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.
In spite of the terrorist attacks France averages 600 some homicides a year, from a nation of 65 million people. The state of Georgia averages same number of murders as France but only has a population of 10 million people. In Georgia guns are the weapon of choice, 85 to 90% of all homicides are committed with firearms. In France where guns are very restricted 30% of all murder are committed with a firearm. See the patterns begin to emerge. More guns = more murder
Here's where statistics are open to interpretation. You see those statistics as proof that more guns equal more murders. I see them as proof that if you restrict guns, folks find other ways to kill people. As in France, where they other means kill 60% of murder victims.
The shooter made no illegal purchases, therefore it is reasonable to assume that if high capacity magazines, bump stocks and similar legal mods, etc were made illegal, than at least some of those deaths and injuries might have been prevented.
Not really. A belt loop or rubberband will replace a bump stock. It takes a 1/10 of a second or less to change a magazine.
But how come I thought you were all originalists. Lol.
Well, if you want to assume you know what "you all" (whoever they are) know then why come here...obviously you know everything already. I'm not an originalist, just someone using common sense and pointing out the fact that nothing about the amendment talks about type of weapons, and the logic of being armed implies you do it to protect yourself, and you can't protect yourself if the majority of what other people have as a weapon significantly outclasses you musket.
I don't care about your views on guns, but if you cant look at those facts from a rational perspective its hard to have the argument on how to prevent gun violence.
OK. Let's say the writers of the second amendment DID possess some super human power and would know exactly the type of weaponry available in the 21st century.
Does that mean you have to stay with it? Even when it isn't working? Can you not say, heck they were wrong about slavery, maybe they got this gun thing all wrong to?
Maybe it is like the plan to prevent global warming by cleaning up the environment. Suppose we did the clean up and it turns out the cause of global warming was something else? Well, at least we cleaned the place up, right? No more crap in the ocean, and the air is better? Nothing wrong with that, right?
Well suppose we did all the small reasonable things to cut back on gun deaths and people still got killed by crazy people. It would still be a better world, right? Like the song says, anyway?
The statistics seem to indicate that suicide and accidental discharge are still the leading causes, outside of gang violence, right? Or is that just for young people?
first of all statistics don't suggest accidental discharge is a leading cause. that's just crazy.
as for Suicide, Japan has a vastly higher suicide rate than the US and they have no guns. you cannot say removal of guns with reduce suicide rates. That is not supported by the literature. period.
The two largest groups where gun violence takes the most lives are
1. men between 15 and 35 killed by other men between 15 and 35.
2. women killed in domestic violence situations.
On the first the evidence seems to suggest early prevention where young men at risk for behavior that will lead them to either kill or be killed is the best deterrent. That takes the form of mentoring programs etc... or at least so says some of the things I have read of late. I am all for such things.
on the second, arming and training women who have been threatened with domestic violence, has proven to be a huge reducer of death. women carrying firearms levels the playing field with men who are stronger. Also early enforcement of restraining orders and lowering the threshold needed for a woman to get one seem to be helpful.
as for direct legislation related to firearm restriction. That might not even be needed. ATF rules were put in place that allowed the sell of so called "bump stop" devices. That rule change could eliminate that issue. although passing a law that outlaws the sale of gun modifiers that make simi-auto guns effectively into full auto.
restricting law abiding citizens from purchasing fire arms is a non starter.
OK. Let's say the writers of the second amendment DID possess some super human power and would know exactly the type of weaponry available in the 21st century.
Does that mean you have to stay with it? Even when it isn't working? Can you not say, heck they were wrong about slavery, maybe they got this gun thing all wrong to?
I know I would.
So your argument is they are wrong about the fact that in order to be free, you need to be able to protect yourself from others with weapons?
Neither you or I need to be in their heads. They were generally considered to be very smart people, very smart (heck even stupid people) knew and know advancements are coming. You think a guy like Ben Franklin who was one part inventor/scientist was unaware of the fact that technology and manufacturing advances were coming?
I like that you start off claiming to know that "no one will be able to get actually into their heads" then you end your argument by making a statement claiming that if they were alive today that you know what would be in their heads.
Logic escapes many of these arguments about guns, this post makes that painfully obvious.
No one can get into their ACTUAL thought process about technological advances.
What history DOES tell you, is that technology moved VERY SLOWLY, and the chances of them having an understanding the changes over 200 years would be very limited when it comes to technology.
Here's where statistics are open to interpretation. You see those statistics as proof that more guns equal more murders. I see them as proof that if you restrict guns, folks find other ways to kill people. As in France, where they other means kill 60% of murder victims.
If that were true, then the murder rates would be the same around the world. Guns make killing easier and less
" personal ".
Imagine how much safer the UK will be if every ISIS sympathizer had ready access to AR-15's and 40 round mags. I am sure it would be a much much safer place.
They actually prefer the AK-47, with good reason. And they will eventually come home to roost, along with many refugee buddies who sneak in under the surveillance. It is a very frightening prospect.
Fortunately Great Britain is about the size of Utah and the metro areas are covered with video cameras, so the problem there is manageable.
"Be afraid, be very afraid"
So your argument is they are wrong about the fact that in order to be free, you need to be able to protect yourself from others with weapons?
In THEIR time it was. The British remember?
Today? Not so much.
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.
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.
