Second Amendment

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Ever notice how posters tend to go to the extreme example of weapons when their anti-gun arguments runs into a argument that is hard to dispute.

If you'll recall, most of my arguments in this thread have focused on handguns. Are handguns extreme? I'd say so, but I'd be surprised to hear a pro-gun person describe them that way.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It's hard to keep the discussion from heading towards penises, grenades, suicide & nuclear missiles.
Is it sexist that they don't mention vaginas? Women like guns too.

There were 232 "justifiable" homicides in the US by private citizens in the latest available year of stats. There were 21,175 suicides by firearm in the latest available year of stats.

When we're talking about firearms in the US, for every "kill him before he kills you" story, there are roughly 91 stories of suicide.

(And that's being generous. I'm sure that some of those "justifiable" homicides were cases of castle doctrine and the like where it was only property that the person was killed over)

Of course the conversation is going to go there.

https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/u.../crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10shrtbl15.xls

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/suicide.htm

 

[Revoltingest]

There were 232 "justifiable" homicides in the US by private citizens in the latest available year of stats. There were 21,175 suicides by firearm in the latest available year of stats.
When we're talking about firearms in the US, for every "kill him before he kills you" story, there are roughly 91 stories of suicide.
(And that's being generous. I'm sure that some of those "justifiable" homicides were cases of castle doctrine and the like where it was only property that the person was killed over)
Of course the conversation is going to go there.
https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/u.../crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10shrtbl15.xls
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/suicide.htm

I see suicide as an individual's right, so I'm not so troubled by that stat.
But the FBI justifiable homicide stat paints a very incomplete picture, & are a red herring.
The vast majority of self defense by gun cases don't involve killing.

 

[esmith]

If you'll recall, most of my arguments in this thread have focused on handguns. Are handguns extreme? I'd say so, but I'd be surprised to hear a pro-gun person describe them that way.

Well, you did sort of mention mines in your post, but I will take it as a sarcastic remark. However, if one goes back and look at the anit-gun threads you will find those that bring up RPG's, hand grenades, rocket launchers, and various other military type weapons. Even in this thread you find that ridicule of firearm owners is used as an argument along with implying that firearms are nothing but toys. So, to those of us that support the rights of law abiding citizens to own firearms, and as many as they want and any legal type, we find that what I said about those that can only present their arguments in a non-substantive manner gets very trying. So, I support the rights of those that have a different opinion than mine but I do not support their idea that they can foster their opinions on my rights as they stand now; and hope my rights are never changed.

 

[esmith]

There were 232 "justifiable" homicides in the US by private citizens in the latest available year of stats. There were 21,175 suicides by firearm in the latest available year of stats.

When we're talking about firearms in the US, for every "kill him before he kills you" story, there are roughly 91 stories of suicide.

(And that's being generous. I'm sure that some of those "justifiable" homicides were cases of castle doctrine and the like where it was only property that the person was killed over)

Of course the conversation is going to go there.

https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/u.../crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10shrtbl15.xls

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/suicide.htm

I do believe that many support the "right to die" statutes of some states. So, I guess my question to you is do you support "the right to die". If so, does it really matter how they chose to end their life. Just asking.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I see suicide as an individual's right, so I'm not so troubled by that stat.

The fact that firearms are associated with as much of an increase in suicide risk as they are suggests to me that many (most?) of the people who kill themselves with guns are the victims of short-term suicidal thoughts, not a considered, committed will to end their life.

But the FBI justifiable homicide stat paints a very incomplete picture, & are a red herring.

If you have a better source, feel free to share it and we can discuss it.

The vast majority of self defense by gun cases don't involve killing.

The ones where deadly force was needed to protect one's life do. In those cases, someone's dead, whether it's the attacker or the person being attacked.

I don't know of a source for stats on "people who were killed by an attacker because they weren't able to legally get a gun, but would've killed the other guy and survived if they had one."

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I do believe that many support the "right to die" statutes of some states. So, I guess my question to you is do you support "the right to die". If so, does it really matter how they chose to end their life. Just asking.

I support people's right to end their own life when they come to that decision in a free and informed way, and when they're demonstrably committed to the decision they've made over a prolonged period of time.

I think that people who have occasional suicidal thoughts or who go through rough - but temporary - patches in their lives need care, not a bullet in their brain.

Edit: and yes, it matters.

 

[Mister Emu]

Of course not. If you want to invade a small African nation you need something more.

This guy gets it.

Wow. I can only imagine what a pissed off McVeigh or Kaczynski could pull off with those kinds of armaments.

Because McVeigh or the Unabomber would pass muster of course.

Valid point. But they did so knowing they had the guns of the populace behind them.

Thank you. Well, yeah, they were using guns to defend their democratic choices. Which weren't acceptable so others had to use guns to stop them. It is a sad state of affairs, is the human condition, but we have to deal with it.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Well, you did sort of mention mines in your post, but I will take it as a sarcastic remark. However, if one goes back and look at the anit-gun threads you will find those that bring up RPG's, hand grenades, rocket launchers, and various other military type weapons.

That's the logical implication when the pro-gun people start talking about the Second Amendment as a "defense against tyranny" and their right to overthrow a tyrannical government.

If you're preparing to wage war on your own armed forces, then you're talking about military weapons, not hunting weapons.

I think your problem is with other gun people, not gun control advocates. The idea that 50 cal machine guns and the like should be legal didn't come from the gun control side of the argument... even if it's not your own personal position.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You mean when much of the South's democratically elected representation voted to secede?

How democratic the South was before non-whites (or women, for that matter) got the vote is extremely debatable.

 

[Revoltingest]

The fact that firearms are associated with as much of an increase in suicide risk as they are suggests to me that many (most?) of the people who kill themselves with guns are the victims of short-term suicidal thoughts, not a considered, committed will to end their life.

There is certainly a benefit to inhibiting the choice of suicide.
But since one's life is one's own, this is not a strong reason to curb the gun rights of others.

If you have a better source, feel free to share it and we can discuss it.
The ones where deadly force was needed to protect one's life do. In those cases, someone's dead, whether it's the attacker or the person being attacked.
I don't know of a source for stats on "people who were killed by an attacker because they weren't able to legally get a gun, but would've killed the other guy and survived if they had one."

Consider.....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Kleck
Kleck's critics have argued that he's an order of magnitude too high in the claimed usage of armed self defense.
Let's then divide by 10. We still have over 100,000 instances per year.
One may further challenge those numbers & what they mean, but it points to a loss which we'd suffer by being unarmed.
This can be seen in Brazil, where despite strong gun control, their gun death rate is even worse.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Don't have time to respond to all of this right now, but to deal with one point:

It isn't. It is a threshold, wherein if they aren't threatening someone, their gun is none of your business.

What constitutes "threatening"?

- firing at you but missing?
- pointing a gun at you but not firing?
- brandishing a gun without pointing it at you?
- putting a hand on a holstered gun?
- having a holstered gun in plain view?
- mentioning a concealed gun?
- verbal threats with no sign of a gun?
- something else?

Where's the line when you're justified in killing someone? Why is it none of your business (not even a little?) if they're just barely on the "don't kill them" side of the line?

 

[Revoltingest]

Don't have time to respond to all of this right now, but to deal with one point:


What constitutes "threatening"?

- firing at you but missing?
- pointing a gun at you but not firing?
- brandishing a gun without pointing it at you?
- putting a hand on a holstered gun?
- having a holstered gun in plain view?
- mentioning a concealed gun?
- verbal threats with no sign of a gun?
- something else?

Where's the line when you're justified in killing someone? Why is it none of your business (not even a little?) if they're just barely on the "don't kill them" side of the line?

I hate to say it.
But I must.
The many questions version of the Gish Gallop is not a cromulent argument.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I hate to say it.
But I must.
The Gish Gallop is not an argument.

If you think that was a Gish Gallop, then you don't know what a Gish Gallop is.

 

[Revoltingest]

If you think that was a Gish Gallop, then you don't know what a Gish Gallop is.

I do, which is why I edited me post for better accuracy.
(I must fix a lot of posting mistakes. Sometimes I'm too slow.)
You're just too quick for me!

 

[Mister Emu]

If I'm killed by home invaders because I wasn't allowed to mine my yard, you're responsible. The blood of all those who died for want of a blinding laser weapon is on your hands.

If an innocent person dies for want of mines or lasers that I could have allowed them, I would shoulder my share of the blame and be saddened by the tragedy of a world where I felt compelled to deny their necessary defense. That they needed a defense at all.

I support people's right to end their own life when they come to that decision in a free and informed way, and when they're demonstrably committed to the decision they've made over a prolonged period of time.

And I'm the one that gave the middle finger to the issue of suicide. Anyone, though I would consider medical euthanasia a separate situation, who is consistently suicidal over a long period of time needs help not... whatever this is, it would be unfair to call it encouragement or enabling.

What constitutes "threatening"?

Currently the standard is that a reasonable person would agree. I can't fault that.

 

[Underhill]

The old "America....love it or leave it" command, eh?
Well, the counter is that if you don't like the 2nd Amendment, then repeal it or emigrate.

It seems that you believe I'm advocating violence at every occasion I don't get my way.
I don't see anyone advocating the trigger happy attitude you criticize.

You say that, but that subtle difference is how a lot of the violence we are dealing with happens. It usually gets written off as mental issues, and maybe it is, but it is often an anger over "place societal ideology here".

And I am not saying love it or leave it. I'm saying our democracy is the core of what the country is. You don't have to like everything it does, but not agreeing with the vote should never be grounds for violence. The only time I would be in favor of violence would be if our leaders set aside the democracy in favor of monarchy or totalitarianism. But we have never been in danger of that...

 

[Underhill]

Ever notice how posters tend to go to the extreme example of weapons when their anti-gun arguments runs into a argument that is hard to dispute.

That is the problem with ideology. If you say "everyone should always be able to defend themselves" the obvious question is, defend yourself from what?

My 870 will be plenty in most home invasion situations I might face these days (however unlikely it may be). Unless the guy is wandering in the dark with night vision, in which case I may need to mine my yard. Do I get to protect myself from a guy with a knife? Then what about the guy who buys an AK? What do I use to defend against him? How do you defend against the guy you don't see coming? My experience has been that criminals are mostly cowards. They come at you from behind, or while you sleep.

It is a game that cannot be won. People like to say "if guns are illegal, only criminals will have guns". But where do you draw that line? Because where ever you decide to draw it, some criminals are always willing to cross it.

 

[esmith]

That is the problem with ideology. If you say "everyone should always be able to defend themselves" the obvious question is, defend yourself from what?

My 870 will be plenty in most home invasion situations I might face these days (however unlikely it may be). Unless the guy is wandering in the dark with night vision, in which case I may need to mine my yard. Do I get to protect myself from a guy with a knife? Then what about the guy who buys an AK? What do I use to defend against him? How do you defend against the guy you don't see coming? My experience has been that criminals are mostly cowards. They come at you from behind, or while you sleep.

It is a game that cannot be won. People like to say "if guns are illegal, only criminals will have guns". But where do you draw that line? Because where ever you decide to draw it, some criminals are always willing to cross it.

It may not be won, but at least I might have a fighting chance. The choice of defense weapons vary with circumstances. In my home my shotgun might be my weapon of choice, but 00 buck makes such a mess, then again I don't think I would miss, but outside my home I really don't want to be wandering around with a shotgun slung over my shoulder, has a tendency to freak people out.

 

[Underhill]

It may not be won, but at least I might have a fighting chance. The choice of defense weapons vary with circumstances. In my home my shotgun might be my weapon of choice, but 00 buck makes such a mess, then again I don't think I would miss, but outside my home I really don't want to be wandering around with a shotgun slung over my shoulder, has a tendency to freak people out.

I guess my point is that we Americans seem to have a Hollywood image of self defense. The reality is much harder to deal with.