https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NIwf3d7hP9g
Printable View
The thing is, that gentleman has a series of well thought out and impassioned points that are relevant, but he is not the majority. Almost across the board, the majority of Americans claim to want less guns and more regulation of firearms.
http://news.gallup.com/poll/1645/guns.aspx
In fact for the overwhelming majority of the last 2 decades (so a generation?) gun owners in America have been the minority.
I am in favor of private gun ownership, I just simply believe that it should be significantly harder to obtain a gun than a driver's license.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mojouw
I adamantly disagree
I won't bother to look at the poll because quite frankly I do not have any faith in such things ( no path to victory ring a bell about polls ? )
a drivers license is a privilege and not a constitutional guaranteed right .
cars kill more people in this country a year than guns .
drunk drivers kill more people every year than are murdered with guns .
firearms related death statistics comprise all forms of firearms death including suicide and death at the hands of a Police officer in the line of duty thus are a misleading ( intentionally so ) statistic . those same statistics include the deaths or armed perps who are killed by home owners defending their own lives and lives of family members ..so calling the stats skewed is putting it very mildly
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DaXMX_4W0AY3Mca.jpg:large
Didn't bring up death rates at all, not sure why you jumped to that. If you do not believe basic statistics, not sure what path forward there is for dialogue. I mean I am not sure how a poll can misrepresent legal gun ownership. Every study, poll, report from actual gun manufacturers, etc indicates that while there are a great deal of privately owned firearms in the United States (roughly 300 million from a quick Google search) these firearms are owned by roughly 1 in 3 households. Which means, the majority of Americans do not own a (legal) firearm.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dwinsgames
So it is false to argue that gun ownership is the majority status in the United States as a whole. In certain areas of the country it almost certainly is. The support of the principle of gun ownership may also be higher than 1 in 3 - but the actual possession of gun is simply not the majority overall across the country.
Don't know why that is controversial, hard to accept, or otherwise debatable.
As for Constitutional rights - how about voting? Why is harder to prove you are a legitimate voter than it is to purchase a gun? Again, I'm not about banning guns, taking away guns individuals already possess, etc -- but it just seems kinda BS that some Constitutional rights are far harder to exercise than others. And only one can directly lead to the harm or death of another person...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mojouw
see the bold is why we can not have a logical debate on the topic ...
have you ever in your lifetime went to a gun shop and tried to buy a gun ?
if you have then you know for a fact what you said could not be further from the truth ... just more of the misinformation spread by the media and people soak it up like a sponge for no other reason than they haven't a clue based on first hand knowledge and therefore can not call bullshit ....
here is why it is wrong ....
I can go to my polling place and vote takes me 5 mins to drive there , 30 seconds to show ID , 2 mins to cast my ballot and 5 more mins to drive back home the entire process door to door in less than 15 total mins time
hell I can not even get to a gun shop in 15 mins time ...
once there even if you know EXACTLY what you are after you spend a good 15 mins filling out paperwork ( paperwork I should not have to fill out since I have a valid concealed carry permit so an extensive background check has already been done ) once I am done the dealer has some paperwork to do and then a phone call to the national instacheck background check ( through the FBI ) at which time my social is given to them and they run a check on me .... at the end of the call the dealer is provided with a pass or fail and a number to associate with my purchase ....
so to say you can buy a gun quicker than you can vote ( or as Obama said buy a book ) is a complete fallacy
Because you have to pass a federal back ground check every time you vote?
While nothing I could say will change your mind - I'll give it a whirl.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dwinsgames
Try attempting to exercise your right to vote without a birth certificate. This is usually the foundational form that allows for all other identification to be possible. Many Americans simply do not have birth certificates (here is a good example if you are interested - http://facetofacegermantown.org/news...-staff-writer/). This is becoming less of a problem as the generations of people born outside of the formal system is basically dying off -- but it is still a real barrier to a significant amount of people. Primarily some combination of rural, poor, and minority voters.
You said you drive to your polling place - what if you don't have a car and there is no or limited public transport to your polling place? What if that polling place is too far to walk to? While there are other means of voting (mail) the lack of a conveniently accessible polling place creates a significant barrier for many poor, elderly, and rural voters.
There are numerous other examples, but these two are some of the most comparable.
Additionally, I full realize there are significant paperwork and background checks for gun purchases and permits. Clearly as someone who has gone through the process, you are fully aware of it. Still, getting a gun is about the easiest and most straightforward thing possible and you can even sidestep portions of the process if you buy your gun in the right state through the right setting that sidesteps much of the paperwork. Voting? No such luck in most places.
But we have really wandered far afield of my original and extremely limited point/purpose: The majority of Americans do not own a firearm. That was literally my only point. Again, not sure why that is so controversial.
sorry bro , I do not buy that logic either .. I registered to vote through the DMV ( I believe its been many years ago ) I did not need a birth certificate to do so my drivers license number was sufficient as the state has all pertinant information valid through that 1 document ....Quote:
Originally Posted by Mojouw
that said this not only tells us what the 2nd amendment is for it also tells us the framers intent of such
please do read that sign in its entirety
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DZiwdipXUAAalAK.jpg:large
Pennsylvania state constitution goes even further , instead of the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed ...replace the word infringed with Questioned .....
I never questioned the right to bear arms and I never seriously suggested enacting anything that would infringe on that right either. I just get really tired of any side of any issue presuming to speak for the "majority" simply because the people the know and are related to mostly agree with them. That is, for most people, the core group they draw their opinions from. Most Americans don't own a gun. That's the only thing I have been saying. I have a ton of views on a variety of issues, where I fully understand that somewhere between a slight majority to an overwhelming majority hold different viewpoints/actions than I do. Great - that is the point of the whole system we live under. But I never presume to represent the majority of people just because I really believe strongly about something. In most cases, that just shuts off our minds to other points of view.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dwinsgames
As to the voting and ID issues it is a complex topic that likely needs not be delved too far into. But the bottom line is that there are significant hurdles for some Americans for voting. Individual cases may vary and again, do not always represent all situations.
Bottom line - I don't own a gun and likely never will. But I support the right of anyone who subjects themselves to a legal process to own however many guns they damn well please. The only thing I would change if granted the power is the so called "gun show loophole" where in certain settings a gun can be purchased with little to no ID, paperwork, and background checking. In order to try and keep things sensible, I think there should remain a provision for passing on firearms through families that does not require state intervention.
I may additionally strongly consider some sort of mechanism to link mental health risk assessment to this process - but someone smarter than me would need to figure out how that works.
But again, I am wandering further and further from my overall point.
I do not agree that the average American should have military grade weapons in their home.
However, the constitution does give that right to the average American. And that is the part I do agree with. I am against any movement that takes rights away from the average American.
I grew up with guns in the house so maybe I am biased. But I completely agree that the entire reason we live in a free society now, is because we have the right to bear arms, and not just the hunting rifle variety, but a right to the military grade weapons as well. How and why do people slip through the system is a completely different topic for conversation, and the conversation that needs to be had rather than what guns are within my rights to own.
The "gun show loophole" is nothing more than a myth that the left started. Any gun sold at a gun show is subject to the exact same process of buying in a store.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mojouw
Quote:
7 Gun Control Myths That Just Won’t Die
In reality, the so-called “gun show loophole” is a myth. It does not exist. There is no loophole in federal law that specifically exempts gun show transactions from any other laws normally applied to gun sales. Not one.
If you purchase a firearm from a federal firearms licensee (FFL) regardless of the location of the transaction — a gun store, a gun show, a gun dealer’s car trunk, etc. — that FFL must confirm that you are legally allowed to purchase that gun. That means the FFL must either run a background check on you via the federal NICS database, or confirm that you have passed a background check by examining your state-issued concealed carry permit or your government-issued purchase permit. There are zero exceptions to this federal requirement.
http://thefederalist.com/2015/10/07/...just-wont-die/
good post with exception to the bold ...Quote:
Originally Posted by Born2Steel
an AR 15 or AK 47 that is legally owned by private citizens are NOT Military grade firearms
an M16 or M4 is military versions of the AR they have burst mode/ full auto capabilities that the AR simply does not have
same with the AK the civilian versions like the AR have no burst mode or full auto mode
if either did they would be $8,000 and up in price and would require a federal tax stamp in order to purchase ...
this " military grade crap" is the evening news and uninformed politicians spouting off about things in which they have no clue about ...
semi auto 1 shot fired for every 1 trigger pull not much different in that found in old wheel guns ( 6 shooters / revolvers ) used in the old west
one of my AR's here
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DUazJReVAAAjh5x.jpg:large
note the bullet chart ( ar is .223 / 5.56 ) I hunt deer with a 30.06 note the size in that round also in pic below
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DaOncoWX0AA8gzc.jpg:large
lastly the primary 2 reasons the US Military went from 30 caliber to the M16 ( 22 caliber ) is
1) ammo weight was a huge factor you can carry way more rounds of smaller lighter ammo into battle
2) it is a far less lethal round , meaning you could shoot 1 person and effectively take 2-3 more out of the battle for a time while they drug their wounded compatriot to safer ground
Poor phrasing on my part. There are some, not all, vendors at places like gun shows, swap meets, whatever the heck - that are NOT FFL. That is where, other than passing guns to family members, I have a problem with it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mach1
I should have known better than to use a click-baity term. To be clear, I am specifically referring to the likely minority number of firearms vendors that do not participate in the background check system.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mojouw
I can not speak for all states but here in Pa if you sell a handgun and there is not paperwork though a dealer you are in deep doodoo if you are caught and you WILL be held accountable for anything that happens with that firearm if whomever you sell it to kills someone you are going down too
as for rifles and shotguns it is the sellers obligation to ask if the buyer is able to legally own a firearm but face to face sales are permitted ...
that being said 99% of all homicides in the country that a firearm is the weapon used it is a handgun yet 99% of all the legislative action we see by politicians and the news media reporting is on Long guns because well they can use terms like Military grade etc and most are none the wiser ( scare tactics )
The ATF frowns upon dealing without a license. I believe it'll get you up to 5 yrs or so in the big house. So not participating in the system is in fact illegal.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mojouw
Yup. You are correct. But in this case, I believe, that PA has passed state level laws that are superseding and going beyond federal laws.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dwinsgames
Conversation about long guns is being driven by their use in mass shootings.
- - - Updated - - -
If you claim you are an occassional non-profit seller you can do without the FFL.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mach1
A 2015 study indicated that 15% of "guns how" sales were from an unlicensed vendor. Works out to 5 million guns. Unfortunately no word on what kind of guns. How many were antiques or collectibles? How many were more modern, etc.
As DWins pointed out, many states have passed laws more stringent than the feds have. So all of this is not an entirely consistent system.
Perhaps, but that statistic is wildly misleading. Anyone can go anywhere in their state and sell a gun to someone else. It's a private deal. At a gun show, private deals can also happen. It's not a "gunshow loophole." It's simply private sales at a gunshow. People choose to do it there because (1) it is safer than inviting some stranger to your home, (2) it doesn't freak people out like it would meeting in the shopping-center parking lot—how long before half a dozen police cars roll up on you? and (3) you don't have to take out advertisements and expose yourself as a gunowner to the world. Instead, you go somewhere where there are hundreds if not thousands of likely buyers. Moreover, it is also incumbent upon the seller to make sure the buyer can own a firearm, otherwise, they are subject to penalties and in some states, held accountable for what the buyer does with the gun under certain conditions.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mojouw
The stupidest thing about all of that? I, as a private citizen, cannot access the NICS system in any way to make sure the person buying the gun is legally able to buy it.
You're last point is basically what I am getting at. Regardless of what we want to term it, the best available data I can find indicates roughly 5 million guns change hands each year with no background check and little paperwork. I personally don't think that should happen outside of some fairly specific scenarios.Quote:
Originally Posted by Craic
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mojouw
and that my friend is not a gun legislation issue , it is however a bureaucracy issue ...
I would GLADLY ( as a gun owner and occasional seller of a used firearm ) spend the 2 bucks ( actual cost to a dealer ) to ensure the person I am selling to is a law abiding citizen , it would then open up a larger segment of the population for me to deal with as the way it is now I will not sell to anyone that does not have a Conceal carry permit ( that way I know they have been vetted at least at some point )
Very true! Regulation does not always have to mean legislation. I think there are some "common sense" changes that can be made around the issue of "guns" in America that most people would and do support.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dwinsgames
As several folks have indicated the language is just so charged that it is really hard to calmly talk about it. I feel into the trap myself in this thread by not being clear about what I meant.
I think the issue is only going to get more contentious as the country really divides geographically and demographically in gun ownership. It sucks that it is so hard to talk about the issue, because almost every gun owner I know is extremely responsible and diligent about their guns and those of others as well.
See Dwins video, the so called politicians and media are the ones who trying to divide the country on just about every issue.
Put the blame where it really lies with the failure of the FBI/government that failed in their background checks. They blame an inanimate object(gun), law abiding citizens, manufactures, the NRA, ect, instead of the actual lunatic shooter.
Blaming the NRA for shootings is like blaming AAA for drunk driving.
While the media and politicians may indeed divide the population, there are simply divides based on where you live.
https://amp.businessinsider.com/imag...e-1136-852.png
I do not have anything to back it up here, but I'm going to go ahead a disagree with this statistic map. Putting % instead of raw numbers does not do the real picture any justice. In my opinion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mojouw
we do not even know what those percentage include/ disallow
since only handguns are regulated in most states who is to say who owns what ?
if I buy a shotgun in a private sale that is 1 shotgun they have no clue where it is and as you say 5 million a year disperse in that very manner
I think it is only fair to assume that some of those guns are in households believed to not own a firearm
could that / would that not skew the entire map of percentages ?
then are they including the entire population in those percentages ( where many are not old enough to own a gun ? )
are they including those in nursing homes and private care homes where they have basically left all their belongings behind ?
the mental health issue is the largest issue we have in terms of firearms IMO....
go back through history and look at " mass shootings" in this country and never has it been more prevalent than it is today .
what I believe factors into it is we have people walking among us today highly medicated with mind altering drugs at a higher rate than in any time in our history
those people for the most part blend in with society and go for the most part unnoticed .
that is all well and good for the most part provided they stay regulated with proper dosages and do not skip or quit the meds .( nobody can control or regulate that aspect )
the other side of that is many of the drugs they are using to combat mental illness have very dramatic and devastating side effects , the very drugs they are being given often times to control their mental state also could be the driving force that puts them over the edge ...
we did not have these issues until the mid 80's ( consequently around the same time mass shootings started being an issue )
the major change in society and mental health was at that time is when most state mental hospitals started to close and those folks that where in there where turned over to family to live among the population unchecked but medicated ... again medications that they where on their own to manage ..
we see a rise in violent crime in the form of mass shootings perhaps not due to any of those that where once institutionalized but folks that would have perhaps been had those institutions not closed .
kids being put on mind altering drugs at a very young age started to become common place , in many instances unnecessarily . those drugs rewire the brain so to speak and when 1 drug does not create a solution they change it out for another and another and yet another remapping the entire brain and how it works ... ( meanwhile many of them should have never been on drug 1 let alone drug 5 )
now the kid turns 18 is considered an adult and can be out on his own , decides upon himself to stop taking said drugs ( the very drugs that often times screwed him up in the first place ) and his brain is all over the place trying to once again detoxify and rewire itself in how it functions ...
we often times can not look at an individual and see a mental incapacity within their head ( sometimes you can but not always ) Hipaa laws do not permit any such checks within background checks so a gun dealer has only his visual stability of potential buyers to go on before allowing a gun to walk out the door if said individual passed the background check ( they have a right to refuse sale if they notice things about the potential buyer but those hints are not always prevalent ) ....
most people are for the most part no different today than they where 200 years ago in terms to the value of life , I have never heard of 1 account from the 1800s where some kid took a gun to school and shot up his class and guns where for the most part more readily available to them then ( no gun safes in the house ) most homes esp on the frontier and old west had a gun over the fireplace , one loaded in the corner and a gun belt with a 6 shooter hanging by the door in a hat /coat rack on the wall .... in those times a couple things where very different ... no mental health drugs being used on small children and parents disciplined their children much differently ..... respect was taught and fear of being disobedient was a real thing ...
I have ventured way further off topic than I probably should have and for that I apologize but the points are still valid from where I sit , your opinion I am sure will differ to some degree
I'm not sure what seems so off about the map. No need to focus on the specific %'s - just that they can and do differ regionally. I've seen similar maps at the state and county level. In my own state, there is a significant geographic and demographic divide in gun ownership of any kind. In certain parts of the state, I would put gun ownership at 1 in 3 or 2 in 4 at best. In other parts of the state, I am certain that number goes to 2 in 3 or 3 out of 4.
Not sure why that would be a controversial or suspicious number?
http://www.oregonlive.com/data/2015/...rs_mapped.html
"The data are available for download from the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol and Firearms and include all licensed firearm importers, dealers and pawnbrokers. Excluded from our selection were people who: make or sell devices such as flare guns; manufacture firearms; or collect what the ATF calls "curios and relics.""
http://media.oregonlive.com/data/pho...f8db783976.jpg
If there are different amounts of gun dealers in different geographic areas, one would assume that may also correlate with different rates of market demand for that good and service?
Again, I am not trying to make some grand over-arching point. I am simply trying to say that how you feel about guns, gun safety, gun ownership, and gun regulation is going to have a ton to do with where you grew up and now live. Some areas of the country have very low rates of gun ownership and people have an overall unfamiliarity with all aspects and tend to come down in favor of greater restrictions and regulation. Other areas of the country have higher rates of gun ownership and people develop a greater comfort and familiarity with guns and gun ownership and typically support less regulation and oversight.
Any data visualization that attempt to cover an area the size of the US and represents several hundred million people is going to have to make a few concessions to generalization and presentation. But is anyone shocked to discover that more households own guns in Montana than in Rhode Island and by a wide margin? I fail to see what is unexpected about that?
914,000 hunting licenses sold in the state of Pa , not everyone that owns a firearm hunts ....( its not close really ) I know many people who just enjoy the shooting sport but do not hunt about 300 members at my local gun range ( the one I am a member of several others around as well ) only about half of the members hunt but all own guns
my county alone over 13,000 conceal carry permits ( Population 88,000 ) and most people I know locally do not have a CCW but do own a gun of some kind ...
point being nailing down a percentage without knowing how many guns there are in a state ( people move and some move a LOT ) people sell things privately ( it happens a lot go to armslist.com private sales from every state literally thousands of listings per state ) there is no way to know who buys /who sells if the seller had multiple guns and let go of a few and the people that bought had zero now have 1 each ...
not disputing a lot do not have guns , but am saying more have them than people realize and the numbers will never be accurately depicted ...
What are the gun laws in Rhode Island vs. Montana. I'd bet theres a world of difference. Without taking that into consideration it's apple to oranges in states that pretty much ban guns, make it next to impossible to those who don't. Like comparing comifornia to wyoming for instance.
- - - Updated - - -
You also can't count the ones who say they don't own guns for the simple fact that it's no ones business what they own or not.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dwinsgames
I don't know how to make this any clearer. There are regional and community based differences in rates of gun ownership and consequently the attitudes people hold about guns.
Obviously there are a number of factors that can influence this reality such as legislation, leisure activities, living environment, etc. Additionally, the specific EXACT #'s might change but the fact that there are variations and often significant ones across our massive and diverse country is just a fact.
It doesn't have to mean anything good or bad. It is not a judgement or a belief statement tied to a specific ideology. It is just a thing that is.
Depending on your local community, gun ownership may be the majority or it may not. That's going to impact how the issues surrounding guns get talked about in that area/region.
Again, it seems that some are taking offense at this idea or assuming I am using it for some larger agenda - and I am not.
All I want to point out is that in some places owning a gun is the majority. In some places it is not. I've lived in both and it has impacted how I think about the issue.
to a large point our entire debate / discussion is off course ...
In many many ways what the man in the original posted video is saying " I am the majority"
is simply this ...
The Majority of people in this country have never shot anyone
The Majority of the people in this country have never been convicted of a felony or violent crime
The Majority of the people are the ones most affected by gun legislation and attempts to ban firearms or make it exceedingly more difficult to obtain
The Majority of the people do not want to have rights ( in general) taken away or even challenged
the way our Country is set up is you are innocent until proven guilty thus if I am innocent of the crimes that ban me from getting a firearm then why should it be harder because if I am guilty of those things I am already considered out of the loop for buying legally to begin with ...
I will leave you with this to ponder .
If not for the second amendment just how long do you think you would have your 1st , 5th or any other
it is our 1 built in assurance that we keep the rest ...
In other words the 2nd amendment is the glue that holds the rest of the constitution together
I'll agree with that in principle. I don't think the 2nd Amendment any longer secures the others over and above the others securing the 2nd.
Privately held hunting and sporting rifles and handguns are not going to do all that much if the 82 Airborne shows up in your hometown backed by attack helicopters, tanks, and air power.
Despite what Red Dawn would have us believe....
...HOWEVER my personal opinion on that matter doesn't mean anyone has to agree with me or think about it how I do. It also doesn't mean I am correct on the issue either. Maybe an insurgent campaign waged with privately held firearms and improvised explosives would be enough to destabilize a tyrannical regime...hopefully we never have to know.
I would greatly disagree here. Why? Because I believe gun ownership not only secures other constitutional rights, it is the sole guarantor of human rights. here's what I mean. I believe in the right to human self agency (self determination) and right to life. In order for that right to exist, it must exist in reality, not just in an academic mindset. Therefore, it must exist for the each and every human being equally. The problem is, there are millions of people who are stronger than I am, faster than I am, etc. therefore, my right to self-determination and right to life is not true rights. Instead, I exist purely at the benevolence of the strongest person in my locale. Now, people might ban together to make a stronger group, but that only proves my point that rights only exist for the strongest. So, if I'm walking down the street one day, and someone comes up to me and shoves me in an alley, I no longer have the right to life; I am existed purely on the person's benevolence in the moment. To assure my right to life, I must be able to bring about a parity of force. It doesn't matter how much I train, I'm a middle-aged man. i won't be as strong as a 20 something who works out every day. Furthermore, knives or other instruments go to dexterity and speed. Thus, what closes the gap to a place where parity of forces can be said to exist, is a firearm.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mojouw
Therefore, the only guarantee of human rights, let alone constitutional rights, is the right to bear arms.
I believe it does empower the people to keep their rights far more than a piece of paper does ...Quote:
Originally Posted by Mojouw
as for the rest , I do not believe they would do air strikes on our own people on our own soil that would require other Americans just like us to carry any such order out and to be quite honest I do not believe there is a snowballs chance in hell they would have many if any takers , orders be damned
Quote:
Originally Posted by Craic
I'm going to bow out at this point. I think this is where deeply held personal philosophies can greatly differ. I do not agree with all of what you both have said, but I think you should be allowed to say it, believe it, and live it. Just as I should be allowed to do the same.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dwinsgames
I do not believe that violence and coercive force are the only sureties of life and liberty or personal safety. But, again, there are many individual philosophies on these complex issues.
There is certainly nothing that I can post on an internet message board that will change anyone's mind. I will merely point out that while our own country was born out of armed revolution, several other countries were born out of non-violent revolution.
Totally serious questions that I am interested to know each of your perspectives own because I struggle to wrap my head around it:
1. If I am not trained in close quarters shooting and how to properly handle a weapon but I am confronted by an assailant that does, or at least has a superior ability than my own -- even if we both have gun, isn't this back to just the "stronger" winning?
2. If Americans would not carry out airstrikes and military assaults on their fellow citizens on the orders of the government wouldn't that then rule out the need for an armed citizenry to resist a tyrannical government? If that is the case, what impact does the "well regulated militia" bit have in modern times?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mojouw
to the bold red ....
in close quarters combat accuracy and ability to shot tight groups has almost zero bearing , the element of surprise becomes your #1 adversary the perp not knowing you are in fact armed is a huge bonus on your behalf , it only takes a split second to draw and fire and lets face it at 5 feet away a guy bigger /stronger /faster/younger whatever the case may be ( even equally armed and better trained ) is a very difficult ( nearly impossible ) target to miss at such close range even if you never shot a gun in your life but understand the logic and concept to know where the safety and trigger are located ...simply point and shoot
to the bold blue
in saying I do not believe American military personnel would run air raids and bombing missions vs its own people that is not to say a certain number of armed troops would not deploy ( but I am guessing anything more than a peace keeping mission most would not )
you see those troops are sworn to uphold the constitution of the United States and according to said constitution we have a right to keep and bear arms and many of our Military ( if not most ) are pretty damned patriotic ( if they where not before service ) they swiftly become that way for the most part
I honestly wish you wouldn't because you have a propensity to be articulate and fair in in your argumentation, even if you disagree. I enjoy such discussions.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mojouw
I wish that were true. Remember, I'm not discussing civilized society, but the baseline idea of what one could or might do. And, therefore, why the right must exist even if a person chooses not to exercise it.Quote:
I do not believe that violence and coercive force are the only sureties of life and liberty or personal safety. But, again, there are many individual philosophies on these complex issues.
not true, actually. Again, you're articulate and fair in your assessments, I tend to listen to such arguments a lot more. My opinion will never completely change based on the logic in my previous post, but I've had it shift in different ways due to such discussions with others who, like you, would refrain from typical internet arguments and instead, actually debate.Quote:
There is certainly nothing that I can post on an internet message board that will change anyone's mind.
It depends on what you mean by CQB. Are we talking about inside a house, or inside a bathroom? (I'm not being facetious here). Inside a house, as Dwins says, there's a fair chance I get the element of surprise if someone breaks into my home. Furthermore, by bringing my shotgun into the equation rather than my .40, I increase the odds greatly that I will win the confrontation. Second, even if it is exactly the scenario you mention, it might be based on best trained. However, a parity of force still exists because the power the gun puts out is enough to kill the other person (even a .22). if a disparity exists due to training, it is much smaller than the disparity based on strength alone, or speed alone, or even handling a knife, etc, because all of that is based on fighting tactics and multiple movements and blah blah blah. And, that disparity can be closed even more by the "weaker" person choosing to train, something that cannot happen when it comes to biological factors such as a 120 pound woman vs a 250 pound man.Quote:
Totally serious questions that I am interested to know each of your perspectives own because I struggle to wrap my head around it:
1. If I am not trained in close quarters shooting and how to properly handle a weapon but I am confronted by an assailant that does, or at least has a superior ability than my own -- even if we both have gun, isn't this back to just the "stronger" winning?
Now, if the CQB is in a bathroom, then yes, we're back to the issue of strength, however, the person with the weapon then makes the choice whether to introduce it or not. That decision has not been taken away from him or her by a state who, by law, has no duty to defend or protect that person.
No. First, you're thinking purely military. Let's put this in a different perspective. In the early 60s, a group called "The Deacons" were armed, black men who patrolled black neighborhoods to stop the KKK from burning crosses--and homes--in those neighborhoods. They did so because the local law enforcement refused to/did not/could not protect them. To me, disarming a nation is most dangerous to minorities for this reason. Once they are disarmed, they have no protection against mobs among other things. You may argue, "But that is illegal and it's the work of the police." Sure, yet, that doesn't help in the moment when the mob has burned down the home/church/killed whomever they are targeting.Quote:
2. If Americans would not carry out airstrikes and military assaults on their fellow citizens on the orders of the government wouldn't that then rule out the need for an armed citizenry to resist a tyrannical government? If that is the case, what impact does the "well regulated militia" bit have in modern times?
Now, I recognize these are extremes (although they have historical precedent). Yet, the core of the belief is built because inevitably, without the right, these extremes continue to occur worldwide.
I have a few thoughts and since this seems to not be spiraling into a shouting match - thanks to both Craic and Dwins for encouraging that - I'll try and put a few out there...
I fully realize there are real and actual events where a gun was used to successfully defend personal life and property. I would be interested in an unbiased accounting of how often that actually happens. I have a hard time envisioning swaths of America where folks need to enact an armed resistance to criminals. Again, I am fully aware that it does happen. But for example, in my corner of the world violent crime is predominantly confined to other criminals. Clearly there will be variation, but I wonder what the actual situation is? Not how we perceive it. Personally I know several friends, coworkers, and family members who strongly believe in armed home defense, but none of them know any one who has ever had to defend their home. Doesn't mean they aren't right, but I would like to know how often these scenarios occur.
In terms of protecting minority groups (whatever they be - ethnic, religious, political, etc) from violence; erecting a visible and active well armed defense can clearly have a positive impact in deterring or even stopping conflicts. But I counter with this thought - There are places in the world where horrific and violent persecution of minority groups has taken place without anyone ever firing a shot on either side. Let alone that violent conflict at a variety of scales did not begin with the advent of firearms. Unfortunately this kind of starts a circular argument. The idea that even if no one had guns, we would likely start going at each other with clubs and shovels or something.
In terms of securing rights/freedoms through guns or other weapons, that kinda comes down to where you stand on "human nature". Is interpersonal violence somehow fundamental to our interactions? I would argue it is not. At least in a sense that there is no "hardwired" reason why people must resolve conflict through violent means. However, I do acknowledge it has always been an option and a fairly frequently selected one at that! However, stopping the conversation at the point of an armed citizenry as the final guarantee of rights/freedoms sells the whole debate a bit short, or, at least somehow fails to deal with the causal elements of the violence we are arming ourselves against. Here I am talking primarily about criminal violence and not warfare or conflict between nations.
I fully believe that it is often our failure as a society to address the reasons why some members of our own society feel the need to attempt to solve their problems through violence that causes even more escalating levels of violence. If we were better able to solve some of those problems, overall violence would begin to diminish. At the same time, I realize that until MOJOUW's social utopia and land of unicorn tears can be achieved, people will feel a strong desire to protect themselves -- so again I have kinda talked myself in a circle.
I think that all I really know for sure is that something has got to change. America is the only place I am aware of where so many people are harmed or killed by gun violence outside of warzones and failed countries. I will say I am encouraged that we are on the second page of a thread about guns and no one has called anyone "Hitler" or a "snowflake" yet. Unfortunately, this is an issue where too many people seem unwilling and unable to have grown people conversation about it.
I will address 2 points and let someone else who may have better answer take on the rest ....Quote:
Originally Posted by Mojouw
1) according to the CDC at least 500k times in America per year a firearm is used to STOP a violent act / crime often times without a shot ever being fired they also claim that number could be much larger as many times such things are not reported
2) as far as gun deaths in America , once you clear up what gun violence is ( in other words take away the suicides because they could as easily jump off a bridge or lay down on a rail road track or whatever and still achieve taking their own life ) take out the Police shootings because clearly in most cases they are justified and because the crook has a weapon even if it is a knife .... and take away self defense shootings because if they didnt shoot they would be a victim and we can not punish them or gun owners for refusal to be a victim of violent crime now can we ....
lets also look at the numbers in a per capita base not just a number because many other countries have a MUCH higher death per capita via firearms than we do here ...
The US ranks 31st world wide in gun violence deaths per capita at 3.85 per 100k
we keep hearing how other countries are much lower death totals via guns but most other countries have less people and WAY less guns
300 million + guns in this country ( we would dwarf the worlds largest standing armies in small arms ) and 10 trillion rounds of ammo is one estimate I have read
if Guns and gun owners where the problem there would be so few people left that we would not even be able to have this discussion
https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsan...ther-countries
LOL. that goes both ways.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mojouw
That's a very good question. I'm going from memory here, but, several studies of DGUs (Defensive Gun Uses) have been done. The one most common trumpeted by 2A (second amendment) backers was done by Steck and blah blah. That stat is somewhere around 2.5 million DGUs per years. At least one other journal article written by an opponent admitted the work was done well. However, others question the method because the judgement was based on the person believing they were in danger, rather than an actual DGU. (DGU includes showing but not using the gun, or even informing a potential threat about a gun). Other studies produced several different numbers. One that I remember most is a study that showed one million DGUs a year. Interestingly, after presenting the statistics in the journal article, that person spent the rest of the article arguing why the high number just had to be wrong. On the other side, there's a study that's just come out dealing stating DGU was only 224 or so in 2014. The problem is that number represents actually killing a person in a defensive situation. However, most DGUs reported record no shots fired. Moreover, gunshots are not a death penalty. If a person gets medical care within a short period of time, they will live (and DGUs also equal calling 911 soon thereafter).Quote:
I fully realize there are real and actual events where a gun was used to successfully defend personal life and property. I would be interested in an unbiased accounting of how often that actually happens. I have a hard time envisioning swaths of America where folks need to enact an armed resistance to criminals. Again, I am fully aware that it does happen. But for example, in my corner of the world violent crime is predominantly confined to other criminals. Clearly there will be variation, but I wonder what the actual situation is? Not how we perceive it. Personally I know several friends, coworkers, and family members who strongly believe in armed home defense, but none of them know any one who has ever had to defend their home. Doesn't mean they aren't right, but I would like to know how often these scenarios occur.
Personally, I think DGUs probably happen around 70-80k times a year. that includes people seeing someone walking down a street while open-carrying and choosing to go elsewhere to commit a crime.
That's absolutely true. But my response would be that persecution of the minority would not have happened had the minority had a parity of force. Now, at the same time, I also recognize that is not always true. The Jews in Nazi Germany would not have been better off with armed resistance. The German public had already turned against them and there literally wasn't enough Jews in Europe to counter Nazis and create parity of force (realizing the historical expansion of Nazism and the fact that not all Jews would have need to rise up at the same time).Quote:
In terms of protecting minority groups (whatever they be - ethnic, religious, political, etc) from violence; erecting a visible and active well armed defense can clearly have a positive impact in deterring or even stopping conflicts. But I counter with this thought - There are places in the world where horrific and violent persecution of minority groups has taken place without anyone ever firing a shot on either side. Let alone that violent conflict at a variety of scales did not begin with the advent of firearms. Unfortunately this kind of starts a circular argument. The idea that even if no one had guns, we would likely start going at each other with clubs and shovels or something.
I'll get to the rest later. Sorry.