DiscussMormonism.com

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qyoLuTjguJA

Notice also the reference to the VA Tech shooting in which beastie claimed in the other thread that there were armed individuals to protect when in reality, like Columbine as well, there were not.

Bc, here is a supporting fact that none of the "so called" liberal and rational thinkers on this site can deny:

More people are killed each year in video games than in reality. Many are hacked to death with swords or dispatched with enchanted spells. Hardly any Orcs were shot with guns.

Hope that helps.

bcspace wrote:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qyoLuTjguJA

Notice also the reference to the VA Tech shooting in which beastie claimed in the other thread that there were armed individuals to protect when in reality, like Columbine as well, there were not.

VA tech did have armed campus police. This clip talked about armed STUDENTS, which VA Tech did not have.

This clip was about DC, which banned all guns. That is not what is being proposed right now, and I would not support that, either. What is being proposed is banning high capacity magazines and certain types of guns that are used for warfare. No one needs a bushmaster AR-15 to protect themselves. Every person talking in that clip used a simple pistol.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_co ... death_rate

According to the data on the above link:
The USA has 10.2 firearm related deaths per 100,000 of population per annum.
The UK has 0.04 firearm related deaths per 100,000 of population.

Do you really feel safer because you have the right to carry firearms? Really?

Drifting wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate

According to the data on the above link:
The USA has 10.2 firearm related deaths per 100,000 of population per annum.
The UK has 0.04 firearm related deaths per 100,000 of population.

Do you really feel safer because you have the right to carry firearms? Really?

Your stat is misleading as you post it.
Fact is that UK gun control laws have only recently been more stringent than USA control laws...in fact when New York city had stricter gun laws than London - London still had a significantly lower firearm death rate. In fact, when the UK implemented stricter gun laws there was a dramatic increase in crime in the form of home burglary - especially while people were still home.

Furthermore - and ironically, our right to bear arms is not founded on hunting or personal crime prevention but rather to guard ourselves against our own government - which we found necessary after being under the Crown for some time.

That being said - there is no doubt that the laws for or against guns have little to do with firearm deaths...it is a cultural nuance and that can neither be aggravated nor cured by legislation. Salvation by government is the antithesis of America - we would prefer our government to represent and govern.

subgenius wrote:Furthermore - and ironically, our right to bear arms is not founded on hunting or personal crime prevention but rather to guard ourselves against our own government - which we found necessary after being under the Crown for some time.

Which part of the amendment tells you that?

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

krose wrote:

subgenius wrote:Furthermore - and ironically, our right to bear arms is not founded on hunting or personal crime prevention but rather to guard ourselves against our own government - which we found necessary after being under the Crown for some time.

Which part of the amendment tells you that?

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Subgenius thinks he's making a clever comeback to a comparison between gun violence in the U.K. and gun violence in the U.S. However, as the Supreme Court explained in District of Columbia v. Heller, the 2nd Amendment is largely grounded in the concept of a natural right to self-defense that originates in English law. So when subgenius asserts that our right to bear arms is not founded on "personal crime prevention," not only is he spectacularly wrong, he is also unwittingly advancing an argument favored by people who want more restrictive gun laws.

Darth J wrote:Subgenius thinks he's making a clever comeback to a comparison between gun violence in the U.K. and gun violence in the U.S. However, as the Supreme Court explained in District of Columbia v. Heller, the 2nd Amendment is largely grounded in the concept of a natural right to self-defense that originates in English law. So when subgenius asserts that our right to bear arms is not founded on "personal crime prevention," not only is he spectacularly wrong, he is also unwittingly advancing an argument favored by people who want more restrictive gun laws.

Clever!

Subgenius often makes unwitting assertions. Perhaps that's why he decided on 'subgenius' as his avatar name.

beastie wrote:

bcspace wrote:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qyoLuTjguJA

Notice also the reference to the VA Tech shooting in which beastie claimed in the other thread that there were armed individuals to protect when in reality, like Columbine as well, there were not.

VA tech did have armed campus police. This clip talked about armed STUDENTS, which VA Tech did not have.

This clip was about DC, which banned all guns. That is not what is being proposed right now, and I would not support that, either. What is being proposed is banning high capacity magazines and certain types of guns that are used for warfare. No one needs a bushmaster AR-15 to protect themselves. Every person talking in that clip used a simple pistol.

One of the problems seems to be that we just don't have a whole lot of solid research on the issue of gun violence. Check this out:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/26/us/26 ... =all&_r=1&

You'd think that the NRA would want to finance research that proves that "The only defense against a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun." Personally, I'm not all that impressed with simplistic slogans like that. I'd prefer to see legitimate research.

Doctor Scratch wrote:One of the problems seems to be that we just don't have a whole lot of solid research on the issue of gun violence. Check this out:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/26/us/26 ... =all&_r=1&

You'd think that the NRA would want to finance research that proves that "The only defense against a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun." Personally, I'm not all that impressed with simplistic slogans like that. I'd prefer to see legitimate research.

Yes, and another problem is that solutions are harder to come by than a lot of people want to acknowledge. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2 ... sacre.html