• 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.

Should we repeal the 2nd Amendment?

Repeal the 2nd Amendment?

  • Yes

    Votes: 22 31.0%

  • No

    Votes: 20 28.2%

  • No, amend it to make possession of a gun VERY difficult with tons of background checks and psych eva

    Votes: 25 35.2%

  • I can be agent M

    Votes: 4 5.6%
  • Total voters
    71
jt512 said:
Whoever is going to fix the US's murder problem, it is not going to be me. In the meantime, it is precisely me who is going to do what is necessary to protect himself and his loved ones from armed bad guys.
Click to expand...

Most likely, you having guns will result in absolutely nothing.
Statistically, you having guns is more likely to result in harm to you and/or your loved ones, whether by accident, suicide, violence, etc than they are to ever protect you from "armed bad guys". That's what lots of statistics show us. Why are you exceptional and special? Why do statistics not apply to you?

Mostly likely you will never, ever, be in a situation where you will be suddenly endangered by an "armed bad guy". But if you are, most likely, even if you have a gun you will panic, freeze or react poorly and do nothing at all to help the situation. Because that's what PEOPLE do in those situations. People are pretty crap when suddenly confronted with gun violence when they aren't prepped for it. The police and military have well documented this and are well aware of this. Why are you exceptional and special in this regard? Why does this well known behavior not apply to you?

Meanwhile, regulating firearms does directly correspond to a large reduction in the danger to 'you and your loved ones'. That actually DOES help protect them from "armed bad guys".
 
psionl0 said:
It didn't matter. You were trying to shut down an argument you couldn't refute by calling the poster racist. (Quoting statistics isn't racism).
Click to expand...
I didn't call anyone anything. The argument to which I was responding - "why do we want to limit EVERYONE'S gun rights again?" - is an argument clearly based in race.

Like it or not, the statistic that was being quoted is poor black Americans. They're the demographic that is disproportionally carrying out most of the gun crimes. So whose gun rights do we want to limit? Poor black Americans but leave the rich white ones alone.

That's racism.

Why are so many black Americans poor and marginalised?

Racism again.

If you want a sensible gun policy that is not based in racism, you limit EVERYONE's gun rights. You do not discriminate.
 
jt512 said:
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.

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

Isn't the only reason for that because our bad guys have guns and Australia's generally don't? Seems perfectly clear to me.
 
Hercules56 said:
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.
Click to expand...
...that's a Swedish study. In Sweden.

So, why do they want to limit EVERYONE'S gun rights? Oh, hey, because it works. Even when it's only 1% of the population that's a problem.
 
Doubt said:
And none of that gets you to the point of being competent at it.
Click to expand...

Oh, really? You can't be competent by just watching a youtube video? You actually have to make a commitment and take lessons and practice? Who knew?
 
Last edited:
arthwollipot said:
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.
Click to expand...


I think you're confusing "simple" with "simplistic."
 
Cat Not Included said:
Statistically, you having guns is more likely to result in harm to you and/or your loved ones, whether by accident, suicide, violence, etc than they are to ever protect you from "armed bad guys". That's what lots of statistics show us. Why are you exceptional and special? Why do statistics not apply to you?
Click to expand...


Because I am not, nor have I ever been, suicidal or violent, and I am trained in, proficient with, and strict about the safe handling of firearms. I also live in an area where violent crime is not uncommon and is increasing.

Mostly likely you will never, ever, be in a situation where you will be suddenly endangered by an "armed bad guy".
Click to expand...


As I have already explained, I have already been in one such situation. And I would have been in a second such situation had I not been out of the country when an "armed bad guy" attempted to invade my home.

But if you are, most likely, even if you have a gun you will panic, freeze or react poorly and do nothing at all to help the situation.
Click to expand...

No, Sir. Should I be home during the next attempted armed home invasion, I'll call 911 if the situation permits, and I'll shoot the invader if it does not or if the police do not arrive in time.
 
jt512 said:
Because I am not, nor have I ever been, suicidal or violent, and I am trained in, proficient with, and strict about the safe handling of firearms. I also live in an area where violent crime is not uncommon and is increasing.
Click to expand...
And as I have explained patiently many many times, gun control is not about you.

You may be the safest person in the world with your guns, and that's great. Is your neighbour as safe as you are? Is the guy down the street? Is the woman you see at the gun range once in a blue moon as safe with her guns as you are? What about that shady looking fellow in a hoodie hanging around outside the liquor store? Do you trust him to be as safe with guns as you are?

You can't have one rule for you and another for the guy in the hoodie. It just doesn't work like that. Gun control has to be for everyone if it's going to be anything at all.

And that includes you.
 
Hercules56 said:
2nd Amendment should be edited to make sure background checks are allowed, like this new EO Biden is about to issue requiring ALL sellers of guns to have a license to do so, except for private transfers between friends and relatives.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/biden-close-gun-show-loophole-090000164.html
Click to expand...

Doesn't seem to require a constitutional amendment. Licensing to be a commercial merchant is not an infringement on the right to keep and bear, much like not having the money to buy the expensive gun is not an infringement on the actual right. It's just a practical matter of commerce. You can retain the right to keep and bear and still need to be a licensed businessperson to sell to the public commercially.
 
jt512 said:
Because I am not, nor have I ever been, suicidal or violent, and I am trained in, proficient with, and strict about the safe handling of firearms. I also live in an area where violent crime is not uncommon and is increasing.
Click to expand...
You believe you are special and statistics don't apply to you. In fact, I'm pretty sure pretty much every gun owner would say they are not violent and are strict about the safe handling of firearms, and is sure they would never have an accident with a gun or harm themselves or a family member with a gun. Wonder where all those accidents, suicides and murders actually come from then?

No, Sir. Should I be home during the next attempted armed home invasion, I'll call 911 if the situation permits, and I'll shoot the invader if it does not or if the police do not arrive in time.
Click to expand...
You're sitting on your couch munching snacks and watching Fox News and suddenly your door smashes open and a guy is pointing a gun at you and screaming at you to get on the floor. Sure, you'll just shoot him. There's no way you'll be panicked. There's no way he'll shoot your first when he sees you reaching for a gun. There's no way this is actually cops doing a no-knock raid.

I assume you're thinking of "I hear something in the night and there's somebody busy downstairs helping themselves to my stuff", which is a situation in which a gun is way more likely to help deal with the criminals than one in which they start shooting or directly threatened you (which is what I had in mind). Of course, generally speaking some good extra security and a home alarm will keep you from ever being in that situation. And I don't think even most fairly strict gun control proponents are against certain weapons being kept in the home for self-defense even if its a statistically bad idea, as long as there are proper checks and the person isn't running around people with the guns.
 
arthwollipot said:
Like it or not, the statistic that was being quoted is poor black Americans. They're the demographic that is disproportionally carrying out most of the gun crimes. So whose gun rights do we want to limit? Poor black Americans but leave the rich white ones alone.

That's racism.
Click to expand...
No it isn't because your strawman argument (that we should restrict sales to poor black people) is not one that is being made.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom