If you are referring to the US Constitution, it was written in 1787, after we'd made peace with the United Kingdom. We were no longer in revolt and were not at war with anyone when it was written. You're thinking of the Continental Congress, which didn't write the Constitution.
Yes, and we'll forget about the war of 1812, shall we? The point is, it was written for entirely different times.
I wouldn't exactly characterize it as something to "revel in", but it certainly directly contradicts your previous statement
No, it doesn't: with over 200 countries being in the 'top 25' rather accurately covers what I said.
They are also a potential law enforcers. (The keyword being the same.)
Potential troublemakers are prone to getting arrested by law enforcers. There's a difference. (Also, there's no such thing as a 'potential law enforcer': either you are, or you aren't. Which, BTW, is the key difference with potential troublemakers, which is everyone with a weapon.)
Logic fail.
[...]
Where does this idea come from that a gun suddenly transforms normal law abiding people into violent people? Don't you think it's that the person is already a violent person BEFORE getting their hands on a gun?
Which was basically my point. As to 'logic fail': it has been established (through research) that people with a gun tend to get involved with violence related crimes more than people without.
The logic fail is here: "that a gun suddenly transforms normal law abiding people into violent people". That's just the key point; one cannot guarantee that 'law abiding citizens' (in practice meaning 'me, not that guy') will stay law abiding citizens once they're equipped with guns. They become potential troublemakers because of it.*
The fact that you need to store the gun in a metal safe attached to a wall or grounded to the floor and store ammunition elsewhwere (can't keep the gun loaded) means the primary reason for having a gun (self-defence in my case) is worthless.
Indeed. And, in practice, how many law abiding citizens will do that?
student massacres? They didn't get those guns legally. They got them from their fathers in most cases.
Which brings up the issue of owning guns if you have kids which may not be the point of the thread, so I won't derail it.
I wish we didn't have guns in the U.S., but I consider myself a realist. Getting rid of guns from law abiding citizens will put us as the mercy of the gangs. Gangs are a problem where I live. The police simply cannot be there to protect you.
Most robberies are not home invasions for a reason. The threat of being shot to death. Yes we have high crime in the U.S. but most are robberies of convenience stores etc., because they know there is almost no chance of getting shot during a robbery of a business. It's an easy mark.
As for why we have such high crime in the U.S., it has to deal with culture, rather than guns. We have this violent culture in the U.S. that I don't like. I don't like how the media is fascinated with outlaws like Billie the Kid, Dillenger, Bonnie and Clyde etc. And now days you see movies where the gangster life is glamorized. I don't know why our culture is so violent, but it is.
I don't think that is a derailment at all: let's just
assume these father are law abiding citizens. Yet their children get associated with (in these cases in fact perpretrate) violent crimes - against which these guns are supposed to protect. Now
there's a logic fail.
(I also don't see a conflict between culture and having guns: the two are apparently intermingled.)
I'd love to see that claim susbstantiated with some hard data, for once.
If you're interested in hard data, I don't think they're difficult to find - as Formaldehyde has shown.
It's almost certain that those crime statistics are not in any way comparable between country. Methodology and reporting and classification differ massively across countries.
Indeed I'd say it's certain that violent crime figures from various cannot be assembled into a reliable statistic without substantial corrections for those differences.
In the world that we live in, I am in support of the right to bear arms. I do not, however, think that it is fair to attempt to interpret the meaning of a document that was written before the advent of assault rifles, semi-autos, and even bolt-action weapons. There is just no sense in arguing the what the founders meant by it. They could not possibly have forseen the development of methods of war over the coming centuries and if they had, you can be sure that the second amendment would have been followed up with a huge, 'BUT'.
That was my point.
And no proof that it was the gun that caused the kid to do it.
Obviously guns are tools. But guns, like most tools, hav a purpose. Children that use guns to kill other children use those tools - like they are meant to be used.
* If every law abiding citizen gets a gun (to protect himself against violent crime), in practice the end result will not be a safer society, but a more violent society. The net result is
more violent crime, not less. (In practice, ofcourse, it's not law abiding citizens that can acquire a gun, but
anyone without a criminal record. Which is no guarantee no violent crimes will be committed once a gun is acquired.
, not only is it cruel to the animal your experimenting on but why would the average person possibly need with a shark with legs and lungs?
