This is a discussion on What would you say to this? within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; Originally Posted by QKShooter I think it's really dangerous and sickening the way crazy sports fans riot, carry on, get drunk, & start fires, loot ...
People's minds can be changed if they are willing to honestly and openly enter the arena of ideas.
What you have written should make the light come on in the head of any person who is willing to cosider that they are wrong. There are some who will never be convinced, but we must never stop trying.
Good job. I hope he takes you up on your invitation to do some shooting.
When you've got 'em by the balls, their hearts & minds will follow. Semper Fi.
Do not make the mistake of not dealing with the person's statement. He said, that Canada has more guns per person than the US. In your response you are addressing the total number of guns. There are 300 million people in the US. There would have to be 300 million guns for there to be one gun per person. There are fewer than 33 million people in Canada, so there would only have to be 33 million guns for there to be one gun per person. The latest information I can find is for 1997 and it shows that for that year there were .25 firearms per person in Canada and .82 firearms per person in the US. So his statistic is incorrect.[But there is something wrong with Americans. We kill each other like no other industrialized nation. Canada has far more guns per person and they don't kill each other... so the problem is something deeper.]
First off, I'm curious as to what your sources are on saying that Americans "kill like no other". According to this website (http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cr...ers-per-capita ) we are #24 on the list of amount of murders per capita. And as for Canada having more guns than we do, I hightly doubt it. According to a poll in the 90s, roughtly 50% of Americans admitted to having a gun in their home. Now, that was Pre-9/11, which was when gun sales really went through the roof, and also it doesn't count the many gun owners who probably wouldn't admit to owning a gun. Unless you're counting those lil "bang bang cap guns" at Wal-Mart, I don't see how Canada has more guns than we do, lol.
As stated in another post if his statistic were true it would be evidence that his whole argument is wrong.
Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe. Albert Einstein
I like your response--reasoned, factual (with sources)...so of course he isn't going to read it. If he does, I'm interested in his response.
He is right I would not hunt a Dear with a AK (30 cal) but I would hunt a Deer with one.
Also we hunt with .50 cal (black powder) all the time so he is wrong there, as to the boys to the north having more guns... well look at the stats of how many guns vs how many US citizens and I believe that may be in error there too.
His crime notions are way off base, actually gun crimes are not that significant per 100K and are mostly repeat offenders doing the bad deed, so I point my finger to the judicial system for blame on that one.
One more thing the musket was the assault weapon of the 1700's.
So did anyone keep count on how many points he has wrong here?
"The sword dose not cause the murder, and the maker of the sword dose not bear sin" Rabbi Solomon ben Isaac 11th century
Have him read this article: http://www.usconcealedcarry.com/public/113.cfm
Then read the 2nd amendment section here:
Then read the militia act. The militia act does specifically talk about muskets because they were the standard "infantry" gun of the day. My understanding is that we should have what the standard soldier carries. Our rights do however end at artillery, because they address artillery seperately than "arms".
Point out the fact that Connecticut, Kentucky, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Vermont all had their state constitutions BEFORE the Bill Of Rights and they specifically addressed self defense.
If he decides that militia means "national guard" apply this type of logic: Why would the government need to protect a government entity from the government, IN a document designed to protect the people?
I hope some of this helps.