• Sir2u
    1.1k
    Talk to the hand.

    Raised_Hand_Emoji.png?9898922749706957214
  • ep3265
    12
    I believe so. Guns are very important for fighting off tyrannical governments. Is it likely that a tyrannical government will arise soon? No, however I'm not going to take that chance, seeing as how all past democracies have failed and become tyrannical. Guns are also almost necessary for self defense, or fighting off home invasion. On top of that, many people rely on their guns for killing animals to eat.
  • ArguingWAristotleTiff
    2.7k
    I've come to the conclusion it's more of a cultural thing though and isn't going to change in the foreseeable.Baden

    As I was mucking yesterday, I began to think about the changes we can make to help keep the legal guns, in the legal hands of adults. Real change takes time and we are changing, slowly but we are changing.

    Since the Parkland school shooting there have been changes in gun control but it won't ever be recognized because without complete confiscation, there are people around the world that will not be content with what Americans have rights to. Fair?

    I will mention the changes that have been made, though I doubt the moves will ever be recognized on the world stage and that is okay with me. I want to turn our eyes inward to better our nation and am tired of giving two bits of a shit of what works in other countries because you are right, it is a cultural thing, a living right and one that is protected as vigilantly as our right to freedom of speech. One that no matter how many changes are made it will never be enough. Is that because of the controls that others have on their own lives that they have to live by?

    Two of the largest nationwide private companies that sell firearms to the public, voluntarily raised the minimum purchasing age from 18 to 21. Knowingly taking a loss from those who are responsible firearm owners for the sake of public safety.

    Some private businesses cut ties with NRA customers that used to receive discounts as a result of being a NRA member. Private businesses cutting ties with prospective clients is not a way to succeed in a capitalistic society. Yet hotels, car rental businesses and other associated businesses that rely on loyalty programs cut ties to do their part in the control of guns being used in a nefarious way.

    Ironically, the one change that will make a difference has been made in Florida and five other states and has nothing to do with stricter gun control. No, it is implementing the 'Red Flag' legislation that allows the temporary taking of guns and ammunition by law enforcement officers and family members from people who pose a risk and show warning signs of violent behavior.

    Do you have any other ideas? I genuinely want to entertain them.
  • tim wood
    792
    The question had to do with right"and the nature of that right. You have instead answered with your view of a fantasy. Would you argue that individual ownership of guns is a duty and not a right, and (perhaps) everyone should be issued one?

    Up above I posted a link to a funny video about guns, including about using them for home protection. Funny, but pointed. Assuming you own a gun for the reasons and purposes you listed, how exactly do you keep your gun for home defense?
  • ep3265
    12
    I will say again, that the nature of the right to own a gun is for checks and balances of the individual or state-built militia against the federal government, if such a tyranny were to arise. I don't see how it is a fantasy, it is a logical conclusion considering past mistakes. It is a right in the sense that we as individuals have right to freedom, and to protect that freedom.

    I don't own a gun, however it is very easy to own a gun and keep it in storage, whether in a case or just in a closet.
  • tim wood
    792
    You apparently don't understand what a right is in a civil society, or what our constitution says. Of course you're "free" to operate outside civil society, but usually that makes you a criminal, and in any case it's likely that feel "free" to enjoy the benefits of that society, even as you cherry-pick its requirements.

    And it appears you're ignorant of statistics that pretty much prove that you and yours are at much greater risk in every way from the presence of a gun than from any bogey man of your fantasies.

    As to tyranny, I think no American of the 18th, 19th, or early 20th centuries would tolerate either the grand or petit tyrannies that are now everyday occurrences - flown anywhere lately? Which leaves the question, do you even know what a tyranny is? What's an example of a tyranny that would have you get out your gun and presumably use it.

    And while you're getting locked and loaded, try to remember you neglect the weapon the rest of the world feels is much more powerful, and that the US Constitution both enshrines and protects: your vote!
  • ep3265
    12
    You're telling me that you don't think freedom and protecting said freedom is a right? I don't understand. What sort of tyranny are you talking of? A foreign tyranny? The Constitution was designed to protect America and its people, and that's what I'm speaking of. An example of a tyranny I would rebel against would be one that redistributes my wealth to the poor, invades my right to privacy, and throws me in jail without habeas corpus. And please cite these statistics, I have many sources that state that gun violence has decreased, in spite of the fact that gun ownership has increased. (Take note, these sources I'm going to present you with are already left wing, therefore disproving any sort of agenda.)

    Source 1, massive decline in gun violence: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/12/03/weve-had-a-massive-decline-in-gun-violence-in-the-united-states-heres-why/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.e3cda9da3cbe

    Source 2, amount of gun ownership: http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2018/feb/20/kevin-nicholson/which-higher-number-people-or-number-guns-america/

    Source 3, more crimes committed with illegal guns than legally obtained: http://www.politifact.com/new-york/statements/2018/mar/12/john-faso/do-illegal-gun-owners-commit-most-gun-crime-rep-fa/
  • ep3265
    12
    I do not understand what I did to deserve getting my comments removed. However, if you do not understand the implication of a government with control of all firearms, then you are lost. A government that has control of all firearms could easily become a dictatorship, allowing majority rule on everything in the United States. We have checks and balances that make sure something like this doesn't happen, which is why the right to bear arms is written in the constitution, same with the right to free speech, right to assembly, the reason the electoral college exists, the reason there are three branches of government, the reason there is a state and federal government, etc.
  • tim wood
    792
    You're telling me that you don't think freedom and protecting said freedom is a right?ep3265
    What kind of a right do you think it is, and how do you think that right works?

    An example of a tyranny I would rebel against would be one that redistributes my wealth to the poor, invades my right to privacy, and throws me in jail without habeas corpus.ep3265
    Hello! What planet are you on? Or, why aren't you on the road even as we speak protecting yourself, and presumably the rest of us, by using your gun on the folks who bring you these tyrannies. And who do you think authored the tyrannies you name?

    which is why the right to bear arms is written in the constitutionep3265
    Sure, but this is not a right for an individual to own a gun. If you think it is, do some more reading. If' you're convinced it is, then you're the victim of a fraud. See two links to two videos I posted above, one with Chief Justice Earl Warren and the other with (?) Stephen Breyer. If you think any right in the Constitution is absolute, then you don't fully understand the document (see video of Justice Souter speaking at Harvard).

    I noticed the references provided for statistics referred mainly to crimes. A lot of gun violence is not the result of a crime. I also find this:

    " Gun violence in the United States results in tens of thousands of deaths and injuries annually. In 2013, there were 73,505 nonfatal firearm injuries (23.2 injuries per 100,000 U.S. citizens), and 33,636 deaths due to "injury by firearms" (10.6 deaths per 100,000 U.S. citizens)."

    Compare that to wartime injuries and deaths among soldiers when America is at war. I find this online:
    "The Vietnam Conflict Extract Data File of the Defense Casualty Analysis System (DCAS) Extract Files contains records of 58,220 U.S. military fatal casualties of the Vietnam War."

    Anything about these numbers strike you as interesting?

    The conclusion I come to is that guns are dangerous. Dangerous enough to require some appropriate action to reduce that danger to an acceptable level. How many people would you like to see die or be wounded by a gun in the US next year, so that you might enjoy your gun fantasies. I say fantasies deliberately. If you object to the term, then make it real.
  • ep3265
    12
    What kind of a right do you think it is, and how do you think that right works?

    I don't really understand that question. I think it's a human right, as do most Americans. I think it works because of the standards of living in America.

    Or, why aren't you on the road even as we speak protecting yourself, and presumably the rest of us, by using your gun on the folks who bring you these tyrannies.tim wood

    Because none of these atrocities have been realized.

    Sure, but this is not a right for an individual to own a gun.tim wood

    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.

    If you think any right in the Constitution is absolute, then you don't fully understand the document (see video of Justice Souter speaking at Harvard).tim wood

    No right in the Constitution is absolute, this is why they are amendments instead of articles. However, no right in the Bill of Rights has ever been overturned, and it should stay that way.

    I noticed the references provided for statistics referred mainly to crimes. A lot of gun violence is not the result of a crime.tim wood

    Um, yes it is. Gun violence is by definition a crime.

    Anything about these numbers strike you as interesting?tim wood

    Not really. The American civilian population in the current day is considerably greater than the American military population during Vietnam. Overall the amount of gun violence is decreasing overtime, and I think that's a good sign. Even the amount of mass shootings have been decreasing over time. The news media over blows things out of proportion to make certain crimes seem more egregious than they really are, and even though they are very sad and devastating, it's our price for freedom.
  • tim wood
    792
    Because none of these atrocities have been realized.ep3265
    Yes, they have, they are. Not that they're all atrocities. They're part of the air we breathe, which is perhaps why you don't even recognize them.

    I don't really understand that question. I think it's a human right, as do most Americans. I think it works because of the standards of living in America.ep3265
    I was thinking civil right or natural right. Human right... what's that?

    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.ep3265
    Three words: individual, person, people. They're not the same; they don't mean the same thing. And are you a well-regulated militia?

    Um, yes it is. Gun violence is by definition a crime.ep3265
    You must be referring to crimes which involved gun violence. I was referring to the violence that a gun causes, whether in a crime or not. You might want to take some time and research the meaning of the word "crime."

    The news media over blows things out of proportion to make certain crimes seem more egregious than they really are, and even though they are very sad and devastating, it's our price for freedom.ep3265
    More egregious than they really are? And it's not a price we pay for freedom; it's the price we all pay, some more than others, for a lunatic license.

    Instead of arguing this anymore - and I'm not sure anyone else is interested - try by yourseof arguing the other side. At present, I think the fog around your thinking prevents you from even seeing it, and certainly interferes with your thinking. That is, I suspect you're a victim, and you do not even know it.
  • ep3265
    12
    Let me ask you a question, is more freedom worse than less freedom? If you answered no, then you must be able to protect yourself against threats to freedom. I can't understand the logic of the far-left to think that guns should be banned, and still think colored people are wrongfully being incarcerated. If you answered yes, then I think your previous argument is now concise. I'd also like to point out the fact that London's crime rate is now higher than New York's, even though guns and even knives are now banned. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2018/04/03/londons-murder-rate-higher-than-new-york-citys/480860002/

    The left always brings up instances of countries where guns are banned and the crime rate is significantly lower than others. Well here's some conflicting evidence http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-22288564

    Take a look at this chart:

    Homicide count in 2009

    Brazil 43,909
    Denmark 47
    Iceland 1
    UK 724
    US 15,241

    Iceland had ONE homicide. So there's clearly more at play here than banning firearms.
  • Baden
    5.7k


    The way you put it there it looks like Iceland has way less homicides than Denmark or especially the UK. So do Monaco and the Vatican I bet.

    But here are actual rates per 100,000 population (rates offering the only meaningful comparison) for more recent years:

    Iceland: 0.91 (2015)
    United Kingdom: 0.92 (2014)
    Denmark: 0.99 (2015)

    And the difference disappears. (All in the top 50 lowest for homicide rates).

    And the US?

    United States: 4.88 (2015)

    Down there at no.126 just behind that glorious bastion of freedom, Kazakhstan.

    +In Iceland (from your bbc source):

    "...acquiring a gun is not an easy process -steps to gun ownership include a medical examination and a written test.
    Police are unarmed, too. The only officers permitted to carry firearms are on a special force called the Viking Squad, and they are seldom called out."

    By all means, implement all that in the US and you might make some progress.
  • ep3265
    12
    Well, I do submit to the fact that my Iceland source was an unfair comparison. However, if you look at the rates of homicides per state in the U.S. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States_by_state . If you sort by gun murder rate, you can see that there's little correlation between gun ownership and gun murder rate. You'd expect there to be a larger gun murder rate in states with more relaxed gun laws, but there seems to be more at play here. So what is it exactly? It appears that some of the areas with the highest percent of gun ownership have the lowest gun murder rates. However, they also account for some of the highest gun murder rates. I find this very confusing.

    Something to think about, however, is how guns could stop potential homicides. The Texas church shooting was stopped by a bystander in the NRA, not the police or other authorities.

    I'm also all for more rigid background checks, however I disagree with most police officers being unarmed.

    But again, gun murder rates over the past few decades have overall been declining, so I see no problem that should be fixed as of now.
  • Baden
    5.7k


    It's not a straightforward picture, I agree, but I think someone posted a comparison graph earlier in the discussion that showed a strong correlation if not between gun ownership and reduced gun homicides at least between stricter gun laws and reduced homicides in the US state by state. I'll try to dig it up.

    It would be a good start to enact compulsory training. You need a license to drive a car, and so should you to carry a gun. Disarming the police wouldn't be practical at all as things stand admittedly but in a perfect world you could get there. Which means you won't. So, let's forget that one for now.

    But again, gun murder rates over the past few decades have overall been declining, so I see no problem that should be fixed as of now.ep3265

    If they could be declining faster then that's still a problem as in more people getting unnecessarily killed is always a problem regardless of the base comparison.
  • tim wood
    792
    Let me ask you a question, is more freedom worse than less freedom?ep3265

    The question is meaningless absent a clear understanding - agreement - even if just a definition, of what freedom is. Give it a try and I'll be glad to answer. For starters, though, this: I fall in with a Kantian understanding of freedom as being free to do one's duty. If reason calls me to some action, and for some reason I cannot do it, then, to the degree constrained, I am not free.

    I'm guessing that you understand freedom to be the index by which you measure your ability to do what you want to do, when you want to do it. I invite you to consider this for a while. Often enough this latter "freedom" is no real freedom at all, but rather our urge to do what someone else has conned into wanting to do.

    I also see above you're having trouble breaking away from gun crime to the larger phenomenon of gun violence. By violence, I mean what a gun accomplishes and how it accomplishes it, when it is functioning as intended. Earlier in this thread (or maybe another) we had the example of a small child shooting another small child: clearly no crime involved - but do you maintain there was no violence?

    But until you engage with these thoughts discussion is just a football-like game of who can hit harder. Attempt to set aside your own advocacy and try to find a ground of truth. Defensiveness, whether aggressive or passive, usually blocks access to the truth.
  • ep3265
    12
    I agree, I just see no viable option as of now. Perhaps making a gun training course necessary would be practical.
  • ep3265
    12
    we had the example of a small child shooting another small child: clearly no crime involvedtim wood

    That is a crime, a juvenile and unintentional one, but still a crime. In my mind a crime is an act that is directly stated as unlawful. And I see nothing wrong with the opening of options, and calling that openness of options "freedom". Many people in America are overweight, and I praise God everyday we have the freedom to do something like that. Many of my coworkers smoke cigarettes, and I and my father smoke pipes. Are any of these things good for you? No. Should these particular acts be celebrated? Not really. Should we be thankful that we're allowed to do all of the right things, and all of the wrong things as well? Yes absolutely, because then your destiny is more so determined by your own actions (ignore hard determinism for a minute.)
  • tim wood
    792
    Is it reasonable for you to smoke a pipe? Are you glad you smoke a pipe? If it happened that you didn't smoke a pipe, would you be persuaded to start out of a sense that you should? The idea is that likely it's not a free choice on your part, but instead a mild addiction to which you're subject. (I smoked a pipe for a while a long time ago.) What you're talking about is your ability to make what seems to you an unimpeded choice. But that's a long way from freedom.
  • ep3265
    12
    Perhaps in your sense of the word freedom. I have not yet become addicted, therefore I smoke a pipe as a mild hobby.

    But really I feel to truly be free one must first restrict his or her actions to things that they find better themselves
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment