Texas A&M Shooting

[Bugfatty300]

Which isn't the only statistic floating around. Of course there is no way to estimate this kind of thing except through polls, so just like opinions, everyone is going to have their own. So no use arguing about which numbers are right.

Spoiler :

http://www.gallup.com/poll/150353/self-reported-gun-ownership-highest-1993.aspx

Anyway, 20-34% individuals isn't insignificant even by itself. Compared to other countries 20 to 34% is massive. Canada's 1,900,000 licensed gun owners represents about 5% of their population and Canada is ranked pretty high on UN Arms Survey. Is there another country were 20% to 34% of individuals own guns or even close to that? Kyber Pass region of Afghanistan and Pakistan maybe? Yemen possibly.

If not then American society is pretty much unmatched in terms of numbers guns and gun owning individuals.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Interestingly, I just posted exactly the same chart on the previous page. I guess you missed it.

But it seems obvious to me. Only 2 out of 5 Republicans and 1.5 out of 5 Democrats own a gun. Given that many of them likely own only one handgun or rifle, that means there are a substantial number of "gun nuts" out there who own a small arsenal.

It also means that most people wouldn't be affected in the least if stricter gun control measures were put in place, especially if "assault weapons" and large magazines were banned.

 

[Cutlass]

I'm curious about how accurate gun ownership statistics are in the US. Modern firearms, that is, guns with cased ammo which can be purchased today, have been available some 150 years. And with reasonable care and minor use, will still be functional today. That is a long time before any records of ownership were kept. And that does not even count all the guns American soldiers brought back from foreign wars. Do we really have a more or less accurate number for the guns floating around the US?

 

[GhostWriter16]

Interestingly, I just posted exactly the same chart on the previous page. I guess you missed it.

But it seems obvious to me. Only 2 out of 5 Republicans and 1.5 out of 5 Democrats own a gun. Given that many of them likely own only one handgun or rifle, that means there are a substantial number of "gun nuts" out there who own a small arsenal.

It also means that most people wouldn't be affected in the least if stricter gun control measures were put in place, especially if "assault weapons" and large magazines were banned.

What on earth is wrong with being a "Gun nut"? How does that differ from whatever your hobby of choice? Collecting guns is a legitimate hobby to some people. I don't see what your obsession with it is for, especially when you claim to be in favor of more civil rights. Taking gun rights away is anathema to those goals.

 

[useless]

What on earth is wrong with being a "Gun nut"? How does that differ from whatever your hobby of choice? Collecting guns is a legitimate hobby to some people. I don't see what your obsession with it is for, especially when you claim to be in favor of more civil rights. Taking gun rights away is anathema to those goals.

Because unlike say gaming with warhammer figurines or collecting stamps, guns have the potential to bloody kill someone, and can and do (and have) fallen into the hands of individuals who are not of a sane mind or ideaology.

 

[GhostWriter16]

So you restrict the freedom of law abiding citizens because of others?

Guns can also be used for all sorts of legitimate purposes, and STOPPING the killers.

If more people had concealed weapons, mass killings like these would not succeed as easily.

 

[useless]

If more people had concealed weapons, mass killings like these would not succeed as easily.

[Citation Needed] As well as the fact that in this case:

The shooter wore body armour.
The shooting lasted a minute or two (1 minute 30 seconds apparently?)
It was a dark area
There was no warning
People assumed the shots were from the film.

 

[Phrossack]

So you restrict the freedom of law abiding citizens because of others?

Guns can also be used for all sorts of legitimate purposes, and STOPPING the killers.

If more people had concealed weapons, mass killings like these would not succeed as easily.

Or someone would shoot the shooter, only to be shot by another shooter in the confusion, who is in turn shot...

 

[Bugfatty300]

I'm curious about how accurate gun ownership statistics are in the US. Modern firearms, that is, guns with cased ammo which can be purchased today, have been available some 150 years. And with reasonable care and minor use, will still be functional today. That is a long time before any records of ownership were kept. And that does not even count all the guns American soldiers brought back from foreign wars. Do we really have a more or less accurate number for the guns floating around the US?

No ownership records are kept even today. It's against federal law. So it's pretty much just a rough estimation based on manufacture and import records.

The shooter wore body armour.

He wasn't. We now know he was wearing what is called a "tactical vest" which just a vest with pouches and pockets on it. The survivors and the press incorrectly reported that it was body armor.

 

[Formaldehyde]

What on earth is wrong with being a "Gun nut"? How does that differ from whatever your hobby of choice? Collecting guns is a legitimate hobby to some people. I don't see what your obsession with it is for, especially when you claim to be in favor of more civil rights. Taking gun rights away is anathema to those goals.

I didn't say anything was "wrong with" it. I merely pointed out what seems to be a fact. That a relatively small percentage of individuals own a large number of the firearms in the US. One might even say they were "obsessed" with them.

And no, i don't consider gun ownership of "assault weapons" and large capacity magazines to have anything to do with "civil rights". I really fail to see how gun ownership at all falls under that particular category. Are you claiming most modern countries are oppressive in regard to this "civil right"?

Why do you think the exception should be the rule? On what basis do you arrive at this conclusion, especially given how many problems it creates?

 

[bhsup]

Well, Randy Weaver had to protect his civil rights at the point of a gun. Courts, btw, sided with him.

 

[GhostWriter16]

I didn't say anything was "wrong with" it. I merely pointed out what seems to be a fact. That a relatively small percentage of individuals own a large number of firearms. One might even say they were "obsessed" with firearms.

And no, i don't consider gun ownership of "assault weapons" and large capacity magazines to have anything to do with "civil rights". I really fail to see how gun ownership at all falls under that particular category. Are you claiming most modern countries are oppressive with this "civil right"?

Read the second amendment, and then read some of the stuff Thomas Jefferson said about it (People would be laughed at if they said those things today, but I'd gladly repeat them anyway)

 

[Formaldehyde]

I suggest you read the "secret history of guns" post I made on page one, and then get back to me about the Second Amendment and the issue of gun control. It will save me from having to repeat a lot of facts.

 

[Antilogic]

Read the second amendment, and then read some of the stuff Thomas Jefferson said about it (People would be laughed at if they said those things today, but I'd gladly repeat them anyway)

Why just Jefferson?

And trust me, we have all read the 2nd Amendment by now. We are just trying to figure out why the right decides to ignore the well-regulated militia part.

 

[GhostWriter16]

I suggest you read the "secret history of guns" post I made on page one, and then get back to me about the Second Amendment and the issue of gun control. It will save me from having to repeat a lot of facts.

I don't know why we have to keep saying this, but the Federalists were never big fans of the bill of rights, and they "Won" mostly because of Justice John Marshall, but also because of Federalist politicians like Hamilton and Adams.

Just because gun control has been done for so long doesn't make it right.

Why just Jefferson?

And trust me, we have all read the 2nd Amendment by now. We are just trying to figure out why the right decides to ignore the well-regulated militia part.

Jefferson certainly wasn't alone, but his comments strike me as particularly ironic considering how many liberals do in fact think highly of Jefferson (I do too) and yet would call anyone who said things even resembling what he said traitors.

As for the second amendment, it says

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.

I honestly don't know why the first part is even there. It doesn't gramatically flow with the rest of the sentence. But it doesn't matter, because it says the right of THE PEOPLE, so it obviously can't mean just a militia. And the right "Shall not be infringed". Period. Full stop.

Its blatantly listed as a civil right.

The right of the people to keep and to bear arms shall not be infringed.

We can only imagine that two different ideas are in view, first, that states can have militas, and second, that people can bear arms. I see no good reason from the text to limit this right to the milita, when it says the right of THE PEOPLE.

Its blatanty obvious. Liberals just don't like the conclusions it brings. Granted, most conservatives, myself included, don't either once it reaches a certain point, but if we logically limit "Arms" to weapons that can be carried by hand, I don't see a problem.

 

[Antilogic]

I don't know why we have to keep saying this, but the Federalists were never big fans of the bill of rights, and they "Won" mostly because of Justice John Marshall, but also because of Federalist politicians like Hamilton and Adams.

Just because gun control has been done for so long doesn't make it right.

I don't think the Federalists were as uniform as you are making it out to be. One of the arguments against the Bill of Rights was that it should have be obvious, and that by codifying a handful of rights they may leave important ones out.

Seriously, find me one founding father that was all gung-ho for quartering troops in private homes without permission of the homeowner.

Jefferson certainly wasn't alone, but his comments strike me as particularly ironic considering how many liberals do in fact think highly of Jefferson (I do too) and yet would call anyone who said things even resembling what he said traitors.

Considering how much of a flip-flopper he was, there's something for everyone. How many so-called "liberals" have been calling you a traitor recently? I haven't seen that on the forums, maybe I'm reading the wrong threads.

As for the second amendment, it says



I honestly don't know why the first part is even there. It doesn't gramatically flow with the rest of the sentence. But it doesn't matter, because it says the right of THE PEOPLE, so it obviously can't mean just a militia. And the right "Shall not be infringed". Period. Full stop.

Its blatantly listed as a civil right.

The right of the people to keep and to bear arms shall not be infringed.

We can only imagine that two different ideas are in view, first, that states can have militas, and second, that people can bear arms. I see no good reason from the text to limit this right to the milita, when it says the right of THE PEOPLE.

Its blatanty obvious. Liberals just don't like the conclusions it brings. Granted, most conservatives, myself included, don't either once it reaches a certain point, but if we logically limit "Arms" to weapons that can be carried by hand, I don't see a problem.

Thanks for proving my point. You literally just cut out the portion of the sentence that didn't jive with your point of view.

Yes, people in prior centuries wrote in strange run-on sentences. But for someone who claims to be a strict constructionist, how can you blatantly ignore the first clause? They thought it was so important, they put it first! And the words they use may have different meanings than today--is that the people as a whole, or as individuals? It can be read both ways.

And then you turn around, and embrace the pragmatic so-called "liberal" argument--"Well, we can't have individuals with field artillery, chemical weapons, and nukes because that would be crazy!"

 

[JollyRoger]

Well, Randy Weaver had to protect his civil rights at the point of a gun. Courts, btw, sided with him.

Thanks to his crazy liberal lawyer, Gerry Spence.