Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Maybe it is just correlation, but it certainly kills the idea that more guns = more violent crime.

I'm still trying to figure out why handguns are legal. The only thing you can hunt with them is man.

 trexmeyer wrote:
I'm still trying to figure out why handguns are legal. The only thing you can hunt with them is man.

2nd amendment. You should know this silly.

Not correct.

If you are hunting any dangerous animals, or are hunting in areas with dangerous animals, it is very advisable to have a large caliber pistol in addition to whatever your rifle is. Examples would be bear and pig.

For the same reasons, hand guns are ideal for home defense. They're also fun to shoot.

 trexmeyer wrote:
I'm still trying to figure out why handguns are legal. The only thing you can hunt with them is man.

That's not true at all.

 trexmeyer wrote:
I'm still trying to figure out why handguns are legal. The only thing you can hunt with them is man.

Dude... educate yourself before posting things like this.

Co'tor Shas wrote:

 trexmeyer wrote:
I'm still trying to figure out why handguns are legal. The only thing you can hunt with them is man.

2nd amendment. You should know this silly.

Does the 2nd Amendment specifically state we're allowed to easily purchase large caliber concealable firearms that can blow a hole through flesh and bone the size of a Grand Canyon?

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.

No, I can't find it in there. I don't see anything about firearms for hunting either. Just something about the importance of militias. Do militias even really exist anymore?

And because the dissenting judge said it better than I could. (Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. 243, 251 (1846))

When each word in the text is given full effect, the Amendment is most naturally read to secure to the people a right to use and possess arms in conjunction with service in a well-regulated militia. So far as appears, no more than that was contemplated by its drafters or is encompassed within its terms. Even if the meaning of the text were genuinely susceptible to more than one interpretation, the burden would remain on those advocating a departure from the purpose identified in the preamble and from settled law to come forward with persuasive new arguments or evidence. The textual analysis offered by respondent and embraced by the Court falls far short of sustaining that heavy burden. And the Court’s emphatic reliance on the claim “that the Second Amendment … codified a pre-existing right,” ante, at 19 [refers to page 19 of the opinion], is of course beside the point because the right to keep and bear arms for service in a state militia was also a pre-existing right.

At some point the the right to bear firearms in the service of a militia was twisted into everyone has the right to buy a handgun.

Grey Templar wrote:Not correct.

If you are hunting any dangerous animals, or are hunting in areas with dangerous animals, it is very advisable to have a large caliber pistol in addition to whatever your rifle is. Examples would be bear and pig.

For the same reasons, hand guns are ideal for home defense. They're also fun to shoot.

A shotgun is better for home defense. Machine guns are more fun to shoot, but they're not legal.

There is no "better" for home defense. There is what works best for the guy in the situation.

To expand on that. I own 3 shotguns, a handgun, and a rifle. My handgun is the one that I keep a magazine loaded for in the event someone wants to experience a tension pneumothorax on my living room floor.

I disagree, the best form of home defence is to live in a sensible society which has a ban on hand guns.



/thread

"The right of the people."


Yes, the militia does still exist. The right to bear arms is permissive, not restrictive. It doesn't have to spell out every single weapon that a person can legally own. Like every other right in the bill of rights, the 2nd amendment is a personal right, and the right to bear arms rests with the people.

 Hordini wrote:

 trexmeyer wrote:
I'm still trying to figure out why handguns are legal. The only thing you can hunt with them is man.

That's not true at all.

As a informal EoA for DakkaDakka OT. Trex you are hereby ordered to buy flowers for the young Lady you are starry eyes for. Man eh. Only Man eh.

 Easy E wrote:
I heard NPR mention that we have statistically had one school shooting occur for every week of the school year over hte last two years.

Note: that doesn't mean there was one a week but that we have had the same number occur as their have been weeks of school.

I saw another article on that... and it was quite statistically fallacious... Some of the shootings occurred on school grounds, but in no way could be considered school shootings... some didnt even take place near a school.

Within 100 meters or did they bump up the school zones?

 trexmeyer wrote:


Does the 2nd Amendment specifically state we're allowed to easily purchase large caliber concealable firearms that can blow a hole through flesh and bone the size of a Grand Canyon?

I'm sorry.. but we don't maintain a "Free State" by singing kumbaya and holding hands now do we? Then yeah, it does specifically state we need to be able to buy things that create big fething holes.

Whoa now. Careful where you place them holes people. Drywall like $11 dollar a sheet

 Jihadin wrote:
Within 100 meters or did they bump up the school zones?

One of the debunked incidents happened at 9pm, two school age kids (they were at least highschool aged) were playing an illegal game of dice, and had a dispute over money owed.

Another that did take place on a school, and presumably at or near "school hours" was some girl who already had a decent gang-related rap sheet shot her own leg (somehow)

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:
Within 100 meters or did they bump up the school zones?

One of the debunked incidents happened at 9pm, two school age kids (they were at least highschool aged) were playing an illegal game of dice, and had a dispute over money owed.

Another that did take place on a school, and presumably at or near "school hours" was some girl who already had a decent gang-related rap sheet shot her own leg (somehow)

Clearing barrel?

 Jihadin wrote:
Whoa now. Careful where you place them holes people. Drywall like $11 dollar a sheet

Hey, sometimes even drywall needs some Freedom delivered to it at 3,000 ft/s


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Jihadin wrote:

Clearing barrel?

Whatever High School in the US has clearing barrels at their doors... I don't want to go near

 Grey Templar wrote:
So we can partially blame the media for drawing so much attention to these things.

Yes, damn the media for reporting armed gunmen attacking children at school. Damn their journalistic hearts.

 Grey Templar wrote:
There was probably a different school culture back then, and kids being less sensitive overall. And less culture of entitlement.

Also not nearly as much social media where things can build up pressure to the breaking point.

Well, this marks the first time that kids in the 90s were considered to have a better school culture, and a lower sense of entitlement. The Golden Age myth rolls on, and now seems to have added the 1990s.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Except in this case they aren't causing panic, or presenting a tangible danger. So there is nothing you can do but beg the media to not glamorize things. Which they will ignore because the media are total scumbags.

Frankly, describing any of the coverage of any of these shooting as glamorized is simply bonkers.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grey Templar wrote:
I couldn't say. I don't really watch other news organizations.

Maybe our news media is much worse than others.

Your news isn't any worse.

You want to talk about culture, talk about the US gun culture. Maybe then you'll start moving towards an answer that makes some sense.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Vaktathi wrote:
It's not just the US. On the same day the Sandy Hook attack occurred, a dude in China walked into an elementary school and slashed 22 kids.

"A one off event happened at one place out of the whole rest of the world therefore the US doesn't have a problem!"

That's a bit like arguing that there isn't a problem with radiation around Chernobyl, because sometimes people in other parts of the world also get cancer.

 sebster wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
So we can partially blame the media for drawing so much attention to these things.

Yes, damn the media for reporting armed gunmen attacking children at school. Damn their journalistic hearts.

Frankly, describing any of the coverage of any of these shooting as glamorized is simply bonkers.

Repeatedly, I have seen MH experts come onto shows on CNN, FOX News, etc. and proclaim that any coverage that publishes the shooter's name IS glamorizing these events to those who are in a similar mental state. Sure, you and I don't see the glamorizing of these thigns in coverage, but I'd reckon that we're fairly well balanced and adjusted people. It's usually pretty self-evident that people who go on a shooting spree are not balanced or well adjusted people, and since they are wanting ANY attention they feel they "deserve" they see what the news media does in their coverage, and sees that as a good way to get their "deserved" attention.

Gee. Reaching way way way back into antiquity to bring forth more clarification. Mass school shooting did not start in the 90's. This incident was highly publicized. Even has an episode on Investigation Discovery

The Cleveland Elementary School shooting took place on January 29, 1979, in San Diego, California. Shots were fired at a public elementary school. The principal and a custodian were killed. Eight children and a police officer were injured. A 16-year-old girl, Brenda Spencer[1] (born April 3, 1962), who lived in a house across the street from the school, was convicted of the shootings. Tried as an adult, Spencer pled guilty to two counts of murder and assault with a deadly weapon, and was given an indefinite sentence. She is currently in prison.

A reporter got through to Spencer after the shooting while she was still in the house. He said Spencer told him she carried out the shooting because she 'didn't like Mondays'.[2] Spencer later said she did not recall making the remark.

.22 cal rifle at that

 trexmeyer wrote:

Co'tor Shas wrote:

 trexmeyer wrote:
I'm still trying to figure out why handguns are legal. The only thing you can hunt with them is man.

2nd amendment. You should know this silly.

Does the 2nd Amendment specifically state we're allowed to easily purchase large caliber concealable firearms that can blow a hole through flesh and bone the size of a Grand Canyon?

so much fail in your posts trex... so much lack of factual information, its just sad really...

when you make successive, untrue statements like this in a row, it just shows how ignorant you are.


Plenty of things are hunted well with handguns, plenty of peoples lives are saved by them....

that you call any handgun "high caliber" is also stupid... may as well call them "large caliber high powered assault baby killers that rape kittens" while you are throwing out emotional garbage that you think is true.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 sebster wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
So we can partially blame the media for drawing so much attention to these things.

Yes, damn the media for reporting armed gunmen attacking children at school. Damn their journalistic hearts.

Frankly, describing any of the coverage of any of these shooting as glamorized is simply bonkers.

Repeatedly, I have seen MH experts come onto shows on CNN, FOX News, etc. and proclaim that any coverage that publishes the shooter's name IS glamorizing these events to those who are in a similar mental state. Sure, you and I don't see the glamorizing of these thigns in coverage, but I'd reckon that we're fairly well balanced and adjusted people. It's usually pretty self-evident that people who go on a shooting spree are not balanced or well adjusted people, and since they are wanting ANY attention they feel they "deserve" they see what the news media does in their coverage, and sees that as a good way to get their "deserved" attention.

yup, maybe if we were not making celebrities of these psychos they wouldnt see the "go out in a blaze and be hatefully remembered instead of forgotten",

it is very much glamorizing it when the netwroks plaster the killers name, go into great detail about the killers, and focus their entire story on the killers. Their names should NOT be mentioned at all.

That is what has changed, we are now a society that glamorizes these kinds of things, making celebrities out of killers.


china has has far more mass murders this year then the states,

but i guess since those are with knives no one cares, because somehow, its worse to be killed with a gun then a knife right?

Privately owned ships, armed with the best weapons money could buy in that day and age, took more then 1,200 British ships as prize during the War of 1812. That is after the 2nd Amendment was law in this nation, just incase you weren't sure Trex.

So to spell it out, private citizens were in possession of the most powerful weapons known to man at that time, directly in the time frame the founding fathers, the guys who wrote all that stuff, were still kicking around doing their thing.

Is that clear?

 trexmeyer wrote:
I'm still trying to figure out why handguns are legal. The only thing you can hunt with them is man.

So you hate handguns because they are used to kill people?

 Grey Templar wrote:
Maybe it is just correlation, but it certainly kills the idea that more guns = more violent crime.

No, it doesn't. That's terrible analysis. It disproves the idea that the only causative factor is guns, but no-one on Earth is claiming that's the only factor.

Hold up hand with fingers spread. now close into a fist. Say hello to oldest weapon known to man/woman


Edit

I'm a bit long in the tooth to defend myself physically. I rather exert 9 lbs

 trexmeyer wrote:
I'm still trying to figure out why handguns are legal. The only thing you can hunt with them is man.

With a desert e axle you hunt kodiak bears.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Repeatedly, I have seen MH experts come onto shows on CNN, FOX News, etc. and proclaim that any coverage that publishes the shooter's name IS glamorizing these events to those who are in a similar mental state. Sure, you and I don't see the glamorizing of these thigns in coverage, but I'd reckon that we're fairly well balanced and adjusted people. It's usually pretty self-evident that people who go on a shooting spree are not balanced or well adjusted people, and since they are wanting ANY attention they feel they "deserve" they see what the news media does in their coverage, and sees that as a good way to get their "deserved" attention.

The distinction between 'glamorized' and 'might be perceived as glamorized by disturbed people' is massive, and using the former as shorthand for the latter produces nonsense thinking. It ends up with an idea in which you are placing blame on the media for the insane interpretation of fringe nutters.

Do we really want to blame JD Salinger for Hinckley's attempted shooting of Reagan? Or the Beatles for Charles Manson?

Easysauce

That you call any handgun "high caliber" is also stupid... may as well call them "large caliber high powered assault baby killers that rape kittens" while you are throwing out emotional garbage that you think is true.

How much you figure they run though? If it was on sale? Minus the emotional garbage baggage.

 easysauce wrote:
yup, maybe if we were not making celebrities of these psychos they wouldnt see the "go out in a blaze and be hatefully remembered instead of forgotten",

it is very much glamorizing it when the netwroks plaster the killers name, go into great detail about the killers, and focus their entire story on the killers. Their names should NOT be mentioned at all.

That is what has changed, we are now a society that glamorizes these kinds of things, making celebrities out of killers.

Yeah, that's why after everyone in Australia learned about Martin Bryant we had that that rash of zero mass killings that's continued to this day.

china has has far more mass murders this year then the states,

Junk analysis. First up, a primary driver in the murder rate is the rate of development in a country. More education and more prosperity means less murder. So the situation in the US should be compared to countries with similar levels of development, such as Europe, Australia or Japan.

And holy crap just look at the damn numbers, please. You have an incredible rate of homicide, gun homicide and spree killing compared to any of those countries. At some point you just have to fething recognise the reality of the situation and start being a little bit honest with yourselves.