High gun ownership does equal high gun violence -UN Report

[xbuzzerx]

Is that what it is about? Can you cite your source because I don't see that anywhere in the Second Amendment. All I see it mention is a well-regulated militia being needed for the security of a free State, not for security from a free State. Besides, do you honestly think any amount of firepower will help you if the military comes looking for you?

They do very much think that and I'd say that's one of the core beliefs of the gun culture that he claims is mythical.

 

[tigerfan482]

They do very much think that and I'd say that's one of the core beliefs of the gun culture that he claims is mythical.

Well I would have them talk to some people in Waco or Ruby Ridge. The government was overthrown there, right?

 

[Kulindahr]

Ideology is not fact. Deal with it. Just because you believe in rights being intrinsic, doesn't make it so. And, frankly, it's irrelevant to reality either way.

Rights are intrinsic -- and that is a fact, one resting on the fact that each person owns himself. That IS reality, regardless of all the ideologues who have other notions.

 

[Kulindahr]

It didn't talk about them at all because they didn't exist yet in 1776.

But the concept of the right to individual arms to ensure government could never become tyrannical would naturally need to expand as the machinery of war advanced so that citizens always had commensurate power to stop a government from oppressing them.

So if we accept the 2nd Amendment as rigidly as you say we must as a universal, unquestionable natural human right, I want my nuke. It's the only want to ensure the government can't oppress me, I can't take on the army with a handgun.

There is no personal right to a nuke, any more than there is to a tank. That's all part of the term "militia".

 

[Kulindahr]

Government is part of the people. If the people wanted guns, they would have made the government change the laws so we could have them. We don't want them. They are gross and breed violence, and all advanced cultures have realized that. Unfortunately, your half of the US is not an advanced culture.

And your entire stance is violently hypocritical, in case you aren't aware of it.

There's no hypocrisy at all, just reality.

You, OTOH, are basing your position on lies, such as that in the middle of your second line.

 

[tigerfan482]

There is no personal right to a nuke, any more than there is to a tank. That's all part of the term "militia".

So are firearms, but you seem to advocate people having a personal right to them. They are all classified as arms and they are all for the purpose of maintaining a well-regulated militia. How can you argue against two but argue for the other?

 

[Kulindahr]

More people have died by guns in the U.S. than in all the wars we have fought.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...mmentator-mark-shields-says-more-killed-guns/

Actually most of the deaths by firearms in the US have been part of a war, the war of a government on its own people. Think Prohibition and the falsely named "War on Drugs", which were and are systems whereby government creates and then subsidies violence against its own citizens.

 

[tigerfan482]

Actually most of the deaths by firearms in the US have been part of a war, the war of a government on its own people. Think Prohibition and the falsely named "War on Drugs", which were and are systems whereby government creates and then subsidies violence against its own citizens.

Anything to blame the government, right? So now the line is "Guns don't kill people and people don't kill people. The government kills people by having people kill people with guns." I'd say most of the deaths by firearms have been part of people buying guns and shooting each other. It's that simple.

 

[bankside]

Some do. Namely the ones raised in a heavily gun promoting culture, usually but not always either military or smalltown/hunting backgrounds, and a hefty dose of American myth think that individuals can (and perhaps SHOULD) solve everything themselves, at the point of a gun if necessary.

Yes, this is a good point, and I concede it- in direct measure to the degree to which other Americans can contain the gun nuts. If they're still setting the terms of the debate and turning the Second Amendment into the ideological equivalent of "LALALALLALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU" in a way that still affords them political legitimacy, then I don't know what else to say. Immigrate? It's not too hard to come to Canada, and we have enough natural gas that winter won't matter for centuries. A glass of port by the fire is a great thing.

At least clearly a portion believes in the bullshit of "pistols at dawn" as though that somehow legitimised their whims. And that is a cancer to be excised.

Rights are intrinsic -- and that is a fact, one resting on the fact that each person owns himself. That IS reality, regardless of all the ideologues who have other notions.

Rights are intrinsic, indeed they are. In claiming my right of self defence, I call for general disarmament. My life, liberty and happiness are best served by overall disarmament, in my sovereign, self-owning judgment, with controlled exceptions for farm use and sport/skill shooting.

Your approach is every-man-and-his-gun-to-himself. It is true that my disarmament approach, if I impose it on you, may leave you undefended in a critical moment, and you could die at the hands of someone you would have otherwise been able to defend yourself against.

But your approach, to live in an every-man-and-his-gun-to-himself society, also imposes risks on me that I am equally unwilling to accept. You yourself purport to be a responsible gun owner, yet you've had guns stolen from you. Your approach leaves me at risk of being shot by a gun stolen from you; a risk I would not have had to face if the gun had never been manufactured, never left in a triple-locked box that was obviously not secure enough to prevent the theft, and then never trained on my innocent face when I'm sitting in my back yard enjoying the long days of summer with a beer and a barbecue. I don't have to be concerned about a gun being stolen from you again if you don't have it in the first place.

If I were a tyrant, I'd just have your guns confiscated so I can enjoy the back yard without thinking about it. But as a reasonable man, I'm willing to let the evidence decide. Everything I know about the prevalence of privately held guns shows me that those communities are more dangerous - in particular, to me, and in particular, by undermining my life, liberty and happiness. But if there is actually an empirical reason to believe I'd be safer under your approach to exercising the right to self defence, I will learn to shoot, and buy a gun, and sit nervously in my back yard, flipping burgers with one hand and keeping a wary eye on my neighbours with the other…waiting...like Bond in Scaramanga's basement. It sounds like a shitty way to spend the summer to be honest, glaring at the fence and waiting to see who pops over. But maybe it is safer than my disarmament approach. I don't believe you can meet that standard, but you're welcome to try.

 

[Kulindahr]

So yes, my point was completely relevant to the topic YOU brought up.

I didn't bring up a topic, I commented on a post that asserted that a great volume of guns used in crimes in many other countries come from the US, the implication being from civilian sources. You twisted it to military sales.

It also doesn't talk about assault rifles. Or handguns. Or muskets. Or shotguns. It talks about "arms" which everything above, including precision guided missiles and NBC weapons, falls under.

It does talk about all of those -- only ignorance claims otherwise. You can't pull a word out of context and make it mean something you choose; you have to work with the meaning as it was written. The phrase "keep and bear arms", at the time it was penned, referred to the personal arms a common soldier would be expected to carry -- long gun, sidearm, perhaps knife. That was integral to the concept of militia, which does provide for citizens having the other sort of weapons you mention -- but those are not being discussed in the amendment, which is about the right to keep and bear arms, not the right to organize a proper militia, which would in fact have the right to have those other weapons.

Slippery slope is a logical fallacy, sir. To argue that someone is in favor of something when they haven't actually said or done anything to support that is an argument of convenience and doesn't hold any water. Also, the framers of the Constitution made no mention of it being super simple to obtain the arms that people have a right to bear. On the contrary, they actually explicitly stated that the militia holding those arms should be "well regulated" which, at least in my mind, means that regulations are fair game. As long as the right isn't being denied (which we determined earlier no one has tried to do), then there is no problem.

When the end of the slope is the stated goal of the people these politicians call on for support, there's nothing slippery about it (just about the politicians). Your position is that just because someone says he's going downstairs, the fact that he only takes the first step means he really doesn't mean what he says.

As for your interpretation of "well regulated", that's the sort of ignorance which has this debate floundering before the starting line. Read George Washington's comments on the subject, and you'll learn that it has nothing to do with "regulations", it has to do with being supplied with the proper weapons, being trained to use them well, having unit discipline including paying heed to their officers, not fearing to engage the enemy and standing fast when so engaged, maintaining good order and discipline when retreating, and more.

 

[Kulindahr]

This is a stunning admission. Americans do see violence as a legitimate avenue to decision making. Without even lamenting it. All I can say to the rest of the world is, "This is the problem we have to contain." Nationshambles.

Interestingly, a critical aspect of a well-regulated militia is knowing when NOT to engage in violence, as random violence is a matter of lack of good order and discipline. As I keep saying, one approach to a solution is for Congress to assert its Article I authority to provide discipline to the militia. That doesn't allow Congress to take away personal arms, but it does authorize requirements of training, safety (including storage), perhaps even periodic examinations as to proficiency and safety.

So, for example, all weapons in a household not actually being "borne" (carried or immediately available for use) could be required to be locked up securely, so individuals such as the recent school shooter can't just walk off with someone's unsecured weapons -- or if he could, then the person who failed to secure those weapons properly would be liable, not under civil law, but under provisions for proper discipline in the militia. In that case, the shooter's sloppy (not well-regulated) mother would be facing disciplinary action under militia laws, most likely in the form of fines and public rebuke on top of restitution to those harmed by that negligence.

For my part, any repeat breach of the proper discipline of the militia would mean being drummed out and, having been stripped of the status of a member of the militia, being forbidden to be in possession of not merely firearms but anything that could be considered a personal weapon for military purposes.

Hopefully, such discipline would instill in all households the same deep sense of responsibility that exists among the vast majority of our millions of gun owners.

 

[Kulindahr]

Chris Dorner is evidence as to why gun culture is so wrong and dangerous. The right wingers here are incapable of seeing of what danger their views pose to the public. They'll continue to resort to logical fallacies and such.

Then are you willing to concede that medical malpractice indicates that organized medicine is wrong and dangerous?


BTW, are you even aware of why he's doing what he's doing?

 

[tigerfan482]

I didn't bring up a topic, I commented on a post that asserted that a great volume of guns used in crimes in many other countries come from the US, the implication being from civilian sources. You twisted it to military sales.

So I'm going to quote you again since you obviously didn't remember what you said.

Very few weapons from the US get to those countries -- they get far more from each others' militaries, which leak guns like a gum machine 'leaks' gumballs.

Seems like you did mention military there. My point still accurately stands. The US is the largest exporter of firearms in the world, both in the military and civilian sectors. It is lunacy to think that many of those civilian guns do not go to civilians in other countries and that many of those military guns do not wind up in civilian hands. We are the largest contributor to the problem.

It does talk about all of those -- only ignorance claims otherwise. You can't pull a word out of context and make it mean something you choose; you have to work with the meaning as it was written. The phrase "keep and bear arms", at the time it was penned, referred to the personal arms a common soldier would be expected to carry -- long gun, sidearm, perhaps knife. That was integral to the concept of militia, which does provide for citizens having the other sort of weapons you mention -- but those are not being discussed in the amendment, which is about the right to keep and bear arms, not the right to organize a proper militia, which would in fact have the right to have those other weapons.

If you're going down that route, then it excludes all of today's modern firearms and applies on to muzzle loaded muskets and sidearms. Also, since there wasn't a standing army when the Constitution was written, one could argue that a) we cannot have a standing military or b) the standing military satisfies the requirement for a well-regulated militia and thus no personal firearm ownership is needed. The right of all arms is being addressed by the amendment, which is why no specific arms were mentioned. And that right is dictated by the need for a well-regulated militia. If the need for a well-regulated militia is no longer there, then that right is no longer needed. That is the whole purpose in adding the first half of the second amendment.

When the end of the slope is the stated goal of the people these politicians call on for support, there's nothing slippery about it (just about the politicians). Your position is that just because someone says he's going downstairs, the fact that he only takes the first step means he really doesn't mean what he says.

Again, can you name a politician that has advocated for or introduced legislation to take away all firearms? You're arguing a position that no politician has taken. Yes, if you want to pass legislation, you're going to get support for that legislation from anyone who is willing to give it. That doesn't mean you are accepting their whole platform as your own. There is a large cross-section of people who support better regulations for firearms and they represent a wide range of views. You're choosing the most extreme view and saying that any action taken at all will lead to that end result. That is a slippery slope and it is a logical fallacy.

As for your interpretation of "well regulated", that's the sort of ignorance which has this debate floundering before the starting line. Read George Washington's comments on the subject, and you'll learn that it has nothing to do with "regulations", it has to do with being supplied with the proper weapons, being trained to use them well, having unit discipline including paying heed to their officers, not fearing to engage the enemy and standing fast when so engaged, maintaining good order and discipline when retreating, and more.

George Washington didn't write the Constitution. There have been MANY literary works written in regards to the interpretation of the Second Amendment, some in favor and some opposed. The Supreme Court has ruled (and obviously taken well-regulated to mean) that there can be restrictions on firearm sales and regulations put on their use and their possession. In fact, other than straight up across-the-board bans, they have upheld almost every regulation passed, including the previous ban on assault rifles both federally and in various states.

 

[Kulindahr]

Bullshit. Dorner is a disturbed big gun fanatic ex-military guy who was self centered and narcissist. Jeez... that sounds quite familiar. Please READ into Dorner before making silly assumptions. Believe me, Dorner is someone I know well now even if I have never met the guy (thanks to endless local coverage)... I've also read his entire manifesto. He's a disturbed psycho.

Gun culture isn't a constitutional right, and as far as I'm concerned are they part of a militia? Because the second amendment was originally about militias.

No, the Second was about THE PEOPLE, just like all the rest of the amendments.

And Dorner is part of the militia, just as are you and I -- and as are the corrupt police he's fighting against via last resort . . . and arguably in this instance he's the more "well regulated" of the situation.

 

[Kulindahr]

Is that what it is about? Can you cite your source because I don't see that anywhere in the Second Amendment. All I see it mention is a well-regulated militia being needed for the security of a free State, not for security from a free State. Besides, do you honestly think any amount of firepower will help you if the military comes looking for you?

Just read both the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers.

 

[Kulindahr]

So are firearms, but you seem to advocate people having a personal right to them. They are all classified as arms and they are all for the purpose of maintaining a well-regulated militia. How can you argue against two but argue for the other?

"Arms" is not a term you can just take and define as you wish apart from the context. "Keep and bear arms" defines, by its common use at the time, the meaning of the term "arms", which was the personal weapons of the common soldier. Now, if you can show me that the common soldier in, say, NATO, carries a nuke around as standard weaponry, then I'll concede your claim. But as it is, you're arbitrarily redefining the terms of the Second Amendment -- which is a lawyer's trick whereby anything at all can be made to mean whatever you wish.

 

[tigerfan482]

BTW, are you even aware of why he's doing what he's doing?

I am aware of why he says he is doing it. What bearing does that have on anything and does it make it right? Should the guy be able to go out and shoot people using 30+ guns he has accumulated because he got fired and felt it wasn't right? Possessing that many firearms does need to be illegal. The Second Amendment does not guarantee every person they can be their own militia. You should be able to possess a handgun for self defense, a rifle for big game hunting, and a shotgun for small game hunting and that's it. I'd happily support that balance between allowing people to bear arms while regulating the "militia."

 

[tigerfan482]

Just read both the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers.

Again, those are not the Constitution. None of these works cited were in any way codified into the governing of our nation. They were the opinions of individuals at the time.

 

[tigerfan482]

"Arms" is not a term you can just take and define as you wish apart from the context. "Keep and bear arms" defines, by its common use at the time, the meaning of the term "arms", which was the personal weapons of the common soldier. Now, if you can show me that the common soldier in, say, NATO, carries a nuke around as standard weaponry, then I'll concede your claim. But as it is, you're arbitrarily redefining the terms of the Second Amendment -- which is a lawyer's trick whereby anything at all can be made to mean whatever you wish.

Well then arms is not a term you can modify to mean today's modern weaponry. If you're going to take arms into the context of the period, then they were obviously referring to muzzle loaded, black powder firearms. They don't encompass semi-automatic weapons. They don't include pump action shotguns. They don't include high capacity magazines. They don't include laser/optical sights. None of that is included in the Second Amendment so all of that should be illegal. It's an arbitrary redefining of the terms of the Second Amendment which is a gun nuts trick whereby they can justify having whatever firearms they want while excluding anything that may weaken their "firearms uninhibited for everyone" mantra.

 

[Kulindahr]

Yes, this is a good point, and I concede it- in direct measure to the degree to which other Americans can contain the gun nuts. If they're still setting the terms of the debate and turning the Second Amendment into the ideological equivalent of "LALALALLALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU" in a way that still affords them political legitimacy, then I don't know what else to say. Immigrate? It's not too hard to come to Canada, and we have enough natural gas that winter won't matter for centuries. A glass of port by the fire is a great thing.

At least clearly a portion believes in the bullshit of "pistols at dawn" as though that somehow legitimised their whims. And that is a cancer to be excised.



Rights are intrinsic, indeed they are. In claiming my right of self defence, I call for general disarmament. My life, liberty and happiness are best served by overall disarmament, in my sovereign, self-owning judgment, with controlled exceptions for farm use and sport/skill shooting.

Your approach is every-man-and-his-gun-to-himself. It is true that my disarmament approach, if I impose it on you, may leave you undefended in a critical moment, and you could die at the hands of someone you would have otherwise been able to defend yourself against.

But your approach, to live in an every-man-and-his-gun-to-himself society, also imposes risks on me that I am equally unwilling to accept. You yourself purport to be a responsible gun owner, yet you've had guns stolen from you. Your approach leaves me at risk of being shot by a gun stolen from you; a risk I would not have had to face if the gun had never been manufactured, never left in a triple-locked box that was obviously not secure enough to prevent the theft, and then never trained on my innocent face when I'm sitting in my back yard enjoying the long days of summer with a beer and a barbecue. I don't have to be concerned about a gun being stolen from you again if you don't have it in the first place.

If I were a tyrant, I'd just have your guns confiscated so I can enjoy the back yard without thinking about it. But as a reasonable man, I'm willing to let the evidence decide. Everything I know about the prevalence of privately held guns shows me that those communities are more dangerous - in particular, to me, and in particular, by undermining my life, liberty and happiness. But if there is actually an empirical reason to believe I'd be safer under your approach to exercising the right to self defence, I will learn to shoot, and buy a gun, and sit nervously in my back yard, flipping burgers with one hand and keeping a wary eye on my neighbours with the other…waiting...like Bond in Scaramanga's basement. It sounds like a shitty way to spend the summer to be honest, glaring at the fence and waiting to see who pops over. But maybe it is safer than my disarmament approach. I don't believe you can meet that standard, but you're welcome to try.

This is so far out in fantasy land I'm not even going to try to reach for an answer. I'll just make one point: you just demonstrated that the one with the terrible fear of his neighbor is YOU.