Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Hey, I'm just asking you to back up your opinion with facts. You know... measures, correlates, trends over time, that kind of thing. It doesn't matter if I'm right or wrong, I'm asking YOU to prove YOUR assertion.
Ah, the ole burden of proof. That's a fair position, albeit the lazy one over the CD: P&C section. What assurances do I have that if I spend 30 minutes to prepare an argument you'll actually respond in kind with facts, you know..."measures, correlates, trends over time, that kind of thing"?
Or...Or...
I simply put out the position of.... "Without spending 30 minutes of research effort, I say that the 2nd amendment is pointless and offers no more benefit than without a right to bear arms in developed countries."
The first problem is that firearms cannot be un-invented. I can build a gun in my garage, just as people 600 years ago were able to build them in stables. Unless you can first make them unnecessary and unwanted, you can't make them unavailable to anyone who wants one badly enough.
Agreed.
Quote:
Even if you did, you'd also have to do away with everyone who is physically stronger than anyone else. You would have to do away with knives, you would have to do away with gangs with clubs...you'd essentially have to do away with the violent nature of man.
Ok......
Quote:
Unless you can guarantee me that either you or the state can protect me and mine from someone who invades my house with greater numbers and knives better than I can with my firearm; unless you can guarantee me, if caught in a classroom with a mass killer--whether armed with a gun or a knife--that you or the state can give me some other option besides cowering under a desk and pleading for mercy, then you do not have a moral argument to prevent me from having a gun to protect myself.
Ah..... I'm not arguing we bans. I'm just saying you don't need a "right" to own one. It's cute so many people put so much faith in piece of paper enclosed in glass in the Smithsonian or wherever it's kept. I put more faith in the institutions (both public and private) that actually built this country.
Quote:
Now, if you can invent a device that is just as effective for such purposes in all the circumstances that a gun is effective--effective enough that the Secret Service is willing to adopt it to protect the president--then you have a moral argument. Until then, you do not. Your willingness to leave yourself and your family without an ultimate option is not persuasive.
LOL. Whatever you need to tell yourself or just keep your head in the sand about the world.
having lived in more countries than most people, most private citizens in other countries cannot own any type of firearm without having government permission.
having lived in more countries than most people, most private citizens in other countries cannot own any type of firearm without having government permission.
that means it is a privilege and not a right.
That is correct. You need govt permission in the US too if you think about, especially if we are going to get serious on mental health and gun ownership.
That is correct. You need govt permission in the US too if you think about, especially if we are going to get serious on mental health and gun ownership.
Ah, the ole burden of proof. That's a fair position, albeit the lazy one over the CD: P&C section. What assurances do I have that if I spend 30 minutes to prepare an argument you'll actually respond in kind with facts, you know..."measures, correlates, trends over time, that kind of thing"?
Are you kidding? When people vanish after posting a well-researched position, I love it! No sarcasm here. It just goes to show how weak their position was. And there are lots of people that read these threads currently and long after the discussion is done. It helps all of them too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dv1033
I simply put out the position of.... "Without spending 30 minutes of research effort, I say that the 2nd amendment is pointless and offers no more benefit than without a right to bear arms in developed countries."
Wait, you haven't even spent 30 minutes researching the facts around this?
Ouch.
I'd be embarrassed to post something like this, but I'm glad you did. You can redeem yourself. Show a list of countries with and without the right to bear arms, along with their overall homicide rates over the last, say, 20 years. Do some rates trend up and others trend down, regardless of RTBA? If so, congratulations! You're coming from a position of fact. If not, uh oh. Time to re-evaluate your position.
having lived in more countries than most people, most private citizens in other countries cannot own any type of firearm without having government permission.
that means it is a privilege and not a right.
That's like saying because most countries practiced slavery--as was the case in ancient times--freedom is a privilege, not a right. That pretty much makes everything merely a privilege of the powerful--the ones with the most guns--not a right.
That is correct. You need govt permission in the US too if you think about, especially if we are going to get serious on mental health and gun ownership.
But in a country with a "government of the people," that would be okay.
However, it's arguable that the US is not a plutocracy--notice Trump boasting that he is able to get a conceal weapons permit "even in New York."
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.