• ernestm
    347
    On or around May 7, 2017, the number of US citizens shot to death since 9/11 will pass half a million, over a thousand times more than killed by terrorists in the same timespan. For a full analysis, see http://www.yofiel.com/guns/916-report.

    nra5.jpg

    So, if you want to defend the 2nd amendment, next month is the time to do it )
  • Buxtebuddha
    1.8k
    I'll stand and fight poverty, poorly funded public school systems, and ineffective local governments. And while it is true that the gun culture in the US is patently insane and entirely out of hand, the second amendment doesn't effect the day-to-day crime that goes on not only in the big cities, but in smaller communities as well. It doesn't make much sense to me to blame guns, and then want to ban guns, when nothing is being done to combat the underlying reasons that have long facilitated the issue of gun violence. If we help eliminate the reasons that propel people toward handling and using guns, then we'll see less staggering murder rates, as you cite above.
  • ernestm
    347
    Sadly I cannot find evidence that what you state is true. I did provide some 20 charts incorporating 3,000 data points to draw the conclusion that the most sensible action is to create a gun-violence tax, and to reduce other taxes by the income generated by that tax.

    The total cost of gun violence per gun owner in 2017 is currently $407/year. One in three households now own an average of five guns each. A $80/year per-gun violence tax provides an incentive to reduce the cost of gun violence by all concerned, thus placing all lawmakers on the same side of the problem of a half million dead, thus creating sensible legislature rather than the current continual controversy. A reduction in gun violence by only 15% would reduce taxes by more than the amazing tax reductions introduced by Bush I over which Republicans are still giddy with delight.

    Thus it is clear that a gun-violence tax is the rational solution from utilitarian principles. Of course, the USA does not really care much about rationality or utilitarianism, so it is going to remain nothing more than a philosophical observation for the foreseeable future.
  • Buxtebuddha
    1.8k
    I'm saying that before you start banning guns, or slapping taxes on them, there needs to be more work done in helping to remedy the three issues I stated in my first post. If you don't do that, you've not inclined those who commit the crimes to live a more appreciative, moral life. If people don't think they owe anything to the State, then they won't give two shits about murdering someone. And a tax is not the most hospitable of ways in which to garner change. For instance, legalizing various drugs, and then taxing them to high heavens, will not lower drug related maladies if we don't also step up our prevention and rehabilitation systems.
  • ernestm
    347
    Typical knee jerk response. Who said ANYTHING about banning guns?

    If you look at the section "more guns, no less crime" http://www.yofiel.com/guns/916-report#yToc-2-8 you will see there is no empirical evidence from independent sources at all to substantiate the claim that guns reduce crime.

    If gun violence is reduced 50%, and the savings returned to taxpayers as I state, it would result in an annual saving of $67 per taxpayer. The total taxpayer credit right away is $120, which is more than enough to pay for any person who doesn't own a gun to buy one, pay the violence tax, and still save money. So there is no argument against it from rights perspectives either.
  • Buxtebuddha
    1.8k
    Opposition to the second amendment entails wanting to ban guns, seeing as the amendment ensures the opposite to be protected.

    And I agree that more guns doesn't equate to less crime. When did I suggest that to not be the case? :s
  • ernestm
    347
    On the contrary, what I propose supports the 2nd amendment, as it makes it cheaper for people who do not own guns to buy one. For the second time.
  • Mongrel
    3k
    It doesn't make much sense to me to blame guns, and then want to ban guns, when nothing is being done to combat the underlying reasons that have long facilitated the issue of gun violence.Heister Eggcart

    Yep
  • ernestm
    347
    Im still trying to figure out why you are saying this at all. What UI suggested would actually increase gun sales.
  • Mongrel
    3k
    I don't know who UI is. Urinary tract infection?
  • Wayfarer
    6.9k
    The point which nobody ever mentions in connection to the 'right to bear arms' is the first part of the sentence in which that phrase appears - the necessity of maintaining a 'well-regulated militia'. 'Well regulated'. The entire aim of Wayne LaPierre and his criminal associates is to eliminate any regulatory barriers whatever to the sale of any weapons, to any people, for profit. That's all that is happening here.
  • Erik Faerber
    7
    The point which nobody ever mentions in connection to the 'right to bear arms' is the first part of the sentence in which that phrase appears - the necessity of maintaining a 'well-regulated militia'. 'Well regulated'. The entire aim of Wayne LaPierre and his criminal associates is to eliminate any regulatory barriers whatever to the sale of any weapons, to any people, for profit. That's all that is happening here.Wayfarer

    It was quite sad to see when Scalia disregarded his treasured orginialism and ignored the obvious Framer's intent you rightly point out when his majority opinion changed the accepted interpretation of this clause so as to ignore the first 13 words. Thankfully they at least ruled that not all regulations could be prohibited or we'd have plenty more trouble on our hands.
  • ernestm
    347
    Well I have written on this topic for five years now , and here is my obserrvation: anything which causes 2nd-amendment supporters to pay for everyone ELSE to own guns or to support OTHER peoples rights to life is automatically wrong. Hence, that is the only proof needed that the whole 2nd amendment thing is just an excuse that is haplessly exploited. I have yet to ever hear a genuinely sincere comment on supporting it, if it actually requires the 2nd amendment supporters to honor other peoples' rights at all. So I don't have anything further to say on that, as it obviously no more than the same kind of propaganda which propelled Nazism to its similar success. So, as I started by saying, firearms have killed 1,000 times more US citizens than terrorists have since 9/11, and happy anniversary to the gun-rights Nazis, as they are being so much more successful than the terrorists have been, and are totally resistant to doing anything AT ALL about the slaughter which their views mandate for the rest of us, and there is no rational justification for it at all, as I amply demonstrated in nine months of research on the topic before I even tried talking about it. So the only thing the rest of us can do is congratulate the duped fools on the blithe destruction of peace that we are forced to tolerate due to their preference for more violence as a solution to violence.

    And we should demand that all people be entitled to buy bombs, tanks, RPGs, supersonic fighter jets, and aircraft carriers. That's what we need to form a well-regulated militia that can protect us from our own government, not to mention the right to buy nuclear bombs so that the rest of the country can declare a nuclear cold war against Washington DC. Anything less would be rather pointless, and that's the 2nd-amendment entitlement, hurray, and what could be better for us all.

    I can only profess a minor victory. When I first moved to Sacramento, I was woken up by gunshots at least twice a week after 10pm. So I wrote the article now updated for 2017 at http://www.yofiel.com/guns/916-report and sent it to the police dept's public safety community forum. After a long quarrel about it, the city installed gunshot detection audio sensors on every street corner. Within a month, they had arrested all the people firing guns at night, and we have been enjoying an enormous increased peace and reduction in crime ever since. This is not to say my observations did not go down well at first, as those inclined to exercise 2nd-amendment rights and fire guns at all hours did spend several months trying to prove me wrong, and when that failed, threw rocks at my windows, stole my car, and sent me anonymous death threats. But they are all in prison now, and I havent even heard one gunshot, even during the day, in several years, so it was a victory in the end.
  • BB100
    40
    The people who use guns to kill innocents were responsible for their actions and the best way to handle gun violence is education and medical help for drug abuse and higher punishments for sellers of drugs. Background checks would also be the best and that's all that is really needed.
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.