have shown that." Look at the methodology, a person "goes away" gets out of the joint and goes back to criminal activity , obviously punishment doesn't do any good, but the longer they are "away" the more society saves by keeping them out of circulation . cheaper to lock some people that have them walking free

[Topspinmo]

Originally Posted by Wyseguy

Can you define what you mean by semi-automatic?

No, I didn’t pose the answer.

[mikeycereal]

Originally Posted by ThirdOfFive

Second, quit the over-dramatizing and publicizing every "mass shooting" that comes down the pike. There has been lots of research done on this and it has been proven conclusively that such histrionics on the part of media encourages "copycat" crimes. The numbers vary, but I've seen statistics that show anywhere from 50% to 75% or more of these crimes, especially the ones that involve AR-15 - style firearms, are "copycat". Some disgruntled kid, or employee with an ax to grind decides that going out with a huge bang is preferable to the status quo, decides to off a bunch of people, and of course chooses the ONE weapon that media has anointed as the chief Satan: the AR-15. So he does--and media gets another huge plateful of red meat to sensationalize for weeks. What would the public reaction be if such shootings (or any shooting) were reported on the way media reports, say, the stock market fluctuations, or the weather? The REPORTING is still there, meaning that the public has access to the facts, but reporting is far different from sensationalizing.

This I 100% agree with. Been saying this since the 3rd copycat mass shooter way back when. The media loves to dramatize these to the max. Displaying victim emotions and portraying the shooters as more powerful than they are. They aren't really, just messed up wimps who are wannabe tough guys with a gun to shoot kids and people praying in churches. Then the media just sloshes on the cheese, which feeds into the minds of the sick anti-socials who were already glorifying other shooters. The shooter stories should be small and in the back page somewhere, no mention of shooter's name or back history. It won't happen though sadly. The media will still go after their pulitzer and happily collect their clicks.

[MartinSE]

Originally Posted by montysl

You assume, wrongly I believe, that our current armed forces (citizens all) would use weapons like this against other citizens of their own country, even if ordered to.
When sworn in, we swear to protect and defend THE CONSTITUTION. NOT the government. And especially not a government (or individuals) gone haywire enough to consider killing its citizens for exercising their Constitutional rights.

As a Marine I agree we swear that oath. I can't go further without getting banned for political comments. But, we all saw what almost happened - a dry run.

[manaboutown]

Originally Posted by Taltarzac725

They fought in large jungles or deserts with mountains near them. And had little regard for life.

Most were conscripts with horrific threats of death or worse to themselves and their families. Very few were patriots.

[manaboutown]

Originally Posted by MartinSE

Well, two things.

1. There is no evidenced that punishment is a deterrent to crimes. Countless studies have shown that.

That is preposterous. If a killer is executed he can not get out and kill again. Also it reminds potential killers that they, too, will die if they murder someone.

And for lesser crimes if the perps would be locked up and the key proverbially thrown away they would not be back on the streets committing more crimes.

[Taltarzac725]

This is worth a look. The Second Amendment Right to Bear Arms - FindLaw

[MartinSE]

Originally Posted by jimbomaybe

"1. There is no evidenced that punishment is a deterrent to crimes. Countless studies have shown that." Look at the methodology, a person "goes away" gets out of the joint and goes back to criminal activity , obviously punishment doesn't do any good, but the longer they are "away" the more society saves by keeping them out of circulation . cheaper to lock some people that have them walking free

I agree with you, but the post I was referring to said that laws would stop/slow down the problem since people would be deterred by going to jail. That does work that way, as you say.

[jimbomaybe]

Originally Posted by MartinSE

I agree with you, but the post I was referring to said that laws would stop/slow down the problem since people would be deterred by going to jail. That does work that way, as you say.

By saying that "punishment" doesn't work you obviously are suggesting that something else should be done. I think punishment does work ,if of course it is sufficient to deter the criminal inclined, that, it seems apparent is not the case

[RMHisle]

At the time the Second Amendment was written, ALL guns were "military style".

The Second Amendment codified the preexisting human right of self defense.

[Larchap49]

Originally Posted by Taltarzac725

Amazon.com

The weapons Washington, Jefferson, Hamilton, Franklin, and others considered as "arms" are far different from the arms of 2022.

Well Duuuuuuuh! Is there anything the same as it was in the 1700s. Many posters are going to point that out, so rad on. The Constitution is very adaptable to todays changed world but should not be interpreted based on your personal or political views. The armed population is about the only thing keeping this country from becoming _________ (fill in the blank). The freedom of speech is eroding as are a lot of other constitutional rights. That erosion would be much faster without an armed populace.

[Larchap49]

Originally Posted by MartinSE

Yes, but why? Could be because they did not want to pay for a standing army to protect the fledgling government from the loyalists. That is not an issue today, we have a standing army, it costs us about $1T/year - maybe they had a better idea...

All repressed countries have something in common, a standing army and an unarmed population. Think about it.

[NoMo50]

The MSM loves to sensationalize mass shootings, but you rarely see the reports of people who are saved by the "good guy" with a gun. There are typically around 20,000 homicides each year caused by firearms. At the same time, there are well over 1 million lives saved by the good guy with a gun. Any loss of life is tragic, but should we not also celebrate those lives saved? The media does not like to report these incidents. If it bleeds, it leads.

Another annoying fact that always seems to get in the way is that more people are killed each year with blunt instruments (hammers, clubs, etc.), than with rifles of any kind. Should we ban hammers? Each year, around 200,000 people die as a result of mistakes made by medical personnel. Do we ban doctors? When you get right down to it, the vocal minority screaming for the banning of "objects" have less regard for the saving of lives, than they do for advancing an agenda.