Why do you hate toddlers so much that you want to ban them?
So, you have no fucking idea and blame all gun violence on the rights of law abiding citizens to keep and bear arms?
The only way to stop a bad toddler with a gun is a good toddler with a gun…
I’ve heard that leaving a pound of aspirin on the shelf can also be effective.
Another case of **Damuri **trying (and failing) to make a joke of killing. That is, of course, not something a mentally healthy person does.
How would you know?
Until one of you gun nuts starts a IMHO or GD thread where mention of the 2nd Amendment is forbidden, none of your “thoughts” are worthy of anything but contempt and sarcasm.
By forbidding mention of 2nd A I mean discussing gun rights based on intrinsic merit. As it is, most of the gun nuts can’t get beyond the circular “Guns is good becuz the 2nd A says so. God gave us the 2nd A becuz guns am good.”
This isn’t necessarily directed at you, Damuri Ajashi. Not all gun lovers are idiots. It’s just hard to separate the chaff from the wheat.
From that article:
This is, in my opinion, one of the fundamental problems with American law enforcement. Over the past few years, i’ve seen a number of cases of police using excessive force where the news stories mention that the officer in question had been fired or forced to resign from a different police department for similar behavior.
Police forces are often too reluctant to discipline their officers for unlawful behavior in the first place; what fucking good is it if, when they do actually fire a cop, that officer can simply move to another police department? It becomes little more than a game of musical chairs for incompetent or dangerous cops.
Is mention of the 1689 English Bill of Rights, or Sir William Blackstone’s commentaries about an armed populace, acceptable?
That’s the Bill, since rescinded, which allowed Protestants to bear arms? In your analogy for the U.S., should Mormons and 7th Day Adventists get the right, or just real Christians? :rolleyes:
But comparison with foreign constitutions may not be a diversion you’ll want for that thread.
Would it still be discussable why the bill was passed in the first place, or why it was considered to enshrine “rights”?
P.S. the bill was hardly the sole restriction on Catholics, who at the time were held to have forfeited their civil rights by rebellion.
P.P.S. What about Blackstone?
I try to take a debate challenge seriously at face value and you respond with snark. Not the way to make your side look reasonable.
:smack: Rather than show a willingness to debate gun rights on the merits rather than precedents like the 230-year old 2nd A, you just mention a law, since rescinded, that’s 330 years old! What’s next for your “serious face value debate”? Quotations from the Code of Hammurabi?
John Lott, founder of theCrime Prevention Research Center and authoritative source for many pro-gun people, is probably “the” most outspoken advocate for more guns. He’s big on “defensive gun use” too.
“Before Lott’s flurry of activity, it was difficult to find anybody arguing that widespread gun ownership made societies safer — even the NRA was reticent to make such a bold claim, defending gun ownership with reference to the constitution, not criminology.”
And he’s been faking it.
https://thinkprogress.org/debunking-john-lott-5456e83cf326#.nl70b82dk
I found this on Cracked.com today; it’s from a recent Photoplasty piece called 17 REAL Facts Hidden By The People Who Want You To Be Scared. I’ll quote the text:
No Jerkass, I wasn’t replacing one argument from authority with another. I was pointing out that there are centuries of commentary in Anglo-American society on the subject of armed citizens, and a long precedent for such possession of arms having a positive value. The Second Amendment didn’t spring out of nowhere, it codified a long-standing social and philosophical position. I’M the one who has consistently shown “a willingness to debate gun rights on the merits”, while you and your ilk have responded with sarcasm, willful misconstruction and summary dismissal. So either be willing to face the topic honestly, or shut your pie hole.
We’ve had that sort of debate, right here in the pit and it ended up with folks like Hentor and Elvis calling the gun rights side psychotic and one bad day away from being a mass murderer.
What it comes down to is whether or not there are more defensive gun uses than gun deaths caused by legal gun owners.
We took the total number of gun deaths, subtracted the suicides and gun deaths caused by people who were not legally allowed to possess guns and ended up with a number (which was contested by both sides). Then we compared it to the number of defensive gun uses and extrapolated the number of deaths prevented. This number was contested by both sides. So depending on the numbers you use, legal gun ownership will either increase the number of deaths, reduce the number of deaths of leave it about the same.
The same can be said of the gun control side.
I don’t know about psychosis, but is there any characteristic (training, rap sheet, culture, etc.) that distinguishes a gun owner who commits an unjustified gun death or injury, from a responsible gun owner? Why is “just had a bad day” an unlikely reason for a previously responsible gun owner breaking bad?
Because there are perhaps 100 million legal gun owners in America and not even 1 in a million end up killing someone on any given day. Are you saying that fewer than one in a million people have a monumentally bad day on any given day?
If you are having such a bad day that you have to kill someone, what is to keep you from driving your car into a crowd?
The number of people murdered by legal gun owners in a given year is not exactly clear but we know that it constitutes the minority of gun murders. Most of these gun murders by legal gun owners are committed by people with non-felony criminal histories, drug dealers or gang affiliations.
Its hard to figure out how many people are murdered by legal gun owners but we do know that about 100 people/year are killed (not necessarily murdered, see Zimmerman, etc.) by concealed carry holders. Concealed carry holder represent between 5 to 10% of all gun owners. Perhaps concealed carry holders are much less prone to murder than other gun owners (but to hear the gun control advocates describe it they are all psychos) but if their rate of homicide is consistent with gun owners generally then you can extrapolate 1000 to 2000 murders are committed by legal gun owners.
Another way to back your way into the number is to look at guns confiscated by police. About 94 % of guns confiscated from people who get arrested are illegal and are likely not legally owned. Now none of this is perfect and record keeping by various local police departments are not super rigorous but presumably that recordkeeping sloppiness will be evenly distributed between legal and illegal guns. We also can’t make a direct correlation between guns confiscated for all crimes and the guns that might have been confiscated from murderers but its not a useless rough estimate. This gets us to about 1000 murders committed by legal gun owners.
All of this to say that there are good arguments that the vast majority of gun murders are not committed by legal gun owners. Now that we know the cost of legal gun ownership, we have to determine whether the benefits outweigh those costs. Depending on which estimates you like, there are between 100,000 and a million or so defensive gun uses. Most of these defensive gun uses did not prevent a death. Based on how frequently robberies end in death (you might not think that this is a good benchmark) we end up with many times more prevented deaths from legal gun ownership than we get from legal gun ownership. Use whatever proxy you want.
This isn’t the last word and there are different ways to estimate these numbers that might flip the script but there is a good argument that legal ownership of guns arguably represent a net security benefit to society.
Responsible gun owner, on a good day: