-->
@secularmerlin
Well, can't say I don't respect an honest effort to surrender the 2a in favor of the military industrial complex, and a police state.
Muslims are like gun owners.
Posts
Total:
117
-->
@secularmerlin
Well, can't say I don't respect an honest effort to surrender the 2a in favor of the military industrial complex, and a police state, and whatever ends those are necessary.
-->
@Snoopy
That worked out well for Venezuela. Cuba too.
-->
@Greyparrot
If I get the chance I will but the mere fact that one specific person owns something does not make that thing practical or correct to own nor is it necessarily indicative of personal rights either in general or for that individual.
-->
@Snoopy
I do not necessarily support either but both are technically examples of "Well regulated melitias". Perhaps the question should not be "what does the 2nd amendment mean?" But rather "is the 2nd amendment efficacious?"
-->
@Greyparrot
@Alec
What do you think of these writers' analysis of gun zone statistics?
Or to summarise,
There is little evidence to suggest that mass shooters choose particular locations based on gun free zones. Shooters typically choose targets based on personal connection and/or the people they are targeting. (Which is why there are school shootingss and not gun store shootings).
Lott's study, which is the study used when claiming "all" or "most" shootings occur in gun free zones is criticized to have casted a too wide of a net when defining "gun free zone". And hence, inflated values.
Other studies exist which show dramatically less shootings occurring in gun free zones. These differences are due to the definitions of mass shootings and gun free zones used
-->
@secularmerlin
I don't see any government tyranny at play either.
-->
@Greyparrot
Are you suggesting that the ownership of small arms would in any way regulate the tyranny of a government which can field a multi million dollar multi branch military?
-->
@dustryder
I can easily counter with this article.
-->
@secularmerlin
This easily could be due to other factors, like states with tough gun laws coincidentally also tend to have a high GDP per capita, and rich people are less likely to commit homicide. Cities which tend to have tough gun laws, tend to have a high GDP per capita by coincidence, but despite this, they also have higher homicide rates then poor rural areas, despite being richer.
-->
@secularmerlin
I do not necessarily support either but both are technically examples of "Well regulated melitias". Perhaps the question should not be "what does the 2nd amendment mean?" But rather "is the 2nd amendment efficacious?"
What does our constitution mean is always an important question, otherwise we have no claim to the rule of law. Of course it has the desired effect but the amendment can only take so much of a beating before losing the leverage. I suspect by the time it is no longer recognized that it may already be too late for the youngest generations to salvage what is left of their formerly imperfect, but respectable institutions.
-->
@Greyparrot
And I quote "(Four others involved "unarmed citizens [who] confronted or persuaded the shooter to end the shooting.")" So it would seem that the courage to take a stand is the deciding factor and not personal armament.
-->
@dustryder
I'm not subscribed to the Washington Post, so I didn't read that article. I read the other one and it stated that 16% of mass shootings happen in gun free zones. Yet, openly gun free zones make up like 1% of the zones in the USA. Gun free zones are very rare here. So the fact that gun free zones make up an extremely small portion of the space yet account for 16% of mass shootings means that I think openly gun free zones(places that post a "gun free zone" sign ought to become discouraged or abolished.
Shooters typically choose targets based on personal connection and/or the people they are targeting.
I imagine that there is some truth to this, but lets say that there was a shooting at a school. If you arm the teachers and advertise this, then shooters will have to think twice before committing a shooting. Even if they decide to commit one (which I probably think will happen anyways, I think shooters want to die and have given up on life), then the amount of kids they kill will be low due to the arming of teachers shooting in defense of themselves and their children.
-->
@secularmerlin
Are you suggesting that the ownership of small arms would in any way regulate the tyranny of a government which can field a multi million dollar multi branch military?
Any incurred cost is considered in an invasion. During WWII our country was (mostly) trying to maintain neutrality while our future enemies were focused on invasion. The Japanese considered an American invasion, and the Germans considered invading Switzerland. At the time, both countries could have been overwhelmed at first, but were already capable enough of effective resistance. As democracy spreads, it becomes even more difficult to sustain a conflict to the point of victory. The people may not necessarily be capable of defeating malevolent actors, and in that case, they may resist and present a formidable and legitimate (sovereign) alternative until supported by a professional military. These are some pretty nasty scenarios with standing armies, where consolidation of power has been allowed to festure.
-->
@secularmerlin
Thanks for highlighting the outliers.
-->
@Greyparrot
@Alec
I can easily counter with this article.
How does that article counter the points made by the articles I posted?
I'm not subscribed to the Washington Post, so I didn't read that article. I read the other one and it stated that 16% of mass shootings happen in gun free zones. Yet, openly gun free zones make up like 1% of the zones in the USA. Gun free zones are very rare here. So the fact that gun free zones make up an extremely small portion of the space yet account for 16% of mass shootings means that I think openly gun free zones(places that post a "gun free zone" sign ought to become discouraged or abolished.
I'm not sure what you mean by zones or space here. In the sense of how you've divided up the USA into zones or spaces and then derived the 1% figure
-->
@dustryder
What do you think of these writers' analysis of gun zone statistics?Or to summarise,There is little evidence to suggest that mass shooters choose particular locations based on gun free zones. Shooters typically choose targets based on personal connection and/or the people they are targeting. (Which is why there are school shootingss and not gun store shootings).Lott's study, which is the study used when claiming "all" or "most" shootings occur in gun free zones is criticized to have casted a too wide of a net when defining "g un free zo pne". And hence, inflated values.Other studies exist which show dramatically less shootings occurring in gun free zones. These differences are due to the definitions of mass shootings and gun free zones used
Yeah, we should have to consider why it is designated "gun free". Apparently someone has decided there is some risk already, whether they finally assessed correctly or not. Still though, your average dirtbag is not going to be so disinclined to a soft target. To a perp, it is like one less thing to go wrong.
-->
@Alec
All of which is to say that statistics can be faulty or in other words your quoted statistics about Jamaica were largely meaningless. This leaves us with little to go on other than personal opinion and the twin facts that a guns only purpose is putting holes in things from far away and that having more than ones alloted number of holes is very bad for one.This easily could be due to other factors, like states with tough gun laws coincidentally also tend to have a high GDP per capita, and rich people are less likely to commit homicide. Cities which tend to have tough gun laws, tend to have a high GDP per capita by coincidence, but despite this, they also have higher homicide rates then poor rural areas, despite being richer.
--> @Snoopy
Is our stated goal preventing gun violence or preserving imperfect institutions? The two may be mutually exclusive.
-->
@secularmerlin
Is our stated goal preventing gun violence or preserving imperfect institutions? The two may be mutually exclusive.
Not necessarily. I don't recall you and I having a stated goal.
-->
@dustryder
I'm not sure what you mean by zones or space here. In the sense of how you've divided up the USA into zones or spaces and then derived the 1% figure
What I meant is is that gun free zones are rare in the US. This could be part of the reason why 16% of mass shootings happen in them. If gun free zones make up less then 16% of the area of the US, then they are more likely to have mass shootings in them.
-->
@secularmerlin
And I quote "(Four others involved "unarmed citizens [who] confronted or persuaded the shooter to end the shooting.")" So it would seem that the courage to take a stand is the deciding factor and not personal armament.
This should be backed with verifiable evidence for those interested. Its true, in such an event, the main thing is that someone does something proactive to foil the attack. It doesn't even need to stop the assailant(s) to make a considerable difference. That said, something like a gun could more often prove persuasive at that point. If someone is armed they're better equipped to engage on their own terms.
-->
@Snoopy
I did not cite this article I merely read it and found that it did not support the claims of the poster who did use it as a citation.
-->
@Snoopy
yep
-->
@Snoopy
so what you seem to be saying, if you were in such a position you'd rather choose a gun than to try and tackle, grapple or use your bare hands to stop a gun man? Seems logical to me, even Captain Obvious would agree lol
-->
@Alec
People un-ironically call themselves that and for you to get offended over a label which I think you would associate with since you believe in few rules you are an anarchist.Calling me an anarchist is an ad hominid attack. I believe in few rules.
-->
@TheRealNihilist
An anarchist believes in no rules whatsoever. An anarchist believes that rape and murder should be legal. A libertarian believes that only the things that don't infringe on anybody's rights should be legal. This means that I think murder should be illegal since that hurts the person who got killed without their consent. It means that I think rape should be illegal because that infringed on the rights of the rape victim. However, weed is fine. Guns are fine, as long as you don't want to shoot anybody with them. It means that Muslims should not be banned, but that people should be judged as individuals, so no affirmative action.
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
@Alec
is that true? citation?what % of gun owners use them for violence? 7
Takeaway from the first link:
"Guns are used to threaten and intimidate far more often than they are used in self defense. Most self reported self defense gun uses may well be illegal and against the interests of society."
Takeaways from the second link:
"Guns are not used millions of times each year in self-defense"
"Most purported self-defense gun uses are gun uses in escalating arguments, and are both socially undesirable and illegal"
"Firearms are used far more often to intimidate than in self-defense"
"Guns in the home are used more often to intimidate intimates than to thwart crime"
"Self-defense gun use is rare and not more effective at preventing injury than other protective actions"
Guns are primarily used for protection and homicide is from a percentage standpoint, very small, just like terrorist attacks. A typical gun will almost never get shot unless it's for hunting or target shooting.
I would like data for "Guns are primarily used for protection".
Hunting is a form of animal violence.
Tyranny apologists lol.
-->
@Alec
An anarchist believes in no rules whatsoever.
No they don't. No rule is a rule therefore an anarchist can't be for no rules because no rule is a rule. I don't think you understand what anarchy is if you think this. I will give you a definition. Anarchy: absence or denial of any authority or established order.
An anarchist believes that rape and murder should be legal.
Evidence?
A libertarian believes that only the things that don't infringe on anybody's rights should be legal.
Rights are whatever the government deems to be enough of something to protect. With this mind in stopping murderers to murder is an infringement on their freedom. So basically protecting someone against what someone else wants to do is against freedom.
This means that I think murder should be illegal since that hurts the person who got killed without their consent.
Not a libertarian position. Libertarian: a person who believes that people should be free to think and behave as theywant and should not have limits put on them by governments:
So basically limits as in protection against murderers is anti-libertarian.
It means that I think rape should be illegal because that infringed on the rights of the rape victim.
Since stopping a rapist to do what they want to do freely is anti-libertarian.
However, weed is fine. Guns are fine, as long as you don't want to shoot anybody with them.
So basically you don't have an argument against nuclear bombs, tanks or fighter jets until someone uses them.
It means that Muslims should not be banned, but that people should be judged as individuals, so no affirmative action.
You are talking about two different things here. One about Muslims and another about affirmative action. They do not link. Affirmative action is making it easier for some people which results it making it harder for other people. Muslims banning is not the same as affirmative action.
-->
@TheRealNihilist
You probably won't need a gun, but it's better to be safe then sorry. The article said that .9% of gun owners use a gun in self defense. The homicide rate is about 4 per 100,000 in the US per year. Even over the course of a lifetime, the odds of a gun being used to kill at least one innocent person is less then .2%.
Hunting is a form of animal violence.
Unless society makes vegetarianism mandatory, it's kindof a double standard to ban hunting. I say this as someone who is mostly vegan.