OMG Politics, I'm over it already.

Status
Not open for further replies.
With regards to gun control I think both sides are right because they are looking at it from different perspectives.

wagdog said:
I'm sure your familiar with the research done John Lott? And if so, you're probably familiar with research that attempts to disprove him as well.

There is no official account of how many defensive gun uses there are per year in US. The numbers I've seen range from 50k to over 1 million.

My understanding is they mostly go unreported, or even if reported to police, if no crime took place, there is no national compilation of defensive actions.

So anecdotal or not, I'll take my chances that having a gun will keep me safer than not having one.
Click to expand...

Flamencology said:
I'm not going to argue with anyone on the basis of someone having an anecdotal account here and an anecdotal account there. That's absolutely meaningless to me. Facts and studies, man. That's all we've got. And none of them indicate that guns save lives. That's a fantasy that gun-lovers believe because they want to believe it. Simple as that.
Click to expand...

Pro gun folks see it from a micro level. I and my friends have guns and we are safer because of them.

Anti gun folks see it from a macro level. I see statistics and the likelihood for gun violence going way up when there is more access to guns.
 
Flamencology said:
I'm not going to argue with anyone on the basis of someone having an anecdotal account here and an anecdotal account there. That's absolutely meaningless to me. Facts and studies, man. That's all we've got. And none of them indicate that guns save lives. That's a fantasy that gun-lovers believe because they want to believe it. Simple as that.
Click to expand...

So, you draw this conclusion based on what you admit is a complete absence of evidence? That methodology would get you laughed out of any institution of higher learning (except maybe Trump University). The idea that guns cause crime is a fantasy because gun grabbers want to believe it. Simple as that. See, it works both ways!

Here's some facts and statistics for you:

-There are roughly 75 million gun owners in America
-In 2013 (last year I could easily find data), there were 11,989 firearm related deaths that weren't suicides.
-Even assuming that each death was caused by a different person, that equates to .00016 percent of American gun owners causing these deaths.

If you want to take away the Constitutionally guaranteed rights of 75 million people because of the actions of .00016 percent of them, you're going to have problems.
 
rhino said:
With regards to gun control I think both sides are right because they are looking at it from different perspectives.

Pro gun folks see it from a micro level. I and my friends have guns and we are safer because of them.

Anti gun folks see it from a macro level. I see statistics and the likelihood for gun violence going way up when there is more access to guns.
Click to expand...

Yes.

But even the micro side is wrong.

"I and my friends have guns and we are safer because of them" is hard to argue; there are far more accidental shootings than there are self-defense shootings.

Of course, there's the "oh, but that wouldn't happen to me or to my family" for whatever reason.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tig
This video is partially why I think the second amendment is outdated. Again, I am not for taking all guns, I would like there to be some changes in the way guns are purchased.

Here is what an office shooting were to look like when the founding fathers wrote the second amendment.


 
Flamencology said:
"I and my friends have guns and we are safer because of them" is hard to argue; there are far more accidental shootings than there are self-defense shootings.
Click to expand...

Self defense isn't just about shootings, though.

Firearms, like dogs, have deterrent value. I won't bother you with anecdotal evidence, just the concept- a convenience store clerk is less likely to be robbed if he openly displays a firearm. The fact that cops aren't murdered more regularly may have less to do with a universal respect of law enforcement, and more to do with the fact they're carrying a weapon and are trained to use it. Extrapolate this as you will/won't.
 
Chad said:
Here is what an office shooting were to look like when the founding fathers wrote the second amendment.
Click to expand...


Here is what printing presses looked like when they wrote the first amendment-

Printing4.jpg


So does this mean we should discard the first amendment, too?

If not, why? If not, why would that reason apply to the first amendment, but not the second?
 
Beyer160 said:
Here is what printing presses looked like when they wrote the first amendment-

View attachment 28001

So does this mean we should discard the first amendment, too?

If not, why? If not, why would that reason apply to the first amendment, but not the second?
Click to expand...
who is killing people with printing presses??? Seems pretty hard to get a head stuck in there. And as I have said a few times in this thread, both the 1st and 2nd A's are individual rights. The 1st A is regulated, particularly with time, manner, place restrictions.

And, unfortunately, based on news out of Texas, we have a new incident. Anecdotal, I know. And who knows what happened? I sure don't. But it sure is tragic. Guns can save a situation, some times. In the right situation, and in the right hands of someone trained. (And I would be the trained gun folk here would agree good training might include how to handle one's self and one's weapon in a very stressful situation.) But though sometimes having a trained person with the right gun present will save the situation, it sure seems on a more often than not basis, the reverse happens.
 
Beyer160 said:
Here is what printing presses looked like when they wrote the first amendment-

View attachment 28001

So does this mean we should discard the first amendment, too?

If not, why? If not, why would that reason apply to the first amendment, but not the second?
Click to expand...

I do not believe the first amendment guarantees the right of the press to use a printing press. I'll have to double check on that. The second guarantees you the right to bear arms. And the video I posted is what arms they used when it was written.

bear.jpg
 
Chad said:
This video is partially why I think the second amendment is outdated. Again, I am not for taking all guns, I would like there to be some changes in the way guns are purchased.

Here is what an office shooting were to look like when the founding fathers wrote the second amendment.


Click to expand...



Actually there were multi-round firearms, both hand and long guns, in use by 1791 including the forerunner to the gatling gun, known as the puckle gun, more advanced and 'assulaty' than the ye olde musket. Not to mention that the supreme court unanimously rejected the concept in Caetano v Massachusetts that the 2nd only applied to arms as they existed in common use at the time of the Bill of Rights.

"In a per curiam decision, the Supreme Court vacated the ruling of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court.[7] Citing District of Columbia v. Heller[8] and McDonald v. City of Chicago,[9] the Court began its opinion by stating that "the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding" and that "the Second Amendment right is fully applicable to the States".[6] The Court then identified three reasons why the Massachusetts court's opinion contradicted prior rulings by the United States Supreme Court"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caetano_v._Massachusetts
 
Chad said:
I do not believe the first amendment guarantees the right of the press to use a printing press.
Click to expand...

Nor does the second discuss which specific arms it pertains to. Both deal in concepts- the rights of free speech and a free press, and the right to bear arms.
 
Flamencology said:
Yes.

But even the micro side is wrong.

"I and my friends have guns and we are safer because of them" is hard to argue; there are far more accidental shootings than there are self-defense shootings.

Of course, there's the "oh, but that wouldn't happen to me or to my family" for whatever reason.
Click to expand...



I think they are right until they are wrong.
 
Chad said:
At a gun store, you are correct. Not at a gun show like they have at the giant Expo Center down the street from me. And registered dealers at guns shows have to, but only registered dealers.

Did you happen to read the line "any person who sells firearms at a licensed dealership". That is what this statue applies too not gun shows.
http://m.roanoke.com/news/politics/...8a2-20b2-541b-b8b1-62c483294f0c.html?mode=jqm
Click to expand...

The gun show loophole is a bad name for what essentially is state legislation regulating private sales of firearms and differs from state to state (like you mention). In PA for example, you can not privately sell a handgun with out a FFL running a PICS/NICS check on the buyer & completing all of the same forms as a new handgun purchase from the FFL. Long guns can be privately transferred without paperwork or background checks but many private sellers of long guns in PA will still insist the buyer has a LTCF (carry permit) which requires passing a PICS/NICS check and is physically revoked by the sheriff or police if you become a prohibited person or the transfer has to happen @ a FFL to ensure they are not selling to a prohibited person. But this is not required by state law.

Should it be so different across the states? I don't think so either & from my POV, it poses an exploitable method of purchase for someone who knows they are prohibited (which is a Federal felony but like that's gonna stop criminals...especially when it's not aggressively prosecuted) & these are the people you expressly do not want obtaining firearms. Yeah, you've got states rights, property rights mixed in with this whole quagmire so getting some type of consistent & effective 'universal background check' that is easily/freely accessible to private sellers poses a challenge that not too many seem willing to comprehensively address.

At the end of the day, it is still a federal felony for anyone to knowingly sell a firearm to a prohibited person or straw purchaser, as a dealer or private seller.
 
Last edited:
Kinda surprised at the abortion and gun control SCOTUS rulings today. 5-3 and 6-2. I wouldn't be surprised if that activates an electorate that doesn't want to vote for Trump, but knows Hillary will appoint a judge far to the left of Garland.
 
Help!I'maRock! said:
Kinda surprised at the abortion and gun control SCOTUS rulings today. 5-3 and 6-2. I wouldn't be surprised if that activates an electorate that doesn't want to vote for Trump, but knows Hillary will appoint a judge far to the left of Garland.
Click to expand...

As a resident of a battleground state, i've already received plenty of political mailing from both sides of the spectrum warning of the repercussions of letting the opposition 'stack the deck' on the court.
 
Flamencology said:
Russian roulette theory.
Click to expand...

Ha... sort of not really

Saying "Russian Roulette theory" implies something bad will happen. From first hand knowledge the odds are much more likely that nothing bad ever happens.

That's not to say that it can't or it won't.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top