My bad. I could not recall if you had taken the BAR or not, so I played it safe.
In order to begin, I will just say that I stand in defense of the 2nd Amendment, as it is written and intended by the authors of the Constitution.
No harm done, just clarifying the point.
I'd have to ask what you mean by that. For instance, a good part of the inclination of the Founders dealt with a militia that was necessary absent a standing army, an army which we now have. That coupled with state guards eliminated that as a serious advance. Another reason protecting the right to bear arms was that a great many people relied upon them for food and living, along with protection along frontiers. Those are largely gone as well.
I support single shot weapons, breech loaders and bolt action rifles. I oppose clip loaded weapons and any aid that would significantly increase times for loadings, like speed loaders for the gray area revolvers. The reasons are straight forward enough: the weapons I promote and would protect are in complete accord with those the Founders/authors of the right believed capable of satisfying the right to bear arms. They're even better. What they aren't and won't accomplish that weapons I oppose can is the swift killing of large numbers of people. I think those weapons pose a clear and demonstrable danger to the republic and I note that where the sorts of laws I favor are in play there is a dramatic reduction in both mass shootings/murders and gun violence, and that this promotes a more pressing public good.
I agree that any right comes with restraint. But, that exists already when it comes to guns. For example, a civilian cannot own a fully automatic weapon without prior training or a permit, which is quite costly and hard to obtain. A civilian cannot own military grade weapons, such as an M16, SAW, etc.
I simply mean that I agree with the Second Amendment as it was intended by the authors of it. Such defenses of it can be found in various letters and articles by the founding fathers. They adamantly defend the right to defend oneself against any threat to ones' life and liberties.
There are several good points to address here, so I will break them down one at a time; akin to how one would break down a gun.
So far so good.
I'd agree and have recognized that we have laws relating to them. I believe that technology has made it necessary to revisit them for reasons touched upon in my last and set out in particular over the course of this thread.
Well, I'd agree that the sort of person who becomes a mass shooter/murderer is a dangerous person in general and that what particular sorts of guns afford them is the ability to be that danger to a greater number of people.
It's easier to tell you, as I did in my last, what I support. Anything that isn't in that group is something I'd remove from the stream of commerce. I support breech loaded shotguns and bolt action rifles. Single shot pistols as well, though I'm open to discuss revolvers. Nothing loaded by clip. Nothing semi or fully automatic. No implement in support designed to accelerate loading and firing, as with speed loaders and bump stocks.
And the weapons I support are better at doing everything the Founders found sufficient to the task.
They didn't have to. That was literally the reason for a militia. It wasn't inferred. It was set out directly. The reason that it was "necessary for a free state" was because we lacked a standing army.
It really doesn't and hasn't. Historically, once we had an armed forces those (men and women involved) safeguarded us and the Constitution they were and are sworn to defend.
A mob of people with AR 15s wouldn't make a real difference in a firefight with those armed forces.
Well, you can't say "also false" unless you demonstrate something is necessarily false that precedes it. I advance that you haven't. But beyond that, I didn't say the clarification was given. I said among the reasons why the right was important was the empirically verifiable fact that much of the population used it for exactly those purposes. They needed to be able to raise a citizen army. They understood those citizens used those arms to provide food, livelihood, and protection for themselves as well. Every single point in that is true. No falsity involved in any part of it.
The most important thing to the nation at the point of framing was the preservation of that nation in the absence of a standing army. No doubt about it. But if that's the resting point then the right has outlived its usefulness, because it is no longer necessary for the security of our free state. But I'd argue that there are other reasons that are legitimate ones and warrant its continuation. I don't recall anything about malicious individuals in the right though, to echo your approach.
Absent speed loaders a revolver isn't really that much more dangerous, except in terms of concealment, than a double barrel shotgun.
No, it's literally true that the weapons I support are more capable than the weapons in existence and which the Founders found capable of serving the purpose of fulfilling the right. The militia no longer being necessary for the defense of our nation, those are the only remaining reasons that should compel, along with the simple right to own property.
Nothing in that right, to follow your own way of examining it prior, speaks to the idea of overthrowing our government. In point of fact, though there was some mistrust among some Founders (and remember that we had more of a compact than what our evolving Union would become by a century later) the idea wasn't to fight among ourselves but to repel invaders, like the British.
If fifty men rush your house it won't matter. What I mean is that once we begin manufacturing scenarios, hypotheticals, that will largely never happen to justify the existence of a thing that is increasingly involved in non-hypothetical situations ending in the deaths of scores of people, there's not much real argument going on.
It really doesn't. It addresses ease of access, which goes to importation, manufacturing, and legal possession. Impact the supply and you impact the use.
No. We have police forces and weapons sufficient to safeguard ourselves and property from the rule of what and how criminals use weapons outside of their use on one another in relation to the more organized elements and enterprises.
They are literally better weapons, and faster firing ones. The weapons of that day were flintlock pistols and muskets. And your link was to the opening page of a voluminous report. Better for you to quote some portion of it so I'll know what you mean to suggest by it.
First, a sniper is just someone in hiding with a gun. It doesn't follow that they're particularly skilled. And while they certainly could kill a number of people, the difference between that potential and someone with a semi automatic or fully automatic weapon is profound, which remains the point.
That's a peculiar statement, because someone is not an effective killer until the act is completed. It's a bit like saying a pregnant woman is not deterred by contraception.
We've seen some stabbings in various places where guns aren't as readily available and some where they are. What we haven't seen is anything like the death count by those stabbers that we would see or expect with semi and fully automatic weapons, so it really supports my point.
We've seen some instances of that, to be sure. What we haven't found in every other industrialized Western democracy is people simply shifting means. For the most part that's understandable, because there really isn't as easy an alternative when it comes to killing a lot of people quickly.
In order, of course not. And no one is suggesting that ending the legal possession of the sorts of weapons I'm speaking to will end violence or every sort.
I've repeatedly set out links to figures relating to the literally dramatic disparity per citizen in this country and the Western democracies noted above and prior. I've also set out links that examine an equally damning statistical difference between states here with strong gun laws and those without them in terms of gun deaths and injuries per 100k. The worst have the weakest and the best the strongest. And the disparity runs to double digits.
Well we've seen crime in general decrease as the Baby Boomers age, but then the point of eliminating certain particular classes of weapons is to impact gun violence and mass shootings and not as some larger solution to criminal enterprise. Also, we have more guns per citizen than any nation on earth and yet are the least safe among our Western cousins.
Are you also for stricter regulations on knives, which account for a large number of violent assaults?
The Founders also allowed citizens to have cannons, fifteen shot pistols, volley guns, etc. Do these seem comparable to the simple weapons that you suggest? I would argue "no."
But the second amendment is not about a militia, it is about arming the people.
So, you would say that a government, becoming tyrannical, is impossible, in the US?
But they would stand more of a chance than with simple single-shots.
I find this to be more of a quibble. You and I both know that the second amendment in no capacity mentions hunting. To use hunting rifles as an inference, arguing that it was relevant to the time, is a fallacy, since no such clarification was ever made. Again, I think this is detracting from the real issue at hand.
Incorrect. While the prime event that the Founders were focus on was an inevitable conflict with Britain, the rights outlined were not directed at war or international conflict purposes. If this were the case, freedom of speech, assembly, press, etc. would not have been the first right outlined. Nor would matters of jury, due process, etc.
This demonstrates an ignorance of firearms.
Wrong. Let us examine some weapons that were utilized in those days, which the Founders would have had knowledge of.
I at no point have spoken of "overthrowing our government."
TH, this continued insistence that once a standing army was achieved, then the militia and arming of the people became obsolete. What nation, in the time of the drafting of the Constitution, did not have a standing army? Recall, at this time, we were assembling an army. Basic common sense (in 1776) would state that every sovereign nation has an army. So, to make a right assured to it citizens, dealing with formation of a military is ludicrous.
You are right. It would not matter if fifty men rushed my house, if I only had single shot rifles. It would be futile. But, if I had access to weapons with 25 round magazines, then I would stand a chance.
I know it is an old, and overused argument, but it is relevant: Heroin, cocaine, etc are illegal. Yet, people still have access to them. Has this supply not been impacted?
What is the average response time of a police force to a home invasion? Or how about to a public murder, such as any mass shooting?
Points taken. I concur on these.
You mean like bombs, which are illegal to manufacture?
But statistics demonstrate that we have more guns in the hands of civilians than ever before; yet crime statistics do not show an increase in mass shootings. The correlation that such an argument as yours suggests just does not exist.
If you just reference them adequately (such as the statistic, where it applies, and the resulting conclusion), I will try and find them.
Where is this statistic? Sweden shows the best stats, yet they have nearly every citizen armed.
My apologies. I will try and be more effective and heed this advice in the future. Thank you.
No, but then I can't think of the last time someone with a knife killed twenty something people in a go, let alone fifty or better. And I'm not against all guns, though someone with a breech loader or a bolt action rifle could kill a few people with it. As I noted a number of times on the topic, what I'm speaking to is the ease with which a thing designed to kill can be used to kill a great many people in a very short time.
Again, when you have to raise an army from the citizenry you need the weapons of an army.
A different purpose. And once that purpose was satisfied elsewhere restrictions began to pop up in law to restrict or deny access to especially dangerous weapons. And the Court upheld those restrictions.
No, it's not. Read the Amendment and note the premise.
That highlighted section is the "why" or the reason, purpose behind the amendment.
I'd say you don't make a rule based on a hypothetical, because almost anything is possible. What's more than possible, what is probable, is that without restricting the weapons I'm speaking to and making some serious changes to access we will continue to have the comparative disadvantage in terms of death count and gun related violence that we have today and that more and more Americans find unacceptable, as they should.
Rather, I'm well versed in history and understand that you're not speaking to the habits of western democracies.
And a bucket full of water will do more than a glass in a forest fire, but the difference won't really matter.
I didn't say that it did. It's about a militia, but I noted other things the Founders had to be aware of that were a part of the reality of the day.
Then it would be your problem as I clarified on the point once and now again. So...
It's not incorrect and that's not a rebuttal. The amendment tells you what its about and a militia was a rallied army for the purpose of repelling hostile forces. That's all it was used for in that day.
No, it's what the amendment says. You need to curtail the "ignorant" and "falsehood" rhetoric if you want to have the sort of conversation with me you asked for...and I don't have time for the other sort. A falsehood is a knowing misrepresentation and telling someone that because they don't share your opinion they're ignorant is similarly problematic for meaningful difference and civil discourse.
Like that. I'm a qualified marksman, former ROTC, life long gun owner and hunter and I've actually been fired upon a couple of times. So maybe you're just not taking my point or maybe you're taking it somewhere else.
I address this first, due to the apparent need to clarify terminology/vocabulary.
In 2014, 35 people were killed, with 143 injured, in a knife wielding spree, in China. In 2016, a man in Tokyo killed 19, wounding 26.
Okay. I am not being condescending, but I am going to walk you through the first three parts of the document known as "We the People," and the Bill of Rights (preamble, first and second amendment), akin to a 5th grade history class.
Well, let us see what the Founders have to say about that:
Well, history disagrees with you. Let us examine some historical evidence of western civilizations (Germany being the only democracy) now:
I am a qualified marksman, life long gun owner (not a hunter or fisherman), and never been fired upon. I have a concealed-carry permit. I own guns that cause more damage than an AR-15.
I can assume that, or I can see if you're color blind or simply mistaken for some other reason. The choice I make says something about the spirit of my involvement. So I should be careful about that.
A horrible thing. Now unpack it. In the account you're speaking to it wasn't some lone nut, but a group of men in a train station. A group of individuals in a tightly packed space committing an act of terrorism. A planned and coordinated act. They have more in common with Tim McVey than with the deranged or evil young man in Florida, or the deranged and/or evil fellow in Las Vegas. That is to say, they are an outlier among outliers and really, practically speaking, outside of the point.
Well, no. It is a fact that more knives are used than rifles in violent acts. It's a rather singular one. But my objection has not been limited to rifles and where rifles not to all. Your statement that then asserts I must be a hypocrite if I'm not similarly situated on restricting knives without your having similarly framed the point is mistaken.
lain:Later addressed with specificity by Amendment, sure. The one I set out in full.
A preamble isn't an establishment of right. It's a declaration of intent, a mission statement. What follows, the actual Constitution, establishes right. And so the amendment that, reasons notwithstanding, protects and legally establishes the right, which I am not and have never been opposed to.
That's the ticket. We didn't have a standing army, unlike the nations that could threaten our security as a union, loose as that union was initially and comparatively. So we had to rely on a militia. That militia was necessary and the people who comprised it must then necessarily have weapons and the right to them protected. Basic social contract. Good notion.
In our compact we, the people, are that government.
Had the Founders merely wanted to promote the right to bear arms among its people no mention of the militia would have been necessary. That they began with that very consideration is indicative of their intent. That said, again, I think they were aware of other pragmatic reasons, reasons I support to this day, but the one given was sufficient for the day.
And he was right. For a number of reasons. The argument here is not and never has been the abolition of the right to bear arms.
Only if you're royalty or simply in the habit of pluralizing yourself. No, you may not. I note again that I in no part advance nor is the issue enjoined here a fight over whether or not we have a right to bear arms. And I absolutely reject your notion that you establish in your quotes a thing that contradicts the larger reason advanced for the right (even as I hold there are other valid reason owing no part to either militia).
It does not. Now let's get to why. I specifically noted that my consideration was among Western democracies and how the more restrictive regulation of weapons has not carried with it an infringement upon liberty or principles dear to it, not led to the sort of tyranny in need of an armed uprising or one reasonably giving rise to paranoid hypotheticals. So dragging in the Soviets makes no sense as a rebuttal. Neither does China. Germany's republic was undone by its own people, willfully. If any populace reaches the point where it overwhelmingly believes a thing the minority will have to move or fight, and likely lose in the latter effort. The confluence of historic forces that made Hitler's Germany is rare, singular among modern efforts at democracy. The outlier and not the rule and one relying on that improbable confluence.
Germany actually only established (or, more accurately attempted to establish) those laws among a single class of its citizens, the Jew. And that was largely a failure, but it didn't matter given the might of its army and the popular will. This is no study in what followed from strong, universal gun law among Western democracies.
I'd agree that if for no apparent reason other than to serve your ends we agreed to focus on all knives as an instrument of violence when compared to one class of guns, knives would win that peculiarly narrowed race.
And, again, that is not and has not been my view any more than my aim is to eliminate the right. In fact and at nearly every point I have advanced that the right was an extension of any number of pragmatic understandings, but that (and lately in our particular discourse) having hung its necessity on an overriding and compelling necessity no other was needed at the time of its writing. It should have been amended long before now to include a larger consideration.
Rather, your cherry picked sampling of less than a handful of Founders, most of whom I fully agreed with, neither breaks my part in advance nor requires any alteration of the arguments I've presented for the actual point here, or what was supposed to be the point of the conversation, the argument for restricting certain guns from entry into the stream of commerce without the abolition of the right to bear arms.
And that's nonsense prima facie, as I cannot hold both the knowing advance of a falsity and be ignorant of the same. That's always been a lazy, irrational bit of rhetoric. Pick an insult.
No part of my argument has or presently does rely on our side-bar on the 2nd Amendment, which I favor as a gun owner.
Sorry to hear it, though you're likely responsible with them. I say sorry to hear it because that indulgence, a needless one, is the premise for a great deal of equally needless harm.
Sorry to hear that as well. I've rarely met anyone who was skilled in the use of a gun who couldn't also break that gun into parts for proper cleaning and I wonder at how long or what sort of ROTC program she was involved with? Smacks of high school, perhaps. That would explain it.
No, I would be making an argument from authority had I advanced my qualifications and said that because of them my position on a particular (outside of an understanding or point directly tied to any or all of them) must be true.
What I see is a disconcerting habit of assuming or not fully contextualizing on your part. For instance, you choose a 45 and assume what caliber of shotgun? At what distance? With what skill, etc? In general, a shotgun is more deadly for any practical use. You want home defense, I'll take my double barrel 20 gauge indoors over any handgun. And I'm skilled with a handgun. Most people, criminal or not, aren't particularly proficient in the use of their weapon in the best of circumstances, let alone in a situation involving adrenaline and fear.
Rather, let us consider the guns that were largely on hand and therefore likely to be used by any militiaman. The ones we have at hand that meet my support are superior. Especially a bolt action rifle.
The Girandoni shot by use of an air reservoir with diminishing returns, though it was the closest thing to a repeating rifle that could be found. Even so you had to raise the weapon up to load the second round and there's no way to accomplish that and fire two rounds per second before we get to the decrease in velocity with each reloading until the chamber is exhausted. The Belton wasn't made until 1777 and was rejected by us and then the Brits. He claimed it could be done in as much as eight or as little as three seconds. It's not backed by much empirically speaking. So no. The puckle gun was designed to sit mounted as a means to repel ship boarding and has no practical claim here and I think only a couple were even made. One of two we know were actually constructed fired 9 rounds in a minute. The average musket could fire 2 to 5 per minute. And so on...
Well, no. I noted that the right had a context and purpose. That context was centered on the preservation of the fre State. The threat to that was from foreign powers. But really man, pick an object. You only just said you weren't talking about the tyranny of our own government and now you speak to Jefferson's fear of the fear of just that.
Not really a part of my argument at any point. Noting that the service was accomplished on this one if central aim and that many of the unvoiced but pragmatic arguments for the right is not and has not been advanced by me to deny the right itself, which isn't at issue here.
And yet where the measures I support are in play deaths and violence by gun are appreciably lower than where they are not.
If laws had no impact there would be no laws. Laws impact on two fronts. First, their consequence deters the reasonable man in his pursuit of any particular desire. Illustration of this is in the notable decrease in loss of life following the lowering of speed limits and the insistence of seatbelt use in cars. Does it stop every? Of course not. Does it work a good? Of course it does. Second, laws which prohibit the manufacturing, distribution and sale of particular things will necessarily impact the distribution and sale of those things. The fewer of them the less damage is likely by them (see: every other Western democracy with universal and tougher gun law). As even those who oppose my measures note, it's a logical necessity. Water is wet. Even those who don't want to bathe can recognize the empirical truth of the proposition.
If you find it insufficient argue for increasing the numbers of police or proximity to the citizenry.
Citation to authority? In any event, what I have cited to and noted is that the banning of these weapons leads to an easily observable distinction when it comes to gun violence, deaths, and mass murders.
Rather, it may evidence any number of things, from a saturation point past which additional weapons have an increasingly marginal impact. It may reflect a decrease in a given population prone to using those weapons violently. Any number of things really. And so we have more guns per individual than any nation on earth and lead the world in gun violence and mass murder. This rather demolishes the argument that safety is found in the possession of more guns. Coupled with the statistics from our cousins the rational course is clear.
I've posted a great many. You'll have to go back along the discourse here. I've noted the disparate impact in terms of other countries and even within our borders and placed links.
Not really. At least not in the sense that we are. I've noted Sweden, which has dramatically more gun control than we do here. You have to take and pass a serious test first after a year long course. You can't own more than six guns without special permission. You have to store them in a safe and transportation of them is regulated as well. You can't own guns if you're a felon, convicted of domestic violence, or driving under the influence. You can't own a fully automatic weapon and the chances of your getting a license for a semi-automatic aren't great.
Google deaths per 100k by guns and see what you come up with.
Right. The right was established in the absence of a standing army to safeguard our legal ability to raise one from our ranks (among other, unvoiced but I think important considerations that really should have been written in, but understandably weren't given the right to one protected the right to others). There wasn't a sufficient vision of our nation as a more unified and federally controlled institution to envision the standing army and degree of federal development and control that would come later.
It doesn't say that. In fact, it states its purpose as securing a free State, not a free individual. Of course, in our republic the State is a collection of free and entitled individuals. So that's a win/win.
First, that's nonsense and I addressed it prior. But what I have said is that the weapons the Founders found sufficient were if anything less capable than the weapons I support.
In point of fact, where gun laws are more strict in our own states the deaths per 100k of citizens is markedly better and compared to every other Western industrialized democracy with universal and stronger gun laws that undeniable fact becomes more dramatically evidenced.
Rather, they target only some types of guns. The guns used successfully to murder scores of children in minutes. Yes. That's right.
Raising an issue isn't a de facto ignoring of other issues. Just so, I can speak about cancer without "ignoring" heart disease. And knives are a much more complicated issue. But if you want to outlaw those particularly aimed at killing other human beings and can demonstrate that from the larger group they stand out it's a discussion to be had, though the considerations and limitations of effectiveness will be a different animal.
Rebutted prior. It doesn't at all follow.
Okay. So if legislation were passed to confiscate without compensation, would you say flawed legislation is worth it to save lives or that a tyrannical move like that would cost more lives in the future?
Sorry; I missed it.
I think it means I sometimes miss a single word answer that precedes a sentence outside of its context. I should have caught it and it was my mistake.
I didn't write nonsense like you did. I was engaging you in a civil manner which includes explaining when a point is made what the context of the point was so as to be clear.
It means that since we've established you promote ideas that lack wisdom and virtue, that we have to be suspect of the other ideas you promote. It's common sense.
Don't you realize that if all guns were banned, even single shot ones, there would be even *less* gun violence than just banning semi-autos? If your argument isn't based on reducing gun violence, then what is based on?
And since violence and homicide rates will swallow any measure of decline in gun violence and homicide rates, it makes your ban/restriction only a step in the march to do something more about gun violence and homicide.
The gun makers didn't facilitate the murders, they would have helped stop them if the policeman that had them had gone in to stop Cruz. The destructiveness of guns is one of their redeeming qualities.
You perceive that places where gun ownership rates are high and gun violence is low, that their guns must be taken from them as a solution to the problem of violence and murder in places were gun ownership rates are low that have high rates of violence and murder... your perceptions are as faulty as your logic.
If that were true, then places with high gun ownership rates would have more gun death than places with low gun ownership rates.
It is established by all the world where guns are restricted/banned and they still have a lot of mass killings.
And since you've admitted that we cannot measure the impact:
As noted just above, you have admitted that.
And, as you've ignored, inside those same states the lowest rates of violence are where there are the highest rates of gun ownership. And visa versa, the high gun violence rates are focused in places where gun ownership rates are low. And beyond that, somehow, even though driving guns across state lines is easy to do, the non-universality of guns laws from state to still results in differing rates... why doesn't that apply inside of states?
I'm not sure you do. You seem to think the reason I don't like your emotional arguments is because it is emotional. But that's not the case. The reason your emotional argument is bad is because that is what you base your sweeping proposal on, sans science, sans historical example, sans common sense, and sans God's opinion.
As demonstrated, your proposal is pure rhetoric.
Focusing on gun violence to the exclusion of violence using other tools is entirely emotional. Precisely because people use the exact same tool to defend themselves. And measuring any effect of confiscating everyone's guns on overall violence is, as you admit, not possible.
And since we know the reason why this is true, it also tells us how to impact violence overall instead of taking people's guns when they are using those guns to stop violence.
What the authorities enforce defines what is permissible. But what they enforce is sometimes not the law, and sometimes they don't enforce what is in the law books. But that has little to do with what rights are. The founders do not grant your right to self defense.
So you buy a shotgun you don't think you can use? Who does that? And who can't learn to use a shotgun? And wouldn't that necessitate one use something else for self defense? And what does any of this have to do with the difference between a multi-load and single-shot guns?
I doubt people that buy a shotgun they don't think they can use will give those people a false sense of security.
Or, ask yourself this question - shouldn't you say to Rosa Parks that there is no meaning to "better" if you can still ride the bus?
You cannot protect yourself as well with a single-shot gun. The Founders would recognize that a multi-shot gun is better and easier to defend yourself with than a single-shot one.
I can't believe you missed that. Confiscating guns will have an impact on the gun murder rate, but not the murder rate.
That's my belief. What principle are you talking about?
My point exactly. They could be legal to own and no one would care.
I get what you are saying. You don't get what I'm saying. The evidence is strongest that the line where reality currently sits is pretty close to the right line. In fact, it seems we could open what is legally permissible even more than it is today and the rate of violence would continue to go down.
No. The midwives of Egypt in Genesis were criminals because of the law. Bad laws make criminals.
Wanting to be able to defend one's self is not selfishness. It's actually something we prefer to avoid having to do if it isn't necessary.
It's the laws. As Krugman showed, it's not the parents that change, it's the laws.
Huh... you make it sound as if the reason fathers prefer to give custody to mothers and then pay child support to children they don't raise is because that's what they want. I'm sure men like that exist, but I doubt they are 70% - 80% of the divorced population.
Since I've provided the science, historical examples, common sense, and God's opinion -all of which you ignore - I'm sure we can understand why you see what I say as declarative nonsense. It appears you have an index card of allowable opinion - something elitists have to have by definition.
The only reasons you've offered is that it could never happen here. You ignore historical examples, current examples, and human nature as to why we should have caution.
“Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program.” Milton Friedman
No, the life where you ignore arguments from the other side.
:thumb:
And I note your speculation is countered by observation of what has happened, now over a good bit of time, in the many Western models we have and to a lesser extent in states within our nation that simply tighten laws short of taking those guns out of circulation AND while often being surrounded by states with even weaker laws.
That would be police and soldiers. Not a lot of those gunning down kids in school yards.
They're used to kill or subdue with police and to kill short of surrender by the military. So mostly killing then.
Well, no, which is why in the numerous models we have on hand among most Western industrial equals and democracies, where only the police and military legally possess those weapons, your scenario isn't playing out and mine is. More people aren't dying by guns there, fewer are.
I have not at any point proposed a gun free zone.
Except it already does (see: convicted felons, children) and we are the government.
Which governments would those be?
Feel free to note those countries again and how they began that way.
Supra. You missed the mark past your opening.
?
No, but I understand there are strong arguments against it. Not really my area of particular expertise or interest.
Of course I do, but I believe in the right. This is about what constitutes a reasonable exercise.
That's...dispiriting given I was clear from the outset. The argument is against guns of a particular sort, the elimination of which would promote greater security and peace within our compact without negating a right I find valuable for a number of reasons. I mean to seriously impact mass shootings, however "statistically insignificant" you find them. I told you all of this long ago.
Well, no. None of that is true, either inherently or by observation of available data.
We've been combating all those things for generations, with all sorts of ideas. They persist, but we'll keep trying. In the meantime what I'm proposing works, will demonstrably save lives, and doesn't require us overcoming human nature expressed across the entirety of its existence.
This isn't and never has been about gun ownership, but about the types of guns and what they accomplish. Look at states with the toughest gun laws and they have the fewest deaths and injuries by them. Conversely, those with the weakest gun laws have the highest. And I've already noted our insufficiency among nations.
lain: Were that the case we'd be the safest country on earth instead of the least among equals.Right. You can empty buckets of blood into a river without altering its flow. It doesn't follow that those avoidable buckets belong in the river or that you should want them there.
There is a measurable impact. Anything that can be counted can be measured and any measurement, incremental or not, impacts by necessity.
lain: Eating cheese instead of cheese and bread is an appeal to emotion then...same sort of argument.Just to humor the effort, Rosa was looking for equality, which would be the case in my proposal. There's just no analogy that's rational beyond that point.
Well, it was a horrible, horrible question but this one is a little better. Who certifies a "home-defense trainer" and how do you know that none of whoever those however certified people would advocate?
Either you're protected or you are not. "As well" is an invention, an attempt to create something meaningful to hang your hat on.
Child support is owed by every parent. The non-custodial parent pays to the custodial parent to assist them in the expenses they will pay to maintain the child or children. Everyone supports the child relative to their income level. And facts are facts, that's how it works. Fathers overwhelmingly agree to leave the child in the care of the mother and do so voluntarily. All but a small minority of custody arrangements are decided between parties and not as the result of a court system imposing its will.
I'm pretty sure I did that prior. Go back to where you first raised the point.
And again, given how superior you obviously believe your opinion to be compared to those you dub elitists, well, you either get why that's funny or you don't.
First off, I have only once attacked your character through insulting remarks. It was the 5th grade comment. That is the only time. I did that for two reasons: 1.) It was true; I recroded those notes from my (liberal) fifth grade teacher. 2.) To demonstrate what an "insult" is.
I think that I have utilized poor choice of vocabulary. Perhaps the more adequate analysis would be that you set up your argument, using second amendment being solely for the obsolete precursor for a standing military force, as a background noise as means of supporting your argument.
Glad we agree.
Here you make two assumptions. The first is the ideological fallacy relating to my owning of weapons more volatile than an AR-15. You classify my indulgence as a needless one, and as a premise for a great deal of equally needless harm.
I agree that such statistics and details matter. Thus, my example.
This is not evidence in the US. According to that CDC report, the top locations in the US with the highest rate of gun crimes/deaths are those with the strictest gun laws and regulations, which include Washington D.C., Baltimore, LA, Chicago, St. Louis, and Detroit.
I agree that laws are necessary and have an impact. Your first front is correct.
Rather than addressing critical questions of "What is the average response time of a police force to a home invasion? And Or how about to a public murder, such as any mass shooting?," you attempt to redirect the issue to numbers and proximity of police.
Not according to the CDC.
Yet, the claim that the US leads the world in gun violence and mass murder is false. This is even supported by liberal, anti-gun websites, such as https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2012/jul/22/gun-homicides-ownership-world-list.
I agree with most of these rules. The only two laws you mentioned that do not exist in the US are the year long course/test and a limit of six guns, without special permission.
Thank you for the superb link. I appreciate it.
Well, let us consider the quotes (in a numerical point format) from the CDC:
You mean handguns, as "assault rifles" have not been used in most school shootings?
I will stick with the CDC research, ordained by Obama, and with research not conducted by the most regressive organization on the planet (the UN).
It seems you are just dismissing knives being used more than rifles, solely because such a fact is detrimental to your cause.
Well, no, but the one admission is sufficient to ask, why on earth do that?
You're under the impression that's a mystery to anyone around here?
lain:A falsehood is, in the primary, a lie. When you say to someone they have their facts wrong, or they are mistaken it's one thing. That word is another and it is inherently insulting.
I wasn't injured, only noting it was a pointless sort of insult and contrary to your introductory hopes.
No, it isn't. It's at worst debatable. Of course that's not really my intention, only a reflection that I noted the stated reason, the provided foundation for the right had been satisfied another way. I've also noted the right has any number of other applications that were worthy of being voiced and of being voiced yet.
In point of fact my argument doesn't rely on the purpose of the 2nd Amendment as a military device. It was ever a side bar and one I've already said I'm fine without.
It isn't a logical fallacy and if you don't have to possess weapons the equal or superior to the AR-15 to meet the obligations of the right to bear arms, and you don't, then the ownership of them is unnecessary, or needless. And the deaths that follow from those weapons being easily attainable within the stream of commerce are similarly unnecessary, or needless.
You're misunderstanding my aim. It isn't you, but your right to the weapons (everyone's access to them) that makes for needless, lamentable death.
No, you simply misunderstood my aim or I didn't do a good enough job setting that out clearly. Though what sort of guns are necessary for wildlife that fall outside of my support?
Actually, I never did that. Read me again and quote me on the point if it helps.
Rebutted prior.
The disconcerting habit I meant was your assuming something about my position. When I say a revolver isn't really that much more dangerous than a double barrel shotgun I'm not assuming anything about your position. At worst I'm inviting you to ask, "How so?" In which case I'd reply that I'm considering their use as instruments of mass murder.
If you throw your net in a tight enough circle you can catch one fish. But when you're speaking to data, the wider the net the better. And in fact, states with the strictest gun laws have the lowest rates of death and violence in this country, per 100k. The same holds true when comparing nations.
You grabbed the elephant's tail, the exception, and thought it the rule. For instance, Chicago sits in a state that is ranked highly in terms of gun laws. Giffords Law Center has Illinois with the 8th strongest gun laws in the nation. They're also ranked 34th in death by gun, meaning they're the 16th best state in that regard, and would be higher if not for the Chicago outlier. (link) My state, Alabama, by way of comparison, is ranked 36th, or 14th from the bottom in terms of gun laws. It has the 2nd highest gun death per 100k in our nation.
We don't. Not that you won't find outliers, exceptions, but it simply isn't the rule, either by state here or compared to nations abroad.
Actually, if you want to raise a point it's not up to me to do your footwork for you. Rather, I noted that if you had a problem with either there's a fairly straight forward response to it and noted what that response should be.
Which would make sense given that's where you have an astounding concentration of people, especially the poor who are as a group strongly represented in that category, both as victims and victimizers.
Well, no. My argument isn't impacted by the fact that rural, more sparsely populated regions have lower incidents of crime. Again: see the net I noted prior.
What's your source material, out of curiosity. Once upon a time a town near here was the murder capital of the country, per capita. But Alabama on the whole wasn't.
The assertions are, in fact, both old and widely disputed. Take the 2.5 million claim. How did it come into being? (excerpt from: Washington Post, 2016 LINK)
What claim? I never made it. What I've said is that we are dramatically the leader among our kin, other Western industrial democracies. The disparity there is marked. And we're, I believe, around 34th in the world, which is astoundingly bad considering the company.
It completely does. No one is suggesting and I have never argued that cities are safer than more dispersed populations. There are all sorts of pros and cons to address between the two social habitats.
Really, only one of those laws is shared universally and that varies in particulars, unless you're transporting guns across state lines using the interstate.
That's what I say.
I've never opposed ownership of weapons or made a point relating that I know of. My argument is with semi and fully automatic weapons. The latter can't be obtained in either and the former only with strict regulations and other laws not found here and opposed here by special interest groups and industry.
Well, when you think about it, every gun used in a murder is the property of a criminal. The problem is, again, one of ease of access to a weapon that is largely (in terms of mass shootings, for one) in the hands of someone who isn't a criminal until he pulls the trigger.
Feel free to rebut any of its data using another respectable resource. Else, it's a bit moot as points go.
While that number is relatively small (supra) it isn't a point I contest. I'd also say that you can use the guns I support for repelling unlawful acts aimed against you.
The study itself notes the unreliable nature of the number, but again, I'm not suggesting people not own a gun. It's just not part of my argument or aim.
Your data is old. While mass shootings are, thankfully, a fraction of gun deaths reported each year the trend in deaths and injuries continues to climb.
Highly effective in reducing one sort of crime. But if mass shootings are a comparatively small part of homicides, let alone criminal acts overall, it would be miraculous if it did reduce crime significantly. Of course, the sort of crime it will reduce is pretty significant to the society, which is part of my argument. I'd agree local level attempts are less effective, unsurprisingly. The models I note promote universal and tougher gun laws, not scattered local attempts.
So, very much like mass murder.
That seems a mix of things. Are you saying they're mostly legal or illegally obtained?
Absolutely. Doesn't impact my argument or aim, but I agree. True in Switzerland too, by the way.
I'm not for gun free zones. Never have been. And you can't gauge the efficacy of assault rifle bans unless you have universal laws relating to them. In Australia they had over a dozen mass shootings in the 20 year period prior to enacting tougher, universal gun laws. In the 20 years after they had none.
No, I mean all guns that are designed to kill scores of people, clip fed and talked about frequently with you and prior.
If it's valid data I don't care if Fox News reports it and neither should you. And the CDC data isn't really that helpful, supra. I haven't seen any CDC data that disputes the numbers I posted for the years, but feel free to link to it and I'll have a look.
Rather, I unpacked an example you offered to bring another side bar into what should be a focused discourse, one that that wasn't what it appeared to be in your general set out. I noted it was a terrorist act perpetrated by several people who picked an excellent venue. But even then it took a number of them to not really approach the level of destruction one nut in a hotel room with managed with an assault rifle.
I told you why from the outset and answered in more particular on this in my last.
Yes, they have. And they've been made even better at it by aides like the bump stock. They can deliver a great many lethal projectiles in a very short order, many magnitudes greater capacity for that than the breech loaders I favor.
They'll care when the supply dries up. Otherwise, none of that impacts the empirically observable fact that states and nations with stronger gun laws do a better job of protecting their citizens from death and injury by gun.
No idea why you repeat that as it has never been an assertion of mine. We are, however, dramatically more likely to die by a gun than most of the models used by our Western, industrialized and democratic cousins. You're also appreciably more likely to die by gun in a state with weaker gun laws here.
I couldn't find one I hadn't addressed prior.
