Repeal the 2nd Amendment

[Curious George]

Aye, you'd think we should be expanding civil liberties, instead of continually curtailing them here.

Fundamental liberties such as self defense, speech, the right to bear arms...yeah I would agree to that. The right to dump waste in public waters or to rent out substandard housing or to discriminate is where civil liberties can be curtailed, though.

 

[Revoltingest]

Fundamental liberties such as self defense, speech, the right to bear arms...yeah I would agree to that. The right to dump waste in public waters or to rent out substandard housing or to discriminate is where civil liberties can be curtailed, though.

Environmental pollution is not guaranteed by the Constitution.

 

[esmith]

Maybe the answer can be found in the following. Of course I know that there are a few here that will not even read it, even though it is not an opinion but only reporting the facts.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/01/15/growing-number-police-chiefs-sheriffs-join-call-to-arms.html

 

[RRex]

Maybe the answer can be found in the following. Of course I know that there are a few here that will not even read it, even though it is not an opinion but only reporting the facts.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/01/15/growing-number-police-chiefs-sheriffs-join-call-to-arms.html

I read that the other day. If the police are saying it you know the situation is serious.

I'm not a CC, but I appreciate that the option is out there if I want it and I'm very grateful that there are others out there who do carry.

One of them may save my life one day.

 

[Mycroft]

The right to bear arms is a central tenet of a free society. Repeal of the 2nd Amendent does not make sense.

But you're not free. Not in any measure of the word.

 

[Godobeyer]

Why not?

That's will decrease the gun violence in USA to half or may 80% , especially gangs .

 

[Revoltingest]

But you're not free. Not in any measure of the word.

Still, we'd like to avoid making things even worse by ditching liberties in the Bill Of Rights.

 

[Sunstone]

One of them may save my life one day.

Would that be before or after they shoot their own kid, thinking he or she is a burglar?

Father Shoots Son, Kills Him, Thought Son was Home Invader.

Mother Shoots Daughter, Kills Her, Thought Daughter was home invader.

 

[Revoltingest]

Dueling examples!

http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/09/us/breast-feeding-mom-home-intruders-charlotte/
(CNN)A man has been charged in the home invasion and shooting of a North Carolina mom last week.
Semantha Bunce, 21, a combat medic in the National Guard, was in her Charlotte home breast-feeding her 4-month-old son in her bedroom when intruders barged in Tuesday, November 3, according to CNN affiliate WSOC.
As the intruders broke into the home and opened fire, Bunce fired back with her own weapon.
"I think it was a shock to the intruders just as much as it was to her," her husband, Paul Bunce, told the affiliate.
Her son was unharmed in the shooting, police said.

 

[Sunstone]

"While defensive gun use may occasionally occur successfully, it is rare and very much the exception – it doesn't change the fact that actually owning and using a firearm hugely increases the risk of being shot. This is a finding supported by numerous other studies in health policy, including several articles in the New England Journal of Medicine. Arguments to the contrary are not rooted in reality; the Branas study also found that for individuals who had time to resist and counter in a gun assault, the odds of actually being shot actually increased to 5.45 fold relative to an individual not carrying."

Science for the win over myth!

 

[Revoltingest]

"While defensive gun use may occasionally occur successfully, it is rare and very much the exception – it doesn't change the fact that actually owning and using a firearm hugely increases the risk of being shot. This is a finding supported by numerous other studies in health policy, including several articles in the New England Journal of Medicine. Arguments to the contrary are not rooted in reality; the Branas study also found that for individuals who had time to resist and counter in a gun assault, the odds of actually being shot actually increased to 5.45 fold relative to an individual not carrying."

Science for the win over myth!

Neither of those 2 links actually offers any scientific analysis of guns used in self defense.
Sure, they address gun violence, but this leans more towards a parade of horribles & the naming of ostensibly supporting experts.
Were they to evaluate the costs & benefits of using guns for self defense, they'd have to also cover successful usage, which would include defeating an attack without even firing.

 

[Sunstone]

Neither of those 2 links actually offers any scientific analysis of guns used in self defense.
Sure, they address gun violence, but this leans more towards a parade of horribles & the naming of ostensibly supporting experts.
Were they to evaluate the costs & benefits of using guns for self defense, they'd have to also cover successful usage, which would include defeating an attack without even firing.

Nothing you have said logically invalidates the findings and conclusions of this study: "After adjustment, individuals in possession of a gun were 4.46 (P < .05) times more likely to be shot in an assault than those not in possession. Among gun assaults where the victim had at least some chance to resist, this adjusted odds ratio increased to 5.45 (P < .05)."

By the way, the study I just quoted from was summarized and linked to in The Guardian article that you simply dismissed (perhaps without reading?) as containing no science.

 

[Revoltingest]

Nothing you have said logically invalidates the findings and conclusions of this study: "After adjustment, individuals in possession of a gun were 4.46 (P < .05) times more likely to be shot in an assault than those not in possession. Among gun assaults where the victim had at least some chance to resist, this adjusted odds ratio increased to 5.45 (P < .05)."

I didn't intend to invalidate any studies.
Certainly, the data show there's a severe problem with gun violence.
I only point out that they didn't address gun usage in self defense.

 

[Curious George]

"While defensive gun use may occasionally occur successfully, it is rare and very much the exception – it doesn't change the fact that actually owning and using a firearm hugely increases the risk of being shot. This is a finding supported by numerous other studies in health policy, including several articles in the New England Journal of Medicine. Arguments to the contrary are not rooted in reality; the Branas study also found that for individuals who had time to resist and counter in a gun assault, the odds of actually being shot actually increased to 5.45 fold relative to an individual not carrying."

Science for the win over myth!

Yet defensive gun use is 5 to 8 times more common than deaths from gun homicide and 100 times more likely than an accidental gun death... So, if gun self defense is rare, then gun homicide is exceedingly rare, and accidental gun death is astonishingly rare.

Also, your second study is questionable because randomly selecting 600 and some from over 2k over age 21, gun assaults in Philadelphia, would likely yield more gun carriers that were engaged in criminal activity...at least it seems intuitive that it would.

 

[Revoltingest]

Yet defensive gun use is 5 to 8 times more common than deaths from gun homicide and 100 times more likely than an accidental gun death... So, if gun self defense is rare, then gun homicide is exceedingly rare, and accidental gun death is astonishingly rare.

Also, your second study is questionable because randomly selecting 600 and some from over 2k over age 21, gun assaults in Philadelphia, would likely yield more gun carriers that were engaged in criminal activity...at least it seems intuitive that it would.

This raises the old questions.....
How many additional assaults would there be if law abiding citizens were disarmed, thereby losing this oft used self defense measure.
Would the increase be exacerbated by newly emboldened criminals?
Statistical analysis which doesn't address these issues are less than cromulent, even though they might use the word "scientific".

 

[Sunstone]

Yet defensive gun use is 5 to 8 times more common than deaths from gun homicide and 100 times more likely than an accidental gun death... So, if gun self defense is rare, then gun homicide is exceedingly rare, and accidental gun death is astonishingly rare.

Thanks so much! Coming from you, that's actually interesting because you don't have a history of distorting facts and irrationally dismissing those you don't like. But could you link to a source please?

Also, your second study is questionable because randomly selecting 600 and some from over 2k over age 21, gun assaults in Philadelphia, would likely yield more gun carriers that were engaged in criminal activity...at least it seems intuitive that it would.

Of course. One study does not a law of nature make. What's needed here is a reliable mega-study.

 

[Jake1001]

But you're not free. Not in any measure of the word.

True, but we learned the importance of the freedom to bear arms the hard way. The colonists arms were removed.

 

[Revoltingest]

Yet defensive gun use is 5 to 8 times more common than deaths from gun homicide and 100 times more likely than an accidental gun death... So, if gun self defense is rare, then gun homicide is exceedingly rare, and accidental gun death is astonishingly rare.

Also, your second study is questionable because randomly selecting 600 and some from over 2k over age 21, gun assaults in Philadelphia, would likely yield more gun carriers that were engaged in criminal activity...at least it seems intuitive that it would.

I've previously looked at Kleck's work on quantifying gun usage in self defense, & then discounted his claims to match what his critics claim. Even then (as I recall) there were many tens of thousands of such incidents. This shows clear benefit of gun ownership. The question I see is...would we be better off if we could disarm both legal & illegal owners?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

However I am discussing what the founding fathers' thought not what I think.

Yes. And they thought people should be trained, not just be given a gun for their own personal use to do with as they please. They expected people would be trained to use their firearms and would aid in the defense of their local militia.

I wonder what they wrote about being trained before being armed.

They wrote quite abit about people being "trained and disciplined." We already have a few of those quotes up above.

 

[metis]

No matter how one tries to play with this, the simple fact is that extensive and independent studies have confirmed that keeping a loaded gun in one's home makes one's family less secure-- period. Yes, one can find examples to find exceptions to any rule, no doubt, but the overall verdict has been in for quite some time now.

Just to clear the air, I am not "anti-gun", have not proposed repealing the 2nd Amendment, and will readily admit that in some cases a family may be better off keeping a gun handy in their home.