US Gun Laws

Doing a quick information grab on the internet:

There are about 93 million registered people with guns in the US (I know the number says 80 million but if 30% of us did own a gun that would make out population 260 million which is about 50 million off) and according to Freakonomics about a fifth of guns are bought illegally so we would have to bump that number up to 111.6 million. About 9300 people are murdered annually because of hand guns. So there is about a .00008333 chance of a gun murdering somebody.

There are about 254 million vehicles in the US and about 32000 people are killed by these vehicles every year. Putting percent deaths by motor vehicles at .00012598.

So after doing the math-guns: .00008333 fatality rate and vehicles: .00012598 fatality rate. Making driving a vehicle about 66% more dangerous than owning a gun.

If the crimes are committed with guns they shouldn't be allowed.(or at least restricted) It's common sense to restrict something easily accessible if it's a major killer.

Yes you previously stated this. But in this case you're just going to have to make an exception because it's practically impossible to prove or disprove that guns=more crime. There are simply too many factors. I simply pointed out that a lot of the homicides are committed with guns and that the homicide rate is higher in the US than any country in the EU, which supports my argument.

Sadly I don't have the time to roam the internet such as you, and while I do have some articles about the topic it's in Danish. I can link them, but it wouldn't be of much use.

And you don't want to make it harder for people to gain access to guns? They obviously use them to kill so why not restrict it?

Yeah... I didn't really read that. I'm kinda busy XD. My bad. I'll concede that the homicide rate is dropping slowly in the US, but it's still way higher than any country in the EU.

Fair enough...

So you basically don't have a specific answer. Right now you're just trying to avoid answering. In what specific situation would you need to protect yourself against the government?
"American culture" is not one thing. I will agree that many Americans share that view, but not all.

I know this. I'm just trying to say that the government is the people in a representative democracy.

What I'm saying is that they are all libertarians if they believe what you stated is right.(that government should stay out of personal affairs) That would mean that drugs etc. should also be legal.

Crime happens. Crimes are committed with guns. Crimes are also committed using computers, cars, knives, pens, words, human bodies, as well as a whole world of other things. The basis of banning guns on the fact that crimes can be committed using guns is ludicrous. A better bet would be to ban hands, many more crimes are committed with a hand than a gun. The fact of the matter is, it is the man or woman behind the gun that commits the crime, and it will always be so, with or without firearms.

taken out of context... read. the. fucking. rest.....
Also guns are meant to kill. They have no other use. You don't have a gun to cut out vegetables. There is no reason to have a gun other than mabye hunting.

No matter what people will committe crimes with guns or without guns. People were committing crimes before there were guns and crimes will be committed with what ever takes the place of guns in the future.

If you are gonna kill somebody I am pretty sure that you are going to try and kill them regardless of whether you have a gun available or not. More guns available=more crimes WITH GUNS. That does not mean more crime.

Admittedly, yes, it CAN take some time to find good proof, but in this case all I did was go to Google and type in 'gun correlation to violence' and hit enter. Then I looked at the presented links for a reputable source and read the blip of their position. That is all you really need to do. Admittedly, I DID have time to read it through [the majority] to make sure that it is on my side, but there it is again. Even if you search in Danish, all you have to do is look for reputable sources in English-speaking countries. Harvard, Yale, MIT, etc. Or go to government websites. I'm sure that the Danish government has an English translation button somewhere for its documents.

Killing people or things are what they are made for. I have no problem with that, as long as the reason is justifiable. Self-defense is a good reason in my book. And in any case, guns in the US are regulated differently in every state. Some are Texas-class, allowing for almost anything, some are restricting in refusing to allow anyone but special groups [i.e. law enforcement, judges, and prosecutors] to obtain lisences, let alone the weapons themselves.

That IS specific answer. It is endowed in the history and traditions of the people. Such is the basis of the Amendment and laws, of all Amendments and laws. There is NO GREATER ANSWER. It just isn't the ONLY answer.
In the event that the government begins to act against the people. Such is the basis of the whole Bill of Rights. The whole Bill of Rights was set up to defend against the government's infringment on the basic rights of people. If the government was pure, then there would not be any need for the Bill of Rights. If the First Amendment was always respected, then there would be no reason to write it down. But it isn't.
The Declaration of Independence held that:

The Second Amendment is held to be fundimental in ensuring that the people can do this.

So it is meant to be and so it can be. Whether it truely is in that the Congress of the United States always faithfully represent the people is another matter entirely.

No. Conservatives are made on the foundation of the government being small and the individual deciding for themselves. Libertarians MAY agree, but then, most Americans agree with RETAINING THEIR RIGHTS.
Drugs are somewhat a different matter. Guns can be used to defend oneself from threat and that is the only legal use for them. Drugs can harm others without necessarily benefiting the user and in fact, moreoften, it hurts the user. And remember that drugs too are debated on Constituational grounds. Most anything is linked to the Constituation and the Bill of Rights. Know why? Because it is the over-riding Law of the Land. NOTHING supercedes it.

It's not the government site(s) but studies conducted by various professors and other reliable sources. There aren't any translations

The police and the government is meant to protect you. You're not supposed to kill someone if they break into your house at night. Call the police if you're having problems.

So if the government "becomes destructive of these ends" you're allowed to shoot them? When is that ever going to happen in the US?

I know that the approval rating of congress is like 9% but I blame that on the two-party system and the voting system in the US. In a democracy with high voting(above 70%) attendance and proportional representation this would never be the case.

I'm pretty sure you're talking about Liberalism(worldwide) when you say small government and individualism.
How can drugs hurt others? It's hard to define what benefits a person, but drugs can definately be a good thing.
How can guns benefit you without harming others?

Whenever I see a page in a foreign language it always gives me the options to translate. Google Chrome is awesome like that. Just provide the link and I'll translate it.

If someone is trying to kill you and you can not call the police a gun would come in pretty handy. It does not matter if you harm the killer because HE IS TRYING TO KILL YOU.

You know, I'd love to own an actual weapon, like a '90s model of AK's, any of them, however I live in Canada and that's not going to happen, although, I think I may be able to keep it if the weapon is registered unusable and the internal pieces are stripped out.

If I have an intruder in my home, having a fake or broken AK in my hands is going to scare the shit out of the person invading my home, whether I have the ability to shoot him or not does not matter. To anyone who thinks otherwise and has said they need working guns and ammunition for 'protection' I find them to be a little bit suspicious on that matter.

Except it sucks... Translation from Danish to English is really bad and often faulty.(not so much the other way around)
I'll link some, but most of it is in books I read during my education:
http://www.gf.dk/kriminalitet.htm
http://www.information.dk/170391
The first one is a bit wide, but I does support my argument.

But what if someone breaks into your house. You wake up, but don't know his/hers intentions. Do you kill them?
Also if someone is trying to kill you they would propably make sure that you do not know of it before they do it... At least that's what I'd do.(and anyone with common sense)

Yes, if someone breaks into my house at night and I don't know their intention, I'm going to kill them. They are a threat to my life.

Dommage. Looks like you will have to provide from other sources. Strange though, that they do not print in English. Hmm... try linking some of these Dutch sites and I'll see what I can do.

Sometimes the police are a little slow. Sometimes the quicker, legal solution is better. And according to US Castle Laws it is legal for a person to kill intruders.

In a nut shell? Yes. That is exactly what it says. Look at other countries like Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, and most recently, Syria. ****, look at the whole 'Arab Spring'. Violent overthrow of an oppressive government. Hear anybody saying that they are wrong to do it? That is exactly what the Amendment is set up to allow for.

Like I said before, it is not a matter of likelyhood, but rather a matter of preparing for the chance. The whole Bill of Rights is set up to protect the individual against the misconducts of the government. Under your theory, all things like the Bill of Rights would be abolished on the idea that the government can do no wrong against the people. That is simply not true. Therefore, the Bill of Rights was made. And therefore, the Bill of Rights still stands. Hoping for the best, preparing for the worst.

Just as people have the right to vote, they also have the right to abstain. That DOES NOT mean that their rights should be taken away or that they should have to live in constant fear that the 'voting population' will put in laws that violate their Rights. They have the right to EXPECT certain Rights and justice in their system. They also have the right to ensure that the system serves the interests of the common individual.

Libertarians and Repbublicans [the US conservative side] can both support small government. But that makes no difference. A person's political views do not have to match up with their party 100%. Find me a person in a democracy that does NOT believe in the Rights of the Individual. That is the Foundation of Democracy.

Parhaps you are refering to legal drugs. I do not know.
Drugs CAN hurt people other then the user of said drug. Second hand smoke, neglecting social obligations, lack of productivity, etc. all hurt others.
Of course drugs can be a good thing, when used properly. Some drugs are made illegal because the people through their legislatures have decided that they are more negetive than positive for the population as a whole. This, of course, is sometimes subject to case-by-case, such as in the case of California's marijuana cards.

They can't. That they hurt others to benefit their user is in their very nature. But I, for one, believe that, as long as the cause is just, guns can be used for self-defense or the defense of others or the defense of property or country. That is their legal use, which I support.
Just an interesting case:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Horn_shooting_controversy

If you're a responsible citizen of proven mental competence, there's no reason why you shouldn't be able to own a firearm. In that respect, I side with the pro second amendment people. However, I think more can be done to ensure that people like Jared Loughner don't get their hands on dangerous weapons and if that means that a few rednecks have to wait an extra week to get their new Barret .50 cal so be it.

Then again, if you're a responsible citizen of proven mental competence, there's hardly any reason to own a gun as well.

Not necessarily. What about protection? We can regulate gun ownership as much as we want but the illegal market is still going to provide criminals with them.

Umm... how about protecting yourself from those that are not responsible citizens of proven mental competence?

Except this is exactly the kind of stupidity that cause accidents... Say you had a daughter and she got a visit from her secret boyfriend. If you shot/killed him it wouldn't be that popular...
Say it's a first time offender who thought you were away on holiday. Does he deserve to die?

I'm Danish and not Dutch.... That's like if I called you Japanese...

Yeah I know it's legal(in the US) but I don't think it's morally okay to shoot someone for being on your property.

See below

But it is a matter of likelyhood. Does the damage caused by that many guns justify the minimal chance anyone has to overthrow the democracy in the US?

Actually they don't have the right to abstain in Australia(it's illegal) People "live in constant fear of the voting population"?! WTF?! If the majority of "the voting population" votes for a party that want to repeal some of their rights then the rest have to fucking deal with it.(not my personal view)

Oh I can find several(myself included if you ask Kali) who do not support the rights.(rights are a very subjective term and you would have to make it clearer what you mean by "the Rights of the Individual."

I lol'ed... "lack of productivity" you say? I think a gunshot wound would also be classified as "lack of productivity." The people in the US aren't fucking slaves and can do what they want as long as they don't hurt others.(more or less)

When is the cause just? That's up to the individual to decide(in the moment) and people will often panic if they are confronted with a burglar. They will pull the trigger even tough they aren't in danger and kill a person. Did the person deserve to die?(and who are they to decide?)

That's fucking sick... Why would anyone support that lunatic?(Joe Horn)

My bad. That was a logging error on my part. I forgot to check which sites you are citing. Sorry.

And you have every right to that opinion. It is simply my opinion that if a person enters my property with the intent to commit illicit acts that threaten myself, my property, or anyone else, I have both a right and an obligation to see to it that these things are protected. Would I simply shoot on sight if they were unarmed, with no warning and no chance offered for them to surrender to the law? No, not necessarily, but I would not hesitate if they acted in a threatening mannar.

A valid point, but off topic, I think.
If a rogue faction within a country - like a domestic terrorism group - threatens the government that the people set up, then it is the government's responsibility to erradicate that threat to the Democratic government, both in the interests of the people and the interests of the government itself.
That is a different discussion from what I was trying to say.
The point that I was making was that the people have the right to defend themselves from an illigitimate government.

First of all, we are talking about the US.
Secondly, the concept of forced voting is absurd to many Americans.
Third, NO LAW CAN VIOLATE THE BILL OF RIGHTS. It is called 'being Unconstitutional'. The Rights laid down in the Bill of Rights are immoble unless they are nullified by later Amendments. It is one thing to support a protested law. It is an entirely different task to change the very foundations of the country.
Changing the Constituation or the Bill of Rights is the sort of thing that Civil Wars are wrought over.

1. You cannot speak for Kali, as much as we all [ligitimately] wonder what input he has on the subject. [I think he said something about being out of state]
2. From what I understand of Kali's views of 'Rights', he objects to 'positive rights'. Whether or not he includes the right to possess and use firearms as a common citizen is really something only he can say.
3. It is called the "Bill of Rights" for a reason. If you want a broader, more far-reaching definition, you can look to the UDHR.
4. I may not agree with ever Right put forth, but I can say that the US population by far and large support the Second Amendment.

1. You are taking the quote out of context and focusing on the diction.
2. "lack of productivity" refers more specifically to those who purposefully/knowingly disable themselves by the use of mind/body influencing drugs for their own pleasure and inappropriately collect the social welfare to support these activities. Not only is it harmful to themselves and others, it burdens an already burdened system. Whether it is illegal, however, is another matter.
3. People do not commonly go around shooting each other and causing others to lose productivity, no matter what you hear. And 'productivity' does not include illicit activities like breaking into someone's house. The productivity is already lost. The homeowner is just making sure that they and others who abide by the law don't lose theirs.

1. Show me a country in which breaking into someone's house does not constitute a situation in which the residents of said house are in danger. By no legal precident that I have EVER heard of in my life does in which that situation NOT constitute danger.
2. That person made a decision to illegally enter another person's home by force with the intent to commit a crime. Whether a threat to property constitutes a right to kill is debatable, but how does the homeowner know what the intentions of the intruder are? They have a choice - to take a risk or to secure their home.
3. Who is that person to illegally enter another's property and/or to take any property from another individual.

The question also arises: Why wouldn't anyone support Joe Horn?
The answer given is that those people support him because he defended his neighbor's property in his neighbors' time of need. They say that it was the same as if the burgalurs were threatening his neighbors' themselves.