Objectively and observably true. I've linked to them as well. So really, it's up to people to look at them and understand they're either staring at the most uncommon coincidence since time began, or they might want to reconsider their camp, depending.
Such as implementing the death penalty for capital negligence and murder (life for life), restitution for damage to property, and corporal punishment as in eye for eye, hand for hand, foot for foot?
Or we could simply outlaw weapons whose only meaningful distinction is found in their ability to kill a great many people in moments, and similarly ban aids that only facilitate the same rapid facility for destruction.
That would solve both the "banning cars" and "banning guns" issues without having to ban either.
Banning cars isn't workable and was the illustration of extremism. Like suggestions that all we really have to do is fundamentally alter our criminal justice system or form of government. Likewise, banning guns, if by it you mean all guns, is both needless and extreme.
But banning guns that pose an uncommon danger is as sensible as banning cars without seat belts.
Yip. That's how we know that they don't say what you're presenting. :chuckle:
It's up to people to look at them and understand they're either staring at the most uncommon coincidence since time began, or they might want to reconsider their camp, depending.
Luckily, we have your posts. They show that "nope" is exactly the proper response. Especially when you start rambling on about nothingisms every time a challenge is issued.
Because if I say the gun violence rates and deaths are dramatically lower and instances of large scale shootings are fewer in countries with stronger gun laws, and to a lesser extent this rule holds for states, then present the statistics that literally support the statements (and they do) then there's really no rebuttal to the statements, only other and different arguments on other and different points.
Because if I say the gun violence rates and deaths are dramatically lower and instances of large scale shootings are fewer in countries with stronger gun laws, and to a lesser extent this rule holds for states, then present the statistics that literally support the statements (and they do) then there's really no rebuttal to the statements, only other and different arguments on other and different points.
Notice how every single time, literally nobody has disagreed with your inane observations.
When you ban cars, traffic fatalities fall.
We are challenging your narrative that the eradication of weapons is going to improve society.
You have specific rules you want to see put in place. The statistics you provide have almost nothing to do with the guns on your agenda: In Europe, they aren't available most of the time and in the US, they account for a tiny fraction of the homicide rates.
You have a narrative and discordant numbers. They do not say what you want them to say. But you'll repeat them ad nauseum, regardless.
Because that is literally all it would take. Bringing back "Do not murder, do not steal, do not commit adultery, do not perjure" would eliminate 90%, if not more, of the crimes that go on today.
And if more people would advocate it, regardless of how "impossible" it may seem, it would be far more likely to happen in a democratic system (oh, I'm sorry, a "republic").
Likewise, banning guns, if by it you mean all guns, is both needless and extreme.
Considering that all cars today are required to be manufactured with seatbelts (in other words, it's not a ban on cars without them, just a requirement that all new cars have them), that would be pointless and unnecessary.
Here's the solution:
Instead of banning items that can be used to harm people, ban the harmful behavior.
If someone wants to purchase an LMG, and then take it to the range to have some fun firing off hundreds of rounds per minute, why should that behavior be banned?
If someone wants to take their hypercar to the track and see how fast they can get from start to finish, why should that behavior be banned?
If someone wants to do X activity that is not harmful to anyone, why should the tools/equipment required to do X be banned?
Any gun ever, if the person wielding it is sufficiently skilled...
Any vehicle ever, if the person driving it is sufficiently skilled...
So, in other words, banning cars that go above a certain speed...
DUH!
Neither is banning specific guns.
It'd be like banning hyper-/super- cars and any other high performance vehicle...
Extremes usually bring out the ridiculousness or validity of a position far more easily than normal circumstances.
Because that is literally all it would take. Bringing back "Do not murder, do not steal, do not commit adultery, do not perjure" would eliminate 90%, if not more, of the crimes that go on today.
And if more people would advocate it, regardless of how "impossible" it may seem, it would be far more likely to happen in a democratic system (oh, I'm sorry, a "republic").
Just like banning cars, if by it you mean all cars, is both needless and extreme.
"Uncommon danger" means that it's not common.
Which means that the effect it would have on society would be minimal.
Why not just ban all handguns, because they are FAR more common, and are used most often in the commission of crimes:
Considering that all cars today are required to be manufactured with seatbelts (in other words, it's not a ban on cars without them, just a requirement that all new cars have them), that would be pointless and unnecessary.
Here's the solution:
Instead of banning items that can be used to harm people, ban the harmful behavior.
If someone wants to purchase an LMG, and then take it to the range to have some fun firing off hundreds of rounds per minute, why should that behavior be banned?
If someone wants to take their hypercar to the track and see how fast they can get from start to finish, why should that behavior be banned?
If someone wants to do X activity that is not harmful to anyone, why should the tools/equipment required to do X be banned?
Liberals think society is improved by making it impossible for people to do evil (like a prison), while in reality, society is improved by making it so people won't do evil.
Thus they love regulations when liberty and justice is the answer.
I've never proposed the eradication of weapons. I've argued for the eradication of a type of weapon and stronger, more responsible gun laws beyond that. I suppose that if you don't find lower rates of violence and death an improvement you'd have a point.
You have specific rules you want to see put in place. The statistics you provide have almost nothing to do with the guns on your agenda: In Europe, they aren't available most of the time
My agenda is a responsible gun ownership and the removal of assault weapons and aids that make killing a great many people in short order a relatively easy thing to accomplish.
In Europe, those weapons have largely been banned. So you're right in noting they largely aren't there and neither are the homicide rates and gun violence we find where they are, though those European countries are pretty close company to us in most meaningful ways. And the same thing can be seen in states here, a thing you can't reconcile with your narrative and so omit from consideration. The highest rated states here in terms of gun laws (and without banning the weapons I'm speaking to) demonstrate the rule. I set those out too.
and in the US they account for a tiny fraction of the homicide rates.
Sticking to the banned part then---a fraction of homicide rates here still translates into a significant loss of human life, in schools turned into morgues, churches into charnel houses, mosques and concerts into memorials.
No, I have a narrative with supporting numbers. Stronger gun laws translate to safer societies, and you don't have to have gunless societies for that to be true.
I'd be for it, but the problem here is that we don't have uniform rules for speed. There are places where the roads, populations, and distances have led to much higher speeding allowances.
It's not only possible, it's been done. Ask Australia. Double digit mass shootings before they did it, inside a fairly short window and none in the twenty plus years since. That's a pretty good return on the investment.
I'd ban large clips for them, but they don't pose the same level of risk and I believe in the right to bear arms. Part of the reasonable exercise of that right is self-protection and handguns are a reasonable way for people to do that.
because they are FAR more common, and are used most often in the commission of crimes:
Except I never argued that they weren't, never advanced a narrative that began, "To further reduce all crime..." etc.
Now if you make gun registration mandatory, along with other things I proposed in relation to any gun, we'd be safer, less likely to turn them on ourselves or shoot someone else accidentally. That sort of thing.
Essentially there are two parts here. The first is the elimination of a class of weapons singularly distinguished from other guns by their capacity to fire a great many rounds in a breath, along with aids that further that. The second is stronger gun laws relating to ownership and exercise, from mandatory safety courses to registration of weapons, and a few other ideas that you can find in our Western cousins that would help, like the ability to check people for mental health impairment that would make their possession problematic.
Considering that all cars today are required to be manufactured with seatbelts (in other words, it's not a ban on cars without them, just a requirement that all new cars have them), that would be pointless and unnecessary.
Half full and half empty look the same from a distance. There were and likely are laws prohibiting you from operating a motor vehicle on public highways that lack certain safety measures, including seat belts, front and rear bumpers, etc.
Instead of banning items that can be used to harm people, ban the harmful behavior.
Mass shootings are against the law. Now, here's an idea. Let's use working models that demonstrably can and will reduce needless fatalities and violence without impairing anyone's ability to do a single, lawful thing with a weapon.
If someone wants to purchase an LMG, and then take it to the range to have some fun firing off hundreds of rounds per minute, why should that behavior be banned?
Because with that allowance comes the access evil men use to kill dozens, because the risk is needless and when balanced against the right of me or you to have a fun day on the shooting range, indefensible.
. . . is absolute and cannot be restrained in exercise. If you do then we're only quibbling over particulars.
Logic, a thing of parts that can be proven true or false regardless of who puts it together or attempts to take it apart.
I'm speaking to the literal right. One we have and can exercise without assault weapons, or hand grenades, or tanks in our driveways.
It's not a spin, it's an observation of the truth that's easy enough to illustrate, if you really want me to when you return. And I didn't say they couldn't lobby, so that would be a straw man.
I know. It was an illustration of my point that rights run into each other, and the law is largely a balancing act on the point. So my property right limits your exercise. Exactly.
See? I told you it wasn't a straw man.
The argument is over where the rational line in the sand for limiting exercise is...you only just agreed it could be interfered with by my property rights, by way of illustration.
The death by firearm per 100k people in New Hampshire is 10.3
The worst average in Europe is much lower. A few examples with the closest year for data:
Belgium, 1.24
Bulgaria, 1.73
Croatia, 2.35
Denmark, 1. 47
France, 2.83
Germany, .99
Greece, 1.52
Hungary, .95
Ireland, .8
Italy, 1.31
Netherlands, .58
Norway, 1.75
Portugal, 1.58
Sweden, 1.6
U.K., .23
There are much safer places in the US and many worse, but Europe is clearly in the safer category.
Alarmed, without advance notice. If I saw policemen walking around with machine guns I'd be concerned and want to know why. So the weapon, to anyone understanding its capability, is frightening. That fear can be mitigated by the understanding that an officer of the law is using it in relation to public protection, but it's still alarming, even with that rational mitigation.
But let some random dude walk toward me and my family while he's carrying an AR and my response is one that lacks that mitigation. I'm seeking an exit, considering ways to protect my family from him, and looking for a police presence.
Then it's not asinine, because I don't know what he's up to and I do know that he could reasonably pose a clear and present danger to me and/or my family.
Well, no, I didn't. I've long used the illustration that talking to extremists on whatever point it is that gives rise to them is pointless by paralleling speaking to a Marxist about property rights, when his foundation is that none exist, or a libertarian about taxation not being theft.
I think you hold unreasonable positions, positions that place people in needless danger without a real upside to counter it. And I've set out the why of that in particular prior.
Because you know it to be a false statement, where I believe you literally, hold an unreasonable position and have set out why. That it offends you to have your position so described doesn't make it an ad hom.
No. I'm noting that even the right to worship as you please can run afoul of other rights and laws, as per my previous on the point of noting the right to do a thing is not without limitations relating to the exercise of other rights and other parties.
No, I'm unhorsing the "lawyers don't agree" argument you put out. Three out of four dentists may recommend a gum without the 1 in 4 negating the value of their consideration and evaluation.
I know that's your belief. I don't find it reasonable to say that because I (for reasons given) find the AR and other instruments more dangerous to you and me and the public at large that I hate anything, other than needless death and injury.
The problem is that we can't look at people and read their hearts. We don't know one kind from the other until they open fire and the body count begins. By then it's too late. So, I argue that those weapons, which strike fear into the heart of reasonable people and which are distinguished solely by their ability to kill a great many people before anything can be done to stop the person using them, should not be within the stream of commerce and accessible to the general public.
And I still think that's not the case. We both understand the right to bear arms, but you believe the exercise of that right should not be restrained. I note we already have and argue the restrictions, that line in the sand, need to be reconsidered for the reasons offered prior.
Not if you understand the Roman army and the numbers involved.
I think the average person with adrenaline in their veins and their heart hammering is more likely to shoot someone they're trying to protect than they are to hit the hypothetical animal. And I'm pretty sure I could drop it with my rifle, yes. But then, I've had to shoot when it mattered, and have a great deal of muscle memory to my credit, along with a hard won level of competence with the weapons I own.
Now you show me a crowd of people carrying ARs and let someone start shooting, some civilian dressed the way everyone else is...you want to guess how many people start shooting the wrong folks before we get to that body count?
You can paint the unreasonable into the necessary if you try hard enough, but it won't make the rule reasonable. The fact is that if my family is in the yard I'm probably there with them and if anyone has time enough to get to a weapon then that weapon, at close range, will do the job, provided the person holding it knows how to use it. If I lived in a place where coyotes frequented the surroundings I'd be safer with a shotgun in hand than I would with an AR. So would my family.
Whatever that something is, I can accomplish it with a weapon that won't have that capacity. But the fellow in Las Vegas or the other places I noted, they couldn't do their butchery without the weapons and aids I oppose.
Most personal defense firings are going to happen within five to ten yards. Closer inside your home. A shotgun is a better instrument for that for any number of reasons. Or a pistol.
I've worked up a tome in response to each of your points here, but I've decided that I'm going to instead return to the OP. We've gone blow-for-blow over this issue and I've maintained that we just disagree about multiple things here, so to avoid going down too many unnecessary rabbit holes, let's see if any clarity or improvement on a possibility of resolution between us comes from reviewing the thread title, particularly "Second Amendment."
The text.
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
I believe that we've got enough data to bring our differences into pretty sharp relief.
My take:
"well regulated" means "good with 'arms.'" Whatever "arms" denotes in the Second Amendment, "well regulated" means being able to use "arms" well.
"militia" means civilians, and not military or police personnel, acting in their capacity as military or police. I.e., the "militia" is not the government.
"right" means that the Second Amendment is directed against the government /power. Government power and rights are in tension with each other.
"keep" means to own.
"bear" means to carry.
"arms" means standard issue military small arms, among which are variations of gun patterns known as AR-15, AK-47, and a variety of other selective fire rifles and carbines, along with shotguns, sniper rifles, and pistols and other handguns.
"shall not be infringed" means that power /government /police, is not authorized to complicate owning, carrying, or trading in "arms."
Town and I disagree on most of these:
Town believes that "A well regulated militia" is entirely anachronistic, and that therefore it is not "necessary to the security of a free state," and that therefore the entire prefatory clause is essentially null.
(This interpretation is virtually equivalent to the S. Ct.'s most recently ruling on the matter, who called the prefatory clause "throat clearing" on the part of the framers.)
Town also believes that "right," through his imported notion of "balancing," which evokes an idea that, rather than power being in tension with rights, which is my position, that rights are in tension with other rights, implies that laws regarding "arms" can and should be made against civilians. iow he believes that civilians can be forced to do things, and forbidden from doing other things, wrt keeping and bearing "arms."
While he and I, I think, agree that "to keep" means "to own," and that "to bear" means "to carry," he does not believe that civilians should be able to own "arms" privately, because he thinks that we should be forced to "register" (with power /government /police) whatever "arms" that we otherwise privately own, and he does not believe that we are free to carry "arms" without condition, but only upon meeting certain and numerous (government /police) requirements before it is permitted for us to do so.
Additionally I do not believe that Town thinks that "to bear" means to carry "openly," but he instead believes that it is licit /Constitutional to make laws forcing civilians to hide /conceal whatever "arms" they are lawfully carrying. This practically rules out us being permitted to carry any longguns in public.
Town believes that "arms" denotes longguns known as shotguns (though perhaps not semiautomatic varieties), and bolt-action, internal magazine fed rifles (standard issue military sniper rifles), plus handguns, including, according to this post of his that I've quoted above, "pistols," which are another type of standard issue military small arm, in this case a sidearm.
Meanwhile, I believe that the Second Amendment means that civilians who are good with arms are necessary for the security of a free state, and that the right to own and to carry, 'up to and including' standard issue military small arms, excluding weapons that are both dangerous and unusual, defined according to how many people they can kill all at once, and whether they cause the public to become frightened at the sight of them, independent of who is carrying them, or of what type of uniform, badge, or hat that they are wearing or displaying, ought to be invisible in a sense to our government, apart from criminal behavior.
As such hand grenades, bazookas, cannon, and RPGs, even in the hands of a uniformed leo, is unusual.
And that's where we are at, so far as I can tell. Town, if you disagree with this assessment chime in, but I believe that it is in order.
I've been accused by Town of being irrational, unreasonable, and an extremist for my views that I've set out in this post and in others. One thing in particular was his comment that it wasn't a good idea to be a 'one-issue' voter, which I am; the one issue being the Second Amendment. I see things in this way though: I believe that the Second Amendment means what I've said itt, and so therefore I also believe that starting with the National Firearms Act of 1934, that our government has been making laws that flagrantly violate the Second Amendment, and that all 'gun control' laws are Unconstitutional, so I vote for candidates who promise to bring us into better accord with the law, and I vote against candidates who promise to continue if not compound this disobedience with still more 'gun control.'
My position is that if We the People really believe in 'gun control,' that we should amend the Bill of Rights to say so, instead of continue to violate the law as it is written and as it was meant and as it still means today.
As such I find the judgment that I am being irrational, unreasonable, and an extremist, to be unwarranted. I just want our laws to be legal /Constitutional.
No, that's your mischaracterization of a point that's still not mine. Now if and when you're serious about advancing an argument, the way to begin it isn't that.
Right, your point is that guns that can be fired quickly should be taken away from everyone (almost 400 million of them) because crazy people can use them to kill people quickly. The logical conclusion still stands.
As noted in our last exchange on this matter, I can state your position but you haven't been able to state mine.
What I've actually set out is that nations with stronger gun laws have dramatically lower rates of gun violence and homicide rates in general, comparatively. Similarly, states with stronger gun laws follow the same pattern as a rule, though to a lesser degree than nations. I've set out the data for both.
Again, because you start with a premise to solve the problem of crazy people killing quickly, but the stats you bring up are only tangentially related to your premise, us little people should see this as another elitist trick to keep them down.
You're giving tickets to people that aren't driving 70. Don't forget there are a lot more little people than you elitists.
No, you aren't downgrading, unless you believe the proper function or elevated function of a weapon is to fire as many rounds as possible as quickly as possible, in which case I think you have a peculiar working definition.
Getting a single shot weapon, mountains of red tape included, in exchange for a semi-auto that could be 100 years old and never hurt anyone... that's not a downgrade to you. Only an elitist likes to tinkle on the little people and tell them it's just raining.
I recall once linking to a Guns and Ammo article where the argument was for the shotgun over the AR. But that was only answering a point of some who peculiarly believed an AR was a better means of home defense.
Forgetting things you ignore seems about right. Well, perhaps you can find a defense instructor that thinks a single shot weapon is better than a semi-auto.
I've also refused to look at ties to violence and weather. I don't care how many guns you own (though they should be registered) but I do care about the kind of guns that are in the stream of commerce.
If you don't want to be part of the elitist tyrant crowd, stop acting like one.
I'm sure the police are doing the best they can to combat gang violence. Nothing they do in that regard would have helped the victims I noted in schoolyards, at concerts, in churches and in mosques, but I'm all for a reduction of gang violence.
Because you conflate problems of crazy with problems of general violence. They are related, but solutions for one or the other are different for good reason.
Stop the gang violence and suddenly our rates of violence are about as good as any other European country. I'm not saying you still wouldn't have an argument to confiscate innocent people's guns, but try your argument if you didn't have general violence rates as part of it.
Right, your point is that guns that can be fired quickly should be taken away from everyone (almost 400 million of them) because crazy people can use them to kill people quickly. The logical conclusion still stands.
No one is having the right to bear arms taken away. That's a false flag. The right to bear arms is not the right to bear every sort. So, no bazookas at Walmart, even if they make you feel secure. You'll have to settle for the thousands or other arms.
Don't forget that the particular kind of mass murderers that are the biggest threat are suicidal mass murderers (9/11, Kamikazes, Braddock, Sunderland Springs, Columbine, the Pulse, Virginia Tech, Newtown, etc., ad nauseum). Those people ruin everything, and until they strike they hide in plain sight, living among us---they look just like regular people.
And of course there are always just the typical, unimaginative and uncreative murderers:
Don't forget that the particular kind of mass murderers that are the biggest threat are suicidal mass murderers (9/11, Kamikazes, Braddock, Sunderland Springs, Columbine, the Pulse, Virginia Tech, Newtown, etc., ad nauseum). Those people ruin everything, and until they strike they hide in plain sight, living among us---they look just like regular people.
And of course there are always just the typical, unimaginative and uncreative murderers:
