Should we repeal the 2nd Amendment?

[Doubt]

I have never seen a "shoot room training" video. The force-on-force training videos I've watched have all been taught by ex-military, often former special forces. People who would likely have been training you in the infantry.

And none of that gets you to the point of being competent at it.

This requires lots of practice. Otherwise, what you are doing is somewhere in between a LARP and and those programs where people go to spring training with a professional baseball team.

The difference here is not just a matter of what skill set you end up with but understanding just how limited those skills are. A civilian is not going to understand what they don't know unless it is proven to them. The level of embarrassment that would involve isn't something going to generate good word of mouth to somebody offering that training to make money off of it.

Humans and our flight or flight response were not intended to send small bits of metal at each other flying faster than sound. We miss a lot of what is happening around us. Few can maintain the situational awareness needed to make good quick decisions with partial information. Our brains relax to much and misjudge threats.

If somebody offering that training wanted to really impress me they would start with a discussion about how prevalent friendly fire incidents are in elite units.

 

[Random]

The probability of getting killed facing a violent criminal is higher if the criminal has a gun.

This has always seemed to me to be the main difference between the pro-gun and anti-gun crowds. One group imagines that when trouble strikes, that they will have a gun. The other imagines that when trouble strikes, someone else will have a gun.

 

[acbytesla]

This has always seemed to me to be the main difference between the pro-gun and anti-gun crowds. One group imagines that when trouble strikes, that they will have a gun. The other imagines that when trouble strikes, someone else will have a gun.

I live in an insanely pro-gun town. And yet other than a few nutjobs, no one is packing. The myth is just because you own a gun, you will have yours if you need it. That is the exception.

If you have a gun in your house, you are much more likely to kill your spouse, your friend, your children or yourself than you will kill a stranger breaking into your home.

The pro-gun lobby is selling guns. They want everyone to have a gun. Not because we would be safer. But because there is money in it for them.

 

[Thermal]

I live in an insanely pro-gun town. And yet other than a few nutjobs, no one is packing. The myth is just because you own a gun, you will have yours if you need it. That is the exception.

If you have a gun in your house, you are much more likely to kill your spouse, your friend, your children or yourself than you will kill a stranger breaking into your home.

The pro-gun lobby is selling guns. They want everyone to have a gun. Not because we would be safer. But because there is money in it for them.

How many of your town's insane gun nuts are shooting each other, across the years? Just +/-, no need to cite actual statistics.

I mean, before my wife and I got married and had kids and stuff, she said I needed to lose the guns for general safety, and I agreed and did. It was the right decision. And even as Constitutional carry gains ground in my State, I'm not going to carry. But I don't think it's fair to sweep up responsible owners in with the yahoos.

 

[3point14]

How many of your town's insane gun nuts are shooting each other, across the years? Just +/-, no need to cite actual statistics.

I mean, before my wife and I got married and had kids and stuff, she said I needed to lose the guns for general safety, and I agreed and did. It was the right decision. And even as Constitutional carry gains ground in my State, I'm not going to carry. But I don't think it's fair to sweep up responsible owners in with the yahoos.

How do you tell the difference?

 

[acbytesla]

How many of your town's insane gun nuts are shooting each other, across the years? Just +/-, no need to cite actual statistics.

I mean, before my wife and I got married and had kids and stuff, she said I needed to lose the guns for general safety, and I agreed and did. It was the right decision. And even as Constitutional carry gains ground in my State, I'm not going to carry. But I don't think it's fair to sweep up responsible owners in with the yahoos.

My town/surrounding area has had 8 gun deaths in the last ten years. 3 times where the husbands shot their wives, once where a guy shot his neighbor. And 4 suicides. 3 by children. Shockingly, the three children all occurred in the last two years.

And by the way. I never said we should ban guns. I said we should repeal the Second Amendment as that prevents sensible gun regulations.

 

[Thermal]

How do you tell the difference?

Responsible owners willingly comply with law and safe storage, etc for their firearms. They don't escalate conflicts by waving a gun around, or grab the gun when fighting with their wives.

Would you consider a hunter or sport marksman to be a yahoo? I hear the UK has them. Are they insane?

 

[Thermal]

My town/surrounding area has had 8 gun deaths in the last ten years. 3 times where the husbands shot their wives, once where a guy shot his neighbor. And 4 suicides. 3 by children. Shockingly, the three children all occurred in the last two years.

And by the way. I never said we should ban guns. I said we should repeal the Second Amendment as that prevents sensible gun regulations.

Oh, I get that. And I'm not being confrontational; you described your local gun culture as insane and nuts, so I'm trying to get an idea how reckless these people are. I guess without knowing the population stats, it doesn't matter, but it sounds like the gun owners are maybe not insane. Half across a decade were suicides, three domestics and one neighbor homicide. The suicides (and dear god, children) and domestics are great arguments for outright banning. I don't know the circumstances of the neighbor killing (attack? Escalated argument about trash?), but if we didn't adopt an outright ban, seems like the majority of those deaths would've happened anyway.

 

[acbytesla]

Oh, I get that. And I'm not being confrontational; you described your local gun culture as insane and nuts, so I'm trying to get an idea how reckless these people are. I guess without knowing the population stats, it doesn't matter, but it sounds like the gun owners are maybe not insane. Half across a decade were suicides, three domestics and one neighbor homicide. The suicides (and dear god, children) and domestics are great arguments for outright banning. I don't know the circumstances of the neighbor killing (attack? Escalated argument about trash?), but if we didn't adopt an outright ban, seems like the majority of those deaths would've happened anyway.

I guess when I say insane, that is hyperbole. This town is relatively small in population yet it has 2 gun stores and 3 shooting ranges. The culture around here is staggeringly different than urban America.

I live here because it is cheap and it is beautiful. Most of the people are very nice. But there is too much uneducated testosterone in this town.

 

[Hercules56]

Vast majority of violent crimes are committed by a very small percentage of our population.

1% of Americans consistently responsible for 63% of violent crimes.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3969807/

So, why do we want to limit EVERYONE'S gun rights again? Please explain with logic and data.

 

[Trausti]

Vast majority of violent crimes are committed by a very small percentage of our population.

1% of Americans consistently responsible for 63% of violent crimes.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3969807/

So, why do we want to limit EVERYONE'S gun rights again? Please explain with logic and data.

That a super small percent of folks are responsible for the supermajority of crime is one of those facts you'd think policymakers would consider. But, nah. Everyone else must adjust their behaviors and rights 'cause we don't want to be mean to criminals.

 

[acbytesla]

Vast majority of violent crimes are committed by a very small percentage of our population.

1% of Americans consistently responsible for 63% of violent crimes.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3969807/

So, why do we want to limit EVERYONE'S gun rights again? Please explain with logic and data.

Huh? Like that makes sense. So what? That's a post hoc rationalization. You never before killed your spouse or yourself so why shouldn't you be allowed to own a gun? Is that what you're really saying? How about restricting felons, the mentally ill and children from having firearms?

BTW, I repeat for the umpteenth time, repealing the Second Amendment does not equal banning firearms. It allows for the states to enact laws that work for their specific State. Montana and Alaska would likely have significantly different firearm laws than say New York and Maryland.

 

[Hercules56]

Huh? Like that makes sense. So what? That's a post hoc rationalization. You never before killed your spouse or yourself so why shouldn't you be allowed to own a gun? Is that what you're really saying? How about restricting felons, the mentally ill and children from having firearms?...

Sounds good to me!!

 

[jrhowell]

Vast majority of violent crimes are committed by a very small percentage of our population.

1% of Americans consistently responsible for 63% of violent crimes.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3969807/

So, why do we want to limit EVERYONE'S gun rights again? Please explain with logic and data.

How do you keep guns out of the hands of only that 1% while allowing everyone else unfettered access?

And note that statistic is for violent crime convictions. It does not account for deaths due to successful criminals, tragic accidents, and suicides.

 

[Trausti]

Sounds good to me!!

Yeah. The problem isn't law-abiding gun owners. The problem is lax enforcement of gun laws against offenders.

 

[Trausti]

How do you keep guns out of the hands of only that 1% while allowing everyone else unfettered access?

And note that statistic is for violent crime convictions. It does not account for deaths due to successful criminals, tragic accidents, and suicides.

Prosecute offenders. Don't give them bail. No endless chances.

 

[arthwollipot]

But the bad guys in the US have guns, and repealing the Second Amendment would not change that. It would just make it impossible for the good guys to legally get guns to be able to defend themselves against the bad guys.

No, you see, that's wrong. Because repealing the 2nd Amendment is only a part of an overall strategy to reduce gun deaths, you also make guns less available all around. And in doing so you make it harder for the bad guys to get and keep guns too.

Destroy the glut of guns that America is swimming in and you will destroy the black market that distributes them to criminals. It's quite simple, really.

The argument that controlling guns won't help people who don't bother with all the training and the licensing and the legal stuff is vacuous when you realise that you're not just controlling guns for the good guys, you're controlling them for the bad guys as well. Otherwise, what's the point?

There are a lot more bad guys in the US than in Australia, and our bad guys are a lot badder.

Haahahaha... haha. Hahaha no.

There are a lot more bad guys only because there are a lot more guys period. And your bad guys are only badder because they can routinely get their hands on black market guns.

Australia has our fair share of bad guys, thank you. And when they can get guns, they absolutely do. But we do out best to keep guns out of bad hands, and for the most part, it works. The upshot of this is that if you have a bad guy with a gun, they are probably connected to one of the major organised crime networks with resources and contacts. The average punk rolling a 7-11 doesn't have a gun.

 

[arthwollipot]

...But we have one relatively small data-skewing demographic that murders at rate of 6x the general population, and largely kills others in its own demographic, and despite being small is doing the majority of homicides.

And why do you think they can do that? Because they can easily get cheap black market guns.

Would you consider a hunter or sport marksman to be a yahoo? I hear the UK has them. Are they insane?

By your definition, yahoos in this country can't get guns.

Vast majority of violent crimes are committed by a very small percentage of our population.

1% of Americans consistently responsible for 63% of violent crimes.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3969807/

So, why do we want to limit EVERYONE'S gun rights again? Please explain with logic and data.

Ah, so we're limiting gun rights only for blacks.

And they say America isn't racist.

You know what else that demographic has in common? They're generally poor. So if you restrict guns, destroy the glut, and crash the black market, guns become more expensive and you limit the problem.

Prosecute offenders. Don't give them bail. No endless chances.

Or just don't let them get cheap black market guns in the first place.

 

[Trausti]

Or just don't let them get cheap black market guns in the first place.

The problem isn't the gun, dude.

 

[acbytesla]

The problem isn't the gun, dude.

Yeah, you know. Guns don't kill people.