The Second Amendment and the "Right" to Bear Arms

ApolloGnomon said:
Not always, but you can google "sand creek massacre" and "battle of little bighorn" for 2 examples of US Army actions that ended quite differently.
Click to expand...
At Little Bighorn the US Army was not only outnumbered, they were outgunned as well.
 
3point14 said:
My point, perhaps badly expressed, is that those law abiding citizens who want guns for their own protection mostly do so (as far as I can tell, I'm far from infallible) because other people have guns. this seems like an arms race/cold war type situation to me.
Click to expand...

The pumas, bears, and rattlesnakes aren't actually armed, but I would definitely prefer to have a firearm in the case of a meeting with one - although the preferred weapon for dealing with a rattlesnake (shotgun) is not the same as the preferred weapon for dealing with larger animals (rifle), which is why something like this is often found to be useful as a ranch gun in certain parts of the country.

There are places in our country where it simply isn't wise to visit without some sort of firearm, even if you never see another person.

If I encountered a criminal (or multiple criminals) attempting to attack me with a knife (or pipe, or chain, etc...) , a firearm would also be very useful, even though the criminal(s) doesn't have firearms.
 
MikeMangum said:
The pumas, bears, and rattlesnakes aren't actually armed, but I would definitely prefer to have a firearm in the case of a meeting with one - although the preferred weapon for dealing with a rattlesnake (shotgun) is not the same as the preferred weapon for dealing with larger animals (rifle), which is why something like this is often found to be useful as a ranch gun in certain parts of the country.

There are places in our country where it simply isn't wise to visit without some sort of firearm, even if you never see another person.
Click to expand...

I don't think I've seen anyone question the validity of carrying a firearm when there's a fair likelihood of being attacked by deadly wildlife. I could be wrong.

If I encountered a criminal (or multiple criminals) attempting to attack me with a knife (or pipe, or chain, etc...) , a firearm would also be very useful, even though the criminal(s) doesn't have firearms.
Click to expand...


Indeed, but if they had a gun, you'd definitely want one and, with the ubiquitousness of firearms in (some states of?) the US, it's a different calculation than it is in other countries. Even if some people might have the probabilities off in their personal calculations.

Look at it this way, I'm pretty sure I could make a fair go at defending myself from any random muggers round here with a decent stick. I don't think the same could be said in (some) places in the US. I'd need a gun to be sure that I at least stood a chance.
 
MikeMangum said:
The pumas, bears, and rattlesnakes aren't actually armed, but I would definitely prefer to have a firearm in the case of a meeting with one - although the preferred weapon for dealing with a rattlesnake (shotgun) is not the same as the preferred weapon for dealing with larger animals (rifle), which is why something like this is often found to be useful as a ranch gun in certain parts of the country.

There are places in our country where it simply isn't wise to visit without some sort of firearm, even if you never see another person.

If I encountered a criminal (or multiple criminals) attempting to attack me with a knife (or pipe, or chain, etc...) , a firearm would also be very useful, even though the criminal(s) doesn't have firearms.
Click to expand...

I have a friend who carries a .357 into backcountry where bears can be found. He calls it "the anvil." He'd like to carry a .44, but doesn't have one.
 
3point14 said:
I don't think I've seen anyone question the validity of carrying a firearm when there's a fair likelihood of being attacked by deadly wildlife. I could be wrong.
Click to expand...
Earlier this year, I camped & hiked in the redwoods. The National Park Service and the state of California warn visitors that there are bears, require us to put our food in bearproof containers some distance away from the tent or hang it out of bears' reach with a rope, and forbid guns in the parks.

3point14 said:
I'm pretty sure I could make a fair go at defending myself from any random muggers round here with a decent stick.
Click to expand...
If you were attacked, that would only matter if you had a stick. They're more trouble to take with you than a gun is.

But more likely, the fact that you can take care of yourself like that would probably just make you not the criminals' target. Now imagine what you'd think if you were more of a target and less able. (This description will probably actually apply to you in some number of years anyway.)
 
Delvo said:
Earlier this year, I camped & hiked in the redwoods. The National Park Service and the state of California warn visitors that there are bears, require us to put our food in bearproof containers some distance away from the tent or hang it out of bears' reach with a rope, and forbid guns in the parks.
Click to expand...
Since 2010 federal statute explicitly allows firearms in national parks, subject to state laws. So if you can legally carry a gun in California you can carry in Redwoods.
 
Delvo said:
If all gun homicides were replaced with non-homicides, what would the numbers look like for the remainder (homicides without guns)?
Click to expand...
In the UK it would hardly dent the homicide figures, as only 5-10% are with firearms. In the US, with the vast bulk of homicides involving firearms, obviously it would drastically cut down the number of dead bodies.
 
NWO Sentryman said:
Really? Illegal surveillance is just an "issue"? What about extraordinary rendition (the state engaging in really illegal operations), the Afghan and Iraq Wars (Vietnam version II), The War on Drugs (aka the new jim crow because minorities are incarcerated disproportionately, which has been a huge factor in violent crime), the poisonous legacies of Vietnam (most bombed country in history, and the US government sent thousands of young men to die on a fool's errand and lied about it) and Watergate (A president had to resign over this).

And most of the Anti-Gun people in this thread have been coming across as "you need HARD MEN making HARD DECISIONS to save you from yourselves", which has made the pro-gun lot annoyed, largely because of aforementioned poisonous legacies.
Click to expand...
You seem to know a lot about US history, and not much about UK history.
 
WildCat said:
Here's where you're supposed to explain what is wrong with the numbers civitas used. Did you just forget?
Click to expand...
And you're ignoring Civitas's bias.

Let's look at the difference in rates:

3.2 per 100,000 - not very much higher.

271 per 100,000 - much higher.

Comprende?
Click to expand...

I think you're desperately avoiding the implications of the different rates. A rate of 1.2 (actual) equates to around 760 dead bodies; if the rate was 4.7 (i.e. the US one), with would be about 2970. At 4.7 the US has around 14,600 homicides, but if the rate was 1.2 (i.e. the UK one), it would be only 3730 homicides. Are you seriously claiming that raising 760 to 2970, or reducing 14,600 to 3,730, is "not very much different"? Sure, a 50% higher assault rate is going to affect more people numerically, but having a homicide rate three times higher is going to affect a smaller still significant number of people much more seriously.
 
Last edited:
WildCat said:
Does the rest of the wiki article explain what qualities those are? Is it the same as what you claim it is?
Click to expand...
History and past applications are immaterial if the overall concept is still applicable. You might want to avoid reality by claiming that "American exceptionalism" only applies to certain specific issues, but unless you can prove that the words "American" and "exceptionalism" can rigidly only be applied to those same issue, you don't get to object if anyone else prefers to see the concept of the two together applied on a wider scale. A bit like the words "unlawful" and "combatant."
 
NWO Sentryman said:
How many other nations:

- incarcerate 1% of their population
- engage in blatantly racist drug policies
- have had scandals comparable to Vietnam/Watergate/War on Terror/Extraordinary Rendition/NSA
- have a lot of their minority communities live in rampant poverty

Americans already distrust their government utterly for these reasons and more, so what makes you think "Imma take your guns" will go down well?
Click to expand...
There are plenty of comparable issues that might make various Western countries' populations distrust their governments. It's not my problem if you don't know about them.
 
Information Analyst said:
Sure, a 50% higher assault rate is going to affect more people numerically,
Click to expand...

I'm slightly baffled by the claim that all the guns in the USA reduces non fatal assaults and this is good. The first part of it appears to be true, but for the second part of it to be true we need to establish an exchange rate between non fatal assaults and homicides. What is an acceptable number of assaults to have before we would rather have one homicide? Five? A hundred? A thousand?

If a method could be found whereby everybody in the UK got one punch on the nose every year, but in exchange there were no homicides, I think we'd probably take it.
 
Information Analyst said:
And you're ignoring Civitas's bias.
Click to expand...
There you go again with your completely unsupported claims. Will you ever get around to quantifying this bias, or will it be more argument by assertion from you?

Information Analyst said:
I think you're desperately avoiding the implications of the different rates. A rate of 1.2 (actual) equates to around 760 dead bodies; if the rate was 4.7 (i.e. the US one), with would be about 2970. At 4.7 the US has around 14,600 homicides, but if the rate was 1.2 (i.e. the UK one), it would be only 3730 homicides. Are you seriously claiming that raising 760 to 2970, or reducing 14,600 to 3,730, is "not very much different"? Sure, a 50% higher assault rate is going to affect more people numerically, but having a homicide rate three times higher is going to affect a smaller still significant number of people much more seriously.
Click to expand...
You haven't shown any evidence whatsoever that the lower homicide rate is due to gun laws, and not because of differences in culture. Maybe you can do what no one has yet been able, show the relationship between guns per capita and homicide rates. Prestigious university professors who do this for a living have been unable to do so, but surely you can do better?

Information Analyst said:
History and past applications are immaterial if the overall concept is still applicable. You might want to avoid reality by claiming that "American exceptionalism" only applies to certain specific issues, but unless you can prove that the words "American" and "exceptionalism" can rigidly only be applied to those same issue, you don't get to object if anyone else prefers to see the concept of the two together applied on a wider scale. A bit like the words "unlawful" and "combatant."
Click to expand...
"American exceptionalism" has a specific meaning, you don't get to redefine it so you can use it as a rhetorical device. Shades of the people who try to redefine "anti Semitism" to refer to those who have a bias against Arabs.
 
jeremyp said:
I'm slightly baffled by the claim that all the guns in the USA reduces non fatal assaults and this is good. The first part of it appears to be true, but for the second part of it to be true we need to establish an exchange rate between non fatal assaults and homicides. What is an acceptable number of assaults to have before we would rather have one homicide? Five? A hundred? A thousand?

If a method could be found whereby everybody in the UK got one punch on the nose every year, but in exchange there were no homicides, I think we'd probably take it.
Click to expand...
Feel free to show your evidence that reducing the number of guns in the USA will reduce homicides. What exactly is the formula for predicting homicides based on firearms per capita? What data will falsify your conclusions? How do you explain the US homicide rate falling by 50% over the last 20 years despite tens of millions of firearms added to the mix?

As I've always maintained, the USA doesn't have a gun problem, it has a problem in very specific subcultures that glorifies violence and murder.
 
Last edited:
WildCat said:
Feel free to show your evidence that reducing the number of guns in the USA will reduce homicides. What exactly is the formula for predicting homicides based on firearms per capita? What data will falsify your conclusions? How do you explain the US homicide rate falling by 50% over the last 20 years despite tens of millions of firearms added to the mix?

As I've always maintained, the USA doesn't have a gun problem, it has a problem in very specific subcultures that glorifies violence and murder.
Click to expand...

How about a lack of availabilty of guns for criminals means that they use use other weapons such as knives instead? Since no weapon has the mortality rate of guns the alternative stabbings have no over all affect on crime rates, but many homicides would switch to being assaults with a deadly weapon as more people survive. The same would be true for robberies and home invasions as fewer people die.
 
GlennB said:
"Many people are idiots and prone to evil nefariousness and/or violent emotional outbursts" does it for me. Without the immediate wherewithal to inflict lethal harm, with ease, they necessarily tend to do less harm.

The big catch, for the USA, is that the place is already swimming in a huge festering sea of "wherewithal"
Click to expand...

I agree with your premise that many people are idiots, prone to evil nefariousness, and or violent emotional outbursts.

. . . and by this we do what? (seems to me this is not special to guns at all and encompass all dangerous things)


The first question is how do we identity members of this group?
Then what do we do to prevent them from being able to act out their violent tendencies, or prevent them from irresponsible actions for the merely negligent?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom