EgonSpengler
Deity
- Joined
- Jun 26, 2014
- Messages
- 12,260
This is a story about a bad guy with guns being stopped by good guys with guns. 26 people shot. 9 dead.
The Thread Where We Discuss Guns and Gun Control
- Thread starter Lemon Merchant
- Start date
-
- Tags
- all guns suck
Lexicus
Deity
Hint: they don't run the stories because the stories don't actually happen
And would have been a lot worse without those good guys with guns. You know, like those terrorist attacks in Paris. Also, you ignore all the stories where only the bad guy dies. Like a few months back where some 60 year old guy in Florida fought off four armed intruders with his AR-15. He killed two of them, and the other two fled only to be arrested later by police. Without the right to own a gun, that man would have been, at best victimized by the intruders and helpless to stop them, and at worst murdered by them.
There's also that study that estimated approximately 3 million instances of defensive gun use every year in the US.
Yes, that was my point. Certain media outlets don't like to run those stories because it kinda kills the "guns won't protect you" narrative they push.
Lexicus
Deity
Just bear in mind that the gun-rights people think George Zimmerman shooting Trayvon Martin was a "defensive gun use"
Hint: Try looking beyond HuffPo and CNN for your news.
Here's an entire website dedicated to running defensive gun use stories. If those stories don't actually happen, surely that site wouldn't exist, right?
https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/category/defensivegunuseoftheday/
There's also a selection bias. It's very hard to have a story about something that didn't happen. I accidentally left my car unlocked one night, and it was burgled. But I have no stories about how often my locked doors deterred an opportunistic burglar
Crime is a function of the society as a whole. We will never be able to unpack if open carry results in lower crime rates compared to places that don't have open carry. As in causal effects.
EgonSpengler
Deity
- Joined
- Jun 26, 2014
- Messages
- 12,260
Right, I don't consider police to be the only "good guys with guns."I suppose ideally they would be, but there's a lot of road between here and there. I'm not exactly famous for being a police apologist, am I?
My point was that, in this particular situation, it isn't reasonable to think that the shooter could have been taken down much faster than he was. Right, these 5 cops, acting fast, saved the 27th and/or 10th person. I don't think there's anything anyone could have done for the people who were shot.
Do you genuinely want to compare rates of gun violence in France and the United States? I mean, I will if you want to. I could also toss in other countries that, generally speaking, I would like the United States to be compared to.
I'll look for it.
Right, causation is a bugbear. iirc, there are studies that find a correlation between gun ownership and gun violence, and between looser gun laws and gun violence (I think I just read one of the latter recently, but I'd have to hunt around to find it again). That doesn't demonstrate causation, though. If we assume that gun owners are, as a group, rational and responsible, then higher rates of gun ownership would be the result of environments and situations that legitimately call for one. That is, we could assume that people living in more-dangerous areas own weapons for self defense more frequently than people in less-dangerous areas, so that rates of ownership would generally indicate the places that a gun has more utility. I don't happen to believe any of that, but the correlative data don't allow a conclusion on which is the cart and which is the horse.
I can easily see how license to carry is potentially of net benefit. But that doesn't imply that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. The problem tends to be that someone had access to guns that shouldn't have had access, not that people going through a stringent licensing process are the problem
That system has already lost its legitimacy. Conservatives are facing a zero-sum effort on all fronts to liquidate them as a class. Notice how no one on the left ever seems to propose alternative solutions to gun control - the point isn't to reduce mass shootings, it's to target people who hold to what they see as 'archaic' ways of life.
Having lived with the whole second amendment issue for quite some time and done some thinking about, I have come to a conclusion. Those who wrote the bill of rights felt it was important to enshrine an armed militia into the constitution and so they allowed citizens to have weapons. but what they actually allowed were flintlock muskets and pistols. They did not know what the future would bring nor could they imagine assault riffles or automatic weapons. They did not sanction cannons. They were aware of both the limitations of flintlocks and certainly could not anticipate what the future would bring. There was essentially only a single weapon that citizens could choose for use in self defense or within a militia setting. A strict interpretation of the constitution should take this into consideration. The constitution is a general document that allows for flexibility, but it does spell out some very specific situations. The gun situation is actually very specific because there were no other options at that time. Generalizing it has been an error. My suggestion is to allow unrestricted access to flintlock weaponry that does not exceed the capability of those from the 18th C. That way we can walk in the footsteps of the founding fathers. 
By far the silliest post I've read in a while.
As the right is trying to eliminate the number advantage the left holds. Still waiting on the right to actually move on one of those alternative solution that the left has proposed. Mitch will not let any happen
Having lived with the whole second amendment issue for quite some time and done some thinking about, I have come to a conclusion. Those who wrote the bill of rights felt it was important to enshrine an armed militia into the constitution and so they allowed citizens to have weapons. but what they actually allowed were flintlock muskets and pistols. They did not know what the future would bring nor could they imagine assault riffles or automatic weapons. They did not sanction cannons. They were aware of both the limitations of flintlocks and certainly could not anticipate what the future would bring. There was essentially only a single weapon that citizens could choose for use in self defense or within a militia setting. A strict interpretation of the constitution should take this into consideration. The constitution is a general document that allows for flexibility, but it does spell out some very specific situations. The gun situation is actually very specific because there were no other options at that time. Generalizing it has been an error. My suggestion is to allow unrestricted access to flintlock weaponry that does not exceed the capability of those from the 18th C. That way we can walk in the footsteps of the founding fathers.
Why do you think they wanted to 'enshrine an armed militia' into the Constitution? Was it because the Founding Fathers valued historical reenactment?
So we can look at another case of government overreach. The War on Drugs didn't go well. Now, we can all understand why we would want a government to play defense when it comes to the distribution of an addictive life-ruining substance.
But the War on Drugs didn't go well, and the government would frequently over reach. The war on drugs and the Second Amendment combined to make sure that there was a cheap and easy access to guns. Guns on a massive scale.
Many Western governments also ran a defensive operation against illicit drugs. But these other Western governments didn't have the Second Amendment, an amendment intentionally designed to prevent government overreach.
And so, you can look at the effects of the 2nd Amendment. Did it prevent government overreach in the United States, when it comes to the War on Drugs? Does throwing in thousands of cheap weaponry onto the streets make things better, as far as the War on Drugs is concerned? Were the cops more polite? Were lawmakers more willing to look for alternative solutions?
Compared to other Western Nations dealing with the conundrum of addictive drugs, did the Second Amendment make things better?
I don't know, obviously I get everything from TV. But it strikes me that letting drug dealers have guns in order to prevent the cops from over-reaching didn't really help. I don't know if the American War on Drugs is going to be considered worse than Western democracies, I also cannot see how the Second Amendment actually helped dial back government overreach in this case
But the War on Drugs didn't go well, and the government would frequently over reach. The war on drugs and the Second Amendment combined to make sure that there was a cheap and easy access to guns. Guns on a massive scale.
Many Western governments also ran a defensive operation against illicit drugs. But these other Western governments didn't have the Second Amendment, an amendment intentionally designed to prevent government overreach.
And so, you can look at the effects of the 2nd Amendment. Did it prevent government overreach in the United States, when it comes to the War on Drugs? Does throwing in thousands of cheap weaponry onto the streets make things better, as far as the War on Drugs is concerned? Were the cops more polite? Were lawmakers more willing to look for alternative solutions?
Compared to other Western Nations dealing with the conundrum of addictive drugs, did the Second Amendment make things better?
I don't know, obviously I get everything from TV. But it strikes me that letting drug dealers have guns in order to prevent the cops from over-reaching didn't really help. I don't know if the American War on Drugs is going to be considered worse than Western democracies, I also cannot see how the Second Amendment actually helped dial back government overreach in this case
Marla_Singer
United in diversity
Paris, France
The November 13th 2015 attack was operated by 9 terrorists, financially and logistically backed by ISIS, organized in 3 groups of 3 men each:
- 1 group of 3 suicide bombers attacking a 80,000-seater stadium
- 2 other groups of 3 each armed with AK-47 assault riffles and explosives attacking a 1,500 seater concert hall (Bataclan) and a street filled with bars and restaurants
Las Vegas, United States
During the 2017 Las Vegas shooting, one single perpetrator could kill on his own 59 people, injuring 851 others, with a perfectly legally-bought arsenal of AR-15 semi-automatic guns (much less powerful than AK-47), and without any need to be backed by a high-profile international terrorist organization such as ISIS.
Do you really want to compare the gun homicides in France and the US?
- In 2017, there's been 89 gun-related homicides in France (0.13 per 100,000 inhabitants)
- The same year, there's been 14,542 gun-related homicides in the US (4.54 per 100,000 inhabitants)
Last edited:
They had no idea that there would ever be anything better than flintlocks. You are applying 20/20 hindsight into the Founders thinking. In the 1790s muskets were an essential part of life and necessary to provide food and protection. Militias also were common in the colonies as a local defense force during the revolution and during any Indian troubles. They were enshrining the status quo they knew. Nothing more. Time made both muskets and militias obsolete.
They wanted people to have an effective deterrent. Muskets can't do that in 2019.
Oh Marla, you have been here longer than I have; surely you know that Americans can and do frequently go "beyond stupid" when it comes to guns. Thank you for setting him straight!
No you made that up. They wanted to protect the status quo of what was necessary for life in those times. Militias were important for community protection, nothing more. Muskets were fully integrated into daily life. Certainly neither of those apply now, but I fully support your right to own and walk about with a flintlock.
Similar threads
