The Second Amendment

PRR said:

In *much* of the US, owning a gun is far from stupid. I could supplement my meat supply; many many people here essentially live on hunting. (Remember, thin cold soil does not yield abundant crops.) I've had moose, deer, and turkey on my land, bear on both sides of me, porcupine under my porch and up my apple tree. (And dwarf squirrel hardly worth a shot)

Click to expand...

Last year I hit a deer with my car when I was in the mountains. I was going slow and it didn't die. We called the Sheriff who finished it off. It was a young one and I'm sure someone took it for meat. So far I've only hunted with my car.

The first time I ever shot a gun was about a month ago.  Friends took us shooting. Targets with a rifle and skeet with a shotgun. I had fun but I'd rather hike in peace and quiet when I'm in the  mountains.

scott2000 said:

How many Lives.

I see why it's so important to control gun deaths. We need all the help we can get ....

I  don't want to have to pay for it was all I was saying. But that's not practical in your mind so, I respect that...

Click to expand...

Sorry, you lost me. I don't think I said anything about not paying for it not being practical.

scott2000 said:

Just sounds weird to want to save peoples lives by taking guns away while wanting to make us pay for magnitudes of killing unborn ones to save some (as you call it, costs of living)

Click to expand...

Again I'm struggling to figure out where you find these statements of mine. Did I call it "cost of living"? I don't think I did.

But what you're saying now is what I'm talking about. For people that oppose abortion because abortion is "killing unborn" "people" it's not really a matter of cost or practicality, it's a matter of ideology, or "ideology" if you prefer. That is to say that it isn't about finding a practical solution to a problem, it's about the view of what rights women should have and what you define that which they have in their bodies. Often this comes from religious beliefs (in the US conservative population).

When I said that I don't think it's about cost I was thinking more along the lines of there being a net increase in cost if you get rid of birth control, abortion and sex ed, because then society has to take care of these now born and often unwanted children. The net cost is higher is what I'm saying.

john12ax7 said:

More firearms leads to more firearm related homicides.  This seems true and has been well studied.  Not sure anyone disputes this.

But it's also the wrong question.  The real question is firearms vs total homicides or even violent crime in general. In this case more or less forearms doesn't make much difference. 

Click to expand...

Are you saying that the ratio between firearm related homicide vs other homicide doesn't change, or that the total amount of homicide doesn't drop when there are fewer firearm related homicides relative to other?

I have a hard time believing this assertion is true.

ruffrecords said:

Why? Why introduce a completely new element into our conversation?

Click to expand...

Sometimes the answer to a question which a person considers to be irrelevant actually ends up illustrating something important.

I think you know this very well and that's why you refuse to answer that simple question. You know exactly where it will unequivocally lead you.

ruffrecords said:

I know that. That is what I said. Are you reading what I write? For the umptenth time, it is about the people not the things they use to kill each other with. Is that clear enough???

Click to expand...

Sorry, I should start using emoticons. It's just that I typically dislike them.

At any rate, that comment was me being facetious. If you had actually answered my question you would have seen that. But you didn't.

ruffrecords said:

Waiting over.

Click to expand...

No, I asked you a question and you wrote "Why?" (answer it). That's not an answer.

A really good article from Forbes. Debunks 10 popular lies about guns:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/chrisladd/2017/10/06/ten-lies-distort-the-gun-control-debate/#575a02f61fad

Shows it's these lies that keep the USA from moving ahead.

mattiasNYC said:

Sometimes the answer to a question which a person considers to be irrelevant actually ends up illustrating something important.

I think you know this very well and that's why you refuse to answer that simple question. You know exactly where it will unequivocally lead you.

Sorry, I should start using emoticons. It's just that I typically dislike them.

At any rate, that comment was me being facetious. If you had actually answered my question you would have seen that. But you didn't.

No, I asked you a question and you wrote "Why?" (answer it). That's not an answer.

Click to expand...

You must stop cherry picking my replies. I also said in the same post:

For the umptenth time, it is about the people not the things they use to kill each other with. Is that clear enough???

Click to expand...

That is the answer to the question you posed.

Cheers

Ian

Alcohol Related Deaths in he US last year: An estimated 88,000 people (approximately 62,000 men and 26,000 women) die from alcohol

US Gun Related Deaths:  11,208 homicides, 21,175 suicides, 505 deaths due to accidental or negligent discharge of a firearm,

1 out of 8 deaths in Russia is alcohol related,
In June 2009, the Public Chamber of Russia reported over 500,000 alcohol-related deaths annually,

Have a look at the graph here:

http://www.vpc.org/regulating-the-gun-industry/gun-deaths-compared-to-motor-vehicle-deaths/

More people die in traffic than from gunshots.

Only, one graph is going down, the other one is going up. Guess which one is going up...

so a drive by shooting, what would that be? would it count in both categories? 

one thing to note, most people do not intentionally try to kill themselves by getting into accidents, but a homicide is usually intentional,

same thing with cancer and heart attacks,

CJ said:

Alcohol Related Deaths in he US last year: An estimated 88,000 people (approximately 62,000 men and 26,000 women) die from alcohol

US Gun Related Deaths:  11,208 homicides, 21,175 suicides, 505 deaths due to accidental or negligent discharge of a firearm,

Click to expand...

And an estimated 6 Americans die a year at the hands of domestic and foreign terrorists. 11'208 vs 6...

Maybe they should unleash their $700B/year military on US inner cities.

Fentanyl related deaths are far worse than heroin related deaths:

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/09/02/upshot/fentanyl-drug-overdose-deaths.html

Maybe you could use some firepower to stop big pharma?

The Romans died from their food. Eerie, how that is resembling the current US situation.

Even Nostradamus' visions included

They seem to keep coming:

https://youtu.be/0egBrxZICME

do you know what the biggest cause of death is in the world today?














birth.

cyrano said:

A really good article from Forbes. Debunks 10 popular lies about guns:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/chrisladd/2017/10/06/ten-lies-distort-the-gun-control-debate/#575a02f61fad

Shows it's these lies that keep the USA from moving ahead.

Click to expand...

I had no idea your situation was this bad... Brings to light how extremely dishonest this discussion is in the US.

There is literally no gun control at all.

ruffrecords said:

You must stop cherry picking my replies.

Click to expand...

It isn't cherry picking, I'm addressing an argument of yours that has implications on the logic you're attempting to use.

ruffrecords said:

That is the answer to the question you posed.

Click to expand...

Imagine that you are at a restaurant. You are hungry. Your main concern is getting food. You are given a menu. The waiter asks:

"What main course would you like sir?"

You: "It's irrelevant."

Waiter: "I just need your order sir so I can place it."

You: "I already answered."


That's what just happened.


You refuse to answer because you say it's irrelevant, but unfortunately it is not. Btw, I'm apparently not the only one who can see this. In the post immediately before the one of yours I'm now quoting there's a link to an article that makes the exact same point.

Banzai said:

I had no idea your situation was this bad... Brings to light how extremely dishonest this discussion is in the US.

Click to expand...

Political discourse in the US is generally abysmal. Unfortunately the same lower standard is spreading throughout at least the western world.

Banzai said:

There is literally no gun control at all.

Click to expand...

Well.... not 'literally'...

cyrano said:

A really good article from Forbes. Debunks 10 popular lies about guns:

Click to expand...

+

JohnRoberts said:

PS: I propose instead of depriving law abiding citizens from gun ownership, we take guns away from street criminals in Chicago. Last I checked they were already illegal so we don't need a new law for that. High profile single shooter events get disproportionate media attention . Chicago just passed its 500th gun homicide for the year. Now IMO that deserves more media  attention., and remedy (enforcement, not new laws).

Click to expand...

+




+

"Most of the guns used in a crime in Chicago are originally purchased in Indiana or Mississippi. And of course, Indiana’s rate of gun deaths is roughly a third higher than in Illinois."

As I already posted, the gun control argument is about where to draw the line. Everyone agrees there should be a line at some level of military grade weapons.  Should individuals have single shot rifles, automatic  assault rifles, rocket propelled grenades, 2 ton bombs?
Saying guns don't kill people, it's a mental health issue, etc just misses the point of how much power an individual should be able to have to take lives rapidly and with overwhelming force.

It wouldn't have made a damn bit of difference for everyone of the 22,000 people at the concert in vegas to have had guns. What were they going to do? Shoot back wildly at where ever they thought the guy was?

Not to continue this knee jerk exercise every time there is a high profile crime...

That fancy graphic noted that chicago had the most non-fatal shootings. One unintended side effect of fighting our perpetual wars is that life saving treatments for gunshot wounds have dramatically improved the gunshot survival rates.

The graphic shows how bad it is in many cities.

New Orleans is a dangerous city,,, I visited many times and there were almost always tourists killed (in the french quarter) while I was there.  I even had an undercover cop stop me there and tell me to not walk down the street I was on alone at night (like I was).

I only mention Chicago because it is is easy to find the stats, and under scrutiny, because the high profile mayor hasn't fixed it yet.

JR

mattiasNYC said:

Well.... not 'literally'...

Click to expand...

You can't talk about gun control without a federal or at least state level gun registry.

I don't think most people outside the US realise you don't have one... After 11'000-13'000 gun murders a year since forever, most of us probably expected a bit more common sense.