Is it ok to rape the 2A because the 4A has been abused?
Fskimospy certainly seems pretty blasé about the NSA spying and abuses if not complete ignoring of the 4th Amendment. I guess to feel safe from a relatively remote chance of dying in a mass shooting that he'd be OK with abridging rights if the majority agreed with it and that he'd be part of that majority. I'd rather hoped a progressive thinker like him would be on the side of the Civil Rights marchers, and the people getting put into Japanese internment camps, and the like. I personally think that rights mean we sometimes need to accept some level of small amount of danger from others we'd rather avoid, for example I certainly wish everyone would get vaccinated but I'm not willing to send government in with guns to force compliance for shots either. Seems like he'd be fine sending in government troops to enforce his desired gun bans.
If most of overly left anti-2A AT P&N (generally speaking) is laughing at me in regards to my comments on guns, then I'm very likely saying things that are good for America. Good cheerleading attempt, though.
Of course not, don’t be silly. Every constitutional right is always measured by the utility they give society vs. the costs they put in place. The 4th amendment should be made more expansive again and the 2nd should be restricted. This is because the 2nd amendment has limited utility at best, so enduring costs to keep it as it is doesn’t make sense.
According to your own conservative estimates guns are used hundreds of times a day to stop a crime, potentially save lives. I feel the 2A is plenty utilitarian. I'm so very happy the forefathers had the foresight to codify this right in the constitution, talking to people here shows how much this right is under attack.
Likely or unlikely isn't the problem, this is. Make you wonder about that "developed country" tag for the US. As for that constitutional thing tell it to conservatives who keep trying to privatize the post office.This is the part I don't get. Despite media coverage of mass shootings and firearms homicides in general, the cold stark reality is that one a VERY UNLIKELY to die due to a gun in this country, despite one in three people owning a gun. The anti-constitutional types pick and choose what they like and don't like, and then hold the law to different standards depending on their personal preferences. That isn't how it should be.
Of course not, don’t be silly. Every constitutional right is always measured by the utility they give society vs. the costs they put in place. The 4th amendment should be made more expansive again and the 2nd should be restricted. This is because the 2nd amendment has limited utility at best, so enduring costs to keep it as it is doesn’t make sense.
1) empirical research indicates more than half of those ‘defensive’ uses are likely crimes in and of themselves, meaning that the defensive use you cite is a net increase in criminal activity. Lol. Such utility!!
2) guns are used to commit crimes vastly more often than they are used to prevent crimes.
It’s odd that you consider the widespread use of firearms in the commission of crimes to be an argument for the second amendment, haha. Let me guess though, the empirical research doesn’t count because reasons.
Look at the list of rebellions in the USA - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_rebellions_in_the_United_States
It was not until the onset of prohibition and organized crime until any federal firearms acts were passed to limit the 2nd amendment, which is actually simply a tax, then the GCA of 1968 was in response to an assassination. Three previous assassinations occurred before Kennedy as well.
Firearms have had a destructive part in America since the very onset. Yet only until after the Cold War and Russian Communist Infiltration have we taken measures to actually restrict firearms in this country. Very alarming. McCarthy was right, our country is not safe anymore.
Likely or unlikely isn't the problem, this is. Make you wonder about that "developed country" tag for the US. As for that constitutional thing tell it to conservatives who keep trying to privatize the post office.
My comment of "hundreds" takes that into account. Still, guns are used hundreds of times a day for good purpose. And if we use less conservative numbers, some would say guns are used thousands of times a day... just depends on your source.
Widespread use of firearms for legal purposes, which you cannot argue doesn't happen, is rampant, even by your own numbers. Getting those that would use them to do harm should be a goal, but that doesn't take away from the reality that they are used quite often for good and for hobby, sport, putting food on the table.
This is nonsense. If they are used vastly more often to commit crimes than to stop them their effect on crime is an argument against them, not for them. Basic logic.
So again we’re back to a utility question. Is keeping a widespread instrument of crime legal on balance a good thing because people enjoy it as s hobby? Of course not.
In the past I suspect support for gun control had far more to do with armed black people than communists. This is one way I always thought progressives could get conservatives on board with more gun restrictions. Revitalize the black panthers and have dozens of black people roaming the streets of towns everywhere with rifles, looking after the rights of blacks people. This is not a joke, I imagine it would be highly effective.
Guns are not used in crimes more often than not. There are 100,000,000 gun owners with 300,000,000 guns. I highly doubt a majority of those guns will be used in a crime today, this year, this decade. There are millions of people carrying their gun every day that are not using them for a crime, but are using them exactly 100% to their lawful objective.
This is the part I don't get. Despite media coverage of mass shootings and firearms homicides in general, the cold stark reality is that one a VERY UNLIKELY to die due to a gun in this country, despite one in three people owning a gun. The anti-constitutional types pick and choose what they like and don't like, and then hold the law to different standards depending on their personal preferences. That isn't how it should be.
Likely or unlikely isn't the problem, this is. Make you wonder about that "developed country" tag for the US. As for that constitutional thing tell it to conservatives who keep trying to privatize the post office.
Plotted.
Its sorted by ownership rates. As you can see, ownership is all over the place in terms of homicides.
Saying ‘sure guns are used to kill tens of thousands of people each year but they are used a lot more for amusement’ seems like a piss poor argument.
According to your own conservative estimates guns are used hundreds of times a day to stop a crime, potentially save lives. I feel the 2A is plenty utilitarian. I'm so very happy the forefathers had the foresight to codify this right in the constitution, talking to people here shows how much this right is under attack.
My comment of "hundreds" takes that into account. Still, guns are used hundreds of times a day for good purpose. And if we use less conservative numbers, some would say guns are used thousands of times a day... just depends on your source.
Widespread use of firearms for legal purposes, which you cannot argue doesn't happen, is rampant, even by your own numbers. Getting guns away from those that would use them to do harm should be a goal, but that doesn't take away from the reality that they are used quite often for good and for hobby, sport, putting food on the table.
Well death by mass shooting is indeed pretty rare on a per capita basis, although they are of course extremely newsworthy. IIRC mass shooting deaths are pretty much at the bottom of mortality tables along with other rare events like death by dog bites, getting struck by lightning, etc.
The argument for restricting firearms due to mass shootings is really quite a different one than the arguments for restricting firearms due to typical homicides. For example, rifles generally and assault rifles in particular are exceptionally rare tools for committing the typical homicide that's not a mass shooting. For the stereotypical drug dealer/gang member type homicide then the almost surgical restriction you'd want to put in place was .25 and .32 pistols as they are overwhelmingly what's used in those shootings.
Defend alcohol (several times the body count of guns) and tobacco (~14x the body count due to guns) please. The reality is that there are things that harm us far more than guns that do far less good for society that are perfectly legal and not overly restricted.
But regardless of that, as I pointed out, guns have a lot more use than just amusement. The examples I gave above are things that kill us by the tens of thousands that exist for little more than amusement, guns have real utilitarian use. Given their existence and level of regulation, I will not accept further regulation on my 2A rights.
We are discussing guns, not alcohol. The virtues of restricting guns exist entirely independently of whatever society chooses to do about alcohol. This is whataboutism.
Right, but that's because your argument is an emotional one, not a logical one. I'm still waiting for any utility guns provide outside of amusement, by the way. We already covered they are net causers of crime, so it's not that.
We are discussing guns, not alcohol. The virtues of restricting guns exist entirely independently of whatever society chooses to do about alcohol. This is whataboutism.
Right, but that's because your argument is an emotional one, not a logical one. I'm still waiting for any utility guns provide outside of amusement, by the way. We already covered they are net causers of crime, so it's not that.
We are discussing guns, not alcohol. The virtues of restricting guns exist entirely independently of whatever society chooses to do about alcohol. This is whataboutism.
Right, but that's because your argument is an emotional one, not a logical one. I'm still waiting for any utility guns provide outside of amusement, by the way. We already covered they are net causers of crime, so it's not that.
It isn't whataboutism, its a comparison. There is nothing wrong at all with looking at our rights vs. risk to society and seeing how one compares to others when discussing limiting rights of all. Looking at things in a vacuum creates very uneven results that are based on personal preferences, and not fair and real numbers.
I've provided plenty of examples, from lawful carriers of guns (by the millions) to hunters, to hobbyist use. And when we look at guns and fairly compare their cost to society to other rights and liberties, guns are already plenty well restricted.
What happened in this thread wasn't a gun issue, it was a systematic failure issue.