Gun Control

Can someone kindly provide a non-biased, definitive source showing that gun control has a negative effect? All the ones posted here are from NRA or some other obviously biased source with unbacked allegations.

When speaking of the Constitution, try to remember that the entire Bill of Rights was made out of duress to appease the states-rights leaders of the time. Furthermore, the founding fathers probably didn't envision automatic weapons, armor piercing rounds, grenades, et al. Also, just you try to deny thousands of angry and now trained militiamen/farmers the weapons they used to defend their land and use for hunting food.

The 2nd Amendment, along with the outline of the powers of the President, were specifically left vague in order to dodge a lot of immediate problems; Let the future decide how to enforce certain aspects and how to interpret these tenets.

So, without any further remedial civics lessons, I believe that gun control issues are blown out of proportion thanks to the NRA. The NRA refuses to budge on any topic that has any leeway about personal freedom versus obvious danger. Frankly, they have to, because if they accept that one gun is dangerous and should be banned it sets a precedent that will cause a death by degrees.

Adressing what the OP wants, you would be hard pressed to find adequate hard evidence for casual conversation. If you were to cite what other countries condone, whatever you say is weakened by the fact that things intrinsically work different in America.

>>31
They did have cannons and artillery weapons. The constitution did nothing to ban the private ownership of these. Nor did it ban the private ownership of warships. Nor did it ban the private ownership of bayonettes. (Seriously Clinton... when was the last time you heard about a bayonetting incident?)

Whether or not the founding fathers could envision future weaponry is arguing a completely different argument than what is being discussed. Perhaps they could and did envision such weaponry. Any man with half a brain could see that man first warred with stones. Then he warred with spears. Then he warred with brass knives. Then he warred with iron swords and bows. Then he warred with cannons, and rifles.

Tell me then, what did the founding fathers believe? That weaponry would remain the same for the next thousand years? No. Of course not. What the founding fathers were arguing for is for an armed citizenry. A citizenry that could have the capabilities to overthrow a corrupt government and protect itself in case an armed militia failed to do so.

Yes, there is gun crime. Most crimes commited using firearms are with illegally procured firearms. To argue the case of gun control in terms of statistics(lies) is entirely beyond the point of the debate. Who cares is gun control is stricter in other countries and they have less gun crime. (Statistics 101, correlation is NOT causation) Who cares if Switzerland has lax laws yet extremely low gun crime (again, correlation is NOT causation). Because these countries are NOT America, and there is no RULE governing what the effects of gun control are. (Despite how either side will lie to you with completely unempirical "definitive statistics and facts" concerning case studies.) {Maybe we can just say nigras can't have guns and gun crime will drop. Okay, as a /b/tard I had to add that in.}

Should we, as law abiding citizens, be allowed to own a firearm to protect ourselves, our families, and our homes? That's my opinion on the subject.

>>32
Sorry to mislead you if it seemed I was attempting to argue that the right to bear arms should be a static definition from the Founding Fathers. My notion is that it is ridiculous to use the Bill of Rights as an explaination as to why someone should be allowed weapons of immense deadliness. Whether that is a correct interpretation or not of what the writers of the Bill of Rights intended is, and should, be up to interpretation for what is necessary to the situation. That said, nobody can, save for a miraculous time rift, correctly ascertain how the Constitution would have provided for our current weaponry.

I personally do not find a need to have an assault rifle as my primary home defense: I have a shotgun and a regular rifle for that. Of course needs vary, but most intruders would get the message to leave when they hear the cocking of either one. Spraying my household with a torrent of bullets probably would do more damage to my personal wealth than someone taking my TV. An artillery cannon would probably do worse, obviously, but I am getting off track to show an example. There is little (in my opinion) need for certain classes of weapons to be in the hands of civilians.

My opinion is (and yes, I am parsing carefully my semantics) that gun control is a ill-advised thing that only allows for greater abuses by those in control. The governments of the world should have a healthy respect and fear of their subjects, as we are the ones who grant them power and authority. I would enjoy a policy of gun moderation; that is, allow people to freely own weapons if they despire, to protect themselves and have for general utility.