The Second Amendment and the "Right" to Bear Arms

NWO Sentryman said:
The way everyone goes on about how the US is a savage hellhole, despite the fact that in the grand scheme of things, the murder rate is far lower than that of, say, "civilised" Russia.

The problems with the US are very different from Europe, as I have explained before:
Click to expand...

Who has said Russia is civilised? Given the history of Russia over the last century, it's no wonder it's a hell hole.

When USA gun enthusiasts start comparing the US to Russia, Mexico, South Africa and Columbia, it is clear that the debate is over. These are the nations you want to benchmark as civilised, non-violent states? Words fail.
 
Orphia Nay said:
Guns aren't the only problem with the USA, just as the USA isn't the only country with a gun problem.

That in no way means the USA doesn't have a gun problem.
Click to expand...

You have to remember that the US has had problems with the government getting the trust of the public long before Watergate (Prohibition was exactly like the War on Drugs, with criminal gangs engaging in open warfare like now. When prohibition ended, the crime rates dropped as the gangs found themselves out of pocket).

To explain more, violent crime is frequently concentrated in inner-urban communities, where institutional racism persisting for centuries as well as rampant poverty, have significantly contributed to violent crime, as well as minorities being more likely to go to prison and for longer (US has the largest incarceration rate in the world, and a significantly high recidivism rate), as well as seriously outdated concepts on criminal justice.

The problem is, one side seems to think that guns are khornate relics which turn anybody who touches them into psychotic killers. The other side worships them as artefacts from the Emperor himself.

And nobody has defined "gun problem" or given a realistic solution (murder rates are dropping, largely due to lead removal). With the US government already being held in contempt by the public at large for the NSA programme as well as the toxic legacies of Vietnam, Watergate and the War on Terror/Drugs, you will have to address that before you can get any resolution.
 
angrysoba said:
Here we go. I have taken the top ten countries in the human development index replicating Sabretooth's completely objective selection of top ten lowest gun homicide rate in the US and looked at these states' gun homicide rates:

STATE | GHR
Norway | 0.04
Australia | 0.13
United States | 3.60
Netherlands | 0.20
Germany | 0.20
New Zealand | 0.26
Ireland | No data (?)
Sweden | 0.19
Switzerland | 0.52
Japan | 0.00

Now apart from Ireland, there is one that really sticks out. The two highest gun homicide rates are the US and Ireland.
Click to expand...
For a population of just under 4.6 million, there were 79 homicides in total in Ireland in 2012. In 2004 22% (10 of 45) of homicides in Ireland involved firearms, so applying a similar percentage to 2012 would give us 17.5 - a rate of 0.38.
 
WildCat said:
As the slogan goes "God made man, Sam Colt made them equal". Meaning physical prowess and strength mean little when both are armed with guns, which gives pause to violent thugs who wouldn't think twice about attacking the physically weak in the absence of firearms.
Click to expand...
It doesn't seem to give many US killers such pause for thought.
 
WildCat said:
Yes, because firearms are a tool which can prevent those things and makes it a far riskier proposition for the criminal.
Click to expand...
Adequate home security will prevent most burglaries; avoiding most town and city centres at chucking-out time will avoid getting into fights. Given that America, awash with guns, still suffers burglaries and assaults, the efficacy of your claimed "solution" is questionable. America is trapped in a vicious circle of armed criminals and armed citizens. Most other developed countries - and especially the UK - are not.
 
Last edited:
lionking said:
Who has said Russia is civilised? Given the history of Russia over the last century, it's no wonder it's a hell hole.

When USA gun enthusiasts start comparing the US to Russia, Mexico, South Africa and Columbia, it is clear that the debate is over. These are the nations you want to benchmark as civilised, non-violent states? Words fail.
Click to expand...

Define "civilised" and "non-violent". You probably think the racist-folksy image of 1950s USA was "civilised" when it was keeping minorities down and treating them like dirt (and still is to a certain extent with aforementioned War on Drugs and mass incarceration). and then there's the fact that "civilised" as a descriptor for nations is ********. "civilised" australia had a very racist immigration policy because it was scared of the horrific concept of sharing with non-white people and is incarcerating refugees en-masse because it is still scared of that concept. "civilised" and "non-violent" western europe burned itself to the ground twice in the past century, "civilised" and "non-violent" USA and Canada had horrific policies towards indigenous people and minorities.


Read my previous posts on the matter to understand some of the problems the US has.
 
WildCat said:
That's kind of the whole point. In fact Rwanda is so far from developed firearms are quite rare, and yet it's the scene of the worst genocide in recent times.

And have a lower death toll after years of conflict with firearms than Rwanda experienced in just a few months with nothing more than machetes.
Click to expand...

I would say that that has more to do with genocidal intent than the availability or otherwise of firearms. If the latter had been widely available to the killers other than - obviously - the army units who also participated, they no doubt would have used them, instead or as well. In fact, as others have noted, whilst the popular image is genocide-by-machete, a sizable chubnk of the victims were in fact killed by firearms and explosives.
 
Last edited:
lionking said:
Who has said Russia is civilised? Given the history of Russia over the last century, it's no wonder it's a hell hole.

When USA gun enthusiasts start comparing the US to Russia, Mexico, South Africa and Columbia, it is clear that the debate is over. These are the nations you want to benchmark as civilised, non-violent states? Words fail.
Click to expand...

There is no nation of Columbia.
 
NWO Sentryman said:
As I said before, the problems with violent crime in the US are largely due to the War on Drugs, rampant poverty and institutional racism, and nothing to do with this phantasm that people construct of "gun violence".
Click to expand...

Such problems also exist in much of Europe. The big difference between Europe and the US is over gun control and the US failure to keep guns away from unsuitable people. Furthermore the US rates about or a bit above average for crime in OCED countires, with exception of homicides. The high rate of homicide is due to the high use of guns which kill more easily than any other weapon.
 
The Norseman said:
I offer my apologies for not remembering all that you've posted.
Click to expand...

Oh thank you for your apol... hang on a minute. That sounds like a very grudging and almost sarcastic "apology". But here's the thing, I am not asking you to remember everything I have posted. I am not asking you to perform superhuman feats. I just think it would be nice if you could remember a conversation we were in from a day or two ago.

The Norseman said:
I'm also going to say that you've got a lot of nerve accusing me of being dishonest. My posting history clearly demonstrates that I back up my claims and I'm quick to apologize when I'm wrong.
Click to expand...

Well, first of all, I dispute the bits about you backing up your claims and being quick to apologize. When I asked you about which posts exhibited bigotry here you refused to say and even mumbled something about how the bigotry may have actually been in a different thread. Also, I see no apology here given that you said these things:

The Norseman said:
By 'detached' do you mean 'neutral'? Because you are anything but neutral in this "debate".
Click to expand...

angrysoba said:
Oh really? What's my position then? I've already stated it so that anyone who can read and chooses to do so can do so. But instead it gets ignored. Oh poor me. Poor misunderstood me.
Click to expand...

The Norseman said:
In this thread, you have only posted anti-gun type data and nothing for the support of private ownership of guns. I don't think I'm drawing a hasty conclusion when you seem to be showing such bias. At least, that's not my definition of neutral.
Click to expand...

Do you not at least think that the two above comments by you are misrepresentative of my position? If you do not accept you are wrong in your highlighted quotes then I have every right to call you dishonest, because you can see it written right there in black and yellow!

Because I can remind you again of what I said, just to show that I can back up what I said:

angrysoba said:
As for me personally, I don't have a problem with the US having the gun culture that it does. Besides, as I said before, the right to bear arms is in fact an English innovation and one that was drawn on by the Founding Fathers of the US and those who drew up state consitutions such as the one in Pennsylvania. From what I can see the intent absolutely was to allow those who were considered citizens to have their private arms and it was not at all restricted to militias.
Click to expand...
 
angrysoba said:
Yet? What do you mean "yet"? You haven't asked me yet.

But anyway, a request for such a sociological theory is ridiculous, particularly if you think the world works as smoothly as being able to produce a formula similar to a biochemical process such as smoking and lung cancer. I might as well ask you to produce a formula for calculating the speed of cancer on similar lines to the physical speed of light.
Click to expand...
Way to dodge the question! At any rate, it seems that even if you refuse to admit it you acknowledge that sociological factors are far more influential than availability of guns when it comes to homicide rates.

angrysoba said:
Rare? While a lot of machetes were used in the Rwandan genocide, AK-47s and grenades were also used and the genocide was government-initiated.








This is false. The Congo Civil War has killed millions and doubly false of you to say that Rwandan militia had "nothing more than machetes". Some groups were armed only with machetes, but others were armed with guns as well.
Click to expand...
The overwhelming majority were killed by machetes and other weapons such as clubs and spears, not guns and grenades. Only 17-20% were killed by firearms and grenades.
 
angrysoba said:
This level of dishonesty is quite objectionable. I did post figures for Switzerland, so your claim that I am cherry-picking is false.
Click to expand...
Why didn't you include Lithuania? Belarus? Estonia? Ukraine? Moldova? Or by far the largest European country, Russia?

Cherry picked data is cherry picked.
 
Information Analyst said:
Adequate home security will prevent most burglaries; avoiding most town and city centres at chucking-out time will avoid getting into fights. Given that America, awash with guns, still suffers burglaries and assaults, the efficacy of your claimed "solution" is questionable. America is trapped in a vicious circle of armed criminals and armed citizens. Most other developed countries - and especially the UK - are not.
Click to expand...
At a far lower rate than the UK.
 
WildCat said:
Why didn't you include Lithuania? Belarus? Estonia? Ukraine? Moldova? Or by far the largest European country, Russia?

Cherry picked data is cherry picked.
Click to expand...

They are not part of the developed world. This criterion has been explained several times now.
 
Information Analyst said:
I would say that that has more to do with genocidal intent than the availability or otherwise of firearms. If the latter had been widely available to the killers other than - obviously - the army units who also participated, they no doubt would have used them, instead or as well. In fact, as others have noted, whilst the popular image is genocide-by-machete, a sizable chubnk of the victims were in fact killed by firearms and explosives.
Click to expand...
What if both sides had been armed equally with firearms?
 
arthwollipot said:
That's a very good question. What could possibly convince me that it is a good idea to allow ordinary people to walk around in public with easy and instant access to a means of quickly and easily killing another human being?

Zombie apocalypse, perhaps?

I'll have to think about this one.
Click to expand...

What do you mean by ordinary?

What makes soldiers, police, and government officials extraordinary?

I think this is revealing your bias.

lionking said:
Who has said Russia is civilised? Given the history of Russia over the last century, it's no wonder it's a hell hole.

When USA gun enthusiasts start comparing the US to Russia, Mexico, South Africa and Columbia, it is clear that the debate is over. These are the nations you want to benchmark as civilised, non-violent states? Words fail.
Click to expand...
This is literally the best the anti-gun side has.

Name calling and arbitrary characterizations. An entire nation is a hell hole because the rate at which murders occurs is a tiny fraction larger than the tiny fraction of his home country.

If the conversation cannot be elevated past this it is no wonder no progress is made.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom