Do Americans need weapons?

[Cardinal Carminative]

No, Sparkles, you are once again making the mistake of flattering yourself.

I don't think my post actually flattered me.

You started out by ostentatiously withholding your approval, as though you thought that was going to matter to me.

I don't think it was done ostentatiously.

And I am now officially bored with your narcissistic attempt to make this conversation all about discussing you and your unearned ego

My sincerest apologies. It is probably hard to bore you and here I've gone and done that very thing. Again, please accept my apologies.

, to deflect from the topic and your inability to make an argument beyond, "It's scary for other people to own guns, I hope I can make them feel ashamed for owning them by telling them I think badly about them".

Again, I know that glory hole won't attend itself, so I will let you get back to it. Again, my apologies for boring you or failing to appreciate your greatness and that I should have rightfully accepted your spew as the pure golden shower it was intended to be.

Please forgive me. I did not know I was in the presence of the Lord.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

No, Sparkles, you are once again making the mistake of flattering yourself.

You started out by ostentatiously withholding your approval, as though you thought that was going to matter to me. I informed you that you should wait to withhold your approval from someone who cares. You conveniently forgot that you started it and are now trying to play that I made my statement apropos of nothing.

Learn to read for context.

And I am now officially bored with your narcissistic attempt to make this conversation all about discussing you and your unearned ego, to deflect from the topic and your inability to make an argument beyond, "It's scary for other people to own guns, I hope I can make them feel ashamed for owning them by telling them I think badly about them".

Here, I made this for you. As a "peace offering". Enjoy!

 

[Failzero]

Did the CHAZ / Chop occupiers in Portland need an infusion
Of weapons ?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

No it isn't. The left routinely tries to outlaw pistol grips on semi-auto long guns.



None of those cases change the reality that progressives routinely try to outlaw pistol grips on semi-auto long guns.



Progressives are not liberals. Their routine attempts to violate everyone's civil liberties is the opposite of liberalism.



That isn't a fact.

The Second Amendment does have limits, just as all rights do. If there were no limits there would only be a single right to do anything and everything.

But the Second Amendment is absolute. If a law is in conflict with the Second Amendment, the law is unconstitutional.



No it isn't. Cecilie1200 is entirely correct.



Yes they do.



Progressives seek to do exactly that.



Not a lie. That is exactly what progressives are trying to do.

You’re a liar, like most on the right.

Liberals work to protect and defend citizens’ rights; conservatives work to violate those rights.

And none of the firearm regulatory measures proposed by liberals violate the Second Amendment; the Supreme Court has never ruled as to the constitutionality of measures such as UBCs or magazine capacity restrictions – consequently, liberals do not seek to violate citizens’ rights, hence the fact you’re a liar.

 

[Captain Caveman]

Where do you think the evil doers get their guns?

If you have a nation in which there are sufficient guns in circulation such that every man, woman and child could have one it means that there is a much higher probability that guns will be stolen or misplaced or otherwise get into the hands of people who want to do harm.

This is why the sheer number of guns in our society becomes a problem. MORE GUNS = higher probability of guns making it into the hands of those who wish to do harm.

As for people being able to defend themselves: well that's a noble ideal and certainly one that would be nice. But the fact of the matter is study after study after study shows that guns kept in the home are far more likely to be used against people in that same home (murders, suicides, etc.) and few guns are actually utilized in terms of "self defense"


From THIS SOURCE:
9-10. Few criminals are shot by decent law-abiding citizens

Using data from surveys of detainees in six jails from around the nation, we worked with a prison physician to determine whether criminals seek hospital medical care when they are shot. Criminals almost always go to the hospital when they are shot. To believe fully the claims of millions of self-defense gun uses each year would mean believing that decent law-abiding citizens shot hundreds of thousands of criminals. But the data from emergency departments belie this claim, unless hundreds of thousands of wounded criminals are afraid to seek medical care. But virtually all criminals who have been shot went to the hospital, and can describe in detail what happened there.

May, John P; Hemenway, David. Oen, Roger; Pitts, Khalid R. Medical Care Solicitation by Criminals with Gunshot Wound Injuries: A Survey of Washington DC Jail Detainees. Journal of Trauma. 2000; 48:130-132.

May, John P; Hemenway, David. Do Criminals Go to the Hospital When They are Shot? Injury Prevention. 2002; 8:236-238.



11. Self-defense gun use is rare and not more effective at preventing injury than other protective actions

Victims use guns in less than 1% of contact crimes, and women never use guns to protect themselves against sexual assault (in more than 300 cases). Victims using a gun were no less likely to be injured after taking protective action than victims using other forms of protective action. Compared to other protective actions, the National Crime Victimization Surveys provide little evidence that self-defense gun use is uniquely beneficial in reducing the likelihood of injury or property loss.

This article helps provide accurate information concerning self-defense gun use. It shows that many of the claims about the benefits of gun ownership are largely myths.

Hemenway D, Solnick SJ. The epidemiology of self-defense gun use: Evidence from the National Crime Victimization Surveys 2007-2011. Preventive Medicine. 2015; 79: 22-27.

As any sane person knows, gun incidents and self defence by gun are both tiny tiny percentages but gun nuts make out they happen 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 52 weeks of the year. It's their little fallacy to justify the gun chaos, where their only reason for the chaos is, "We like guns".

Now, I've been over it a thousands times about sensible gun regs and enforcement, now I'm just waiting for the bumbling fools to come rushing in saying I support banning guns. I don't think they're a bright crowd.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

As any sane person knows, gun incidents and self defence by gun are both tiny tiny percentages but gun nuts make out they happen 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 52 weeks of the year. It's their little fallacy to justify the gun chaos, where their only reason for the chaos is, "We like guns".

Now, I've been over it a thousands times about sensible gun regs and enforcement, now I'm just waiting for the bumbling fools to come rushing in saying I support banning guns. I don't think they're a bright crowd.

Lying about people wanting to ‘ban’ guns is what conservatives usually resort to.

 

[Open Bolt]

As any sane person knows, gun incidents and self defence by gun are both tiny tiny percentages but gun nuts make out they happen 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 52 weeks of the year.

You Freedom Haters can deny reality all you want, but lots of people do defend themselves with guns.

It's their little fallacy to justify the gun chaos, where their only reason for the chaos is, "We like guns".

Wrong. No one here is bothering to justify anything.

There is hardly chaos here. Get a grip.

Now, I've been over it a thousands times about sensible gun regs and enforcement,

It's funny how everyone who supports fascism or opposes civil liberties will always invoke some version of the term "sensible".

now I'm just waiting for the bumbling fools to come rushing in saying I support banning guns. I don't think they're a bright crowd.

You are not qualified to assess the intelligence of people who are smarter than you are.

 

[Open Bolt]

You’re a liar, like most on the right.

Wrong. You are the only liar here.

Liberals work to protect and defend citizens’ rights;

Wrong. Progressives are not liberals.

And wrong again. Progressives intentionally violate people's rights for fun.

And none of the firearm regulatory measures proposed by liberals violate the Second Amendment;

Wrong. Progressives are not liberals.

And wrong again. Outlawing pistol grips on semi-auto long guns violates the Second Amendment.

the Supreme Court has never ruled as to the constitutionality of measures such as UBCs or magazine capacity restrictions

That doesn't make it OK for you to deliberately violate people's civil liberties.

consequently, liberals do not seek to violate citizens’ rights,

Wrong. Progressives are not liberals.

And wrong again. Progressives deliberately violate people's rights for fun.

hence the fact you’re a liar.

Wrong again. You are the only liar here.

Lying about people wanting to ‘ban’ guns is what conservatives usually resort to.

The truth sure is inconvenient for you, but no. The truth is not a lie.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

You are the only liar here.


You are the only liar here.

I am reminded of a post I saw a while back:

This term "lie" is really overused on the internet.

An untrue statement could be an honest mistake instead of a lie.

But then I am reminded of this:

It's why you lie all the time.

Liar.

Such a strange thing to see someone throw the lable "Liar" around at people and simultaneously complain about its overuse.

Interesting.

 

[Open Bolt]

Such a strange thing to see someone throw the lable "Liar" around at people and simultaneously complain about its overuse.

Yes, but enough is enough. That guy has no interest in the truth, and he incessantly lies about other people by falsely accusing them of being liars.

Sometimes the best defense is a good offense.

 

[hadit]

Yet conservatives spend excessive amounts of time doing just that – ‘justifying’ gun ownership.

I'm not, which is the point. Gun grabbers totally ignore the Constitution when they insist on arguing justification, or screech that no one "needs" a certain type of gun or amount of ammo, or anything like that. It's a pointless exercise.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

I'm not, which is the point. Gun grabbers totally ignore the Constitution when they insist on arguing justification, or screech that no one "needs" a certain type of gun or amount of ammo,

Not to nitpick but it isn't the "gun grabbers" who did that... The Supreme Court already noted that the 2A is not an unlimited right. So there are limits on your "Right".

or anything like that. It's a pointless exercise.

The gun debate doesn't HAVE to be pointless. But the Pro-2A group has their standard response of "It's my right per the Constitution so I don't have to care ONE WHIT about what YOU LOT want."

That's fine so far as it goes. But America is also capable of changing the Constitution and often overcorrecting when things get really bad. We willingly gave up most of our civil liberties after 9/11.

Now imagine a day in which the majority of Americans get SO OUTRAGED at another mass shooting: it might cause an overcorrection that doesn't take into account the needs of the 2A defenders.

The thing many of us on the left are trying to get you folks to do is meet us at least PARTIALLY in the middle. Yeah, some folks on the left have a rough set of talking points, but honestly you cannot point to ANY major party that promises to take away your guns. The will just doesn't exist.

What we would like for you to do is at least admit that guns may play a role in the off-the-charts level of gun violence we have in this society. And that we are unique in how many guns we own and what our gun homicide rate is.

But you guys never do that. So the Left gets more and more and more bent and finally throws it right back at you.

If you are not strategic about this, you may very well lose something that is EXTREMELY important to you. America has done it before.

 

[Open Bolt]

Not to nitpick but it isn't the "gun grabbers" who did that... The Supreme Court already noted that the 2A is not an unlimited right. So there are limits on your "Right".

There is no comparison between "saying that there are limits on the Second Amendment (as on all rights)" and "insisting that we justify exercising our rights, or saying that we don't need the very sorts of guns that we have the right to have".

The first is correct and acceptable. The second is incorrect and unacceptable.

Now imagine a day in which the majority of Americans get SO OUTRAGED at another mass shooting: it might cause an overcorrection that doesn't take into account the needs of the 2A defenders.

An empty threat.

The thing many of us on the left are trying to get you folks to do is meet us at least PARTIALLY in the middle.

On the surface, that sounds like a non-starter. Middle ground between "having my freedom" and "being enslaved" sounds like nowhere I want to be.

But perhaps middle ground is just a slogan. I'm certainly willing to try to find common ground with the enemy.

honestly you cannot point to ANY major party that promises to take away your guns. The will just doesn't exist.

Most Democrats want to do exactly that.

Not all Democrats of course. I certainly do not want to do that.

What we would like for you to do is at least admit that guns may play a role in the off-the-charts level of gun violence we have in this society. And that we are unique in how many guns we own and what our gun homicide rate is.
But you guys never do that.

I've admitted it before. I forget if it was in this thread or another thread.

If 100% of the population has guns, most murders will involve guns. If 0% of the population has guns, most murders will not involve guns. That is pretty straightforward.

I do question though why it matters that someone is killed with guns versus some other kind of weapon. They are just as dead either way.

If you are not strategic about this, you may very well lose something that is EXTREMELY important to you. America has done it before.

An empty threat.

 

[Man of Ethics]

Long life and happiness to the 2 million+ people whose lives are saved by guns every year. Seems like they found quite an important use for weapons "except murder and suicide".

Given that only 200 -300 homicides per year are classified as justifiable, I find these statistics not credible. Some studies may cite these statistics, but they are not credible.

 

[Man of Ethics]

Most of whom die at the hands of criminals who don't give two shits for gun laws.
And that number doesn't seem real.

Most of about 32,000 people who die by guns each year are suicides.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Given that only 200 -300 homicides per year are classified as justifiable, I find these statistics not credible. Some studies may cite these statistics, but they are not credible.

Sorry, Sparkles, but YOU decided that defensive uses for guns are only those ending in justifiable homicide. I never said that, nor do FBI and CDC statistics view it that way, so spare me your fucking straw man arguments.

If you want to conduct both sides of this argument yourself so that you finally get to "win" instead of being beaten like a drum, I suggest you get off the computer and go sit in front of a mirror to do it. Do not waste my time "refuting" the point you decided to attribute to me again.

 

[Open Bolt]

Given that only 200 -300 homicides per year are classified as justifiable, I find these statistics not credible. Some studies may cite these statistics, but they are not credible.

They are quite credible. Most criminals flee after a show of force. There is seldom a need to fire a gun when defending yourself.

Granted, gunfights do occur. But plenty of criminals are seen off without gunfire erupting.

 

[Captain Caveman]

Lying about people wanting to ‘ban’ guns is what conservatives usually resort to.

Gun culture needs changed, can only happen as older generations die out. They're stuck in their ways, looking at this board, some are still stuck in 1776.

 

[Open Bolt]

Gun culture needs changed, can only happen as older generations die out. They're stuck in their ways, looking at this board, some are still stuck in 1776.

Sorry, but future generations of Americans will be raised to embrace freedom too. You're just going to have to accept that America is going to remain free forever.

A large swath of the EU is going to remain free forever as well. Don't expect the Czech Republic to ever give up their freedom either. There is an arc of countries from Finland through Switzerland that will always want freedom.

 

[Blues Man]

Wrong.

No one advocates for any such thing.

Regardless the murder rates, regardless the gun crime and violence, guns will always be easily accessible, available, and present in society.

So then why the push for more and more gun laws when we do not enforce the laws we already have on the books if not to make it harder for law abiding people to own guns?