Survive the school year with these must-have back to school essentials. https://www.sandyhookpromise.org/camp...

**Please note that this PSA contains graphic content related to school shootings that may be upsetting to some viewers. If you feel that this subject matter may be too difficult for you, you may choose not to watch this video.**
JiggaJonsonsays...

Who the fuck cares? ANYTHING IS ACCEPTABLE AS LONG AS WE CAN KEEP OUR GUNS!!! EVERYONE KNOWS A GOOD GUY WITH A GUN IS THE ONLY THING KEEPING YOU SAFE EVERYONE I KNOW KNOWS IT GUNS GUNS GUNS GUNS GUNS

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

regulated
regulated
regulation
regulation

regulation
[ reg-yuh-ley-shuhn ]

1) a law, rule, or other order prescribed by authority, especially to regulate conduct.
2) the act of regulating or the state of being regulated.

BSRsays...

School shootings are getting to the point where parents are starting to contemplate if it's worth spending the money to put braces on their children's teeth.

bobknight33says...

LAMO such propaganda and fear mongering.

The left do not care about saving people from getting shot or killed. Its only a political tool to spread over hyped fear to take all guns away from the public.

Generally speaking:
99% of all gun shooting are illegally obtained guns of Democrat controlled cities.

99% of of shooting are non NRA members.


School - mall- etc shootings represent less that 1% of shootings but get 80% of the national press coverage.

siftbotsays...

Double-Promoting this video and sending it back into the queue for one more try; last queued Thursday, September 19th, 2019 12:40am PDT - doublepromote requested by eric3579.

Boosting this quality contribution up in the Hot Listing - declared quality by eric3579.

BSRsays...

Because of you I just donated. Thanks for the motivation.

https://ibb.co/DwSKcSg

bobknight33said:

LAMO such propaganda and fear mongering.

The left do not care about saving people from getting shot or killed. Its only a political tool to spread over hyped fear to take all guns away from the public.

Generally speaking:
99% of all gun shooting are illegally obtained guns of Democrat controlled cities.

99% of of shooting are non NRA members.


School - mall- etc shootings represent less that 1% of shootings but get 80% of the national press coverage.

newtboysays...

If the left didn't care about people getting shot and killed, why would they care about guns? Duh.

99% of shootings are by illegally obtained guns in democratic cities?!
Site your source.....I know you can't, you flushed already. The actual number is 40-<60% of those convicted of illegal shootings admit they used illegally obtained guns, the number varying by state, higher where laws deny violent convicts the right to own them, lower when they can. As to your ridiculous 99% Democratic city claim, you're just repeating a long ago debunked lie from a failed Republican candidate 5 years ago. Here's some data.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jul/12/deadliest-cities-gun-control-laws-congress-chicago
Note how many Republican led cities are worse than Chicago.

99% are non NRA members? Maybe, but >99.5% of Americans are non NRA members, most NRA members quit the organization decades ago like I did, but are still listed as "members". Since most americans aren't members, actually the NRA gave a pitch to prospective sponsors in which it said that about half of its then-4 million members were the “most active and interested.” (the other 2 million are often dead members, ex members, or those given free but unwanted memberships with a purchase) so there MAY be 2 million, but that's likely still a massive overestimate, meaning using their own numbers, active NRA members are far more likely than the average person to murder with a gun IF your 1% guess is right (and there's absolutely no way to know, those statistics aren't kept).

Yes. Mass terroristic attacks with or without guns get more attention than individual personal attacks. Odd, you think that's proper if it's not a right wing terroristic attack, like most today are.
Suicides account for >60% of shooting deaths but get zero coverage. Why not whine about that?

Odd, you seem to be saying you're afraid of the violent, gun toting democrats who are 99% more ready and better armed for violent political civil war than Republicans....but you also claim Republicans have all the guns and are better shots and ready to go.....which is it?

2017 had nearly 40000 gun deaths, the highest since 1968.

bobknight33said:

LAMO such propaganda and fear mongering.

The left do not care about saving people from getting shot or killed. Its only a political tool to spread over hyped fear to take all guns away from the public.

Generally speaking:
99% of all gun shooting are illegally obtained guns of Democrat controlled cities.

99% of of shooting are non NRA members.


School - mall- etc shootings represent less that 1% of shootings but get 80% of the national press coverage.

cloudballoonjokingly says...

I have another POV. Holding the 2nd amendment sacred (by that I mean misreading/falsely interpreting it like all the "you can take my guns away from my cold dead hands" people) and take it to its ideological extreme, then may I advocate free access to grenades, bombs and rockets? Personal ownership of fighter jets, war machines and shit?

By the way, why the heck does USA not allowing Iran/N. Korea to R&D and make their nuclear arsenals already!? Hypocrite much? Any country wanting nuclear bombs is holding their freedom sacred! Freedom for one and all, freedom FTW! Woohoo, yeeehaw!

I'ma right? I'ma RIGHT?

Madness.

harlequinnsays...

The modern definition of regulated is not the same as the definition used when writing the document.

In the case of the 2nd amendment, regulated means "trained" or "disciplined".

This has been researched and documented.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Meaning_of_%22well_regulated_militia%22

JiggaJonsonsaid:

Who the fuck cares? ANYTHING IS ACCEPTABLE AS LONG AS WE CAN KEEP OUR GUNS!!! EVERYONE KNOWS A GOOD GUY WITH A GUN IS THE ONLY THING KEEPING YOU SAFE EVERYONE I KNOW KNOWS IT GUNS GUNS GUNS GUNS GUNS

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

regulated
regulated
regulation
regulation

regulation
[ reg-yuh-ley-shuhn ]

1) a law, rule, or other order prescribed by authority, especially to regulate conduct.
2) the act of regulating or the state of being regulated.

harlequinnsays...

I believe your typical American, no matter their political persuasion, cares about his fellow American. I'm sure you agree that trying to paint either side as demons who don't care is nonsense.

People shouldn't care about what type of guns or the number of guns - there seems to be no correlation between gun ownership rates and homicide rates in the USA:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States_by_state#/media/File:Gun_Ownership_Related_to_Gun_Violence_by_State_(United_States).sv
g

(the line of best fit would have a positive slope if there was a correlation)

There is a correlation between weapon type and firearm murder - pistols (of all sorts) account for approximately 89% of all firearm murders (where a firearm type is specified in the police report). Rifles (of all sorts) are about 5%. Shotguns (of all sorts) are about 3%.

https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2017/crime-in-the-u.s.-2017/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8.xls

This wiki has better data than you presented - you can isolate gun violence from other violence:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States_by_state

"Odd, you seem to be saying you're afraid of the violent, gun toting democrats who are 99% more ready and better armed for violent political civil war than Republicans....but you also claim Republicans have all the guns and are better shots and ready to go.....which is it?"

The data says that Republican voters (or those that lean that way) have a firearm ownership rate of double that of Democrats.

If the majority of terrorist attacks in the USA are by right wing terrorists as you suggest, then it seems odd you'd say in the same breath that the left are ready for violent political civil war. If they have less arms and less willingness to engage in violence (which I actually believe is a good thing) then they are hardly "99% more ready and better armed".

The military voted Republican at about twice the rate of voting Democrat at the last election. So the left doesn't have that going for them either.

newtboysaid:

If the left didn't care about people getting shot and killed, why would they care about guns? Duh.

99% of shootings are by illegally obtained guns in democratic cities?!
Site your source.....I know you can't, you flushed already. The actual number is 40-<60% of those convicted of illegal shootings admit they used illegally obtained guns, the number varying by state, higher where laws deny violent convicts the right to own them, lower when they can. As to your ridiculous 99% Democratic city claim, you're just repeating a long ago debunked lie from a failed Republican candidate 5 years ago. Here's some data. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jul/12/deadliest-cities-gun-control-laws-congress-chicago
Note how many Republican led cities are worse than Chicago.

99% are non NRA members? Maybe, but >99.5% of Americans are non NRA members, most NRA members quit the organization decades ago like I did, but are still listed as "members". Since most americans aren't members, actually the NRA gave a pitch to prospective sponsors in which it said that about half of its then-4 million members were the “most active and interested.” (the other 2 million are often dead members, ex members, or those given free but unwanted memberships with a purchase) so there MAY be 2 million, but that's likely still a massive overestimate, meaning using their own numbers, active NRA members are far more likely than the average person to murder with a gun IF your 1% guess is right (and there's absolutely no way to know, those statistics aren't kept).

Yes. Mass terroristic attacks with or without guns get more attention than individual personal attacks. Odd, you think that's proper if it's not a right wing terroristic attack, like most today are.
Suicides account for >60% of shooting deaths but get zero coverage. Why not whine about that?

Odd, you seem to be saying you're afraid of the violent, gun toting democrats who are 99% more ready and better armed for violent political civil war than Republicans....but you also claim Republicans have all the guns and are better shots and ready to go.....which is it?

2017 had nearly 40000 gun deaths, the highest since 1968.

newtboysays...

Read again, I said that's what Bob claimed. He actually said 99% of shootings are by illegally obtained guns in democratic cities....which is pure nonsense. His intended contention is that only democrats are murderers....which means they are definitely more prepared to shoot republicans than the reverse, as the only ones with any practice at murder....again, according to Bob, not reality. I was only pointing out the logical conclusion of his ridiculous claims, conclusions I knew he would disagree with....but you beat him to it.

harlequinnsaid:

"Odd, you seem to be saying you're afraid of the violent, gun toting democrats who are 99% more ready and better armed for violent political civil war than Republicans....but you also claim Republicans have all the guns and are better shots and ready to go.....which is it?"

The data says that Republican voters (or those that lean that way) have a firearm ownership rate of double that of Democrats.

If the majority of terrorist attacks in the USA are by right wing terrorists as you suggest, then it seems odd you'd say in the same breath that the left are ready for violent political civil war. If they have less arms and less willingness to engage in violence (which I actually believe is a good thing) then they are hardly "99% more ready and better armed".

wtfcaniusesays...

You do realise that an overwhelming majority of Americans support gun control and background checks right? It's nothing to do with left vs right or political grandstanding.

Even within the NRA the majority of members oppose the official NRA stance on gun control.

Stop talking rubbish, it was sad years ago, it's pathetic now.

bobknight33said:

LAMO such propaganda and fear mongering.

The left do not care about saving people from getting shot or killed. Its only a political tool to spread over hyped fear to take all guns away from the public.

Generally speaking:
99% of all gun shooting are illegally obtained guns of Democrat controlled cities.

99% of of shooting are non NRA members.


School - mall- etc shootings represent less that 1% of shootings but get 80% of the national press coverage.

harlequinnsays...

You talk like it matters if "an overwhelming majority of Americans support gun control and background checks right". It doesn't.

The founders of the USA foresaw this sort of issue and wrote an extremely strong constitution preventing government from effectively regulating arms.

That's the thing about being a republic, the tyranny of the majority is thankfully neutered.

BTW, don't be dumb and assume my stance on gun control.

wtfcaniusesaid:

You do realise that an overwhelming majority of Americans support gun control and background checks right? It's nothing to do with left vs right or political grandstanding.

Even within the NRA the majority of members oppose the official NRA stance on gun control.

Stop talking rubbish, it was sad years ago, it's pathetic now.

newtboysays...

You talk as if there's never been an amendment, or you don't understand how they work. 98% support is far more than needed.

The founders foresaw this sort of issue, and created a constitution that can evolve with the culture. Only inaction and unsupported, unpopular opposition has prevented the government from effectively regulating, not inability.

That's the thing about having a party in control that doesn't represent the majority (edit: or even the vast majority of their own supporters), the will of the people is neutered.

Duh.
You just implied strongly that you're just a sock puppet for Vladimir....AKA @bobknight33....and @wtfcaniuse didn't assume your stance on gun control, he derided your (bob's) snarky but incorrect assessment of our popular opinion and shooting statistics.
Who's being dumb now?!

harlequinnsaid:

You talk like it matters if "an overwhelming majority of Americans support gun control and background checks right". It doesn't.

The founders of the USA foresaw this sort of issue and wrote an extremely strong constitution preventing government from effectively regulating arms.

That's the thing about being a republic, the tyranny of the majority is thankfully neutered.

BTW, don't be dumb and assume my stance on gun control.

notarobotsays...

The word "militia" comes up time and time again in those founding documents. That the citizens should have access to arms as party of "a well regulated militia."

The modern interpretation of the second amendment has done away with the idea that a citizen ought to be a part of an organized militia to bear arms.

The founders of the US said other things too:

“A lady asked Dr. Franklin Well Doctor what have we got a republic or a monarchy. A republic replied the Doctor if you can keep it.”

I imagine that Franklin thought the republic would need defending against other monarchies, not from large corporations who, after centuries of wealth concentration would, with a few lobby organizations like the NRA, become the de-facto unelected rulers of the land.

I can't imagine that Franklin would have expected that children should go to elementary school in fear of being murdered by their classmates either.

harlequinnsaid:

The founders of the USA foresaw this sort of issue and wrote an extremely strong constitution preventing government from effectively regulating arms.

siftbotsays...

Promoting this video back to the front page; last published Thursday, September 19th, 2019 12:40am PDT - promote requested by notarobot.

wtfcaniusesays...

Firstly I didn't quote you, I didn't assume anything about you, I didn't mention you or your previous comments at all.

Secondly the second amendment doesn't specify guns and doesn't mention anything about not restricting the types of armaments people can use. It's funny how many gun rights advocates don't care if their knives, tasers, knuckle dusters and pepper sprays are regulated and controlled.

Thirdly Gun control doesn't equate to taking all your guns away.

Lastly constitutional amendments can be repealed and changed.

harlequinnsaid:

You talk like it matters if "an overwhelming majority of Americans support gun control and background checks right". It doesn't.

The founders of the USA foresaw this sort of issue and wrote an extremely strong constitution preventing government from effectively regulating arms.

That's the thing about being a republic, the tyranny of the majority is thankfully neutered.

BTW, don't be dumb and assume my stance on gun control.

harlequinnsays...

No, I don't talk as if there has never been an amendment. It doesn't even make sense to suggest that since I'm referring to the 2nd Amendment.

Changing the constitution is very difficult. It was made that way on purpose. Article 5:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Five_of_the_United_States_Constitution

"Only inaction and unsupported, unpopular opposition has prevented the government from effectively regulating, not inability."

Whether you believe it is unsupported or unpopular has no bearing on anything. Just to be clear, I never wrote or implied they don't have the ability, only that the constitution prevents "government from effectively regulating arms."

The party in power may not fully represent your views, or the views of the people who directly support the party, no party ever does. But enough Americans wanted them in, and not the opposition who resoundingly lost, that they rule the roost. Considering how many Americans don't vote there is no such thing as a majority of Americans - there can only be a majority of those who vote. And this is not a measure for winning an election. The measure for winning is electoral college votes. The rules were set, one side played it better, the other side lost and whined about the rules.

"You just implied strongly that you're just a sock puppet for Vladimir....AKA @bobknight33....and @wtfcaniuse didn't assume your stance on gun control, he derided your (bob's) snarky but incorrect assessment of our popular opinion and shooting statistics.
Who's being dumb now?!"

I'll answer straight up. You. You are acting dumb. And paranoid. I don't know who those people are. Your "popular opinion" of what? I literally gave links to authoritative statistics for anything under contention. You need to see someone about your mental state.

Try to make people feel welcome. There is a reason this website is sinking into obscurity (look at the rankings).

newtboysaid:

You talk as if there's never been an amendment, or you don't understand how they work. 98% support is far more than needed.

The founders foresaw this sort of issue, and created a constitution that can evolve with the culture. Only inaction and unsupported, unpopular opposition has prevented the government from effectively regulating, not inability.

That's the thing about having a party in control that doesn't represent the majority (edit: or even the vast majority of their own supporters), the will of the people is neutered.

Duh.
You just implied strongly that you're just a sock puppet for Vladimir....AKA @bobknight33....and @wtfcaniuse didn't assume your stance on gun control, he derided your (bob's) snarky but incorrect assessment of our popular opinion and shooting statistics.
Who's being dumb now?!

harlequinnsays...

"The modern interpretation".

Which brings it in line with the original intention of the document. I.e. the people are the militia and they have a right to bear arms.

"I can't imagine that Franklin would have expected that children should go to elementary school in fear of being murdered by their classmates either."

I'm glad you can't imagine it, because statistically it's occurrence is almost zero. They should fear this no more than fearing being eaten by a shark, struck by lighting, or killed in a plane crash.

"with a few lobby organizations like the NRA"
Why are you including the NRA? At the last presidential election they didn't even make the top 50 contributors.

https://thehill.com/business-a-lobbying/business-a-lobbying/318177-lobbyings-top-50-whos-spending-big

Does this change your assessment?

notarobotsaid:

The word "militia" comes up time and time again in those founding documents. That the citizens should have access to arms as party of "a well regulated militia."

The modern interpretation of the second amendment has done away with the idea that a citizen ought to be a part of an organized militia to bear arms.

The founders of the US said other things too:

“A lady asked Dr. Franklin Well Doctor what have we got a republic or a monarchy. A republic replied the Doctor if you can keep it.”

I imagine that Franklin thought the republic would need defending against other monarchies, not from large corporations who, after centuries of wealth concentration would, with a few lobby organizations like the NRA, become the de-facto unelected rulers of the land.

I can't imagine that Franklin would have expected that children should go to elementary school in fear of being murdered by their classmates either.

harlequinnsays...

You are interpreting this incorrectly.

If you think they have "effective regulation" then there is nothing to talk about really - people who want effective regulation already have it.

A few states have quite frankly unconstitutional firearms regulations. Sooner or later they'll get challenged in the Supreme court and knocked down but it takes many years and a lot of money.

wtfcaniusesaid:

Except for the times where they have regulated arms without having to change the 2nd amendment.

wtfcaniusesays...

I'm not interpreting "this" incorrectly.
I'm also not talking about state or municipal regulation.

I'm talking about federal regulation of arms that was enacted without having to change the constitution.

BTW if you want people to be polite and welcoming you might want to be polite yourself and avoid insulting people who haven't mentioned you, your opinions or your stance on gun control.

harlequinnsaid:

You are interpreting this incorrectly.

If you think they have "effective regulation" then there is nothing to talk about really - people who want effective regulation already have it.

A few states have quite frankly unconstitutional firearms regulations. Sooner or later they'll get challenged in the Supreme court and knocked down but it takes many years and a lot of money.

harlequinnsays...

I was talking about federal, state, and municipal.

So if you think the federal government has "effective regulation" of firearms there isn't much to talk about. Maybe your idea of what "effective regulation" is different than my idea of "effective regulation". The key word here is "effective". We all know they have been able to pass some regulations (constitutional or not).

"BTW if you want people to be polite and welcoming you might want to be polite yourself and avoid insulting people who haven't mentioned you, your opinions or your stance on gun control."

Please quote where I haven't done this. I'd be very surprised if you could find anything. Please note: "newtboy" literally asked.

Edit: oh wait. You think my warning about making assumptions is an insult! I see. No, it isn't. If you weren't taught that making assumptions is dumb then the reminder may well seem like an insult. Rest assured, it is good advice.

wtfcaniusesaid:

I'm not interpreting "this" incorrectly.
I'm also not talking about state or municipal regulation.

I'm talking about federal regulation of arms that was enacted without having to change the constitution.

BTW if you want people to be polite and welcoming you might want to be polite yourself and avoid insulting people who haven't mentioned you, your opinions or your stance on gun control.

harlequinnsays...

Following on from above.

I didn't say you quoted me or anything about me. It was a "warning". My argument might have lead people to believe that I was against gun control. I gave the warning that it would be dumb to make any assumptions. I can't quite see how you missed this.

If you think it is not dumb to make assumptions, please let me know.

The 2A specifically says "arms". There is plenty of debate and case law regarding what arms they meant. Suffice to say there isn't a shadow of a doubt that it means firearms (long and short) of all varieties commonly available.

"doesn't mention anything about not restricting the types of armaments people can use"

It does restrict the government from making laws in this regard. The 2A is a law restricting government, not the people. "shall not be infringed" literally means you shall make no law that affects this right in any way.

You don't know whether advocates care if other arms are regulated. If I were to hazard a guess I'd say you are very wrong.

Gun control means whatever the group in control wants it to mean. Anything else is false. If they want it to mean taking away all of your guns, then that is what it is.

Constitutional amendments can indeed be changed. It is very, very difficult to do:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Five_of_the_United_States_Constitution

wtfcaniusesaid:

Firstly I didn't quote you, I didn't assume anything about you, I didn't mention you or your previous comments at all.

Secondly the second amendment doesn't specify guns and doesn't mention anything about not restricting the types of armaments people can use. It's funny how many gun rights advocates don't care if their knives, tasers, knuckle dusters and pepper sprays are regulated and controlled.

Thirdly Gun control doesn't equate to taking all your guns away.

Lastly constitutional amendments can be repealed and changed.

newtboysays...

So you think machine guns aren't firearms...or do you think they aren't really illegal?

Edit: What about bazookas, grenades, mortars, etc.?
They are firearms by the federal definition....https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/921

(3)The term “firearm” means (A) any weapon (including a starter gun) which will or is designed to or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive; (B) the frame or receiver of any such weapon; (C) any firearm muffler or firearm silencer; or (D) any destructive device. Such term does not include an antique firearm.
(4)The term “destructive device” means—
(A)any explosive, incendiary, or poison gas—
(i)bomb,
(ii)grenade,
(iii)rocket having a propellant charge of more than four ounces,
(iv)missile having an explosive or incendiary charge of more than one-quarter ounce,
(v)mine, or
(vi)device similar to any of the devices described in the preceding clauses;

harlequinnsaid:

The 2A specifically says "arms". There is plenty of debate and case law regarding what arms they meant. Suffice to say there isn't a shadow of a doubt that it means firearms (long and short) of all varieties commonly available.

"doesn't mention anything about not restricting the types of armaments people can use"

It does restrict the government from making laws in this regard. The 2A is a law restricting government, not the people. "shall not be infringed" literally means you shall make no law that affects this right in any way.

BSRsays...

When it comes to guns, you MUST eat what you kill. NO exceptions.

Does not apply to suicide for obvious reasons.

harlequinnsays...

Machine guns are firearms. You can buy pre 1986 machine guns in the USA (I'm not sure what form you have to fill out). The 1986 cutoff is fairly pointless.

I don't consider bazookas, grenades, mortars, etc. firearms. To me a firearm is essentially a rifle that fires cartridges. But if the US government considers them as firearms then that is what they are for legislative purposes.

I believe there is case law regarding what scope of arms they were referring to in the 2A and the result was any common firearm. This currently includes almost all pistols and rifles, both automatic and semi-automatic (with the exception being automatic guns must have been made before 1986 - I believe this limit should be removed).

I'm very much against restricting semi-automatic rifles. There are no good reasons for restricting them. It is unconstitutional. They are not the "weapon of choice" for mass shootings, pistols are. The lethality of them in mass shootings is the same as that of pistols (someone ran an analysis just recently). This last point surprised me a little.

https://www.reddit.com/r/gunpolitics/comments/d7ypcv/no_mass_shootings_carried_out_with_semiautomatic/

I'm for background checks (i.e. for second hand sales which are the only sales left without a background check) as long as the service is cheap and no records are kept (i.e. it isn't used to create a de-facto registration database).

Public health wise, talking about firearms is a red herring. If I were to drop a bucket load of money into stuff in the USA it would be into making health care and mental health care cheap and available and reducing poverty. This would have more affect on mortality and morbidity rates then any gun legislation will. And yes, I would give fully subsidized health care to the poor.

By now you should be asking yourself what planet someone comes from where they support the 2A and free health care at the same time.

newtboysaid:

So you think machine guns aren't firearms...or do you think they aren't really illegal?

Edit: What about bazookas, grenades, mortars, etc.?
They are firearms by the federal definition....https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/921

(3)The term “firearm” means (A) any weapon (including a starter gun) which will or is designed to or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive; (B) the frame or receiver of any such weapon; (C) any firearm muffler or firearm silencer; or (D) any destructive device. Such term does not include an antique firearm.
(4)The term “destructive device” means—
(A)any explosive, incendiary, or poison gas—
(i)bomb,
(ii)grenade,
(iii)rocket having a propellant charge of more than four ounces,
(iv)missile having an explosive or incendiary charge of more than one-quarter ounce,
(v)mine, or
(vi)device similar to any of the devices described in the preceding clauses;

wraithsays...

@harlequinn:

Putting the legal concerns (It is in the constitution, so we have to heed it) aside, what do you think about the Second Amendment?

Was it meant to enable the people to
a) defend against foreign incursion (in lieu of a standing army)?
b) defend against an oppressive government (as a militia)?
c) assume police duties?
d) defend themselves (in absence of police)?
e) none of the above? (Please state what you think its intended meaning was.)

For your selected reason/s given above, does it/do they still apply today?

What do you think is the reason for the staggering amount of gun violence/deaths in the USA when compared with other countries?

Is the reason for the Second Amendment worth the amount of gun violence in the USA?


Full disclosure:
I am genuinely interested in your answers since you seem to have given this some thought (an impression I frankly do not have about bobknight33) .
I am not from the USA and against any form of private gun ownership except under some very rare circumstances.

newtboysays...

At best that leaves only the rare pre 1986 automatics already in private hands, only in some states (totally illegal under any circumstances in many other states), only if you can first pass an expensive background check more stringent than the one federal agents must pass. Sounds like some serious regulation to me.

What you, me, or others consider firearms means nothing. I gave you the law as written, it includes those, they are illegal, so there are effective regulations on firearms already....that doesn't mean they're sufficient. Those words are different words, that's why they're spelled and pronounced differently. Speed limits are effective laws, but not sufficient to regulate vehicle use.

Why do so many firearms lovers fear being on a registry? I've always found that insane, like every other purchase you make isn't tracked or something. There's no purchase privacy anymore, for anything.

It doesn't take any money to ban certain firearms, certainly not a boatload, and not the ocean of cash health care costs. That's a red herring. All it takes is for representatives to vote the way their constituents want them to by 98%.
Perhaps in that sense it would take money, because in order to get them to vote as the people want, campaign finance reform is necessary, and that will cost money, but it's the best thing our country could possibly spend money on.

I support a slightly modified second amendment and universal health care. My interpretation allows for regulations, registration, universal background checks even for family transfers, bans of certain types, seizure from violent convicts and mental patients (impossible without a registry, btw), etc. Yes, I understand that's not how the constitution is written today, but the constitution is a living document. In California, we have most of that as state law already, including an outright ban on fully or selectively automatic weapons.

Btw, you suggest....Try to make people feel welcome.
I was responding in kind to your off hand assumption that, without your derisive "warning", he would be "dumb" enough to make an assumption about you. Then you go on to say making assumptions is dumb. Care to rethink? Had you been more thoughtful and less derisive in making that point I likely would have ignored the hypocrisy.

harlequinnsaid:

Machine guns are firearms. You can buy pre 1986 machine guns in the USA (I'm not sure what form you have to fill out). The 1986 cutoff is fairly pointless.

I don't consider bazookas, grenades, mortars, etc. firearms. To me a firearm is essentially a rifle that fires cartridges. But if the US government considers them as firearms then that is what they are for legislative purposes.

I believe there is case law regarding what scope of arms they were referring to in the 2A and the result was any common firearm. This currently includes almost all pistols and rifles, both automatic and semi-automatic (with the exception being automatic guns must have been made before 1986 - I believe this limit should be removed).

I'm very much against restricting semi-automatic rifles. There are no good reasons for restricting them. It is unconstitutional. They are not the "weapon of choice" for mass shootings, pistols are. The lethality of them in mass shootings is the same as that of pistols (someone ran an analysis just recently). This last point surprised me a little.

https://www.reddit.com/r/gunpolitics/comments/d7ypcv/no_mass_shootings_carried_out_with_semiautomatic/

I'm for background checks (i.e. for second hand sales which are the only sales left without a background check) as long as the service is cheap and no records are kept (i.e. it isn't used to create a de-facto registration database).

Public health wise, talking about firearms is a red herring. If I were to drop a bucket load of money into stuff in the USA it would be into making health care and mental health care cheap and available and reducing poverty. This would have more affect on mortality and morbidity rates then any gun legislation will. And yes, I would give fully subsidized health care to the poor.

By now you should be asking yourself what planet someone comes from where they support the 2A and free health care at the same time.

wtfcaniusesays...

You "warned" me by calling me dumb for assuming something that I didn't assume, at all, in any way, shape or form.

If the second amendment prevents the government from doing anything relating to bearing arms then why have they repeatedly been able to do things related to gun and weapon control?

You're going to hazard a guess, seems a bit like assuming something to me...

"it would be dumb to make any assumptions"

harlequinnsaid:

Following on from above.

I didn't say you quoted me or anything about me. It was a "warning". My argument might have lead people to believe that I was against gun control. I gave the warning that it would be dumb to make any assumptions. I can't quite see how you missed this.

If you think it is not dumb to make assumptions, please let me know.

The 2A specifically says "arms". There is plenty of debate and case law regarding what arms they meant. Suffice to say there isn't a shadow of a doubt that it means firearms (long and short) of all varieties commonly available.

"doesn't mention anything about not restricting the types of armaments people can use"

It does restrict the government from making laws in this regard. The 2A is a law restricting government, not the people. "shall not be infringed" literally means you shall make no law that affects this right in any way.

You don't know whether advocates care if other arms are regulated. If I were to hazard a guess I'd say you are very wrong.

Gun control means whatever the group in control wants it to mean. Anything else is false. If they want it to mean taking away all of your guns, then that is what it is.

Constitutional amendments can indeed be changed. It is very, very difficult to do:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Five_of_the_United_States_Constitution

harlequinnsays...

I didn't call you dumb. I warned you that if you were to do something (future tense possibility) then the result would be that you were being dumb.

Do you get how that works? There are multiple future possibilities, I don't want one to happen so I warn against it. This is not a difficult concept so I am at a loss as to why you don't understand it.

There was nothing in your previous correspondence to suggest that it would be a statement referring to a past tense behavior. You unfortunately assumed it to be referring to past tense behaviour. If you had doubt as to what I was referring to you could have just asked. I.e. if you read it and went "does he mean past tense or future tense? There isn't any past tense behaviour he could be referring to, so logically it must be future tense. I'm still confused though", you could have just asked which it was.

I believe any restrictions on the 2A have been justified by the supreme court. So they believe it was within the scope of what the founders intended. That is how.

"Hazard a guess" and "assume" are two different things.

Hazard a guess means to admit you don't know what is true but that with the given information you will gamble on an outcome (with full disclosure that it could be wrong).

Assume means to presume something is true, without any proof that it is.

You're welcome.

wtfcaniusesaid:

You "warned" me by calling me dumb for assuming something that I didn't assume, at all, in any way, shape or form.

If the second amendment prevents the government from doing anything relating to bearing arms then why have they repeatedly been able to do things related to gun and weapon control?

You're going to hazard a guess, seems a bit like assuming something to me...

"it would be dumb to make any assumptions"

harlequinnsays...

It is relatively easy to get a quite common pre 1986 machine gun.

The whole process is cheap. $200. Fill out a ATF form 4 and attach a passport sized photo. There are only a few questions to answer (that take up about 2.5 pages). This took about 30 seconds on google to find out. It is not more difficult to pass this background audit than that of a federal agent. I've looked into applying to be a federal agent and their process is an order of magnitude more stringent.

https://www.atf.gov/firearms/docs/form/form-4-application-tax-paid-transfer-and-registration-firearm-atf-form-53204/download

"What you, me, or others consider firearms means nothing."

You asked me what I considered a firearm. I answered both my personal opinion, and then specifically said that what the government considers a firearm to be is what it is. I'm surprised you seem to have missed this.

Registries are a step towards being able to confiscate guns en-masse. If you know who has what it is much easier to take it away from them. This sentiment is well documented on pro-gun forums.

"It doesn't take any money to ban certain firearms, certainly not a boatload"

Very true. I was tempted to point this out but I didn't. I believe that this is one of the core reasons they want to do it. It makes you think they are doing something when they aren't, and it costs sweet fuck all compared to say, spending money on anything else that will genuinely improve the average man's lot.

'your off hand assumption that, without your derisive "warning", he would be "dumb" enough to make an assumption'

Now that's the thing about warnings, you aren't assuming the behaviour of anyone. You only know it is a possibility that you don't want to happen. You don't know if it will happen or not. So you put up a warning. That's how warnings work.

But hey, this is your house right? Make no mistake, you've stamped yourself all over videosift like a dog marking its territory. Outsiders who don't comply with your way of thinking basically aren't welcome.

newtboysaid:

At best that leaves only the rare pre 1986 automatics already in private hands, only in some states (totally illegal under any circumstances in many other states), only if you can first pass an expensive background check more stringent than the one federal agents must pass. Sounds like some serious regulation to me.

What you, me, or others consider firearms means nothing. I gave you the law as written, it includes those, they are illegal, so there are effective regulations on firearms already....that doesn't mean they're sufficient. Those words are different words, that's why they're spelled and pronounced differently. Speed limits are effective laws, but not sufficient to regulate vehicle use.

Why do so many firearms lovers fear being on a registry? I've always found that insane, like every other purchase you make isn't tracked or something. There's no purchase privacy anymore, for anything.

It doesn't take any money to ban certain firearms, certainly not a boatload, and not the ocean of cash health care costs. That's a red herring. All it takes is for representatives to vote the way their constituents want them to by 98%.
Perhaps in that sense it would take money, because in order to get them to vote as the people want, campaign finance reform is necessary, and that will cost money, but it's the best thing our country could possibly spend money on.

I support a slightly modified second amendment and universal health care. My interpretation allows for regulations, registration, universal background checks even for family transfers, bans of certain types, seizure from violent convicts and mental patients (impossible without a registry, btw), etc. Yes, I understand that's not how the constitution is written today, but the constitution is a living document. In California, we have most of that as state law already, including an outright ban on fully or selectively automatic weapons.

Btw, you suggest....Try to make people feel welcome.
I was responding in kind to your off hand assumption that, without your derisive "warning", he would be "dumb" enough to make an assumption about you. Then you go on to say making assumptions is dumb. Care to rethink? Had you been more thoughtful and less derisive in making that point I likely would have ignored the hypocrisy.

harlequinnsays...

Thanks for the good questions.

a) yes
b) yes
c) no
d) yes
e) n/a

If you exclude suicide, the USA doesn't have a staggering rate of gun deaths. It is high compared to some other western countries, but on a world rate it is still very low.

When looking at public health (which is the reason for reducing gun violence) you need to be pragmatic. What will actually give a good outcome for public health? In this case there are about a half a dozen things that kill and maim US citizens at much higher rates than firearms do.

E.g. you are much more likely to be killed in a car crash than murdered by someone with a firearm. Cars by accident kill more people in the USA each year than firearms do on purpose. That's some scary shit right there. Think about that for a second, cars are more dangerous than firearms and people are not even trying to kill themselves or someone else with one. So as an example, you'd be better off trying to fix this first.

Or fix the suicide rate in the US. People aren't in a happy place there.

Obesity kills more people. Doctor malpractice kills more people. Etc. But these are hard issues to tackle that will cost billions or trillions. The low hanging fruit is firearms.

Free health care and mental health care, a better social security system, and various other means would all have magnificent outcomes on everyday life in the USA. But again, they cost a lot and require a paradigm shift.

Have you ever encountered interpersonal violence against you (i.e. had someone attack you)? Or have you maybe worked in a job where you often come into contact with people who have been attacked? I find people change their mind after they realize that they were only ever one wrong turn away from some crazy bastard who wanted to hurt them badly.

wraithsaid:

@harlequinn:

Putting the legal concerns (It is in the constitution, so we have to heed it) aside, what do you think about the Second Amendment?

Was it meant to enable the people to
a) defend against foreign incursion (in lieu of a standing army)?
b) defend against an oppressive government (as a militia)?
c) assume police duties?
d) defend themselves (in absence of police)?
e) none of the above? (Please state what you think its intended meaning was.)

For your selected reason/s given above, does it/do they still apply today?

What do you think is the reason for the staggering amount of gun violence/deaths in the USA when compared with other countries?

Is the reason for the Second Amendment worth the amount of gun violence in the USA?


Full disclosure:
I am genuinely interested in your answers since you seem to have given this some thought (an impression I frankly do not have about bobknight33) .
I am not from the USA and against any form of private gun ownership except under some very rare circumstances.

newtboysays...

Not in my experience. I've known many people who tried in Texas and Nevada, all failed. They said it was about 3 pages in triplicate (4 with cover page, totalling 12), fingerprints, photos, a pristine criminal record, chests of cash (the guns cost thousands or tens of thousands), a Class 3 FFL dealer willing to sell to you, 9 months to a year waiting for approval, and no local ordinance against it (local police will be notified).

I said the background check is similarly difficult to pass, not the entire process.

No one asked you that. We balked at your claim-
"The 2A specifically says "arms". There is plenty of debate and case law regarding what arms they meant. Suffice to say there isn't a shadow of a doubt that it means firearms (long and short) of all varieties commonly available."
...and I then gave you the federal definition of "firearms" which you begrudgingly admitted trumps yours, but still cling to the concept that firearms can't be regulated (even though they clearly are). I'm surprised you recall it so differently, especially when you can verify by just scrolling up.

This is a paranoid delusion. Because that's a possibility in a future where the 2a is repealed, they think that's enough reason to ignore any positive uses, like knowing if the person just diagnosed with schizophrenia has an arsenal, or the person who's stalking your 15 year old daughter, or the man who beats his wife. Also, taken to conclusion, that argument is basically "It might make it harder for me to break the law. That's unacceptable." Hardly a reasonable argument imo.

? Your argument was there are better issues to throw money at, bucketloads you said, now you admit it takes no money and declare yourself correct?!

Then don't be dumb and fuck little kids.
Don't be dumb and rape random women.
Don't be dumb by getting caught in the Jr high locker room filming.
Don't be a snarky tool who hides from what he said by doing mental gymnastics to pretend their warnings aren't implications.
See how giving these warnings imply you needed warning? That's how warnings work.

Because I post here doesn't make me the big dog...I'm not even top 20. Everyone is welcome, welcome to post as much or little as they choose, but if I see lies, misstatements, abuse, or insults when none are called for, I'm going to say something, just like I do in person. That's called being an upright citizen. I guess you prefer those who shrink away from that obligation....so hit ignore. That's what I'm doing.

harlequinnsaid:

It is relatively easy to get a quite common pre 1986 machine gun.

The whole process is cheap. $200. Fill out a ATF form 4 and attach a passport sized photo. There are only a few questions to answer (that take up about 2.5 pages). This took about 30 seconds on google to find out. It is not more difficult to pass this background audit than that of a federal agent. I've looked into applying to be a federal agent and their process is an order of magnitude more stringent.

https://www.atf.gov/firearms/docs/form/form-4-application-tax-paid-transfer-and-registration-firearm-atf-form-53204/download

"What you, me, or others consider firearms means nothing."

You asked me what I considered a firearm. I answered both my personal opinion, and then specifically said that what the government considers a firearm to be is what it is. I'm surprised you seem to have missed this.

Registries are a step towards being able to confiscate guns en-masse. If you know who has what it is much easier to take it away from them. This sentiment is well documented on pro-gun forums.

"It doesn't take any money to ban certain firearms, certainly not a boatload"

Very true. I was tempted to point this out but I didn't. I believe that this is one of the core reasons they want to do it. It makes you think they are doing something when they aren't, and it costs sweet fuck all compared to say, spending money on anything else that will genuinely improve the average man's lot.

'your off hand assumption that, without your derisive "warning", he would be "dumb" enough to make an assumption'

Now that's the thing about warnings, you aren't assuming the behaviour of anyone. You only know it is a possibility that you don't want to happen. You don't know if it will happen or not. So you put up a warning. That's how warnings work.

But hey, this is your house right? Make no mistake, you've stamped yourself all over videosift like a dog marking its territory. Outsiders who don't comply with your way of thinking basically aren't welcome.

notarobotsays...

In the US firearm related murders are far more common than shark attack, being struck by lighting, or killed in a plane crash.

In 2018 there was ONE fatal shark attack in the US. There were FORTY THOUSAND gun related deaths the year before.

Meanwhile there have already been TWENTY-NINE school shooting this year alone.

Sure, nobody was hurt when someone shot out a window of a school bus in Florida earlier this year but that doesn't mean elementary-aged kids inside won't end up being scared.

harlequinnsaid:

"I can't imagine that Franklin would have expected that children should go to elementary school in fear of being murdered by their classmates either."

I'm glad you can't imagine it, because statistically it's occurrence is almost zero. They should fear this no more than fearing being eaten by a shark, struck by lighting, or killed in a plane crash.

notarobotsays...


harlequinnsays...

The document is in duplicate. Literally in the link. Yes, fingerprint card also. The cost is low. The cost of the firearm is a separate issue.

Yes, the background check. The "process" I'm referring to has context, i.e. the background check process. Obvious really.

"No one asked you that."

You asked me.

"So [do] you think machine guns aren't firearms...or do you think they aren't really illegal? Edit: What about bazookas, grenades, mortars, etc.?"

"Which you begrudgingly".

What language made it begrudging? I stated it was the case without any issue. Stop making stuff up.

I didn't say they can't be regulated. I said that they can't be "effectively regulated". I also stated that there are many regulations that are probably illegal (waiting for supreme court challenges). And I said that there are some regulations that do exist because the supreme court debated it and came to the conclusion that it was within the scope of the 2A.

"especially when you can verify by just scrolling up"

Yeah, exactly, so what are you on about. My comments are literally above you. Why distort them? Do you have comprehension issues? No shame if you do.

"This is a paranoid delusion."
You're entitled to your opinion. History supports their argument though.

"Your argument was there are better issues to throw money at, bucketloads you said, now you admit it takes no money and declare yourself correct"

Yes, there are better issues to throw money at, but the issue is they don't want to throw money at anything when there is a low cost red herring issue they can use to gain public standing instead.

"Then don't be dumb and fuck little kids.
Don't be dumb and rape random women.
Don't be dumb by getting caught in the Jr high locker room filming.
Don't be a snarky tool who hides from what he said by doing mental gymnastics to pretend their warnings aren't implications.
See how giving these warnings imply you needed warning? That's how warnings work."

Yes, they are all warnings. And valid ones at that. The issue is context. You don't put a "warning strong current" warning in the middle of a desert because there is nothing to warn about.

Likewise making those warnings here makes no sense. Ergo, no, these warnings don't imply anyone needs warning. They are just random warnings.

Otherwise we could continue on and I could say:

Don't be dumb and fuck your mother's dead body.
Don't be dumb and fuck animals.
Etc., etc., warnings that are truly good advice but make no sense in the given situation.

On the other hand:
"Danger, high voltage wires" on a cabinet that holds a large transformer makes sense.
"Do not dig, high pressure gas lines buried here" above buried high pressure pipes makes sense.

Do you see the difference?

"Everyone is welcome, welcome to post as much or little as they choose"

Well, everyone is welcome until they're not. And they're not welcome pretty quick here.

"but if I see lies, misstatements, abuse, or insults when none are called for, I'm going to say something, just like I do in person"

Funny about that, that's what I'm doing.

newtboysaid:

Not in my experience. I've known many people who tried in Texas and Nevada, all failed. They said it was about 3 pages in triplicate (4 with cover page, totalling 12), fingerprints, photos, a pristine criminal record, chests of cash (the guns cost thousands or tens of thousands), a Class 3 FFL dealer willing to sell to you, 9 months to a year waiting for approval, and no local ordinance against it (local police will be notified).

I said the background check is similarly difficult to pass, not the entire process.

No one asked you that. We balked at your claim-
"The 2A specifically says "arms". There is plenty of debate and case law regarding what arms they meant. Suffice to say there isn't a shadow of a doubt that it means firearms (long and short) of all varieties commonly available."
...and I then gave you the federal definition of "firearms" which you begrudgingly admitted trumps yours, but still cling to the concept that firearms can't be regulated (even though they clearly are). I'm surprised you recall it so differently, especially when you can verify by just scrolling up.

This is a paranoid delusion. Because that's a possibility in a future where the 2a is repealed, they think that's enough reason to ignore any positive uses, like knowing if the person just diagnosed with schizophrenia has an arsenal, or the person who's stalking your 15 year old daughter, or the man who beats his wife. Also, taken to conclusion, that argument is basically "It might make it harder for me to break the law. That's unacceptable." Hardly a reasonable argument imo.

? Your argument was there are better issues to throw money at, bucketloads you said, now you admit it takes no money and declare yourself correct?!

Then don't be dumb and fuck little kids.
Don't be dumb and rape random women.
Don't be dumb by getting caught in the Jr high locker room filming.
Don't be a snarky tool who hides from what he said by doing mental gymnastics to pretend their warnings aren't implications.
See how giving these warnings imply you needed warning? That's how warnings work.

Because I post here doesn't make me the big dog...I'm not even top 20. Everyone is welcome, welcome to post as much or little as they choose, but if I see lies, misstatements, abuse, or insults when none are called for, I'm going to say something, just like I do in person. That's called being an upright citizen. I guess you prefer those who shrink away from that obligation....so hit ignore. That's what I'm doing.

harlequinnsays...

Yes, they have lower rates. But the point isn't that the rates are the same (they're not), the point is that the rates are low enough to not have an immediate fear of them. An immediate fear would be unwarranted and irrational.

E.g. you probably don't fear dying every time you hop into a vehicle because it has a relatively low risk of killing you (even though the risk is much higher than that of being killed in a homicide by firearm). Having an immediate fear of it would be irrational.

You probably don't fear dying in a general accident (i.e. including all work place and public accidents together). Even though it represents about 170,000 deaths a year (an number so large it makes the topic of firearms deaths look like a joke), it is still a relatively low risk. Having an immediate fear of it would be irrational.

This is not to suggest that these things are not to be respected. We must try and reduce all mortality and morbidity. But you need to be effective at it. This is public health. You choose the method that will have the largest effect.

For example, you will have a bigger effect restricting sugar intake to reduce diabetes deaths, which outnumber homicide by firearm deaths by about an order of magnitude.

The majority of the 40k firearm deaths consist of suicides. There is an important distinction between homicide (the topic) and suicide. Don't mix them up if the topic is homicide by firearm.

Go look at what is actually killing people:

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr68/nvsr68_06-508.pdf

notarobotsaid:

In the US firearm related murders are far more common than shark attack, being struck by lighting, or killed in a plane crash.

In 2018 there was ONE fatal shark attack in the US. There were FORTY THOUSAND gun related deaths the year before.

Meanwhile there have already been TWENTY-NINE school shooting this year alone.

Sure, nobody was hurt when someone shot out a window of a school bus in Florida earlier this year but that doesn't mean elementary-aged kids inside won't end up being scared.

BSRsays...

There is a clear distinction here. Auto accidents and the like do not have an intent to kill. It's about those that target innocent people.

There is an answer to stop gun violence only when guns are not your answer.

harlequinnsaid:

Yes, they have lower rates. But the point isn't that the rates are the same (they're not), the point is that the rates are low enough to not have an immediate fear of them. An immediate fear would be unwarranted and irrational.

E.g. you probably don't fear dying every time you hop into a vehicle because it has a relatively low risk of killing you (even though the risk is much higher than that of being killed in a homicide by firearm). Having an immediate fear of it would be irrational.

You probably don't fear dying in a general accident (i.e. including all work place and public accidents together). Even though it represents about 170,000 deaths a year (an number so large it makes the topic of firearms deaths look like a joke), it is still a relatively low risk. Having an immediate fear of it would be irrational.

This is not to suggest that these things are not to be respected. We must try and reduce all mortality and morbidity. But you need to be effective at it. This is public health. You choose the method that will have the largest effect.

For example, you will have a bigger effect restricting sugar intake to reduce diabetes deaths, which outnumber homicide by firearm deaths by about an order of magnitude.

The majority of the 40k firearm deaths consist of suicides. There is an important distinction between homicide (the topic) and suicide. Don't mix them up if the topic is homicide by firearm.

Go look at what is actually killing people:

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr68/nvsr68_06-508.pdf

harlequinnsays...

Absolutely there is a distinction.

And because of that distinction, and the fact that vehicle collisions kill more people by "accident" (we call them accidents but a significant amount of them end up being charged with reckless/careless driving) than firearms do on purpose, I think that vehicles are very dangerous.

"There is an answer to stop gun violence only when guns are not your answer."

I like the cut of your gib. Too many Americans see violence (no matter the tool used) as a solution to their problems. When you humanise the problem, you see that we need to change people and their lives rather than arbitrarily restrict tools (guns) that are 99.99% used for lawful purposes.

BSRsaid:

There is a clear distinction here. Auto accidents and the like do not have an intent to kill. It's about those that target innocent people.

There is an answer to stop gun violence only when guns are not your answer.

wraithsays...

Thank you for your reply Harlequinn.

I beg to differ: The rate of gun deaths in the USA is only low when compared to countries that are either active (civil-) war zones or basically run by drug cartels. When compared to other, similar developed countries, it is at least 4 times as high (when excluding suicides/accidents) .
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate
I would call that a significant deviation from the norm and stand by my use of "staggering".

You compare gun deaths to deaths from car crashes. Others have already pointed out that one of the main differences is that cars are not tools for killing that are put into public hands and furthermore, since I asked you the question (that you did not answer): "Is the reason for the Second Amendment worth the amount of gun violence in the USA?", my follow up question would be: I can show you the (financial, societal, etc.) benefits of cars (i.e. individual travel by car) for the society, what exactly are the benefits of private gun ownership?
(Whether cars are really worth it, is a whole other discussion.)

Regarding suicide rates, this seems to be a compelling argument until you notice that suicide rates in some, equally developed countries and some lesser developed countries are higher than in the USA and that the number of gun killings that are not suicide is still way higher than in comparable countries (see above).

I do not think that gun violence in the USA can be blamed on mental health issues though <irony>unless you count gun/power fetishism among mental illnesses </irony>.
Edit: Saying that whoever commits an act of gun violence must be mentally ill is tantamount of saying that any criminal must be mentally ill and thus not responsible for his/her actions.

<aside>
One nice observation about this gun fetish (not by me, I think it was Bill Burr): Another common argument pro guns is that people are in it only for home security, if that were the case you would have tons of photos of people with their new door locks or magazine-covers with girls in bikinis in front of security doors.
</aside>

I applaud your stand on public (mental-) health policies though.

Now to your main question:
Have I ever encountered interpersonal violence against me or others?
Yes, but not on a level that bringing lethal force to the situation ever seemed warranted. Thankfully. One obvious reason for that is that I live in a country where I don't need to expect everyone else to carry a gun.
Would it be possible that I would think otherwise, if it would have been the case? Yes.
Would I be correct in thinking that way? No.

To explain: I am not a friend of passive aggressive "stand you ground" thinking. The sane response chain is: 1. Try not to let yourself be provoked, 2. try to de-escalate, 3. try to evade/flee, 4. try to defend yourself.....And of course: CALL THE COPS!

Does that harm my male ego? Yes.
Does that matter enough to me for me to risk killing another human being? No.

harlequinnsaid:

Thanks for the good questions.

a) yes
b) yes
c) no
d) yes
e) n/a

If you exclude suicide, the USA doesn't have a staggering rate of gun deaths. It is high compared to some other western countries, but on a world rate it is still very low.

When looking at public health (which is the reason for reducing gun violence) you need to be pragmatic. What will actually give a good outcome for public health? In this case there are about a half a dozen things that kill and maim US citizens at much higher rates than firearms do.

E.g. you are much more likely to be killed in a car crash than murdered by someone with a firearm. Cars by accident kill more people in the USA each year than firearms do on purpose. That's some scary shit right there. Think about that for a second, cars are more dangerous than firearms and people are not even trying to kill themselves or someone else with one. So as an example, you'd be better off trying to fix this first.

Or fix the suicide rate in the US. People aren't in a happy place there.

Obesity kills more people. Doctor malpractice kills more people. Etc. But these are hard issues to tackle that will cost billions or trillions. The low hanging fruit is firearms.

Free health care and mental health care, a better social security system, and various other means would all have magnificent outcomes on everyday life in the USA. But again, they cost a lot and require a paradigm shift.

Have you ever encountered interpersonal violence against you (i.e. had someone attack you)? Or have you maybe worked in a job where you often come into contact with people who have been attacked? I find people change their mind after they realize that they were only ever one wrong turn away from some crazy bastard who wanted to hurt them badly.

robdotsays...

There are thousands of people in Ohio who firmly believe this was faked by obama and CNN...TO TAKE OUR GUNS !

robdotsays...

Just because people die in pools or cars,doesn't mean we can't or shouldn't do something about guns. That whole argument is astoundingly fucking stupid. It's so fucking dumb,stop saying it. People die in pools,therefore we shouldn't have speed limits. Stfu morons.

Send this Article to a Friend



Separate multiple emails with a comma (,); limit 5 recipients






Your email has been sent successfully!

Manage this Video in Your Playlists




notify when someone comments
X

This website uses cookies.

This website uses cookies to improve user experience. By using this website you consent to all cookies in accordance with our Privacy Policy.

I agree
  
Learn More