Yay, GUNS!

[dimreepr]

Freedom from oppression is most often won through peaceful means; live by the sword die by the sword.

 

 

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

 

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

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2013/11/05/peaceful-protest-is-much-more-effective-than-violence-in-toppling-dictators/

 

http://www.dailygood.org/story/784/30-examples-of-successful-non-violent-action-bk-community/

 

 

1913-1919 -- Nonviolent demonstrations for woman's suffrage in the United States led to the passage and ratification of the Constitutional amendment guaranteeing women the right to vote.

 

1765-1775 A.D. -- The American colonists mounted three major nonviolent resistance campaigns against British rule (against the Stamp Acts of 1765, the Townsend Acts of 1767, and the Coercive Acts of 1774) resulting in de facto independence for nine colonies by 1775.

 

 

[overtone]

Freedom from oppression is most often won through peaceful means

They don't want to be oppressed, in the first place. And in avoiding oppression in the first place, causing a crisis of legitimacy in the government is not all that relevant.

 

And although I haven't checked into that list of successful nonviolent resistances, what I do know is that calling the arson and beatings and destruction of the mob resistance to the Stamp Act , the resistance to the Townsend Acts which included club-wielding stone-throwing mobs being fired on by British soldiers threatened with beating or worse, and the resistance to the Coercive Acts which included a bunch of guys giving up on the lame-ass mob violence and launching the Revolutionary War,

 

"nonviolent",

 

is a considerable stretch of that term.

 

And calling those three acts of riot and violence "successful nonviolence" is ludicrous - their failure led directly to full scale rebellion by military force, which escalation of violence from mob to militia and army was the response that succeeded.

 

If the rest of that list is similarly nearsighted, it rather undermines than supports the prospect of nonviolent resistance.

Edited January 9, 2016 by overtone

[Ten oz]

Freedom from oppression is most often won through peaceful means; live by the sword die by the sword.

 

 

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

 

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

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2013/11/05/peaceful-protest-is-much-more-effective-than-violence-in-toppling-dictators/

 

http://www.dailygood.org/story/784/30-examples-of-successful-non-violent-action-bk-community/

 

 

Martin Luther King Jr is a national hero while Heuy Newton is not. Nonviolent protest, even when it fails, proves that we are all free in our minds. We can't choose to be born rich, tall, handsome, healthy, or etc but we can choose (provided we do not have a genetic mental disorder) our state of mind. That fredom, the only one which can truly make anyone happy, is not earned by killing people.

 

@ Overtone, you are right that people do not want to be oppressed in the first place. However in the case of firearms in the United States no one is being oppressed. I understand that govts have oppressed people and been tyrannical but that isn't the state of affairs currently. No U.S. citizen is protecting themselves from being oppressed by owning a gun. If anything people are allowing guns lust to distract themfrom the things which are inch by inch eroding there well being like corporate greed and climate change. We can make this country a much better place by people simply becoming better informed. Violence may have prevent one form of opression a hundred years ago but that hardly makes it the go to solution for everything.

[iNow]

Perhaps constantly moving into the topics of oppression and liberty is part of the problem. Let's instead review what's actually being proposed by the resident right now:

 

Background checks. They already occur and are constitutional. The intent here is to address those people and Internet sites who regularly sell, but who circumvent the background check process completely... to simply ensure they follow the same rules every other responsible dealer follows. Likewise, a grandfather giving a rifle to his granddaughter or a women selling her collection for personal reasons and similar transactions are excepted.

 

Increase investment in safety technology. Things like trigger locks or thumbprints needed before the gun will shoot so only the owner can use it (not kids or thieves). It's not being mandated either, just supported since there is an obvious market for it but it's been blocked by the NRA.

 

Increase research into deaths by guns so we can understand it better and find ways to minimize them, just like we do with highway traffic deaths.

 

Increase mental health availability so people can find help when they need it, whether they're crazy or just sad.

 

WTF is wrong with people for conflating those steps with tyranny, the removal of our rights, and oppression from dictators? How batshit off the deep end must one be to arrive at such a conclusion? Why isn't such hyperbole not immediately laughed out of the room?

 

There's no need for the water in this proverbial well to be so deeply poisoned, and it's time more of us stood up to rhetorically filter it, to marginalize the martyrs and the moronic. Quite simply, it's time to call bullshit when we see it and support these common sense improvements and save some lives while in parallel honoring our rights and our constitution. It's time to stop catering and caving to the clearly unreasonable voices in this debate.

[waitforufo]

Perhaps constantly moving into the topics of oppression and liberty is part of the problem. Let's instead review what's actually being proposed by the resident right now:

Perhaps in a nation conceived in liberty no political topic should be devoid of a discussion of oppression and liberty. That discussion should never be considered a problem.

 

Increase investment in safety technology. Things like trigger locks or thumbprints needed before the gun will shoot so only the owner can use it (not kids or thieves). It's not being mandated either, just supported since there is an obvious market for it but it's been blocked by the NRA.

One of the reasons the militia is mentioned in the second amendment is to prevent the government from denying the people the common arms held by common solders. The supreme court in Miller, for example, allowed the ban of sawed off shotguns because they had no military purpose. If sawed off shotguns had a military purpose the second amendment would have prohibited such a ban. Do you think the military will prohibit small arms that do not include trigger locks or thumbprints needed before the gun will shoot? That will never happen for obvious reasons.

 

If the people wanted the safety technology you are so in favor of, the market would provide that technology. It's called capitalism. Maybe you have heard of it.

 

Nothing is blocked by the NRA. Lobbying blocks nothing. Again, if the people wanted more gun control they would elect people to congress that would give them gun control. Those laws, if passed, would have to stand up to the test of the second amendment.

WTF is wrong with people for conflating those steps with tyranny, the removal of our rights, and oppression from dictators? How batshit off the deep end must one be to arrive at such a conclusion? Why isn't such hyperbole not immediately laughed out of the room?

WTF is wrong with people who place so little value on there liberty and their natural rights? How batshit off the deep end must one be to arrive at such a low value? Why isn't such a poor understanding of the value liberty and natural rights not immediately laughed out of the room.

 

There's no need for the water in this proverbial well to be so deeply poisoned, and it's time more of us stood up to rhetorically filter it, to marginalize the martyrs and the moronic. Quite simply, it's time to call bullshit when we see it and support these common sense improvements and save some lives while in parallel honoring our rights and our constitution. It's time to stop catering and caving to the clearly unreasonable voices in this debate.

The freedom of speech is always an obstacle to tyrants. I'm not surprised you have a problem with it.

 

Since you brought up the constitution, can you please show me where the constitution permits the president to create laws without an approved bill from congress? If you can't do that, can you please show me the law passed by congress and signed by a president that Obama's executive order is enforcing? If you can't, can you tell me why you have such contempt for the constitution? Can you tell me why you think it's okay for the president to violate is oath of office to support and defend the constitution?

 

You know, there are many laws I would like to see enacted, but I would not support them if they were edicts from a president want to be king. I understand the my liberty is fragile and protected by the constitution and such edicts are unconstitutional. What is wrong with you and the others on this form? Is getting what you want worth the price? You really can't see how such practices will lead to the ruin of your nation and the loss of liberty?

 

Oh, I'm sorry, the people aren't supposed to talk about such things in your enlightened world. Is this another settled issue? Do you have a consensus?

[Ten oz]

 

Since you brought up the constitution, can you please show me where the constitution permits the president to create laws without an approved bill from congress? If you can't do that, can you please show me the law passed by congress and signed by a president that Obama's executive order is enforcing? If you can't, can you tell me why you have such contempt for the constitution? Can you tell me why you think it's okay for the president to violate is oath of office to support and defend the constitution?

 

 

 

The Gun Control act of 1968, passed by the 90th congress, is the law Obama is enforcing.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_Control_Act_of_1968

 

Article II of the Constitution is what gives Obama the authority to enforce the Gun Control act of 1968.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Two_of_the_United_States_Constitution#Clause_1:_Executive_Power

[Willie71]

Perhaps constantly moving into the topics of oppression and liberty is part of the problem. Let's instead review what's actually being proposed by the resident right now:

Background checks. They already occur and are constitutional. The intent here is to address those people and Internet sites who regularly sell, but who circumvent the background check process completely... to simply ensure they follow the same rules every other responsible dealer follows. Likewise, a grandfather giving a rifle to his granddaughter or a women selling her collection for personal reasons and similar transactions are excepted.

Increase investment in safety technology. Things like trigger locks or thumbprints needed before the gun will shoot so only the owner can use it (not kids or thieves). It's not being mandated either, just supported since there is an obvious market for it but it's been blocked by the NRA.

Increase research into deaths by guns so we can understand it better and find ways to minimize them, just like we do with highway traffic deaths.

Increase mental health availability so people can find help when they need it, whether they're crazy or just sad.

WTF is wrong with people for conflating those steps with tyranny, the removal of our rights, and oppression from dictators? How batshit off the deep end must one be to arrive at such a conclusion? Why isn't such hyperbole not immediately laughed out of the room?

There's no need for the water in this proverbial well to be so deeply poisoned, and it's time more of us stood up to rhetorically filter it, to marginalize the martyrs and the moronic. Quite simply, it's time to call bullshit when we see it and support these common sense improvements and save some lives while in parallel honoring our rights and our constitution. It's time to stop catering and caving to the clearly unreasonable voices in this debate.

There is no rational argument against these policies, so fear mongering straw man arguments are erected to control the discourse. It's like Ben Mankiewicz from TYT says, having a discussion with right wingers requires spending 80% of your time undoing the crazy before discussing the issue. Even most NRA members support these policies.

Perhaps in a nation conceived in liberty no political topic should be devoid of a discussion of oppression and liberty. That discussion should never be considered a problem.

 

 

 

 

One of the reasons the militia is mentioned in the second amendment is to prevent the government from denying the people the common arms held by common solders. The supreme court in Miller, for example, allowed the ban of sawed off shotguns because they had no military purpose. If sawed off shotguns had a military purpose the second amendment would have prohibited such a ban. Do you think the military will prohibit small arms that do not include trigger locks or thumbprints needed before the gun will shoot? That will never happen for obvious reasons.

 

If the people wanted the safety technology you are so in favor of, the market would provide that technology. It's called capitalism. Maybe you have heard of it.

 

Nothing is blocked by the NRA. Lobbying blocks nothing. Again, if the people wanted more gun control they would elect people to congress that would give them gun control. Those laws, if passed, would have to stand up to the test of the second amendment.

 

 

 

 

WTF is wrong with people who place so little value on there liberty and their natural rights? How batshit off the deep end must one be to arrive at such a low value? Why isn't such a poor understanding of the value liberty and natural rights not immediately laughed out of the room.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The freedom of speech is always an obstacle to tyrants. I'm not surprised you have a problem with it.

 

Since you brought up the constitution, can you please show me where the constitution permits the president to create laws without an approved bill from congress? If you can't do that, can you please show me the law passed by congress and signed by a president that Obama's executive order is enforcing? If you can't, can you tell me why you have such contempt for the constitution? Can you tell me why you think it's okay for the president to violate is oath of office to support and defend the constitution?

 

You know, there are many laws I would like to see enacted, but I would not support them if they were edicts from a president want to be king. I understand the my liberty is fragile and protected by the constitution and such edicts are unconstitutional. What is wrong with you and the others on this form? Is getting what you want worth the price? You really can't see how such practices will lead to the ruin of your nation and the loss of liberty?

 

Oh, I'm sorry, the people aren't supposed to talk about such things in your enlightened world. Is this another settled issue? Do you have a consensus?

 

You conflate two unrelated issues. Discussing Liberty is not being scorned. It's equating guns with Liberty that is being scorned. Guns =/= Liberty. Guns are used by oppressive forces such as military and police. You think your handgun is defense against the most powerful military in the history of the world? Delusional. How does it work out for people holding guns when interacting with the police, or even being suspected of having a gun? Being dead isn't Liberty. How about the number of guns used in domestic violence situations? Liberty, or oppression?

 

Self defense use? Sketchy annecdotal reports. Difficult to verify. If there weren't hundreds of millions of guns floating around, why would you need to defend yourself with a gun?

 

Civil disobedience has been shown to be much more likely to result in policy change than an armed standoff. I know, facts get in the way of the preferred narrative, the John Wayne fantasy. Time to grow up and move beyond grade three schoolyard sophistication.

[iNow]

If sawed off shotguns had a military purpose the second amendment would have prohibited such a ban. Do you think the military will prohibit small arms that do not include trigger locks or thumbprints needed before the gun will shoot? That will never happen for obvious reasons.

Is reading comprehension a challenge for you? I made it a point to explicitly highlight that nothing here is being mandated with smart gun technology, so really your response makes zero sense and is completely irrelevant.

 

If the people wanted the safety technology you are so in favor of, the market would provide that technology. It's called capitalism. Maybe you have heard of it. Nothing is blocked by the NRA.

Once again, please let us know when you're ready to begin arguing from a position based in reality.

 

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/08/03/proponents-smart-guns-nra-obstacle/13551659/

The NRA is the leading obstacle to bringing a smart gun to market. (snip) The NRA sees that mandate as a weakening of the Second Amendment and has used its influence to keep smart guns from consumers. (snip) The NRA's political power has made the firearms industry the only one in America not regulated for health and safety.

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2014/05/09/the-national-rifle-associations-campaign-to-sto/199235

The National Rifle Association has used its media arm to dissuade gun owners from embracing "smart gun" technology through falsehoods and the promotion of conspiracy theories about the federal government. (snip) the NRA is attacking smart gun technology and doing so by putting negative pressure on companies that would develop the technology (snip) Inevitably, NRA News, aided by a cadre of anti-smart gun guests, has been working to hamstring smart gun tech on two fronts: fearmongering about the reliability and feasibility of the incipient technology while also giving a platform to baseless conspiracy theories that tie smart gun technology to government overreach.

(snip)

In direct contradiction to the NRA's claims it "never has opposed new technological developments in firearms," NRA News has offered continual negative -- and sometimes false -- coverage on the technology behind smart guns. (snip) On May 7, Edwards hosted Dave Kopel of the NRA-funded Independence Institute to attack the technology.

http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2013/03/silicon-valley-invent-solution-gun-violence

Smart guns have been called stupid by both the NRA, which views them as an impediment to self defense, and by the anti-gun Violence Policy Center, which sees them as a marketing ploy to boost firearm sales by convincing people that guns can be safe.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/28/us/politics/smart-firearm-draws-wrath-of-the-gun-lobby.html?_r=0

The National Rifle Association, in an article published on the blog of its political arm, wrote that smart guns, a term it mocks as a misnomer, have the potential to mesh with the anti-gunners agenda, opening the door to a ban on all guns that do not possess the government-required technology.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/california-smart-gun-store-prompts-furious-backlash/2014/03/06/43432058-a544-11e3-a5fa-55f0c77bf39c_story.html

The National Rifle Association, a fierce opponent of smart-gun technology, did not return several requests for comment on whether it called Oak Tree.

And, here... Since you so often like to use the NY Daily News as one of your sources when asked to cite backup for your stance, I'll share a quote from them here since you like them so much and have put your trust so often in their reporting:

 

http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/stolen-guns-stolen-lives-nra-blocks-smart-gun-solution-article-1.2490566

What is certain, and what is critical, is that Archers use of a stolen gun stands as a powerful indictment of the National Rifle Associations deadly opposition to smart-gun technology.

 

The NRA has blocked any form of firearm regulation or safety measures with two big lies. The first is that the U.S. government is plotting to strip gun owners of their weapons. The second is that guns dont kill people, people kill people, so new rules or safeguards would uselessly infringe Second Amendment rights.

 

Now the truth: A smart gun is technologically equipped to fire only if held by its true owner.

 

Stolen smart guns are useless guns. They also can be tracked like stolen or lost smartphones.

 

Mainstream gun manufacturers refuse to produce them, and gun sellers refuse to sell them, because the NRA has brought hell down on those in the industry who have toyed with the concept.

[zapatos]

One of the reasons the militia is mentioned in the second amendment is to prevent the government from denying the people the common arms held by common solders. The supreme court in Miller, for example, allowed the ban of sawed off shotguns because they had no military purpose. If sawed off shotguns had a military purpose the second amendment would have prohibited such a ban. Do you think the military will prohibit small arms that do not include trigger locks or thumbprints needed before the gun will shoot? That will never happen for obvious reasons.

A combat shotgun is a shotgun that is intended for use in an offensive role, typically by a military force

 

The shotgun was used by Allied forces and Allied supported partisans in all theaters of combat in World War II, and both pump and semi-automatic shotguns are currently issued to all branches of the US military; they have also been used in subsequent conflicts by French, British, Australian, and New Zealand forces, as well as many guerrillas and insurgents throughout sub-Saharan Africa, Latin and South America, and Southeast Asia.

The most common type of shotgun used for this purpose is the manually operated, slide-action/pump-action type like the Mossberg 590A1 which is currently the pump-action of choice for US armed forces and has seen service with other militaries, because it is less prone to malfunction (particularly when dirty) than semi-automatic designs.

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

 

The 590A1 is available with a 14-inch (36 cm), 18.5-inch, or 20-inch (510 mm) barrel.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mossberg_500

 

A sawed-off shotgun also called a sawn-off shotgun (UK, IRL, AU, NZ, CAN) and a short-barreled shotgun (SBS) (U.S. legislative terminology), is a type of shotgun with a shorter gun barreltypically under 18 inchesand often a shorter or absent stock.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sawed-off_shotgun

[overtone]

@ Overtone, you are right that people do not want to be oppressed in the first place. However in the case of firearms in the United States no one is being oppressed. I understand that govts have oppressed people and been tyrannical but that isn't the state of affairs currently.

Uh, which side are you arguing for?

 

The disarmed people in US history have been oppressed - blacks, reds, yellows, browns. They were disarmed intentionally to abet oppression. This is throughout US history, and right up into the living memory of the adults governing many regions of this country. The armed people have not been oppressed. Still aren't - as you note. That's not much of an argument for disarming people.

WTF is wrong with people for conflating those steps with tyranny, the removal of our rights, and oppression from dictators? How batshit off the deep end must one be to arrive at such a conclusion? Why isn't such hyperbole not immediately laughed out of the room?

It's not laughed out of the room because it's balanced by equivalent nonsense from gun control advocates, and ridding the room of only one side of extremists hands public policy over to the other side of them. The entire public debate is dominated by this level of crap. Both sides. Mexican Standoff. https://mrleecurtis.files.wordpress.com/2015/03/reservoir-dogs-mexican-standoff.jpg

There's no need for the water in this proverbial well to be so deeply poisoned, and it's time more of us stood up to rhetorically filter it, to marginalize the martyrs and the moronic. Quite simply, it's time to call bullshit when we see it and support these common sense improvements and save some lives while in parallel honoring our rights and our constitution. It's time to stop catering and caving to the clearly unreasonable voices in this debate

That is going to have to be applied to both sides, to stick. And that's going to be uncomfortable for a good many gun control advocates. The gun nuts are not the only irrational, panic-mode, martyr-complex, hyperventilating, silly-talking folks in this debate. Anyone who's sincere about de-poisoning this well is going to find themselves in the middle of a real mess.

 

Of course Obama's minor and obviously beneficial regulatory decisions are no-brainers and part of his job (overdue part) - that's why almost everybody supports them, in the abstract. Support for reasonable gun control is not the problem - it's already there.

 

btw: According to this posted link - https://en.wikipedia.../Combat_shotgun - a combat shotgun normally has a 20 inch barrel, sometimes 18.5, and shorter barrels than that are used as "riot guns" by police. That may be how 18 inches came to be written into so many laws as the legal limit - avoids the Constitutional issue.

 

In my State, last I checked, the prohibition was against modifying the stock length of the barrel - this came up because a couple of guys invented a very long barrel shotgun for hunting crows in populated areas, to suppress the noise (that works - they are very quiet), and somebody pointed out that they were technically illegal. The local sheriff reassured them that the letter of that law would not be enforced, since the spirit was obviously obeyed.

Edited January 10, 2016 by overtone

[John Cuthber]

 

It's not laughed out of the room because it's balanced by equivalent nonsense from gun control advocates, and ridding the room of only one side of extremists hands public policy over to the other side of them. The entire public debate is dominated by this level of crap. Both sides. Mexican Standoff. https://mrleecurtis.files.wordpress.com/2015/03/reservoir-dogs-mexican-standoff.jpg

 

Perhaps you could cite some of the nonsense from advocates of gun control to illustrate your point.

 

(Just to help things along; please don't cite anything to do with interpretation of the US constitution. The constitution can be changed if it is agreed that what it says -however interpreted- no longer applies. )

Edited January 10, 2016 by John Cuthber

[dimreepr]

Uh, which side are you arguing for?

 

The disarmed people in US history have been oppressed - blacks, reds, yellows, browns. They were disarmed intentionally to abet oppression. This is throughout US history, and right up into the living memory of the adults governing many regions of this country. The armed people have not been oppressed. Still aren't - as you note. That's not much of an argument for disarming people.

 

 

 

[overtone]

Perhaps you could cite some of the nonsense from advocates of gun control to illustrate your point.

(Just to help things along; please don't cite anything to do with interpretation of the US constitution. The constitution can be changed if it is agreed that what it says -however interpreted- no longer applies.

Please cite some foolishness but not the Constitutional stuff that most bothers the wary and occupies the center of the public debate.

That will do.

Or the lead quotes in posts 905 and 919.

Or this:

 

Self defense use? Sketchy annecdotal reports. Difficult to verify. If there weren't hundreds of millions of guns floating around, why would you need to defend yourself with a gun?

 

I have no firearms.

I have liberty.

That's what, two pages back in this very thread? If it's not silly enough for y'all, search the first few pages for the stuff about how the country is awash in murderous gunslinging, complete with 30k+ killed by gunshot every year, and so forth. Or you can look up the last time somebody claimed that 1) gun control advocates were not talking about confiscating people's guns, next to 2) the prevalence of guns was causing all this mayhem that had to be stopped, next to 3) {deleted claim re Constitution does not protect private firearm possession}. Hello?

Edited January 10, 2016 by overtone

[Ten oz]

Uh, which side are you arguing for?

 

The disarmed people in US history have been oppressed - blacks, reds, yellows, browns. They were disarmed intentionally to abet oppression. This is throughout US history, and right up into the living memory of the adults governing many regions of this country. The armed people have not been oppressed. Still aren't - as you note. That's not much of an argument for disarming people.

 

 

My argument is not for disarming people. As has been stated numerous times in this thread gun control and a door to door confiscation are not one in the same. Also there are millions of people who would argue that minorities, armed or not, are currently still oppressed. Our world leading prison population and civilians killed by police has a very oppressive feel to it. The 2nd Amendment isn't help any of the people caught up in out industrial prison complex.

[John Cuthber]

Please cite some foolishness but not the Constitutional stuff that most bothers the wary and occupies the center of the public debate.

That will do.

Or the lead quotes in posts 905 and 919.

Or this:

 

 

That's what, two pages back in this very thread? If it's not silly enough for y'all, search the first few pages for the stuff about how the country is awash in murderous gunslinging, complete with 30k+ killed by gunshot every year, and so forth. Or you can look up the last time somebody claimed that 1) gun control advocates were not talking about confiscating people's guns, next to 2) the prevalence of guns was causing all this mayhem that had to be stopped, next to 3) {deleted claim re Constitution does not protect private firearm possession}. Hello?

 

Do you realise that saying we can't have gun control because words on a piece of paper say so is absurd?

The reasoning being the constitution might be a valid point (though it's been overtaken by events), but the constitution per se is not a reason to prevent gun control.

So, yes, it occupies a lot of the debate- but it's not actually important to that debate simply because it can be amended.

The pro-gun lobby keep going on about it as if it's sacred, because it's about the only thing they have got.

 

Since it's just an old bit of paper it shouldn't influence the debate so, as I said, Just to help things along; please don't cite anything to do with interpretation of the US constitution. The constitution can be changed if it is agreed that what it says -however interpreted- no longer applies

 

The "self defence" argument has several very clear problems; one is that for the most part, if the other guy doesn't have a gun, you don't need one.

That's fairly clear and reasonable, yet you cite it as an example of lunacy

Another issue is that, to be used in self defence, a gun has to be "handy" that's the antithesis of good gun safety.

 

And, since you cited my comment on my having no guns, yet having liberty you really ought to show that there's something wrong with it- especially in context.

I really don't have a gun; but I can buy a three necked flask on eBay if I want to.

 

So, it seems the best example of "silly enough" you can come up with is a pair of statements that are true and refute a claim made by someone who seems t be pro-gun.

 

Lets be clear about that .

The pro-gun guy says something.

I point out that it simply is not true.

And you say that's silly.

 

You seem to be making iNow's point for him.

[StringJunky]

 

Do you realise that saying we can't have gun control because words on a piece of paper say so is absurd?

The reasoning being the constitution might be a valid point (though it's been overtaken by events), but the constitution per se is not a reason to prevent gun control.

So, yes, it occupies a lot of the debate- but it's not actually important to that debate simply because it can be amended.

The pro-gun lobby keep going on about it as if it's sacred, because it's about the only thing they have got.

I agree... it's so 18th Century.

[Ten oz]

There is something almost religious like about the way some people view the Constitution. As though it were the most perfect vision imaginable to protect freedom. I think to a large extent it is pretend adoration. A means of preventing change by attempting to disqualify it as both unpatriotic and counter to liberty

[John Cuthber]

The only thing sillier than attaching a mystical reverence to a document, is attaching a mystical reverence to an amendment to that document.

But never mind that.

Currently in the UK we ave fairly strict controls on gun ownership and our constitution- such as it is- doesn't mention them.

So perhaps our pro-gun friends would like to explain how they would justify rolling out the freedoms they enjoy to those of us in the UK.

 

If it's such a great thing, it should be easy.

How would you sell less tight gun control here in the UK?

Edited January 10, 2016 by John Cuthber

[StringJunky]

 

...How would you sell less tight gun control here in the UK?

 

Impossible, save complete societal collapse. To sell keeping things as they are here in the UK just point to America,

Edited January 10, 2016 by StringJunky

[iNow]

So, it seems the best example of "silly enough" you can come up with is a pair of statements that are true and refute a claim made by someone who seems t be pro-gun.

 

Lets be clear about that .

The pro-gun guy says something.

I point out that it simply is not true.

And you say that's silly.

 

You seem to be making iNow's point for him.

You noticed that, too, eh?

[Willie71]

Please cite some foolishness but not the Constitutional stuff that most bothers the wary and occupies the center of the public debate.

 

That will do.

 

Or the lead quotes in posts 905 and 919.

 

Or this:

 

 

 

 

 

That's what, two pages back in this very thread? If it's not silly enough for y'all, search the first few pages for the stuff about how the country is awash in murderous gunslinging, complete with 30k+ killed by gunshot every year, and so forth. Or you can look up the last time somebody claimed that 1) gun control advocates were not talking about confiscating people's guns, next to 2) the prevalence of guns was causing all this mayhem that had to be stopped, next to 3) {deleted claim re Constitution does not protect private firearm possession}. Hello?

 

These are nonsense posts to you? Bizarre.

 

 

 

 

 

1-3 Guns are not used millions of times each year in self-defense

 

We use epidemiological theory to explain why the false positive problem for rare events can lead to large overestimates of the incidence of rare diseases or rare phenomena such as self-defense gun use. We then try to validate the claims of many millions of annual self-defense uses against available evidence. We find that the claim of many millions of annual self-defense gun uses by American citizens is invalid.

 

Hemenway, David. Survey research and self-defense gun use: An explanation of extreme overestimates. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology. 1997; 87:1430-1445.

 

Hemenway, David. The myth of millions of annual self-defense gun uses: A case study of survey overestimates of rare events. Chance (American Statistical Association). 1997; 10:6-10.

 

Cook, Philip J; Ludwig, Jens; Hemenway, David. The gun debates new mythical number: How many defensive uses per year? Journal of Policy Analysis and Management. 1997; 16:463-469.

 

 

 

4. Most purported self-defense gun uses are gun uses in escalating arguments and are both socially undesirable and illegal

 

We analyzed data from two national random-digit-dial surveys conducted under the auspices of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center. Criminal court judges who read the self-reported accounts of the purported self-defense gun use rated a majority as being illegal, even assuming that the respondent had a permit to own and to carry a gun, and that the respondent had described the event honestly from his own perspective.

 

Hemenway, David; Miller, Matthew; Azrael, Deborah. Gun use in the United States: Results from two national surveys. Injury Prevention. 2000; 6:263-267.

 

 

 

5. Firearms are used far more often to intimidate than in self-defense.

 

Using data from a national random-digit-dial telephone survey conducted under the direction of the Harvard Injury Control Center, we examined the extent and nature of offensive gun use. We found that firearms are used far more often to frighten and intimidate than they are used in self-defense. All reported cases of criminal gun use, as well as many of the so-called self-defense gun uses, appear to be socially undesirable.

 

Hemenway, David; Azrael, Deborah. The relative frequency of offensive and defensive gun use: Results of a national survey. Violence and Victims. 2000; 15:257-272.

 

 

 

6. Guns in the home are used more often to intimidate intimates than to thwart crime.

 

Using data from a national random-digit-dial telephone survey conducted under the direction of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center, we investigated how and when guns are used in the home. We found that guns in the home are used more often to frighten intimates than to thwart crime; other weapons are far more commonly used against intruders than are guns.

 

Publication: Azrael, Deborah R; Hemenway, David. In the safety of your own home: Results from a national survey of gun use at home. Social Science and Medicine. 2000; 50:285-91.

 

 

 

7. Adolescents are far more likely to be threatened with a gun than to use one in self-defense.

 

We analyzed data from a telephone survey of 5,800 California adolescents aged 12-17, which asked questions about gun threats against, and self-defense gun use by these young people. We found that these young people were far more likely to be threatened with a gun than to use a gun in self-defense, and most of the reported self-defense gun uses were hostile interactions between armed adolescents. Males, smokers, binge drinkers, those who threatened others and whose parents were less likely to know their whereabouts were more likely both to be threatened with a gun and to use a gun in self-defense.

 

Hemenway, David; Miller, Matthew. Gun threats against and self-defense gun use by California adolescents. Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine. 2004; 158:395-400.

 

 

 

8. Criminals who are shot are typically the victims of crime

 

Using data from a survey of detainees in a Washington D.C. jail, we worked with a prison physician to investigate the circumstances of gunshot wounds to these criminals.

We found that one in four of these detainees had been wounded, in events that appear unrelated to their incarceration. Most were shot when they were victims of robberies, assaults and crossfires. Virtually none report being wounded by a law-abiding citizen.

 

May, John P; Hemenway, David. Oen, Roger; Pitts, Khalid R. When criminals are shot: A survey of Washington DC jail detainees. Medscape General Medicine. 2000; June 28. www.medscape.com

 

 

 

9-10. Few criminals are shot by decent law abiding citizens

 

Using data from surveys of detainees in six jails from around the nation, we worked with a prison physician to determine whether criminals seek hospital medical care when they are shot. Criminals almost always go to the hospital when they are shot. To believe fully the claims of millions of self-defense gun uses each year would mean believing that decent law-abiding citizens shot hundreds of thousands of criminals. But the data from emergency departments belie this claim, unless hundreds of thousands of wounded criminals are afraid to seek medical care. But virtually all criminals who have been shot went to the hospital, and can describe in detail what happened there.

 

May, John P; Hemenway, David. Oen, Roger; Pitts, Khalid R. Medical Care Solicitation by Criminals with Gunshot Wound Injuries: A Survey of Washington DC Jail Detainees. Journal of Trauma. 2000; 48:130-132.

 

May, John P; Hemenway, David. Do Criminals Go to the Hospital When They are Shot? Injury Prevention 2002: 8:236-238.

 

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/gun-threats-and-self-defense-gun-use-2/

Edited January 10, 2016 by Willie71

[Phi for All]

 

How would you sell less tight gun control here in the UK?

 

 

I'd use the slogan, "If you had a gun, you'd never have to think about safety again", and hope your hearing is as selective as many Americans.

[Ten oz]

How would you sell less tight gun control here in the UK?

Same way is is sold here; fear and racism. Talk up the threat of ISIS, black thugs seeking to influence everyones otherwise pure children, and complain about a politically correct govt that is more interested in social justice than enforcing the law.

[waitforufo]

Do you realise that saying we can't have gun control because words on a piece of paper say so is absurd?

 

 

Since it's just an old bit of paper it shouldn't influence the debate so, as I said, Just to help things along; please don't cite anything to do with interpretation of the US constitution. The constitution can be changed if it is agreed that what it says -however interpreted- no longer applies

That silly old piece of paper that modern liberals hate and love to ignore. I'm sure whey you are finished eliminating the second amendment, the first will follow soon after. After all, for starters, we can't have free speech hurting peoples feelings.

 

The "self defence" argument has several very clear problems; one is that for the most part, if the other guy doesn't have a gun, you don't need one.

That's fairly clear and reasonable, yet you cite it as an example of lunacy

You keep saying this nonsense which is obviously untrue. The strong can easily overcome the weak. The many can easily overcome the one or the few. Just ask the women of Cologne Germany.

 

The 1968 gun control act does not empower the government to act in the ways defined by Obama's recent executive order, but thank you for providing the information. I think from here on out we should stop taking about this order as and executive order but instead refer to it as Presidential Law.

 

iNow, the NRA has no legal powers and therefore cannot block anything. The references you give and your own use of the work "block" is rhetorical. The NRA is simply a grass roots lobbying organization representing the will of it's membership. The opinions of the NRA can be completely ignored by everyone including members of congress. The risk that members of congress have in ignoring the NRA is that the organization represents voters which may vote congress members out for enacting gun control against the wishes of there chosen lobbying group. You know that but you prefer to have a bogeyman to castigate.

[Ten oz]

That silly old piece of paper that modern liberals hate and love to ignore. I'm sure whey you are finished eliminating the second amendment, the first will follow soon after. After all, for starters, we can't have free speech hurting peoples feelings.

 

You keep saying this nonsense which is obviously untrue. The strong can easily overcome the weak. The many can easily overcome the one or the few. Just ask the women of Cologne Germany.

 

The 1968 gun control act does not empower the government to act in the ways defined by Obama's recent executive order, but thank you for providing the information. I think from here on out we should stop taking about this order as and executive order but instead refer to it as Presidential Law.

 

What specifically does the "President's law" do? Please be specific.