The Second Amendment and the "Right" to Bear Arms

[arthwollipot]

What would convince you then?

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.

Okay, I've thought about it. I have a bit of a problem with the premise of the question. I understand its use to get someone to think about possible falsifications for their argument, and if there's nothing that can convince them then they're just being religiously dogmatic.

Here is the problem. I don't know what might convince me. If I could think of an argument that could convince me, then I would already be convinced. I am open to the possibility that such an argument may exist, but I haven't come across one, so I don't know what form that argument might take.

I guess I'll know it when I see it.

 

[angrysoba]

Which supports everything I said. You can draw the line anywhere you like.
Can you even explain why that's a relevant metric, other than it allows you to draw a random line?

I've already explained that when "developed country" is understood by various metrics which nonetheless converge on the same countries over and over again then the evidence is strong. If the countries you mentioned were to only make one list then the evidence that it is a developed country would be weak, but none of the countries you listed meet any of the definitions that I listed (which is all the definitions that appear on the Wiki page). So the evidence that they are developed is weaker than weak.

And as for your claim you can draw the line anywhere you like, are you serious?

Are you telling me that there are no contexts whatsoever in which you would even recognize the meaning of the term "developed country" or do you only claim that such a term is meaningless when comparing gun homicide rates?

But let's then see if you can do what you say you can.

On what basis would you say that Rwanda or Somalia are developed countries?


If you can draw the line anywhere you like then I would like to see you give a definition of "developed country" that includes those two. Preferably one that doesn't result in peals of laugher.

 

[WildCat]

I've already explained that when "developed country" is understood by various metrics which nonetheless converge on the same countries over and over again then the evidence is strong. If the countries you mentioned were to only make one list then the evidence that it is a developed country would be weak, but none of the countries you listed meet any of the definitions that I listed (which is all the definitions that appear on the Wiki page). So the evidence that they are developed is weaker than weak.

And as for your claim you can draw the line anywhere you like, are you serious?

Are you telling me that there are no contexts whatsoever in which you would even recognize the meaning of the term "developed country" or do you only claim that such a term is meaningless when comparing gun homicide rates?

But let's then see if you can do what you say you can.

On what basis would you say that Rwanda or Somalia are developed countries?


If you can draw the line anywhere you like then I would like to see you give a definition of "developed country" that includes those two. Preferably one that doesn't result in peals of laugher.

What difference does any of this make when determining whether or not firearms increase homicide rate?

 

[angrysoba]

What difference does any of this make when determining whether or not firearms increase homicide rate?

In all developed countries which are "gun friendly" the gun homicide rate is significantly higher than in "gun unfriendly" countries.

 

[triforcharity]

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.

This is the problem. (BTW, long time no see ON!! I'll be nice, I promise)

It NOT the gun problem. It's the people problem. It's not like the guns are randomly firing off rounds, chasing people down in the street, and humping the family dog. It's PEOPLE. It's a people problem.

It's also a "too soft on crime" problem. We've allowed laws that permit a person who uses a gun during the commission of a crime to get a slap on the wrist. We're too soft on crime IMO.

Anyway, hope all is well and the family is in good health!

 

[triforcharity]

Given that we're discussing firearms in the US why wouldn't we use US frames of reference in comparison to other frames of reference? Would you rather we compare things with Brazil or something?

Yes, how DARE an American, during a discussion of an American issue, compare an American event, to another American event, for the simple act of comparison. OH THE HUMANITY!!!!!111!!! 1

 

[The Norseman]

Okay, I've thought about it. I have a bit of a problem with the premise of the question. I understand its use to get someone to think about possible falsifications for their argument, and if there's nothing that can convince them then they're just being religiously dogmatic.

Here is the problem. I don't know what might convince me. If I could think of an argument that could convince me, then I would already be convinced. I am open to the possibility that such an argument may exist, but I haven't come across one, so I don't know what form that argument might take.

I guess I'll know it when I see it.

Thank you for your honest response. And to be honest in return, I think that pretty much every argument that shows how the US views gun ownership as a right has been used in this thread; from the ridiculous to the logical, thoughtful, well-informed posts. I still believe that you did not reason your way to the position that you hold today regarding private ownership of firearms, but I'm okay that we differ on this and I'll agree to disagree.

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

That may indeed be so. But comparions of gun homicide rates among different modern developed nation states are not comparisons between "random dissimilar things".

Sure they are. New York is not Boston is not Denver is not Seattle. None of those are Cheyenne or Phoenix. New Orleans is like a little banana republic and inner city Detroit is an impoverished post-industrial failed state. You can't even compare those places without seriously cherry picking.

Comparing cities in totally different economic conditions, arising from totally different cultural backgrounds? Kinda useless.

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

In all developed countries which are "gun friendly" the gun homicide rate is significantly higher than in "gun unfriendly" countries.

Likewise, I would guess there are less backyard swimming pool drownings in places without them. Wonder why?

 

[The Norseman]

This is the problem. (BTW, long time no see ON!! I'll be nice, I promise)

It NOT the gun problem. It's the people problem. It's not like the guns are randomly firing off rounds, chasing people down in the street, and humping the family dog. It's PEOPLE. It's a people problem.

It's also a "too soft on crime" problem. We've allowed laws that permit a person who uses a gun during the commission of a crime to get a slap on the wrist. We're too soft on crime IMO.

Anyway, hope all is well and the family is in good health!

Here's where I strongly, almost vehemently disagree. We, as a culture and as a society, are way too tough on people; we seem to howl for blood for the slightest wrong; we wish to have people punished for the rest of their natural lives, wherein the punishment does not fit the crime; we pile on charge upon charge in order to force longer prison sentences; we have taken away the judges' discretion with mandatory sentencing -- the very reason the judges are there in the first place; and on and on.

We treat criminals as sub-human and continue to lock up as many as the juries can throw the books at them. We shun ex-cons no matter what the offense, typically forcing the person to take menial, meaningless labor. I'm sure you can draw up exceptions to what I'm saying; it's still endemic to our country.

As I've said: lessing the number of guns will not solve the issues of overall crime rates, nor would it have much impact on murder rates. This is a sociological issue and can only be solved by treating it as such.

 

[WildCat]

In all developed countries which are "gun friendly" the gun homicide rate is significantly higher than in "gun unfriendly" countries.

Are you back to claiming that guns per capita increases homicide rates again?

If so, what is the formula by which number of homicides can be predicted?

 

[angrysoba]

Sure they are. New York is not Boston is not Denver is not Seattle. None of those are Cheyenne or Phoenix. New Orleans is like a little banana republic and inner city Detroit is an impoverished post-industrial failed state. You can't even compare those places without seriously cherry picking.

Comparing cities in totally different economic conditions, arising from totally different cultural backgrounds? Kinda useless.

I find that kinda hard to believe. I think you will find that when law enforcement measures are being proposed and legal systems are drawn up and political constitutions are written then a lot of time and effort is actually given to looking at examples and precedents from other places. What you seem to be saying now is that nothing can be compared with anything else, that everything is so radically different from everything else that not even the most tentative conclusions can be drawn. That all policy decisions must ultimately be made in a vacuum. Do you really believe this?

 

[angrysoba]

Are you back to claiming that guns per capita increases homicide rates again?

I didn't make that claim. The claim I made is in black-and-white in my last previous post to you.

If so, what is the formula by which number of homicides can be predicted?

See above.

 

[WildCat]

Here's where I strongly, almost vehemently disagree. We, as a culture and as a society, are way too tough on people; we seem to howl for blood for the slightest wrong; we wish to have people punished for the rest of their natural lives, wherein the punishment does not fit the crime; we pile on charge upon charge in order to force longer prison sentences; we have taken away the judges' discretion with mandatory sentencing -- the very reason the judges are there in the first place; and on and on.

We treat criminals as sub-human and continue to lock up as many as the juries can throw the books at them. We shun ex-cons no matter what the offense, typically forcing the person to take menial, meaningless labor. I'm sure you can draw up exceptions to what I'm saying; it's still endemic to our country.

As I've said: lessing the number of guns will not solve the issues of overall crime rates, nor would it have much impact on murder rates. This is a sociological issue and can only be solved by treating it as such.

I agree to an extent. People shouldn't be spending more time in prison for possessing an ounce of cocaine than they do for pointing a loaded gun at someone's face and threatening them. Unfortunately the latter often get little or no prison time, while the former gets years.

I think we need to end the "war on drugs" and crack down hard on gun crimes.

 

[triforcharity]

Here's where I strongly, almost vehemently disagree. We, as a culture and as a society, are way too tough on people; we seem to howl for blood for the slightest wrong; we wish to have people punished for the rest of their natural lives, wherein the punishment does not fit the crime; we pile on charge upon charge in order to force longer prison sentences; we have taken away the judges' discretion with mandatory sentencing -- the very reason the judges are there in the first place; and on and on.

We treat criminals as sub-human and continue to lock up as many as the juries can throw the books at them. We shun ex-cons no matter what the offense, typically forcing the person to take menial, meaningless labor. I'm sure you can draw up exceptions to what I'm saying; it's still endemic to our country.

As I've said: lessing the number of guns will not solve the issues of overall crime rates, nor would it have much impact on murder rates. This is a sociological issue and can only be solved by treating it as such.

I'd agree with most of that. Many crimes IMO are over punished, while much more serious crimes are treated like a minor offense. I feel that if you commit a crime with a gun, you should spend the next 25 years thinking about it. But, I don't believe that driving without a license, should be even a jailable offense. But, it's too far off topic. I wouldn't mind discussing it elsewhere with you if you'd like. Cheers Norse!

 

[arthwollipot]

That's good. Too bad you're unwilling to answer questions, or respond to discussion that asks you to back up your opinion. You know who else does that kind of ******?? Truthers.

Yes. I support the constitution, and every right within it. Don't like it? Tough. Don't like my guns? Come get 'em. Keep dreaming about taking my guns. It's not gonna happen.

Why are you so aggressive? I respond to people who are polite and maintain their civility when they are challenged.

To get back to answering questions and responding to discussion:

Thank you for your honest response. And to be honest in return, I think that pretty much every argument that shows how the US views gun ownership as a right has been used in this thread; from the ridiculous to the logical, thoughtful, well-informed posts. I still believe that you did not reason your way to the position that you hold today regarding private ownership of firearms, but I'm okay that we differ on this and I'll agree to disagree.

Thanks for your civility. It's a nice contrast. Yes, I've considered all of the arguments in this thread, and I don't find any of them convincing. I will admit that my opinion has an emotional component. It's an emotional issue. I think that in order to change my mind you'd probably have to physically displace me to a location where my life was routinely and regularly under direct threat. Even then I'm not sure I'd consider it a "right" - more like a requirement.

 

[The Norseman]

I agree to an extent. People shouldn't be spending more time in prison for possessing an ounce of cocaine than they do for pointing a loaded gun at someone's face and threatening them. Unfortunately the latter often get little or no prison time, while the former gets years.

I think we need to end the "war on drugs" and crack down hard on gun crimes.

I think that's singling out the tool as if it is somehow worse than other tools with which crimes are committed which is kind of silly. In other words, I don't particularly care if I'm being held up with a knife or a gun and the courts shouldn't care either.

 

[The Norseman]

Why are you so aggressive? I respond to people who are polite and maintain their civility when they are challenged.

To get back to answering questions and responding to discussion:

Thanks for your civility. It's a nice contrast. Yes, I've considered all of the arguments in this thread, and I don't find any of them convincing. I will admit that my opinion has an emotional component. It's an emotional issue. I think that in order to change my mind you'd probably have to physically displace me to a location where my life was routinely and regularly under direct threat. Even then I'm not sure I'd consider it a "right" - more like a requirement.

Yeah, I admit I was getting a little hot under the collar earlier until I realized that this is just the interwebs! But I wish to maintain decent online relationships with people so I to keep it in mind that I'm talking to other humans out there (with a few exceptions).

 

[The Norseman]

I'd agree with most of that. Many crimes IMO are over punished, while much more serious crimes are treated like a minor offense. I feel that if you commit a crime with a gun, you should spend the next 25 years thinking about it. But, I don't believe that driving without a license, should be even a jailable offense. But, it's too far off topic. I wouldn't mind discussing it elsewhere with you if you'd like. Cheers Norse!

Thank you and the warm regards are returned in kind!

But yeah, I think we could hash this out in another thread without too much vitriol.

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

I find that kinda hard to believe. I think you will find that when law enforcement measures are being proposed and legal systems are drawn up and political constitutions are written then a lot of time and effort is actually given to looking at examples and precedents from other places. What you seem to be saying now is that nothing can be compared with anything else, that everything is so radically different from everything else that not even the most tentative conclusions can be drawn. That all policy decisions must ultimately be made in a vacuum. Do you really believe this?

Nope. But in this thread several completely nonsensical comparisons have been made on both sides of the argument.

The thread topic is the Second Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, and needs to be understood as a part of a very long-visioned experiment by well educated people quite familiar with abuse of power and over-reaching by g'vt both to lower levels of governance and to the people themselves.

The Bill of Rights does not grant permissions, but restricts Federal intrusion on permissions. That distinction is very important. The Rights as written are to be the assumed baselin. Those who have not studied American history (and probably many who have) may not realize that the Bill of Rights was in itself a very contentious item. Some at the time felt that the Constitution stood well enough on it's own and needed no further elaboration; that personal freedoms would be held sacrosanct and the Federal g'vt would stand back and let the States figure out what was appropriate at state level, and so on and so forth down the jurisdictions. Others realized that any institution will gradually experience what we now call "mission creep" and begin to intrude on personal freedoms, inevitably, over time. Thus, the Bill of Rights, to specifically and explicitly keep Federal hands off certain areas. (Yes, I know I'm over simplifying. Thousand page books have been written on both sides of the argument outlined above).

The 2nd amendment was not written exclusively in response to the threat of the British, as was suggested upthread, but in anticipation of the possible future threat of "all enemies, foreign and domestic," as those of us in uniform pledge to defend against.

Local jurisdictions are free to enact and enforce restrictions on "keeping" and "bearing" arms; the 2nd amendment is intended to keep Federal hands off of that. People and organizations like the NRA that flip out when a university wants to ban concealed carry on campus have no grounds to invoke the 2nd amendment. A university, even a state university, is technically private property.

With that in mind, looking at gun use in Detroit and Dallas and Dublin are 3 different questions.