chris_brown207 wrote:
Yes, and guns do everything you mention above by firing a small piece of heavy metal at subsonic and supersonic speeds at something which is not able to withstand that type of impact. So, again, a gun was made with the sole intention of destroying things...
You can just as easily say a gun is designed to defend. If someone is intent on haming me or my family, you better believe I'm prepared to destroy them.
I agree, just like we don't need a gun. And in the same way, that we don't have a constitutional right to own a car - we don't have a constitutional right to own a gun.
The Supreme Court disagrees with you. See the 'Heller' case.
Wow... what third world country do you live in.
The one you just got telling me ranks high in crime. You're the one who had your home broken into when your gun was stolen.
If you live here in America, you absolutely can (and should) sue the police for not responding - as has already been done. And if the average police response to your neighborhood is 30 minutes, I suggest you move - you have a constitutional right to do so. I also suggest you file complaints with your representatives (or elect new ones, another Constitutional right).
You do not have a right to sue the police for failing to protect you.
BTW, I heard some cops at my gym who were upset at pay cutbacks say they would consider a work slowdown in protest, i.e. taking their sweet time to respond to calls.
You are deflecting from the current issue. Lets try to stay on topic.
That was directly related.
No, I criticize the NRA for offering no solutions beyond "More guns for everyone".
They are for more guns for responsible citizens, not 'everyone'? Why do you fear your fellow Americans?
This is not a peer reviewed study. This is one mans opinion, turned into a book that he is trying to sell to the public... hardly what I would call unbiased research.
Sounds like an ad hominem attack. He is well qualified to opine on this issue. You just don't like the facts he has found that conflict with your ideology.
"John Richard Lott Jr. (born May 8, 1958) is a senior research scientist at the University of Maryland, College Park.[1] He has previously held research positions at other academic institutions including the University of Chicago, Yale University, the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania, and the American Enterprise Institute. He holds a Ph.D. in economics from UCLA, and his areas of research include econometrics, law and economics, public choice theory, industrial organization, public finance, microeconomics, labor economics, and environmental regulation.
Lott is an author in both academia and in popular culture. He is a frequent writer of opinion editorials,
has published over 90 articles in peer-reviewed academic journals related to his research areas, and has authored five books, including More Guns, Less Crime, The Bias Against Guns, and Freedomnomics."
Wikipedia
That is totally ignoring other countries with high gun ownership rates - like Somalia, Syria, Pakistan... I would not exactly call them low crime areas.
Probably due to the Muslim jihadists there.
Your argument was that a gun owner would be able to defend themselves better with a weapon. I agree completely, and I think that their right to bear weapons in their defense is guaranteed by the 2A.
Then why did you say this: "we don't have a constitutional right to own a gun."?
And, like your "seatbelt" analogy, just because there is a remote possibility of needing one some day does not justify ownership either.
The law requires that everyone routinely wear seatbelts.
I don't believe owning a gun is a right... it is a privilege. You already agreed that there are certain people in our country that shouldn't be allowed to have them... that automatically removes it from being a right to a being a privilege. If it were a right, that means everyone should be given one by the government - and I think we can both agree that would be a bad idea.
I think all who are not mentally impaired/have a criminal record should be able to own a gun. Alaska and New Hampshire don't even require a permit to carry a gun and they are not high crime places.
And you as a CCL holder, know that there are some places you aren't allowed to bring your gun (even with the CCL). So, the "right to bear arms" is a very conditional right at best. And I am sure you would agree with some of those conditions... such as the average citizen has no right bringing a gun into a liquor fueled environment.
Nobody knows where a gun will be needed for defense. The 'gun-free' areas are magnets for criminals (see the many school shootings) as they know they will be unopposed. I don't think people should be able to drink while they are carrying, the same as they can't drink and drive.
I would not call Afghanistan a good example of why there needs to be more guns in our country.
I wouldn't either,it is an example of how common weapons could be used to resist a tyrannical government, if God forbid it ever came to that here.
"We are fooling ourselves if we imagine that we can ever make the authentic Gospel popular......it is too simple in an age of rationalism; too narrow in an age of pluralism; too humiliating in an age of self-confidence; too demanding in an age of permissiveness; and too unpatriotic in an age of blind nationalism." Rev. John R.W. Stott, CBE
