Celtic Heroes

All the logic in this is flawed.

Why would the government think banning assault weapons would help?

Murder is illegal, it still happens.
Non-Medical Drugs are illegal, it still happens.
Rape is illegal, it still happens.

Assault Weapon banning won't be any differen, except for the fact that now citizens won't be able to defend themselves or their family if the time comes.

That's just my point of view, and personally I don't own any guns, it's just the fact that they are taking away the people's rights.

All the logic in this is flawed.

Why would the government think banning assault weapons would help?

Murder is illegal, it still happens.
Non-Medical Drugs are illegal, it still happens.
Rape is illegal, it still happens.

Assault Weapon banning won't be any differen, except for the fact that now citizens won't be able to defend themselves or their family if the time comes.

That's just my point of view, and personally I don't own any guns, it's just the fact that they are taking away the people's rights.

Your logic makes no sense. People dont need an assault rifle to defend their family, personally a shotgun would work much better for me. Assault rifles need to be band. Explain why someone needs an assault rifle? Even for hunting its a little lame and cheap if you are using an automatic gun to take down a deer. Jeez show some skill, use a bow and arrow
If we take away assault rifles, they will still exist, murder with them will still happen. The point is: it will decrease the murder rate, there's no reason why it wouldn't. I understand the small firearms, but assault rifles? They need to go.

Fools, you know the world, they start with the basics and then they move up the ladder.

All the logic in this is flawed.

Why would the government think banning assault weapons would help?

Murder is illegal, it still happens.
Non-Medical Drugs are illegal, it still happens.
Rape is illegal, it still happens.

Assault Weapon banning won't be any differen, except for the fact that now citizens won't be able to defend themselves or their family if the time comes.

That's just my point of view, and personally I don't own any guns, it's just the fact that they are taking away the people's rights.

Your logic makes no sense. People dont need an assault rifle to defend their family, personally a shotgun would work much better for me. Assault rifles need to be band. Explain why someone needs an assault rifle? Even for hunting its a little lame and cheap if you are using an automatic gun to take down a deer. Jeez show some skill, use a bow and arrow
If we take away assault rifles, they will still exist, murder with them will still happen. The point is: it will decrease the murder rate, there's no reason why it wouldn't. I understand the small firearms, but assault rifles? They need to go.

fully automatic weapons are already illegal in all 50 states

@ Dersu. I'm sure you're information is accurate to the best of your knowledge. I'm not questioning that. One thing I would like to point out: Those numbers are spread across the entire country. Crime rates will be extremely different between "gang territory", and, say, amish country. I can almost 100% guaruntee that i will never be involved in any kind of gang violence. If i ever have to use a gun on another human, it will because they broke into my home, or are in a public place threatening the safety of other people, or myself. This is very different from how guns will be used in the bad neighborhoods or areas controlled by gangs. So all im saying is that when looking at the numbers for each country, remember that certain areas will have much higher crime rate than others.

By the way, I applaud all the work you've done looking up these statistics, and organizing them in an easy to understand format. good job, and thanks!

First and foremost, thanks for thanking me It is becoming a rare human trait to thank someone, and I suspect that number goes down when the person is arguing against you I will say that on my end it hasn't taken all that much effort... after 8 years of university and three degrees, sifting through mountains of mire to find nuggets of information has become second nature. I suspect that as you continue on in your studies it will become that way for you as well.

As for the main chunk of your post... maybe you didn't fully read my last post? I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you were tired or something when you read it, but I completely addressed the concept of location and socio-economic status. As I said, one of the most important things in determining you risk is asking yourself what your area is prone to, hence the rhetorical question: "Do you live in Compton or the Hamptons?" I also provided a link which has a breakdown of crime and murder by state, as I don't think national averages are that reliable.

As for the main chunk of your post... maybe you didn't fully read my last post? I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you were tired or something when you read it, but I completely addressed the concept of location and socio-economic status. As I said, one of the most important things in determining you risk is asking yourself what your area is prone to, hence the rhetorical question: "Do you live in Compton or the Hamptons?" I also provided a link which has a breakdown of crime and murder by state, as I don't think national averages are that reliable.

In this case, your benefit of the doubt would be misplaced... this was just me waiting a long time before your post and my post and forgetting that you had already mentioned that. Mybad

Come on now, just because you have 8 yrs of studying and 3 degrees does not mean anything if you got it from an American university. All it says is that your parents have money or you accrued a lot of debt. Hell I even have a degree and it is worthless in what I do. What I am saying is that you don't have to have a formal education to defend yourself, just enough sense to stay alive.

Come on now, just because you have 8 yrs of studying and 3 degrees does not mean anything if you got it from an American university. All it says is that your parents have money or you accrued a lot of debt. Hell I even have a degree and it is worthless in what I do. What I am saying is that you don't have to have a formal education to defend yourself, just enough sense to stay alive.

The statement I made had nothing to do with self-prowess... it was an off the cuff remark, and my actual intent was to let nighthawk know that the info I gathered was no big deal... ie., I was trying to be humble by saying that I have trained myself to be able to find important information efficiently, and that thanking me for my effort was not necessary, as it took very little effort.

In a way, it is similar to your talking about your military experience and how that trained you to deal with fear. It was a simple statement of how our experiences alter our way of living.

As for what it says about me... I don't think that you have hit either on the mark at all. I've already stated in this thread that I am from a farm (not a whole lot of money there). I worked at a factory each summer (four months) and took every possible overtime shift I could get. That generally got me about 15k each year, which allowed me to pay my educational expenses, and partially provided for living. I did take student loans, which totaled about 40k for the 8 years (paid back over time, all payments completed 5 years after I graduated.)

I hold no American degrees. Two of my degrees are from a Canadian university, and the third is from a university in Japan.

Don't say that a degree is useless, derp. It may not be in your field, but I suspect that the education you received has helped you in more ways than you might realize.

ps. I have a few replies to your other posts... but will most likely be offline until Tuesday.

pps. I will give Paine another reading when I get the chance. Thanks for recommending that. I have read some of his writing. He is a bit of a tough one to figure out, and by that I mean his motives. He is considered a bit of a hack in certain circles, as his writing was often an amalgamation of various thoughts for the purpose of a paycheck. Not that what is in his writing is suspect... just that you have to take certain writing with salt. I love Voltaire, for example, but his biography of Frederick the Great can't really be trusted because Frederick paid most of Voltaire's bills

I respect your education more, I just have a personal grudge with the American education system and where there money comes from. For instance research grant money needs to show a certain result in order for that money to keep coming in. It is just to political these days for me to trust that the are solely an education facility.
As for as the Federalist papers it is a prequel to the ratified constitution. The constitution was put in place with a bare bones structure. The amendments is how the constitution changes with time and conditions. The Bill of Rights were put into place and named this so they would not be tampered with. The BoR were left off of the constitution so that individual states would ratify the document and principles on how government should be constructed with no hurdles in place. This is why I say that the Federalist Papers along with Common Sense (another of his writings) should be read. It puts the constitution into its right context and explains its intention. We strayed away from these beliefs when we went away from constitutional law to case law. This has happened only recently in our nations past (indoctrination instead of education).

I give up on this post , too many big words .