What It's Like To Own Guns...
- Thread starter arthwollipot
- Start date
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
Not in reference to the Second Amendment.
Because SCOTUS incorporated the Second in McDonald on the States through the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment rather than strict scrutiny, the States are free to restrict Second Amendment rights as they see fit, at least until a court rules against them.
jakesteele
Fait Accompli
http://everytownresearch.org/reports/mass-shootings-analysis/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States#Suicides_involving_firearms
The terrible and incredible irony of the situation in America is the mass shooting only account for a very small percentage of gun deaths but the Left takes them and runs with them. Yes, school shootings, et al, are a tragedy but to me it is unconscionable that the Left would use these tragedies to further their own agenda.
Gun violence in the United States results in thousands of deaths and injuries annually.[1] According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, in 2013, firearms were used in 84,258 nonfatal injuries (26.65 per 100,000 U.S. citizens) [2] and 11,208 deaths by homicide (3.5 per 100,000),[3] 21,175 by suicide with a firearm,[4] 505 deaths due to accidental discharge of a firearm,[4] and 281 deaths due to firearms-use with "undetermined intent"[5] for a total of 33,169 deaths related to firearms (excluding firearm deaths due to legal intervention). 1.3% of all deaths in the country were related to firearms.[1][6]
Self-protection
Main article: Defensive gun use
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States#Other_violent_crime
The effectiveness and safety of guns used for personal defense is debated. Studies place the instances of guns used in personal defense as low as 65,000 times per year, and as high as 2.5 million times per year. Under President Clinton, the Department of Justice conducted a survey in 1994 that placed the usage rate of guns used in personal defense at 1.5 million times per year, but noted this was likely to be an overestimate.[92]
Between 1987 and 1990, McDowall found that guns were used in defense during a crime incident 64,615 times annually (258,460 times total over the whole period).[93] This equated to two times out of 1,000 criminal incidents (0.2%) that occurred in this period, including criminal incidents where no guns were involved at all.[93] For violent crimes, assault, robbery, and rape, guns were used 0.83% of the time in self-defense.[93] Of the times that guns were used in self-defense, 71% of the crimes were committed by strangers, with the rest of the incidents evenly divided between offenders that were acquaintances or persons well known to the victim.[93] In 28% of incidents where a gun was used for self-defense, victims fired the gun at the offender.[93] In 20% of the self-defense incidents, the guns were used by police officers.[93] During this same period, 1987 to 1990, there were 46,319 gun homicides,[94] and the National Crime Victimization Survey estimated that 2,628,532 nonfatal crimes involving guns occurred.[93]
Also, my guns give me security and peace of mind knowing I am able to defend myself from any person with bad intentions towards me or my own.
Last edited:
That must be easy to administer
tyr_13
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2008
- Messages
- 18,095
No, it does not.
Unless you're claiming that basically none of the enumerated rights are rights unless the government provides one with the means of exercising those rights, in which case you'll have to show me the government issued printing press or free printing service, the government issued church facilities, and the like that make them real rights.
This line of reasoning remains completely fallacious as well as outright wrong.
It doesn't say presses. It sees plainly arms
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
It is certainly one of the standard non-arguments put out by individuals in favor of stricter gun control, one that goes right along with "If the Second Amendment doesn't allow you to own a nuke that means that you have to agree that (fill in the blank) can be banned too!"
tyr_13
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2008
- Messages
- 18,095
The Bill of Rights certainly does say 'freedom of the press'.
The implication that for the right to keep and bear arms to be valid the government must provide you with the arms to keep and bear is wrong and fallacious. There is no such requirement or grounds to believe such a requirement might be applicable. It's so far out it's in 'not even wrong' land.
tyr_13
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2008
- Messages
- 18,095
Are those who cannot afford internet access having their freedom of speech infringed? Are those who cannot afford to have their book printed having their freedom of the press infringed? No, of course not. This is a nonsesne argument that doesn't even raise to the level of being facile.
tyr_13
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2008
- Messages
- 18,095
And? That doesn't support your point.
None of which is specific except arms
It doesn't promise a press
tyr_13
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2008
- Messages
- 18,095
And? This doesn't support your argument.
The 2nd doesn't promise arms, and the 1st doesn't promise a religion for you either. Is English not your first language? I'm genuinely asking to try to explain this.
Last edited:
The first is provided for by the govt in police support during demonstrations and legal issues
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
You might be right on the price of a firearm as de facto prohibition:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturday_night_special
But it still isn't an issue of government not "giving" firearms to individuals.
The fact that an individual doesn't have the means to purchase a consumer item doesn't legally constitute not having the right to do so otherwise.
You have worked out the press.
The arms is clearly non negotiable
Why should people be missing their right because of cost
Sent from my GT-S5660 using Tapatalk 2
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
Could you rewrite the above into an understandable statement or question?
arthwollipot
Limerick Purist Pronouns: He/Him
Only if people with massive arsenals like the author don't protect them properly as outlined in the article. The reason for all of the security that is clearly described in the article is so that an arsenal like this doesn't become a soft target. The outcome is better if criminals can steal only one gun than if they can steal thirty in one go.
No, it's not common, though as I have pointed out on previous occasions, it does happen. The difference is that in America, the expectation is that any given criminal probably has a gun. In Australia, the expectation is that any given criminal probably doesn't. This, in my opinion, is largely because in America, owning a gun is seen as a right, whereas in Australia (and most other developed countries) it is seen as a privilege.
Actually, it turns out that the only people who have said that - and who have been quoted as saying that in this article, which is more relevant - are Americans.
Anyway, why shouldn't it be possible in America? Are Americans just inherently more violent than Australians?
Actually, it is. Article 17 of the UDHR.