Gun Control

[b0b3rt]

You're missing the point. If five armed men hold guns up to 15 armed employees, the employees will kill the robbers, but some employees will die, or at least severely wounded. If every single employee cooperates fully, the scumbag robbers get away and the bank loses some money, but you have a much larger chance of making it out alive. A smart robber will take advantage of this.

No, you're completely and totally missing the point: if every single robber is going to die, they won't rob the bank. Ever. I don't understand what it is, you make the point yourself that the bank robbers will die if the employees are armed. I don't understand the logic of that following into > they will rob the bank because some employees might die.

I honestly cannot understand how all of you arrived at that conclusion. It is totally beyond me how you can grasp the point that armed employees will defeat bank robbers and yet still think that bank robberies will continue.

You make the argument that most employees won't want to risk their lives for the bank, and that the bank robbers will exploit this. Bullshit. In every single post I've made I've referenced my first post, where I posted the authors of a study that showed criminals will rarely attempt to rob/mug/kill etc. a single victim if they know that they are armed.

 

[Invective]

bob, thing is, the employees wont want to defend the bank.
this is their line of thinking.
oh crap, bank robbers, what do i do? i could pull out my gun and shoot them and be heroes. but oh wait, theyll probably fire back or just take hostages. and then the risk of someone dying is a lot greater than if i had not pulled the gun in the first place. what you dont seem to understand is that bank tellers wont want to defend their bank as they are risking theyre lives for someone elses money. what do they possibly gain by doing that? nothing. a simple risk-benefit analysis will tell anyone that the risk is dying and the benefit is absolutely nothing.

let me put this in different terms.
your friend asks you to hold onto money for him. you agree. then you get mugged, and the guy has gun and demands your money. all you have is your friends money. what would you do? defend your friends money, or give it away and not risk getting shot?

 

[umbarsc]

I'm not arguing that arming the employees isn't a deterrant. The threat on their lives is enough to deter some robbers. But professionals will realize that no one wants to be the hero to save someone else's money, and will try to rob it anyways. And the 7-11 robber will wait until there's no one in the store, then surprise the cashier so he can't reach for a gun. In any case, the amount of robberies will not suddenly plunge to 0.

Hey, you know what would be simpler than arming every customer and employee in a bank? Installing a metal detector.

I don't understand what it is, you make the point yourself that the bank robbers will die if the employees are armed. I don't understand the logic of that following into > they will rob the bank because some employees might die.

I'm saying that that will happen if the employees try to forcibly stop the robbers. However, that is the least ideal solution for either side. Instead, they will try to take the best solution: the employees will cooperate fully with the robbers, which means they have a much greater chance of getting out alive than if they pull out a gun. The bank's money is not worth risking your life for.

 

[b0b3rt]

You still continue to ignore my reference to the study that completely nulls what you're trying to convince me of.
I'm going to stop arguing because we obviously have different perceptions of how people behave and you don't back yours up.

 

[Zero7]

Idk if this is relevant, but it might be:

In support of b0b, remember those bank tellers already don't have guns and risk their lives anyway right now, but they still take the job AND survive. Give them guns and they'll definitely stay.

 

[Janenmori]

This past weekend I did quite a bit of recreational shooting. In order to this, of course, I needed ammunition. I went to several Wal Marts and Big Fives and was unable to acquire any .22 or 9 mm rounds. I had to travel to two different specialty gun stores in order to get any ammo and one of those had .22 on 6 month back-order. The stores were both limiting the ammount of ammo that they would sell to any one customer because of this shortage.

People are scared. They are scared that Obama is going to take away their guns. They have been hoarding ammo and weapons because of this. Firearms sales have gone up dramatically in recent times. Ammunition is a rarity these days. This is a problem. Some law enforcement even has had to resort to using simulations rather than expending actual rounds because of this shortage. Why are so many people scared of what the President might do? These citizens should not have to live in fear of what will become of their precious weapons.

 

[Lexite]

One of my co-workers went to Michigan last month to visit a friend and they came across the same thing. People are buying up all the ammunition and there was almost no ammunition left in the state at the time. People are scared and they are storing up for their protection. I am afraid of what is going to happen with our rights being taken away left and right.

 

[lati0s]

Idk if this is relevant, but it might be:

In support of b0b, remember those bank tellers already don't have guns and risk their lives anyway right now, but they still take the job AND survive. Give them guns and they'll definitely stay.

when bank tellers risk their lives without guns it is usually because the robbers have set up a hostage situation and they are trying to save the hostages. anyone, armed or unarmed, who risks their life for money is a total idiot.

 

[akuchi]

This past weekend I did quite a bit of recreational shooting. In order to this, of course, I needed ammunition. I went to several Wal Marts and Big Fives and was unable to acquire any .22 or 9 mm rounds. I had to travel to two different specialty gun stores in order to get any ammo and one of those had .22 on 6 month back-order. The stores were both limiting the ammount of ammo that they would sell to any one customer because of this shortage.

People are scared. They are scared that Obama is going to take away their guns. They have been hoarding ammo and weapons because of this. Firearms sales have gone up dramatically in recent times. Ammunition is a rarity these days. This is a problem. Some law enforcement even has had to resort to using simulations rather than expending actual rounds because of this shortage. Why are so many people scared of what the President might do? These citizens should not have to live in fear of what will become of their precious weapons.

People are fucking stupid. These citizens of yours should either a) get the fuck over their supposed right to shoot shit or b) (which would be more reasonable) actually read the legislation that Obama has put through concerning guns. A QUICK GOOGLE WOULD SUFFICE. Then, just maybe, they could make up their own damn minds - except they're too stuck on the idea he's some Muslim gun-hating socialist lesbian to ever, ever do that.

 

[Son of Disaster]

People are fucking stupid. These citizens of yours should either a) get the fuck over their supposed right to shoot shit or b) (which would be more reasonable) actually read the legislation that Obama has put through concerning guns. A QUICK GOOGLE WOULD SUFFICE. Then, just maybe, they could make up their own damn minds - except they're too stuck on the idea he's some Muslim gun-hating socialist lesbian to ever, ever do that.

here's what a quick google turned up. Apparently you didn't heed your own advice. http://www.infowars.com/obamas-gun-control-record-sparking-sales-worry/

Obama has consistently voted against right to own. i suppose my right to shoot is unbased huh? The second amendment doesn't support me at all. The constitution is terrible right?

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/guns.htm some more fun statistics. Incidents involving a firearm represented 9% of the 4.7 million violent crimes of rape and sexual assault, robbery, and aggravated and simple assault in 2005. Oh wait i thought criminals would always use guns since they are so easily available?

According to the 1997 Survey of State Prison Inmates, among those possessing a gun, the source of the gun was from -

• a flea market or gun show for fewer than 2%
• a retail store or pawnshop for about 12%
• family, friends, a street buy, or an illegal source for 80%

During the offense that brought them to prison, 15% of State inmates and 13% of Federal inmates carried a handgun, and about 2%, a military-style semiautomatic gun

Yeah those gun shows are a big place for criminals to get guns huh?....

 

[akuchi]

here's what a quick google turned up. Apparently you didn't heed your own advice. http://www.infowars.com/obamas-gun-control-record-sparking-sales-worry/

Obama has consistently voted against right to own. i suppose my right to shoot is unbased huh? The second amendment doesn't support me at all. The constitution is terrible right?

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/guns.htm some more fun statistics. Incidents involving a firearm represented 9% of the 4.7 million violent crimes of rape and sexual assault, robbery, and aggravated and simple assault in 2005. Oh wait i thought criminals would always use guns since they are so easily available?

According to the 1997 Survey of State Prison Inmates, among those possessing a gun, the source of the gun was from -

• a flea market or gun show for fewer than 2%
• a retail store or pawnshop for about 12%
• family, friends, a street buy, or an illegal source for 80%

During the offense that brought them to prison, 15% of State inmates and 13% of Federal inmates carried a handgun, and about 2%, a military-style semiautomatic gun

Yeah those gun shows are a big place for criminals to get guns huh?....

I'm not american, I don't give half a shit about the sodding constitution (though I have studied it). Take guns out of legal ownership, eventually they become incredibly hard to obtain.

 

[Janenmori]

People are fucking stupid. These citizens of yours should either a) get the fuck over their supposed right to shoot shit or b) (which would be more reasonable) actually read the legislation that Obama has put through concerning guns. A QUICK GOOGLE WOULD SUFFICE. Then, just maybe, they could make up their own damn minds - except they're too stuck on the idea he's some Muslim gun-hating socialist lesbian to ever, ever do that.

People are fucking stupid, but people are assured rights by their Constitution which was established by their forefathers in order to form a more perfect union etc. They want to have securities of their own not based on what the government tells them. They trust themselves to take care of themselves more than they trust the government to. Obama is actually for the ban of all semi-automatic weapons. Imagine that. You should try learning about something before you make some blatantly ignorant statement about an issue in a country you are not even a citizen of.

I'm not american, I don't give half a shit about the sodding constitution (though I have studied it). Take guns out of legal ownership, eventually they become incredibly hard to obtain.

If you take guns out of legal ownership, that is violating the 2nd ammendment in the Constitution. And if you are unaware, no law is higher than the Constitution in the U.S. If a law is made that contradicts the Constitution, it is up to the determination of the Supreme Court whether this law should be recinded or not, which a full weapons ban would be. The only way to make guns illegal for the average citizen to own is to ammend the Constitution. There is no way in hell that is happening, especially with the ammount gun organizations contribute to the Democrats and the fact that Republicans in general love guns. Try educating yourself before making statements about how a foriegn nation operates.

 

[Ness]

Gun control only hurts law abiding citizens, if someone is going to break the law they are going to break the law.

 

[Lexite]

If Akuchi has no problem with us tossing out our 2nd Amendment and doesnt give half a shit about our Constitution then I guess she wouldnt care if we toss out numbers 13,14, 19. She doesnt give a shit about people's rights so who cares. Lets not forget that guns were necessary to get us the Constitution in the first place. And before any of you even try to say that the Revolutionary war was fought with a US Military please go back and actually study history. There was no US military at the time, the people fought on their own with their own weapons because they fought for their protection and something they believed in, their freedom.

 

[Phantom_IV]

Incidents involving a firearm represented 9% of the 4.7 million violent crimes of rape and sexual assault, robbery, and aggravated and simple assault in 2005.

^^ Pointless statement, as most of those don't require a weapon. U obviously dont need a gun for the first two, and IIRC simple assault becomes aggravated assault if a gun is involved. Curiously, murder isnt in that list lol.

And really the constitution doesnt protect your right to a gun. The wording and original intent of the constitution was to protect the right to an armed militia more than allow individuals to be armed.

 

[Invective]

And really the constitution doesnt protect your right to a gun. The wording and original intent of the constitution was to protect the right to an armed militia more than allow individuals to be armed.

this is what the second amendment states.
and the supreme court, whos job is to interpret laws, decided that it means we have a right to be packin heat. at least, thats what they decided recently.

so, currently, the second amendment does protect our right to a gun.
original intent means jack squat if the current supreme court decides differently.

 

[Lexite]

And really the constitution doesnt protect your right to a gun. The wording and original intent of the constitution was to protect the right to an armed militia more than allow individuals to be armed.

You clearly do not know the law becuase the courts said that and US citizen stated that the people are the ones with the rights to bear arms as well.

The Supreme Court, in a landmark decision, in District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S.Ct. 2783 (2008) ruled that "[t]he Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home" and "that the District’s ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment, as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense."[130][131][132][133]
The Court held that the amendment's prefatory clause serves to clarify the operative clause, but does not limit or expand the scope of the operative clause. Justice Stevens, in his dissent, called the Opinion of the Court "strained and unpersuasive" and said that the right to possess a firearm exists only in relation to the militia and that the D.C. laws constitute permissible regulation. Justice Scalia, in the Opinion of the Court, called Justice Stevens' interpretation of the phrase "to keep and bear arms" incoherent and grotesque.[134]

 

[Syberia]

The militia has been time and time again interpreted to refer to all citizens of the United States.

According to the United States Code, it is "all able-bodied males who are, or have made a declaration to become, citizens of the United States." While it only mentions males, this piece of 19th-century legislation can clearly be expanded to include women in the present day.

In the Supreme Court case United States v. Miller, the militia was ruled to be "comprised of all men physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense."

In a more recent case, United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, "'the people' protected by the Fourth Amendment, and by the First and Second Amendments, and to whom rights and powers are reserved in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, refers to a class of persons who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community."

Finally, in Heller v. District of Columbia, "the second amendment protects an individual’s right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in the militia."

So the judges whose job it is to actually interpret the second amendment would seem to disagree with you on that one.

 

[Phantom_IV]

They would, because many of them were appointed to do so. As much as we would like to think otherwise, our judicial system is highly influenced by politics and even public opinion.

Truly, I dont have that much respect for the current supreme court. If they can give Bush the presidency, they can make all sorts of errors.

 

[Lexite]

Ummmmmm what in the world are you talking about? The Supreme court did not give Bush the Presidency. Please go and learn something about our Government before you go and talk. The American People put Bush into office, not the Supreme Court. Don't you know anyhting about the check and balance system? My gosh, this is part of why our country is getting so messed up, students are not taught anything about history or governemnt and it is just sad.

 

[Phantom_IV]

No, the supreme court DID give bush the presidency. They ordered to stop the recounts while bush was ahead and allowed some very questionable absentee ballots. You're the reason the U.S. is screwed up, sir.

 

[Lexite]

He won the electoral vote!!!!!!!!!! You are just completely miss informed.

 

[Phantom_IV]

I'm not gonna argue history with u.
I'll let wiki talk.
"
Most of the post-electoral controversy revolved around Gore's request for hand recounts in four counties (Broward, Miami Dade, Palm Beach, and Volusia), as provided under Florida state law. Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris announced she would reject any revised totals from those counties if they were not turned in by November 14, the statutory deadline for amended returns. The Florida Supreme Court extended the deadline to November 26, a decision later vacated by the U.S. Supreme Court. Miami-Dade eventually halted its recount and resubmitted its original total to the state canvassing board, while Palm Beach County failed to meet the extended deadline. On November 26, the state canvassing board certified Bush the victor of Florida's electors by 537 votes. Gore formally contested the certified results, but a state court decision overruling Gore was reversed by the Florida Supreme Court, which ordered a recount of over 70,000 ballots previously rejected by machine counters. The U.S. Supreme Court quickly halted the order.
On December 12, the Supreme Court ruled 7-2 that the Florida Supreme Court's plan for recounting ballots was unconstitutional. It also directed by a 5-4 vote that the Florida recounts cease and that the previously certified total would hold.
"
We will never know who really had more votes. However, the Supreme Court did side with Bush and cut off Gore's legitimate request for a recount.

Edit: I am going to sleep now. Good night to you.

 

[Syberia]

Everything is based on politics and personal opinion. Even the constitution itself. Unless you're going to criticize every system of government ever created and suggest that we be ruled by robots, I fail to see your point.

 

[Lexite]

He won the electoral. I want a recount on Obama, lets recount each and every one of the next few presidents. Besides, wikipedia is editable, anyone can put any information on there and it does not have to be correct. I have seen information on there so many times that is not correct.