Question for supporters of the second amendment.

[Curious George]

Again, violence and murder correlate with availability of firearms.

Or do you honestly believe that the entire world has the exact same murder rate, regardless of availability of firearms? Do you seriously believe that access to firearms plays no role in determining whether an individual will actually carry out a murder?

Me: we cannot conclude that correlation = causation.

You: sure we can.

Yeah, I don't agree. Sorry.

 

[Nous]

Why does defense of the home necessitate a gun? Or self defense at all? There are many ways to defend ones self and home, without the use of guns.

I agree.

 

[dfnj]

The standard response here is "our patriotic military would never shoot at our own citizens". When you point out the obvious "then you don't need guns to protect you from the government", prepare for angry sulking.

No one is going to stop the government from abusing power by owning an AR-15. It's just irrational.

 

[dfnj]

prepare to be scoffed at dismissively. Thats the goto m9ve when you ask questions they can't answer.

Where is the line is a great question. What makes stinger missiles different than AR-15s?

 

[dfnj]

You also said:


But in either instance you have not provided causation for murders or home invasions caused by guns.

You have shown statistics that show a correlation between gun ownership and increased likelihood of being victims of a crime. But perhaps that is because people that own guns tend to be in areas or situations where they are exposed to a higher incidence of crime.

Maybe we can have government again in this country and have public policies to address poverty and opportunity and we would not have such a great need to have guns in the first place! There's just something really wrong in this country when doing crimes pays much better than doing hard honest work.

 

[Thief]

This is a question for those who think gun ownership is an important human right.

Do you think people who live in other countries (ie Canada, Britton, France etc) are less free? Do you think it is an injustice that in Canada gun ownership is a privilege? Or is this a question that has never occurred to you?

it is an important CIVIL right

it is unfortunate that civility cannot be determined at the point of acquisition

but to disarm the population ....would be a disaster

only the criminals would have guns

 

[dfnj]

it is an important CIVIL right

it is unfortunate that civility cannot be determined at the point of acquisition

but to disarm the population ....would be a disaster

only the criminals would have guns

Police would have guns. And guns with much better technology which would be much harder for criminals to buy and illegal to possess. What better way to keep our streets safe than to put someone in jail for a night for walking the streets with a gun that can shoot 45 bullets per minute and then confiscate the illegal weapon?

A citizen doesn't need a gun that shoots 45 bullets per minute to defend themselves. A six shooter would be fine.

 

[Revoltingest]

The standard response here is "our patriotic military would never shoot at our own citizens". When you point out the obvious "then you don't need guns to protect you from the government", prepare for angry sulking.

This simple scenario is just one of the many possible.
And as the Kent State shooting shows, our military does have soldiers willing to kill us if so ordered.
Instead of looking at this as an all or nothing matter, consider that military support for attacking
fellow citizens is something which is variable. And no matter how powerful the military, small
arms are still effective in modern conflicts. Missiles, tanks, & aircraft have only limited uses.
If there actually were widespread revolt, the revolutionaries would be embedded in the general
population. So only small arms would be useful against such revolutionaries. And this would
be complicated by soldier sympathizers.
The best thing to do is to politically avoid such a scenario in the first place.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

No one is going to stop the government from abusing power by owning an AR-15. It's just irrational.

Indeed. But the Red Dawn fantasy is powerful with some people.

 

[Thief]

Police would have guns. And guns with much better technology which would be much harder for criminals to buy and illegal to possess. What better way to keep our streets safe than to put someone in jail for a night for walking the streets with a gun that can shoot 45 bullets per minute and then confiscate the illegal weapon?

A citizen doesn't need a gun that shoots 45 bullets per minute to defend themselves. A six shooter would be fine.

I have posted a similar notation here at the forum
with great reservation

our founding fathers lived in a time when the best of munitions could be had.....by any one
and the territory was rough and dangerous.

still is.....

 

[Nakosis]

Lol. That argument is completely stupid considering the weaponry the military and police have. Your stupid AR-15 won't protect you from a drone strike. Try and take on the government like a ******. Enjoy that Hellfire missile up your ***. So if you're going to use that argument, the Second Amendment is outdated and useless.

The military are usually not allowed to act against the citizenry. As for the police, how would you feel about limiting their access to guns as well?

 

[Nakosis]

Yeah, but that holds true regardless of having an AR-15 stashed in the sunroom.

I tend to doubt a AR-15 would be of much use in such a situation either.

 

[Nakosis]

Except you DON'T have the "right" to defend your freedom from government. Don't believe me? Try using a gun to defend your home, family, and freedom from police who are trying to enter your house illegally. You'd be gunned down and the entire country would be made to believe it was your fault.

I know. My son was beaten, tazed, kick in the balls, attacked by a police dog which nearly bit his arm off because he refused entry on account the police didn't have a search warrant.

An ex-boyfriend of the girl my son was living with had call into the police saying she was being held hostage. He ending up spending 3 months in jail on a charge of terrorism. Fortunately there were no weapons in the house else he might have ended up dead.

I don't think most people are prepared in any way to defend their freedom. The government has made sure that ship has sailed.

 

[Nakosis]

So, no. Gotcha.

So you're ready to surrender. Gotcha.

I don't blame you. Best not to act against a group that holds that much power.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

So you're ready to surrender. Gotcha.

I don't blame you. Best not to act against a group that holds that much power.

Don't get glib with me just because I asked you a question you can't answer. If you can't answer a reasonable question, the problem doesn't lie with the person asking it.

 

[Nakosis]

Don't get glib with me just because I asked you a question you can't answer. If you can't answer a reasonable question, the problem doesn't lie with the person asking it.

I didn't realize that you had asked a question.

 

[averageJOE]

Dangerous to perps.
Take the being informed aspect.....
A gun owner who knows the law won't accidentally run afoul of the myriad of restrictions.
A government which disseminates information to all of its many tentacles, would more
likely react properly....exactly as the FBI didn't recently.

Training.....
Safe handling avoids accidents....like the one shooting included in the "18 school shootings
in 2018". The cop allowed a child to pull the trigger of his loaded duty weapon.

And so on.....

Come on...
You really think mass shooters are unaware of laws? You really think an mass shooter isn't well trained, well educated, well informed with their firearms?

 

[Revoltingest]

Come on...
You really think mass shooters are unaware of laws?
You really think an mass shooter isn't well trained, well educated, well informed with their firearms?

This is not what I was addressing.
I've proposed a bunch of gun control measures.
All are envisioned to work in concert with each other.
None by itself addresses the entire problem.
To pick one scenario which isn't addressed by one measure is meaningless.

Good handling of information has the advantages I stated....
- An informed gun owner can avoid running afoul of the law.
- A government which makes needed info available to its many elements is more prepared to act upon it.
These advantages exist, even if this particular aspect doesn't stop every shooting.

But I note that if government had better information handling abilities,
the FBI would've likely reacted to prevent the recent shooting.
They dropped the ball for reasons which can be fixed.
So I propose fixing them.

 

[averageJOE]

This is not what I was addressing.
I've proposed a bunch of gun control measures.
All are envisioned to work in concert with each other.
None by itself addresses the entire problem.
To pick one scenario which isn't addressed by one measure is meaningless.

Good handling of information has the advantages I stated....
- An informed gun owner can avoid running afoul of the law.
- A government which makes needed info available to its many elements is more prepared to act upon it.
These advantages exist, even if this particular aspect doesn't stop every shooting.

But I note that if government had better information handling abilities,
the FBI would've likely reacted to prevent the recent shooting.
They dropped the ball for reasons which can be fixed.
So I propose fixing them.

Fair enough.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

The military are usually not allowed to act against the citizenry. As for the police, how would you feel about limiting their access to guns as well?

I was referring to your argument that the citizenry should guns to fight off the government and pointing out why it's stupid. Disarming cops would be a good idea with all the shootings of unarmed people those trigger happy fools do. The less guns in society, the better.