• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

The 2nd Amendment solution to gun violence

3point14 said:
Do you think everyone encompassed in the definition of "The People" should be allowed to carry a firearm of their choice, loaded, in public, not concealed?
Click to expand...
No. But I don't have a choice. Limiting a single person is an infringement.
 
Giz said:
I think this is a projection thing. Showing a lack of understanding of the role your cultural background plays in your reasoning.
Click to expand...


Really?

The statements are both very different in quality. Only one of them actually shows an understanding that cultures have different attitudes.

You'll note I didn't ridicule or insult anyone for asking a question that's viewed differently in different cultures, I just pointed it out.

The post I responded to was pure ridicule and insult.

Your rebuttal seems a bit, er, desperate. Sorry.
 
Last edited:
Giz said:
Unbelievable.

Do you think that the failure of the USA to pacify Afghanistan was that they :

1) lacked the logistical capability to transport their incredible firepower/nukes etc to Afghanistan,
or
2) that the USA considered nukes to be inappropriate tools in combating an insurgency
Click to expand...

None of the above.

Would you care to keep guessing?
 
Ranb said:
Since when is personal protection selfish?
Click to expand...

Since it's a myth, perhaps?

https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/hsph-in-the-news/do-guns-make-us-safer-science-suggests-no/

Hemenway noted that one commonly cited statistic about guns—that 2.5 million people use them each year to defend themselves or their property — is based on faulty analysis from a 1990s study. A more reliable source of information, the National Crime Victimization Survey, pegs the number of people who use guns in this manner at roughly 100,000, according to Science Vs podcast host Wendy Zukerman. Hemenway added that there is no good evidence that using a gun in self-defense reduces the likelihood of injury. There is some evidence that having a gun may reduce property loss, “but the evidence is equally compelling that having another weapon, such as mace or a baseball bat, will also reduce the likelihood of property loss,” he said.

Addressing gun lobby assertions that crime is deterred when more law-abiding citizens carry guns, Hemenway said the evidence says otherwise. He said that even though more and more Americans are carrying concealed guns each year—the result of more states passing ‘right-to-carry’ laws—research has not uncovered a direct cause-and-effect relationship between the prevalence of guns and the U.S. crime rate. However, he noted, the presence of more guns does make crimes more violent. “What guns do is make hostile interactions—robberies, assaults—much more deadly,” he said.
Click to expand...

https://www.kqed.org/science/1916209/does-gun-ownership-really-make-you-safer-research-says-no

KQED: There's this very common belief that people are safer if they own a gun or if they have a gun in their home, and you dug into the evidence. Tell us what did you find?

Melinda Wenner Moyer: There's a lot of different ways to look at this question, which is kind of a central claim made by the gun lobby that more guns in the hands of good guys will keep you safer. But when you look at the question from a lot of different ways, it kind of all comes out the same: which is that, no, owning a gun, keeping a gun in your home, carrying a gun, none of those seemed to make you safer.

[...]

KQED: Talk about some of those conclusions.

Moyer: There's been research showing that if you keep a gun in your home, that doesn't actually reduce your risk of gun violence. It actually makes you more likely to be a victim of crime or homicide or suicide. There's also been research looking at concealed carry rates. As those have gone up in some states, have there been drops in crime and in violence? And they found largely, no. There's been some research by some controversial researchers that points to possibly, yes. But it's really largely been refuted in recent years. And then there's really the central question of, if guns are protective then that implies that Americans are using the guns for self defense all the time. And the research there also suggests that actually guns are used for self defense in less than 1 percent of all crimes that occur in the presence of a victim. People aren't really getting the chance to use their guns for protection anyway.

KQED: Gun ownership doesn't make us more safe. Does it make us less safe?

Moyer: Yes. That is what the research largely suggests. It makes us less safe.

KQED: What accounts for that? Is that because if there's a gun around, then I'm more likely use it to hurt myself or hurt another person?

Moyer: Well, certainly the suicide becomes much more likely and much more, unfortunately, sort of successful when you own a gun. But really scientists are trying to figure out exactly why this is. It could be that when you own a gun you might take a few more risks, you might go to places you might not otherwise go without your gun. You might sort of end up putting yourself in riskier situations that put you ironically more at risk for crime and violence. There could be a lot of different reasons here, and it's really hard to tease out and that's one of the reasons we need more or better research to really understand what's going on.
Click to expand...
 
It's useful to consider that our Founding Fathers were both gifted and cursed with educations founded in the classical period, that is to say a comprehensive study of the Roman Republican period. It would be difficult to overstate the impact this education had on our the Founders. Remember, our founders were recreating the Roman Republic. Don't believe me, ask yourself why we have a senatorial political class and representative political class.

Keep in mind, the army of the Roman republic was made up of citizens who owned their own arms. Lower classes owned a simple set of armor, a shield and three javelins. As you went up in class, the set of arms and armor you were expected to own became more advanced/expensive. Wealthy classes became equestrians and owned horses and arms to fight as cavalry. Also keep in mind that these arms were intended to be used when the state called upon you to report with them and form an army. This was an army of strict discipline and an understanding of your role in it.

The Founders were equally aware of and terrified by the idea of standing, professional armies that could dictate the leadership of the new country. Doubt me? Ask yourself why Cincinnati, named after Cincinnatus was one of the first new cities founded after the Revolution.

The Founders saw that the Pretorian Guard and professional soldiers loyal to their generals could usurp civilian control and take possession of the government. That's the point of the 2nd Amendment. It's the only Amendment in the Bill of Rights that speaks to the duty a citizen has to the state. The Founders wanted to ensure that the Army would be made up of well regulated citizens ala the Roman Republican period and disperse back to their farms and shops once the war was over.

It is beyond laughable to suggest that likes of Jefferson, Washington or Adams would have been in favor of a popular revolt to restore personal liberty. That's why they specified a "well regulated militia". They were trying to recreate the army of Republican Rome. They wanted citizens armed, ready to heed the call to form an army and then go back to their farms after the war.
 
Belz... said:
Like I said in the mass shooting thread, this is pie in the sky stuff.

Why would someone who wants a gun for hunting or home defense have to be in the military? That flies in the face of one of the central arguments of the Second-Amendmentists.
Click to expand...

They should be properly trained in the safe use of, but mandatory Military Service isnt a guarantee of anything.
 
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
Since it's a myth, perhaps?

https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/hsph-in-the-news/do-guns-make-us-safer-science-suggests-no/
Click to expand...

Both of your sources are crap. Defensive gun use doesn't always get reported, especially if the gun never gets discharged.

https://www.kqed.org/science/1916209/does-gun-ownership-really-make-you-safer-research-says-no
Click to expand...

Those stats don't separate out criminals from non-criminals. Drug dealers often own guns, and they are at high risk of getting shot. So that's a big correlation for that population, and because it's disproportionately the victim of shootings, it skews the overall stats heavily. Noncriminals are at much lower risk, and those overall stats don't indicate how your risk changes if you own a gun and you aren't a criminal. And you know if you're a drug dealer.
 
Ziggurat said:
Both of your sources are crap. Defensive gun use doesn't always get reported, especially if the gun never gets discharged.



Those stats don't separate out criminals from non-criminals. Drug dealers often own guns, and they are at high risk of getting shot. So that's a big correlation for that population, and because it's disproportionately the victim of shootings, it skews the overall stats heavily. Noncriminals are at much lower risk, and those overall stats don't indicate how your risk changes if you own a gun and you aren't a criminal. And you know if you're a drug dealer.
Click to expand...

If you have better sources that demonstrate that you are safer with a gun, I'd be happy to read them. That, after all, is the claim here.
 
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
Since it's a myth, perhaps?

https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/hsph-in-the-news/do-guns-make-us-safer-science-suggests-no/

https://www.kqed.org/science/1916209/does-gun-ownership-really-make-you-safer-research-says-no
Click to expand...

The Violence Policy Center issued a report on defensive gun use, based on hard numbers from the National Crime Victimization Survey

http://vpc.org/studies/justifiable17.pdf

The VPC is in no way a fellow traveler with any pro-gun or pro-Second Amendment operation.

According to the NCVS, looking at the total number of self-protective behaviors undertaken by victims of both attempted and completed violent crime for the three year period 2013 through 2015, in only 1.1 percent of these instances had the intended victim in resistance to a criminal “threatened or attacked with a firearm.”11

As detailed in the chart on the next page, for the three-year period 2013 through 2015, the NCVS estimates that there were 16,492,600 victims of attempted or completed violent crime. During this same three-year period, only 175,700 of the self-protective behaviors involved a firearm. Of this number, it is not known what type of firearm was used or whether it was fired or not. The number may also include off-duty law enforcement officers who use their firearms in self-defense.

Using VPC/NCVS numbers, the number of DGU 2013 - 2015 reduces to 160.46 DGU's per day in the 3 year period.

I'll give VPC credit for having the numbers in their report, but hanging their hat on DGU's that are found to be justifiable homicides is nothing but slight-of-hand.

The overwhelming number of encounters involving DGU between victim and attacker don't result in the intended victim firing their weapon - it's true of both LE and the general public's DGU.
 
As a gun owner, I feel there is no solution unless better security is provided to citizens who go to places en masse. By better security, I mean armed security. Even that doesn't always work but most potential shooters balk when they are faced with armed citizens who can shoot back.
 
3point14 said:
You think?

Well, you're demonstrably just desperate now.

You have a nice day.
Click to expand...

I'm sure I will!

But Afghanistan is a good example. It's not a problem of logistics, but of political will. We've had robots sustaining remote firebases during protracted battles, in Afghanistan. Getting people and stuff to the battlefield is pretty much a solved problem for the US.

You should go on YouTube and check out the videos of General Schwarzkopf's briefing on the battle of Kuwait. Look at the maps. The Iraqis are bunkered up in Kuwait proper. They don't bother trying to screen off their western flank, because it's all hundreds of miles of inhospitable desert over there.

So what does Schwarzkopf do? He builds not one, but three massive logistics bases out in literally BFE desolate wasteland, and uses them as jumping-off points for large maneuver forces that sweep in from the west to cut off the Iraqi supply lines and hit them from an unexpected direction. And that's on top of the entire amphibious assault he had readied on their eastern flank. And that's on top of the entire frontal assault he launched at the same time from the south. And that's on top of the preliminary air campaign that cut off their northern supply lines and reinforcement routes.

And on top of all that, Schwarzkopf, the supreme commander of this battle, flew to the opposite side of the planet to give a briefing on how the battle was going, in the middle of the battle. Because that's how deep the US rolls. The problem in Afghanistan is not that the US doesn't have the stuff, or that it doesn't have the wherewithal to get the stuff over there. The problem in Afghanistan is simply one of not wanting to put too much stuff there, for some political definition of "too much stuff".

(It may also be a problem that isn't really solvable by sending more stuff. I think any scenario of the US government relying on federal troops to put down an armed insurgency among its own citizens would probably have the same problem.)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom