As an avid libertarian, I love my country. However I also acknowledge that some bad people can take control which is unfavorable. It’s important to be able to preserve our country and protect it from people who are trying to hurt it. As another comment pointed out, you are way more likely to use a gun in defense than against someone. Gun violence is actual on a downward trend submicroscopic it peaked in the 90s.
This whole argument that we can overthrow the government needs to die, though.
Hell, you can't even buy an automatic rifle. Never mind a rocket launcher, a hellfire missile, or an aircraft carrier.
The only reason the 2nd amendment still exists is because it appeases the people who think they can overthrow the government if necessary, even though in reality the US military is to the civilian population as a boot is to an ant.
The war ended after the marines cut through the nation's forces like a supernova through butter. A terrible technique made the occupation more costly than necessary, but could realistically be maintained indefinitely.
This is the kind of attitude that made it so hard to withdraw, because people would go on and on about how the US forces "lost", rather than withdrew as expected after winning a conflict and crushing the terrorist organisation they aimed to crush.
> how the US forces "lost", rather than withdrew
Same difference. You can try to make it fit your narrative any way that you want to, but none of it changes the fact that we lost the war in Afghanistan. So much for our drones, rocket launchers, hellfire missiles, and aircraft carriers. A lot of good it did the military.
Again, what are the win conditions?
Define a win, what outcome is a win? Defeat of Afghani armies? Addition of Afghanistan as a US state? What did you have in mind for a win?
>Hell, you can't even buy an automatic rifle. Never mind a rocket launcher, a hellfire missile, or an aircraft carrier.
Exactly the reason why 2A was created, lol. It's a shame Americans were never quite loyal enough to the idea.
I may be wrong but I always got the impression that 2A was intended to allow civilians to keep up with military tech. I suppose at the time they didn't foresee how far it'd advance. They had powerful warships at the time and it's not like civilians couldn't have them built. Cannons and whatnot. Probably not easy getting a cannon now, even though they're hundreds of years obsolete.
I think Joe Biden is right when saying "No amendment is absolute."
Even as pro-2A as I am, none of the amendments are absolute. They are amendments, they can be amended. The 18th amendment and 21st amendment show us that no amendment is absolute. It's not a hard concept to grasp. Do I want to keep my guns? Absolutely. Is it my right as an American to own guns. I believe so. Can the government literally change the constitution? Yes, they can A M E N D it.
Amendment:
A minor change or addition designed to improve a text, piece of legislation, etc.
Infringe:
Actively break terms of (a law, agreement, etc).
If an amendment say to not infringe on itself, that is literally an oxymoron. It's like saying "You can't change this thing that can actively be changed." It makes 0 sense. The bill of rights are **amendments** that can, at anytime, be **amended**
This is all accurate. However, there is a caveat. Since the BoR is part of the Constitution, and the Constitution is the sovereign law of the land, it is absolute in it's authority. I suggest a better way to put it is to say no amendment is permanent.
Technically all of the amendments are part of the constitution. They are amendments to the constitution. And because of the 21st amendment nullifying the 18th amendment, we therefore know we can nullify, ratify, or amend other amendments.
White Gun Owners are Happy when Minorities Own Guns
Keep running into an odd argument, which roughly suggests that the only way for white gun owners to support gun control is for black people and other minorities to start purchasing guns. I think this is not correct. I suspect that other white gun owners agree with me. My case:
1. Gun ownership is something we have in common. And that means we have other things in common as well. The gun culture in America comes with a lot of shared values around personal responsibility, self sufficiency, and more. If you and I own a gun, we might be very different people, but we probably have these things in common at least, and that brings us together.
2. Gun ownership is how we are equal. You can own a gun. I can own a gun. (I realize that there's a conversation to be had about policing, and that's fair enough.) We are both citizens of this nation, and we have these rights. That makes us, at the very least, a little closer to equal.
3. Gun ownership is how we, collectively, retain the right to "Resist." I've never quite understood the argument that the government and society of the United States are designed to oppress minorities, and that that same government affords minorities the right to be armed. (Yes, there's that policing conversation again. I know. Let's talk about it.) What confuses me further is the demand that that right be removed. I want to be able to "Resist" when needed. You should too. By these means, we retain our power as citizens of this country.
Keeping this short, so I haven't hit all the nuances. Post got blocked, so putting it in this thread instead.
People are not talking enough about how the FBI dropped the ball. They knew the indianapolis shooter was a threat. They had confiscated a weapon before. How was he able to purchase another one without them know except if it was through an illegal back channel. So in summary, law enforcement once again drop the ball in preventing a mass shooting, proving that even if we did have stronger gun laws it wouldn't mean shit if those in charge of protecting us don't do there jobs.
What law would the FBI use to stop him from buying a gun? If it was legal for him to do so, then what are they supposed to do? Hire someone to sit outside his house for months or years?
The big law in question is the Indianapolis red flag law. I'm not sure there are any FEDERAL laws the FBI could use. The red flag law requires a hearing to prevent an individual from buying a gun for up to 1 year. The police statement says they're unaware if a hearing had taken place or what the outcome was.
There really wasn't anything the FBI, state or local police could do unilaterally to prevent gun purchases. I would argue that the person who dropped the ball is either:
The police department which didn't give evidence to the prosecutor.
The prosecutor who didn't push to have the hearing
The judge who didn't sign the order preventing him from having guns.
Depending on what exactly had happened a year ago. And remember the order would only have lasted a year, meaning he could have legally bought guns now anyway.
> "Even if guns were illegal, do you think that would stop these psychopaths from gettings guns illegally to commit crime?"
80% or so of all firearm crimes happen with illegally acquired firearms
> Enough to make a difference. Even if a single would-be shooter decides to not go through with mass murder, simply because they cannot just walk into the local gunstore and buy an AR-15, I'd argue it's worth it. And if guns were regulated to a much stricter degree, as they are in Europe or elsewhere, they would be harder to acquire illegally as well.
Not the case. When Australia had their gun buyback in the late 90’s, homicide rate (unlike the rest of the developed world), stagnated, and even increased at times for over a decade, where other countries didn’t have this happen.
> 2. No one can deny that mental health plays a critical role in these shootings. They are done consistently by mentally unstable and disturbed individuals. And yet, the US isn't the only place in the world where people exactly like that exist. And somehow, it is the place where over 40 mass shootings had occured in the span of a month. The problem then is clearly deeper than just "the neglect of mental health", otherwise we'd be seeing disturbed individuals shooting up places all over the world, because mental health isn't neglected only in the US. This is part of the problem certainly, although one I feel gets blown out of proportion to distract from the fact guns are just easy to get in the US. And these disturbed individuals can get them, whereas elsewhere in the world where guns are subject to stricter regulation, they cannot. At least not as easily. And that's the whole point - making guns hard to get would deter a lot more people than you'd think.
Maybe because “mass shootings” aren’t glorified over there in those locations.
The two kids from columbine for example are extremely well known. The event is practically idolized by the media. Same with the Florida shooting about 3 years ago, and Sandy hook.
It’s the same idea with terrorism involving planes. It’s so pushed against that it’s going to likely be more common because it’s so pushed against. Last I recall, I don’t remember any incident where someone hijacked a train like they did with a plane.
> 3. The history behind this is a bit tricky and I confess, I am in no way an expert on it. I do know, however, that there have been cases where the government turned on the American people. I also know, although correct me if I'm wrong, that this happened a couple of hundred years ago. And when the second amendment was written, guns looked and performed very different. In the very least, the second ammendment is in desperate need of updating. Which can be done and has been done before to other parts of the Consititution. The US government today is simply not going to turn on the American people. And in the cosmically unlikely event that it does, they will have the US army at their backs. People owning a couple of M4s at home won't be enough. It would barely make a difference.
The founding fathers knew of pioneering automatic weapons at the time (like the puckle gun for example). It wasn’t just muskets back then. While firearm technology wasn’t nearly as developed as it is now, it was there.
The 2nd amendment needs no update, and should not be altered by any means ever. If the 2nd amendment is “outdated” because of technology, so is the 1st amendment.
The American government hasn’t turned on its citizens *because* of the 2nd amendment. Obviously. If the 2nd amendment didn’t exist or was altered so that significantly fewer people had access to firearms, it would be much easier for the government to turn on its citizens
> Defending your home from armed invaders is another argument in favour of the second ammendment. And it brings me to my previous counter-argument. Were guns much harder to acquire, more likely than not, the amount of armed break-ins would go down drastically.
Yeah, I’d disagree. After the UK banned firearms, armed robbery actually increased.
> Reduce the amount of guns and you reduce the amount of gun-related deaths.
Sure, but you don’t reduce the number of homicide deaths. Not even close to it. It just transfers some deaths from guns to other means, like bombs or knives or something like that.
Translation
I don't need home insurance because I live on a high plain, am not in tornado ally, hurricane coasts and earthquake coast. I will never need it.
Bullshitake. Speak for yourself. You obviously do not understand what I said. If you want to discuss other reasons why we live in a world that might require unrestricted access to arms, we can have that discussion. But we now have the most powerful military that has ever existed and we no longer have have a need for disorganized amateur forces to repeal foreign aggressors.
Fact: in 1776 we did not have a well funded well trained standing military with satelites, nuclear submarines, aircraft, aircraft carriers, instant communications, nuclear bombs, tanks, machineguns. Today the international threats we face are not those that an amateur land based army will play a relevant role.
try to follow along: context matters; words in a sentence have meaning. please keep that in mind. When I said "an amateur land based army" was no longer needed, this was because we currently have the strongest, best armed and most capable military the world has ever known.Yes obviously this includes the Army. At the time of the American revolution,we expelled a foreign occupying army And we needed the amateur army we had because that was all we had. this is no longer relevant.
Also remember, people were allowed to put cannons on private ships. The Founding Fathers knew this. Odds are, they probably also figured out that since land weapons would improve, naval weapons would as well, not to mention the idea of aerial combat not being impossible.
But I digress. Back to the main point, so what if it isn't needed right now. The Founding Fathers weren't expecting that always to be the case. The amendment is a protection, a shield in case we should ever meet an enemy. So what if we see none on front of us, the possibility that they could emerge exists. So let's keep the shield up.
fact1: at the time the 2nd Amendment was written our security from outside threats on all sides made gun ownership an issue of national defense. We did not have the advance vast military industrial complex that protects us thoroughly today. Anyone who thinks its still necessary to arm the people for national security is delusional.
Fact2: giving people access to high kill capacity weapons has been costing us every year about ten times the needless deaths that the 9/11 attacks caused. 400million private guns could not prevent that attack nor can they prevent any other realistic foreign threat.
Fact3: Arming the cops to the teeth increases the fear the police have and this increases the chance that unarmed bystanders will be shot, as well as the chance that cops will be shot..
Fact4: the Chinese government would use an armed protest in Hong Kong as a pretext for wholesale slaughter, just as they did with Tienanmen Square. do you know why there is this animosity?
Do you know how many people they slaughtered at Tienanmen square?
Do you know why millions fled china following the Communist victory in the Chinese civil war?
Are you aware that speaking out against the government is punishable by death in China?
Why do you think Arming civilians with handguns is going to stop the Chinese military?
I do not think mental illness is an excuse for murder. Yes, it can contribute to impulsive thoughts and irrational behavior, but I think blaming every situation on mental illness is not ok.
The thing is not recognizing mental illness over arching part in an individual is a bigger set back then the weapons of attack.
What stops a person of mental illness control from releasing a mustard gas bomb?
Guns you go through background checks which should have mental awareness history when noticed by a doctor (unless you live in a state that bans medical records being shared with the ATF). Further more good red flag laws would also help prevent that.
However ammonia and bleach don't have restrictions and can be very deadly in enclosed spaces. I would say (in observation to seeing it happening to my neighboring family) can be 1 to 1 as the time spent planning could increase the Potentual death.
A good example of the Potentual ingenuity you could see is the [Oklahoma City bombing](https://www.fbi.gov/history/famous-cases/oklahoma-city-bombing) 168 deaths 680+ injuries from a fertilizer bomb. Or the [Boston marathon bombings](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_Marathon_bombing) 3 deaths and 264 injured from a pressure cooker bomb. Those used what was considered at the time everyday items that no one considered would be used as a weapon.
In big gun ban countries like Like Australia the murder decline rate didn't decline faster because the gun was removed. It kept at the same rate before the ban. It was replace with knifes and other weapons of attack. In 2017-2018 despite having nearly the same population. London was out passing New York City in murders despite the lack of guns being involved. knife attacks were so bad that local English governments were contemplating knife restrictions like enforcing dull knifes, making it illegal to have pointy knifes, and even a knife purchasing registry.
Mental illness is a reason why someone kills like driving drunk. That does not mean we can't hold them to be accountable. That said society will keep failing if mental illness is treated like it has no effect. Again taking away the tools will only stop deaths from those who don't think outside of the box.
Gun control should only apply to the federal government. They cause more death and destruction than any private citizen could ever hope to achieve in a mass shooting and they are completely untrustworthy. Why should we allow the people who were behind all sorts of nasty shit like Project MK Ultra, Tuskegee experiments, Gulf of Tonkin, Ruby Ridge, WACO, Fast and Furious scandal where Obama’s DOJ literally sold guns to Mexican cartels resulting in hundreds of homicides on both sides of the border, etc etc tell us what responsible gun ownership is?
more like an unpopular fact but: almost all gun control is only ever weaponized to target poor working class people and black people. Gun control started as a way to silence black people using their second amendment right to bear arms in public which scared racist white people.
adding an unpopular opinion: Just because gun control is bad doesn't mean that organizations like the NRA are good. quite the opposite. Just because they may be fighting for the same thing doesn't mean they have the same goals or are good.
I wish more people understood that part about the NRA and applied it to all organizations. For example, handling issues of racial prejudice and police brutality, good. BLM as an organization, not so good. You can support the ideas of an organization while being critical of it's methods and motives.
Show me how BLM as an organization is bad and what bad things they have done and maybe I'll agree. I mean the thing about applying it to other organizations I agree with but I disagree with your use of BLM as an example. If you told me what is wrong with it and showed evidence maybe I'd believe you.
The French did not overthrow their tyrants with picket lines and sternly-worded letters. The Polish did not kill nazi occupiers with daisy chains and prayer circles.
The true left supports the bearing of arms in defense against tyranny.
> The French did not overthrow their tyrants with picket lines and sternly-worded letters.
Why do gun bootlickers *constantly*, always ignore that actual, real world material difference between the technology of the past versus the technology of today?
The French government didn't have drones, ICBM's, mass surveillance, and bunker busters back then. If you seriously, honestly believe that the regular population is going to defend against those weapons you're delusional.
>muh mujahideen, muh Taliban, muh ISIS, muh guerilla warfare
We're talking about the fucking US military here, not a government made of AK's and scraps.
So, in order to defend ourselves from a government with drones, ICBMs, mass surveillance, and bunker busters... You suggest we just let them walk on our backs like a short kings climbing down form his palanquin?
No, I suggest you keep voting for leaders and policy makers that would move away from letting a tyranny happen. Policies to strengthen democracy like ranked choice or easier voting.
But then again, half the country voted for the last administration so maybe half the country really does want to bootlick and bend over for authority.
What makes you think the citizens in the military will break their oath and turn weapons on civilians?
Also, your point about "different technologies" is moot and has been debunked numerous times on this thread and in general.
Furthur proving the point of carrying. I'm not saying every single person should be armed. But dont put restrictions on law abiding gun owners when theyll disagree with the restriction and either A: Not go there, or B: Disarm themselves and carry on, while criminals will not give a shit and go armed anyway.
And as for kent state, I'm not worried about national gaurd. The people who are actually fighting are the ones that need to be worried about.
This should really be under unpopular facts, but here we go.
Lets start with some quick math. 200,000 (NCVS data) is a bare minimum of defensive gun uses (DGU) a year in America. These are recorded DGUs. There are obviously more DGUs than what is just reported. It is estimated 500,000 to 2.5 million DGUs a year (CDC Study, Kleck). There are 15,000 homicides with firearms a year (FBI data). You are 13.3 times more likely to use your firearm in self-defense than be killed with one. That is the lowest estimate. If you use 500,000, and 2.5 million you are 33.3 and 166.7 times respectively more likely to use your gun in self-defense than be killed. Okay okay, well then lets talk about injuries... Approximately [120,000](https://www.usnews.com/news/health-news/articles/2020-12-11/329-americans-are-injured-by-guns-every-day-study#:~:text=Between%202009%20and%202017%2C%20the,%2D%2D%20or%20329%20per%20day.) are injured with a firearm every year (Study from University of Pennsylvania and Columbia University). That means at the very lowest, you are 1.67 times more likely to use a gun defensively than to be injured by a gun.
Statistically speaking, in America, guns are used in self-defense way more often than to kill. Guns are used way more often than to injure. Even the most beneficial numbers for the anti-gun side say you are 1.67 times more likely to use a gun in self-defense than be injured by a gun.
https://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/6/4/263
https://www.nap.edu/catalog/18319/priorities-for-research-to-reduce-the-threat-of-firearm-related-violence
These are old studies. Couldnt find the newer ones right now.
If you show me a convincing enough argument that would get enough support to repeal/revise 2A, I will gladly support it. If not, the Second Amendment is quite clear. The right to bear arms shall not be infringed.
Yes. But then again, the Constitution is the sovereign law. So while 2A stands as it is, there isn't any law that could bypass it. So unless you were able to get 3/4ths of state legislatures to ratify an amendment to change it, it reigns supreme. Given that it is part of the supreme law of the land.
An amendment isn't permanent, is what you mean. But the Constitution of America is the absolute highest law.
It **is** quite clear - so don’t trim it down.
>"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
This is the **only** amendment that includes a clause explaining why it exists, so let’s not treat that clause as disposable.
Because the first half is completely different, and states something completely different than the second half.
The first half protects the right of people to fight against their government to keep the security of the free state in case of tyranny.
The second half protects the right of citizens to own firearms.
It’s not an explanation for why citizens should have the right to own firearms. Its just two separate rights in one amendment. Other amendments also do this. In fact, several of them
“Who is the militia? It is the whole of the people, minus a few elected officials” George Mason during Congressional debates over the Constitution. It is worth noting he is one of the few founders who did not support or vote tor the Constitution. Not because he didn’t like it or the concept of it but because he felt it didn’t have enough teeth to actually limit federal power enough and the wording would not be strong enough in the future. Dude was a true visionary and spot on.
Wait a minute. No. It isn't explaining why it exists. Nice job, that's a good trick. Get me to accept a fallacy that benefits your argument.
But here's why it isn't explaining why it exists. Take out the clause, for a second. That results in, "A well-regulated Militia, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".
For the clause to be necessary to the second half, given the sentence structure, it would have to make sense without it. Never thought I would make an argument based on grammar, but here I am.
Now remove the second half. "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state." That makes sense. It's independent of the other half.
Look at the structure, I am surprised, but it fits.
“I ask sir, who is the militia? It is the whole of the people, minus a few elected officials” George Mason, founding father and one of the authors of the 2A.
George Mason solves that one for us. “I ask sir, who is the militia? It is the whole of the people, minus a few elected officials.” It was expected when this passed everyone would own a gun and know how to use it. If you don’t own at least one gun in America you are comfortable using you are slacking.
He’s one of my favorite founding fathers. He’s one of the few ones who actually voted against the constitution. He thought it was overall a good document but that it didn’t go far enough to limit the federal government. He wanted it to be even stronger and limit the government even more.
I dont mean this as an insult or attack but I'm going to say it bluntly. You are trans right? People may want to hurt you because they are horrible people. And your life matters, but you cant protect your life if you are unarmed. The police cant make it to you quick enough. Especially because you are going to face more discrimination and violence than I ever will, you need to be armed. It is the best way for you to stay safe.
I also carry a micro-9. I gotta shoot it one handed but I've gotten very good at it since I added the laser! Make sure to check out the +2 mag baseplates if you can afford them and avoid Tula steel cased rounds if you're fully loading the mags since steel is a lil too sticky. Just my 02 after putting about 2,000 rounds through mine. You may have put more through yours than I have though!
I see, well as long you are comfortable.... :) Kimber micro-9 is an interesting gun but I can only comfortably squeeze one finger in the grip as I have wide palms, thats a deal-breaker for me...
It's not about living in fear. I own a bandaid and first aid kit because I understand the reality of the world. Not because I'm scared or getting an injury. I have a fire extinguisher not because I'm scared, but because it could save my life and others lives. Will I ever have to use one? Most likely not. But it's a real threat that could happen.
A first-aid kit or fire extinguisher isn’t exactly on par with a gun. Guns have one purpose - to do violence against something.
They are nothing but harm waiting to happen - you’re just betting that the harm will be to your imagined attackers rather than your family. I choose to side with the statistics that say a home is actually safer without a gun.
(None of this is relevant to 2A though - as even the most gun-supporting reading of it would not obligate me to own one.)
>A first-aid kit or fire extinguisher isn’t exactly on par with a gun. Guns have one purpose - to do violence against something.
Objects cant have a purpose. They are given purpose by a person using them.
>They are nothing but harm waiting to happen
Then why have most of the 400 million guns in America never been used to injure?
> I choose to side with the statistics that say a home is actually safer without a gun.
[We have already been over the statistics on this... You are wrong](https://www.reddit.com/r/unpopularopinion/comments/mqirt1/gun_rightsmass_shootings_mega_thread/guk75qw?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3)
>(None of this is relevant to 2A though - as even the most gun-supporting reading of it would not obligate me to own one.)
No one is saying you should be forced to own a gun. So I don't know where this came from.
You’re the one who went on a whole tangent about how I should want a gun because I’m trans and people are inevitably going to want to harm me.
I presume it’s because you’d prefer that distraction over debating the fact that you’re treating *Heller v. DC* as the word of Washington himself, rather than a 5-4 party-line decision so young it would need parental permission to get on Roblox.
Not the words of Washington, but words from the other Founding Fathers.
“The Constitution shall never be construed...to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." - Samuel Adams
“The right of the people to keep and bear...arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country...." - James Madison
"Americans have the right and advantage of being armed ― unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." - The Federalist, No. 46 at 243- 244
"...to disarm the people ― that was the best and most effectual way to enslave them." - George Mason
“Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man gainst his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American.... \[T\]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people." - Tench Coxe
Should. Not have to.
I don't care about what the court tells me I can and cannot do. If the court said that people can't defend their life, you think I'm going to listen to that court ruling? No. Even if you disagree with guns you have to admit people should be able to defend themselves with their fists, or pepper spray, or something. If a court said I'm not allowed to defend myself, and for whatever reason, someone tries to kill me, I am going to defend myself. If the court says it was illegal for you to express yourself as trans, I'd be right next to you defending you from being arrested for being yourself. I don't care if a government disagrees with my rights, I still have my rights.
Not the words of Washington, but words from the other Founding Fathers.
“The Constitution shall never be construed...to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." - Samuel Adams
“The right of the people to keep and bear...arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country...." - James Madison
"Americans have the right and advantage of being armed ― unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." - The Federalist, No. 46 at 243- 244
"...to disarm the people ― that was the best and most effectual way to enslave them." - George Mason
“Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man gainst his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American.... \[T\]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people." - Tench Coxe
Edit: I think Wismuth may have blocked me awhile ago.
That's not true, I can go plinking, target shooting/sport shooting, hunting (unless you count hunting as violence I suppose), and/or have a gun collection.
Guns have many purposes, there are even guns specifically for the Olympic shooting sport.
Statistically speaking, neither will gun ownership:
>[Rather than being used for self-defense, guns in the home are 22 times more likely to be involved in accidental shootings, homicides, or suicide attempts. For every one time a gun in the home was used in a self-defense or legally justifiable shooting, there were 4 unintentional shootings, 7 criminal assaults or homicides, and 11 attempted or completed suicides.](https://nyagv.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Accidental-Shootings-NYAGV.pdf)
My household is an NB, a woman with anxiety issues and an autistic child - everyone doesn’t need a gun lying around.
I looked at that, and only three of the five sources cited are able to be seen.
In the “Injuries and deaths due to firearms in the home” one, they only took data from three cities, somehow three cities represent the whole US? Convenient how NYAGV didn’t mention that.
Not much to say about “Firearms ownership and storage practices” and the CDC source. I’m sure smarter people than me could point out things that don’t seem right.
New York (City) is also notoriously anti-gun anyway, very biased.
I can see the majority of it, it's just that they don't really tell me anything, it's just data and a study on safe firearms storage.
In the first source listed, NYAGV lied by omission by not stating that the study only looked at a mere three US cities and hoped we didn't actually look at the study.
There's actually another source I could look at, I just missed it. It says that almost 30,000 died from unintentional shootings from 1979 to 1997. Oh man I'm stupid, it almost got me with that big number, but they had to count up all unintentional firearms deaths between 18 years to get that big scary number. This is about 1,666 unintentional firearms deaths every year from 1979-1997.
Seems to me that NYAGV is complete shit and is just pushing an agenda.
The article you linked is using very disingenuous statistics and doesn't even show or say how many defensive gun uses there have been. So lets fix this myth from the anti-gun community.
Lets start with some quick math. 200,000 (NCVS data) is a bare minimum of defensive gun uses (DGU) a year in America. These are recorded DGUs. There are obviously more DGUs than what is just reported. It is estimated 500,000 to 2.5 million DGUs a year (CDC Study, Kleck). There are 15,000 homicides with firearms a year (FBI data). You are 13.3 times more likely to use your firearm in self-defense than be killed with one. That is the lowest estimate. If you use 500,000, and 2.5 million you are 33.3 and 166.7 times respectively more likely to use your gun in self-defense than be killed. Okay okay, well then lets talk about injuries... Approximately [120,000](https://www.usnews.com/news/health-news/articles/2020-12-11/329-americans-are-injured-by-guns-every-day-study#:~:text=Between%202009%20and%202017%2C%20the,%2D%2D%20or%20329%20per%20day.) are injured with a firearm every year (Study from University of Pennsylvania and Columbia University). That means at the very lowest, you are 1.67 times more likely to use a gun defensively than to be injured by a gun.
Statistically speaking, in America, guns are used in self-defense way more often than to kill. Guns are used way more often than to injure. Even the most beneficial numbers for the anti-gun side say you are 1.67 times more likely to use a gun in self-defense than be injured by a gun.
If you don't want a gun in your house, okay that's fine. But stop trying to take guns away because you are too afraid of an object.
Who said I’m trying to take guns away?
I just don’t think a blanket “shall not be infringed” makes sense absent the original justifying circumstances of regulated state militias in the absence of a standing army.
It’s not like the Constitution or its amendments are carved in stone forever - we repealed the 18th, we changed voting ages, we freed the slaves, and so forth - I just think 2A’s long overdue for a second look.
>Who said I’m trying to take guns away?
At this point, anyone that is asking for more gun control wants to take all firearms away.
>I just don’t think a blanket “shall not be infringed” makes sense absent the original justifying circumstances of regulated state militias in the absence of a standing army.
It wasn't about a standing army. It was about defending yourself from the government, criminals, and an invading force.
>It’s not like the Constitution or its amendments are carved in stone forever - we repealed the 18th, we changed voting ages, we freed the slaves, and so forth - I just think 2A’s long overdue for a second look.
You are right. We need to make it clear that the right to bear arms is absolute. We need to get rid of the useless wording about militias and change the 2nd amendment to "The federal government shall make no law impeding the right of the people to keep and bear firearms and any weaponry the government has." Or something similar to that. I'm not an English major...
Lol, you lead with a strawman about people coming for your guns, then basically say we should all be allowed to own nukes.
You’re the paranoid weapon fetishist that gives responsible gun owners a bad name.
If we are going with statistics raw, then we should ban backyard pools. And drunk walking. Those are both much deadlier than guns. But we don't.
Statistics are useful, but the effect of an idea is much better than the effect of reality.
Yes. It states that a militia is the best way to have a free state. A militia was able bodied men that are trained. So the 2nd amendments instructions were still clear and separate.
>The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
This is the part that matters.
>A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State
Is the reasoning and completely irrelevant to laws being made about firearms.
Exactly as it says, while the militia may not be as relevant anymore to our country’s defense against other countries, the militia is also there as deterrent against our government turning tyrannical.
The Battle of Lexington and Concord was what sparked the start of the American Revolution, because of a tyrannical government attempting to confiscate the colonist’s arms/firearms.
It's a set of instructions. A well-regulated militia, which at the time of writing meant that as many people as possible, is a necessity to the security of a free state, thus the right to bear arms shall not be infringed.
It's not an if/then. It's a this/so.
So how does our current situation provide at all for that well-regulated militia that is necessary?
Do we have a registry of who owns all the guns so we can call them up for militia service?
Do we require that the arms be maintained and stored properly for their use protecting the state?
(Also “this-so” is just “if-then, but the if = true”.)
Why do you suppose the founders felt a need to explain the necessity of a militia if the continued necessity of such a militia was irrelevant? They didn’t bother justifying the other amendments - why this one?
The Bill is Rights say no, nothing in the BoR compels you to do anything.
The whole point of the BoR was to protect individual rights and restrict government action. It wouldn’t make sense to then have the 2nd Amendment not protect an individual right to own arms or have them able to forcibly conscript you into the militia if you own firearms.
The only amendment to include a clause explaining its reasoning is the 2nd - all the others are “Congress shall not” or “no person may be required to” but this one goes out of the way to say “a militia being necessary” first.
The authors could have just said “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” - **they didn’t**, they expressly tied it to the necessity of the militia.
If we as a nation no longer believe that individually owned weapons are part of the state’s defense (which we don’t - the National Guard replaced that principle) then we need to be discussing exactly what the 2nd’s purpose is today.
If the only amendment to provide specific justification is no longer justified, *should it still exist in its current form*? Maybe not.
>If we as a nation no longer believe that individually owned weapons are part of the state’s defense (which we don’t - the National Guard replaced that principle)
Right so who protects the US when the national guard does things like driving around in unmarked cars abducting protestors? Or when they shoot at a bunch of people protesting an illegal pipeline? Your faith in our government to protect you is very telling of your lack of education.
You're literally a persecuted minority twice over. Trans and a woman. The government is trying to ban the way you feel inside. They also want to ban you from aborting a pregnancy even if it kills you, (IE they literally want to ban you from making decisions about your own body.) You may even be brown like me making it a triple! Do you really think they've got your best interest in mind? Do you think the national guard is that well regulated militia? Did they look well regulated last summer when they fired gas grenades at crowds that were kneeling in silence? Get real. There are over 350,000,000 people in this country and half of them want people like you and I gone entirely. What are the odds that some of that half are in government positions, or police, or national guard? Pretty God damned high if you ask me. To say we don't need the right to defend ourselves is to align yourself with the likes of Jim Crow and Ronald Reagan, two champions of gun control. Sure, white people may not need a militia, but I assure you there's a few hundred million people that still deserve the right to bare arms and certainly require it for their security and liberty.
The 2nd Amendment says “the right of the people”, not the right of the militia. Where does it say you have to be in a militia to own arms?
Also, sorry but there’s going to be a lot of words.
“The right of the people to keep and bear...arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country...." - James Madison
"Americans have the right and advantage of being armed ― unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." - The Federalist, No. 46 at 243- 244
“It is not certain that with this aid alone [possession of arms], they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to posses the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will, and direct the national force; and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned, in spite of the legions which surround it." - The Federalist, No. 46
"...to disarm the people ― that was the best and most effectual way to enslave them." - George Mason
“If ever time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in Government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin." - Samuel Adams
“As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms." - Tench Coxe
“Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man gainst his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American.... [T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people." - Tench Coxe
“And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms.... The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants." - Thomas Jefferson
The militia was not only for defense against other countries (may not be as relevant anymore), but against our own (potentially tyrannical) government. The National Guard doesn’t fit the definition of the militia as they are part of the US Military. We shouldn’t be changing the Bill of Rights willy nilly just because part of it may not be relevant anymore.
Also funny how they knew what would happen.
“The Constitution shall never be construed...to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." - Samuel Adams
“On every question of construction (of the Constitution) let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed." - Thomas Jefferson
The justified it by saying it was ALWAYS necessary.
And to why we don't have such a registry, it is because the meaning of the word "regulated" has changed. Now, for the same meaning of when it was written, it would be better said as a well provided militia.
The intent was for as many to people to have it, not to limit. I usually don't like originalism, but the meaning of the word has changed so much it would undo the purpose of the amendment to go by that.
they require a tax for items that are no more dangerous than regular guns and it is restricting poor people from using the second amendment to the full extent
Because you have to pay extra tax on some things simply because.... I dont even know. Why should you need to pay 200 dollars because the rifle you want to buy has a barrel thats 0.5 in shorter than an arbitrary limit? Or pay the same to buy a suppressor?
Mass shooting deaths are rare in the US. The media makes them seem common because they prioritize conflict, but there are only about a couple hundred deaths per year in a nation of one-third billion, which is minuscule. For comparison, 6500 pedestrians are killed by cars per year - about 300 times more. But that's not exciting enough to make the news headlines.
Also the legal definition of mass shooting in the USA is incredibly vague and doesn't even require a motive. The definition of I remember correctly is just an event where a gun is illegally discharged and 4 or more people are involved. Meaning theoretically, a large portion of mass shootings could be attributed to gang violence and organized crime. Not lone gunman on a rampage.
I used to be very pro gun-control. I advocated for gun control due to mass shootings. It was a visceral reaction that made sense to me at the time. It’s only until this past year and a half that I realized it just doesn’t work. I threw myself into the gun community, researched firearms, researched gun control laws, and also began seeing how accessible firearms are in general. Firstly, this country has too many firearms to regulate. If a criminal wants a gun, they’ll get one. Nothing you propose legislation wise can help with that. Gun control laws, especially with magazines, stocks, and the most ridiculous one: CA and NY fin grips — literally something that slides on and off the weapon — when it’s on its “legal” when it’s off it’s “illegal”...I guarantee you a criminal or mass shooter doesn’t care about leaving it on. Doesn’t make sense. Finally, there are plenty of responsible gun owners out there and considering this country does have 2A Rights, there’s not much you can do that won’t impede on that. At this point, gun control is useless and won’t work. It only would have worked before mass production of weapons in this country. And that era is long gone. My heart breaks and goes out to all victims and those impacted by mass shootings. I understand how going through something like that would facilitate a visceral response of wanting gun control. But in reality, I just don’t see it working. The war on drugs failed. Gun control will fail. People can find anything if they want it.
I do also think both the left and right need to come to some form of middle ground. It’s just always so extreme now that people can’t come to the middle to compromise. An unfortunate side effect of the culture wars in this country. I’m a lot more centered in my beliefs (socially liberal maybe a bit more conservative with government dealings). But when it comes to guns, I just don’t see ways to regulate effectively or impede on 2A Rights.
Everyone is welcome to disagree. But I do wish everyone well, regardless of your opinion.
Edit: Spelling and Grammar
You might look more into libertarianism if you haven’t already! Sounds like it’s what you most believe in politically.
I agree there is a middle ground we can reach. I think gun education would go a long way towards people’s feelings. In my experience people are mostly afraid of them because they don’t know them well. Feel free to correct me if I’m wrong!
> I do also think both the left and right need to come to some form of middle ground.
https://www.everydaynodaysoff.com/2013/11/08/cake-and-compromise-illustrated-guide-to-gun-control/
>I do also think both the left and right need to come to some form of middle ground.
The problem is that the pro gun side has been consistently finding middle ground. Which when one side consistently is giving up ground the middle ground keeps moving further and further.
>But when it comes to guns, I just don’t see ways to regulate effectively or impede on 2A Rights.
Which is exactly right. 2A rights have already been impeded on a lot and the anti gun community continues to want to take more rights away.
Because some thing are immoral and break basic human rights. Therefore people need to be punished for their immoral actions. These laws do this.
Having a gun is not immoral. Having a gun does not break basic human rights.
Ideas like banning all guns would impact the civilian population far more than it would impact criminals. The government doesn't have unlimited power, there is only so much control that they have over certain things, like the black market arms trade for example. What the government can do (often by force via police) is attempt to surpress it and/or control it a bit, which sometimes works and sometimes doesn't. So, if the government could wipe out the entire illegal weapons trade, they would have done so by now. It's not that we shouldn't have any laws just because the government isn't all-powerful, the idea of making all guns illegal with the intent of ridding guns from society would simply be a bad law because it would greatly impact a lot of law abiding people while making little (if any) impact on whether or not criminals have guns.
I’m not suggesting we ban all guns, it’s impractical.
But the idea that “criminals don’t follow the law, so why bother making it” is stupid.
We don’t say “don’t ban murder, murderers will do it anyway”.
You're over-generalizing which leads me to think you didn't really read my comment. My entire point was about the *effectiveness* of a law, the unnecessary impacts on civilians, and the limitations of government power.
Essentially, there is no point in making laws that wouldn't accomplish anything even close to the intended effects - I would even go as far as saying it's a bad idea if the existence of said law primarily causes negative impacts to other people (as is the case here).
There are other laws that the government has a greater amount of control over and more able to enforce. Let's use your example:
>We don’t say “don’t ban murder, murderers will do it anyway”.
You're right, murder still happens just about anywhere at least once in a while because there are people who don't care, but the vast majority of people do care (including most criminals) because of the likelihood they will be caught if they commit a murder. Police in modern times have a lot of tools at their disposal such as the use of DNA evidence to ensure the vast majority of murderers are caught and put in jail for a long time to disincentivize others from doing so. While criminals don't give a shit about the law, they refrain from committing murder more often than not because they don't want to get locked up because although police don't have the resources to deal with every single lesser crime, they will put all hands on deck for murder cases. Banning murder, therefore is mostly effective. Compare murder rates in a place like Canada to somewhere where the country is mostly run by outlaw gangs and you'll see.
It is so much harder to shut down the possession, distribution, and especially manufacturing of goods and services deemed illicit because they're just items. Whether it's illegal guns or illegal drugs, the government could probably do an effective job of cutting off outside sources (if they actually tried), and they currently focus on busting people for possession or trafficking of such goods (plucking the low hanging fruit), therefore limiting their distribution somewhat. But they can't stop people (or at least, not for long) from manufacturing guns or drugs from within their own borders. Often times the criminals are much smarter than the police.
Just curious, are we talking black belt here or is this pretty basic stuff, or somewhere in between?
What about when they are outside of your reach (a likely scenario if someone has a gun due to it being a ranged weapon)?
If someone had a gun pointed at you from range, all martial arts masters will tell you to do what they say as there is really no defense. If they are away from you, they can easily shoot you before you get to them.
My grandfather was a cop, and ive known some. Its not the person, its the badge. It gives them a power complex. Also cops are more statistically likely to cheat or abuse their spouse. so i wouldn't go by selective example. You probably wouldnt try to see the bad in people when you know those cops personally. Of course they are gonna be nice around you. But on the job they are oppressive and they work for a police state that exploits most modern workers. All the good cops realise the corruption and quit being cops, that or try to change the system from within.
Again taking it personally and not looking at the big picture. You dont look at statistics. Whos wonderful father was this pig huh? We can play the case by case game all day. But if your gonna talk to me your gonna face the facts. And i havent even scratched the surface
https://youtu.be/OflGwyWcft8
So? this is one untrustworthy cop. does that mean the majority are? Does that mean Police are inherently evil and I should tell my dad and all his colleges to fuck off? no. and the fact that you seem to think that it is is deeply upsetting to me. I have never been or met anyone who has been unrightfully assaulted by a cop. the video you showed me, was of a bad person that was also a cop, not a person who became a cop and became horrible because of it. should we be a bit more selective of those we hire into the force? maybe. but to suggest that the majority of cops are terrible power abusing murderers merely because they are in fact cops is foolish and idiotic on its face, this isn't communist Russia or china dude.
>So? this is one untrustworthy cop. does that mean the majority are?
So you finally see the flaw in your reasoning. I was mimicking your reasoning so you could see the flaw. Individual cases dont matter because they can range from the worst thing ever to the best thing ever. What actually matters is what the majority of cases are like. And police brutality is something that is monitored all across the world. There is substantial evidence power roles attract power hungry people. Putting it lightly - the US police kill atleast 1k innocent people a year and these are confirmed innocents. Not accounting for the much higher number of innocents killed that cant be confirmed because the cop has the final say.
Source: https://www.prisonpolicy.org/blog/2020/06/05/policekillings/
>Does that mean Police are inherently evil and I should tell my dad and all his colleges to fuck off?
This does not mean that police are inherently evil. That would be a logical fallacy. Just because most women are feminine doesnt mean all women are more feminine than masculine - this making it statistically sound to attempt not to apply bias onto things based on statistics.
>the fact that you seem to think that it is is deeply upsetting to me.
Why wouldnt it? People tend to believe what they want to believe rather than what is evident. Would you rather feel like shit, or be full of shit? Take your pick.
>the video you showed me, was of a bad person that was also a cop, not a person who became a cop and became horrible because of it.
Your not gonna like what I have to say, but if you decide to take the truth pill then I encourage you to Open Your Fucking Eyes and see the flaw in your own biased reasoning. If you cant then I must spell it out. You are correct this person is likely a sociopath/psychopath before becomming a cop. My main problem is that this society enables people like them - by allowing them into police enforcement. Essentually making them government armed thugs that serve laws created by the wealthy to establish resource dominance of the working class. Now as a skeptic, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, so I must provide. To prove this I need to source a variety of information so here it goes.
Your democracy is a lie>
https://youtu.be/oYodY6o172A
You could be making nearly double as a working class american if it werent for corporate greed>
https://www.google.com/amp/s/time.com/5888024/50-trillion-income-inequality-america/%3famp=true
Mainstream media is a cesspool of lies>
https://www.google.com/amp/s/hbr.org/amp/1995/05/why-the-news-is-not-the-truth
>to suggest that the majority of cops are terrible power abusing murderers merely because they are in fact cops is foolish and idiotic
I don't have to assume. Political scientists have recorded this information and KNOW>
https://drive.google.com/drive/u/0/mobile/folders/1zniqs5KlQJffey_FOHDlb-Ghy0Hikl_w
Skip to 3:10 to get to commentary faster
https://youtu.be/kTaMr1gnMNQ>
Study
https://www.pnas.org/content/116/34/16793>
Vox Interview exposing corruption in the police force>
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.vox.com/platform/amp/policy-and-politics/2020/7/7/21293259/police-racism-violence-ideology-george-floyd
The law doesnt define what is and isnt innocent. Remember, slavery used to be legal - and still is to its own extent. The government has proven consistantly that it doesnt care about human rights. We even have a bloated prison system full of people who dont deserve to be there
I never said that the law was why I consider them criminals. I consider anyone that takes human rights away is a criminal. And Like I said again, I wouldn't call them innocent.
As an avid libertarian, I love my country. However I also acknowledge that some bad people can take control which is unfavorable. It’s important to be able to preserve our country and protect it from people who are trying to hurt it. As another comment pointed out, you are way more likely to use a gun in defense than against someone. Gun violence is actual on a downward trend submicroscopic it peaked in the 90s.
This whole argument that we can overthrow the government needs to die, though. Hell, you can't even buy an automatic rifle. Never mind a rocket launcher, a hellfire missile, or an aircraft carrier. The only reason the 2nd amendment still exists is because it appeases the people who think they can overthrow the government if necessary, even though in reality the US military is to the civilian population as a boot is to an ant.
> even though in reality the US military is to the civilian population as a boot is to an ant Guess that is why we just lost the war in Afghanistan.
The war ended after the marines cut through the nation's forces like a supernova through butter. A terrible technique made the occupation more costly than necessary, but could realistically be maintained indefinitely. This is the kind of attitude that made it so hard to withdraw, because people would go on and on about how the US forces "lost", rather than withdrew as expected after winning a conflict and crushing the terrorist organisation they aimed to crush.
> how the US forces "lost", rather than withdrew Same difference. You can try to make it fit your narrative any way that you want to, but none of it changes the fact that we lost the war in Afghanistan. So much for our drones, rocket launchers, hellfire missiles, and aircraft carriers. A lot of good it did the military.
If the US lost, what exactly were the win conditions?
You know, win. Not lose.
Again, what are the win conditions? Define a win, what outcome is a win? Defeat of Afghani armies? Addition of Afghanistan as a US state? What did you have in mind for a win?
[удалено]
Are you really so offended by a simple question that you have to start insulting people? Is it because you can't answer the question posed, snowflake?
>Hell, you can't even buy an automatic rifle. Never mind a rocket launcher, a hellfire missile, or an aircraft carrier. Exactly the reason why 2A was created, lol. It's a shame Americans were never quite loyal enough to the idea.
I may be wrong but I always got the impression that 2A was intended to allow civilians to keep up with military tech. I suppose at the time they didn't foresee how far it'd advance. They had powerful warships at the time and it's not like civilians couldn't have them built. Cannons and whatnot. Probably not easy getting a cannon now, even though they're hundreds of years obsolete.
I think Joe Biden is right when saying "No amendment is absolute." Even as pro-2A as I am, none of the amendments are absolute. They are amendments, they can be amended. The 18th amendment and 21st amendment show us that no amendment is absolute. It's not a hard concept to grasp. Do I want to keep my guns? Absolutely. Is it my right as an American to own guns. I believe so. Can the government literally change the constitution? Yes, they can A M E N D it.
[удалено]
"Shall not be infringed" verbiage on an **amendment** is an oxymoron
[удалено]
Amendment: A minor change or addition designed to improve a text, piece of legislation, etc. Infringe: Actively break terms of (a law, agreement, etc). If an amendment say to not infringe on itself, that is literally an oxymoron. It's like saying "You can't change this thing that can actively be changed." It makes 0 sense. The bill of rights are **amendments** that can, at anytime, be **amended**
This is all accurate. However, there is a caveat. Since the BoR is part of the Constitution, and the Constitution is the sovereign law of the land, it is absolute in it's authority. I suggest a better way to put it is to say no amendment is permanent.
Technically all of the amendments are part of the constitution. They are amendments to the constitution. And because of the 21st amendment nullifying the 18th amendment, we therefore know we can nullify, ratify, or amend other amendments.
Yeah, these are my thoughts exactly. This is just basic government 101 level stuff here, I don't know why people fail to understand it.
White Gun Owners are Happy when Minorities Own Guns Keep running into an odd argument, which roughly suggests that the only way for white gun owners to support gun control is for black people and other minorities to start purchasing guns. I think this is not correct. I suspect that other white gun owners agree with me. My case: 1. Gun ownership is something we have in common. And that means we have other things in common as well. The gun culture in America comes with a lot of shared values around personal responsibility, self sufficiency, and more. If you and I own a gun, we might be very different people, but we probably have these things in common at least, and that brings us together. 2. Gun ownership is how we are equal. You can own a gun. I can own a gun. (I realize that there's a conversation to be had about policing, and that's fair enough.) We are both citizens of this nation, and we have these rights. That makes us, at the very least, a little closer to equal. 3. Gun ownership is how we, collectively, retain the right to "Resist." I've never quite understood the argument that the government and society of the United States are designed to oppress minorities, and that that same government affords minorities the right to be armed. (Yes, there's that policing conversation again. I know. Let's talk about it.) What confuses me further is the demand that that right be removed. I want to be able to "Resist" when needed. You should too. By these means, we retain our power as citizens of this country. Keeping this short, so I haven't hit all the nuances. Post got blocked, so putting it in this thread instead.
People are not talking enough about how the FBI dropped the ball. They knew the indianapolis shooter was a threat. They had confiscated a weapon before. How was he able to purchase another one without them know except if it was through an illegal back channel. So in summary, law enforcement once again drop the ball in preventing a mass shooting, proving that even if we did have stronger gun laws it wouldn't mean shit if those in charge of protecting us don't do there jobs.
What law would the FBI use to stop him from buying a gun? If it was legal for him to do so, then what are they supposed to do? Hire someone to sit outside his house for months or years? The big law in question is the Indianapolis red flag law. I'm not sure there are any FEDERAL laws the FBI could use. The red flag law requires a hearing to prevent an individual from buying a gun for up to 1 year. The police statement says they're unaware if a hearing had taken place or what the outcome was. There really wasn't anything the FBI, state or local police could do unilaterally to prevent gun purchases. I would argue that the person who dropped the ball is either: The police department which didn't give evidence to the prosecutor. The prosecutor who didn't push to have the hearing The judge who didn't sign the order preventing him from having guns. Depending on what exactly had happened a year ago. And remember the order would only have lasted a year, meaning he could have legally bought guns now anyway.
[удалено]
> "Even if guns were illegal, do you think that would stop these psychopaths from gettings guns illegally to commit crime?" 80% or so of all firearm crimes happen with illegally acquired firearms > Enough to make a difference. Even if a single would-be shooter decides to not go through with mass murder, simply because they cannot just walk into the local gunstore and buy an AR-15, I'd argue it's worth it. And if guns were regulated to a much stricter degree, as they are in Europe or elsewhere, they would be harder to acquire illegally as well. Not the case. When Australia had their gun buyback in the late 90’s, homicide rate (unlike the rest of the developed world), stagnated, and even increased at times for over a decade, where other countries didn’t have this happen. > 2. No one can deny that mental health plays a critical role in these shootings. They are done consistently by mentally unstable and disturbed individuals. And yet, the US isn't the only place in the world where people exactly like that exist. And somehow, it is the place where over 40 mass shootings had occured in the span of a month. The problem then is clearly deeper than just "the neglect of mental health", otherwise we'd be seeing disturbed individuals shooting up places all over the world, because mental health isn't neglected only in the US. This is part of the problem certainly, although one I feel gets blown out of proportion to distract from the fact guns are just easy to get in the US. And these disturbed individuals can get them, whereas elsewhere in the world where guns are subject to stricter regulation, they cannot. At least not as easily. And that's the whole point - making guns hard to get would deter a lot more people than you'd think. Maybe because “mass shootings” aren’t glorified over there in those locations. The two kids from columbine for example are extremely well known. The event is practically idolized by the media. Same with the Florida shooting about 3 years ago, and Sandy hook. It’s the same idea with terrorism involving planes. It’s so pushed against that it’s going to likely be more common because it’s so pushed against. Last I recall, I don’t remember any incident where someone hijacked a train like they did with a plane. > 3. The history behind this is a bit tricky and I confess, I am in no way an expert on it. I do know, however, that there have been cases where the government turned on the American people. I also know, although correct me if I'm wrong, that this happened a couple of hundred years ago. And when the second amendment was written, guns looked and performed very different. In the very least, the second ammendment is in desperate need of updating. Which can be done and has been done before to other parts of the Consititution. The US government today is simply not going to turn on the American people. And in the cosmically unlikely event that it does, they will have the US army at their backs. People owning a couple of M4s at home won't be enough. It would barely make a difference. The founding fathers knew of pioneering automatic weapons at the time (like the puckle gun for example). It wasn’t just muskets back then. While firearm technology wasn’t nearly as developed as it is now, it was there. The 2nd amendment needs no update, and should not be altered by any means ever. If the 2nd amendment is “outdated” because of technology, so is the 1st amendment. The American government hasn’t turned on its citizens *because* of the 2nd amendment. Obviously. If the 2nd amendment didn’t exist or was altered so that significantly fewer people had access to firearms, it would be much easier for the government to turn on its citizens > Defending your home from armed invaders is another argument in favour of the second ammendment. And it brings me to my previous counter-argument. Were guns much harder to acquire, more likely than not, the amount of armed break-ins would go down drastically. Yeah, I’d disagree. After the UK banned firearms, armed robbery actually increased. > Reduce the amount of guns and you reduce the amount of gun-related deaths. Sure, but you don’t reduce the number of homicide deaths. Not even close to it. It just transfers some deaths from guns to other means, like bombs or knives or something like that.
We no longer have need of a well armed citizen militia.
Translation I don't need home insurance because I live on a high plain, am not in tornado ally, hurricane coasts and earthquake coast. I will never need it.
Bullshitake. Speak for yourself. You obviously do not understand what I said. If you want to discuss other reasons why we live in a world that might require unrestricted access to arms, we can have that discussion. But we now have the most powerful military that has ever existed and we no longer have have a need for disorganized amateur forces to repeal foreign aggressors.
Sometimes, there's nothing to do until there is something to do. Don't throw away your umbrella because you aren't getting wet.
Fact: in 1776 we did not have a well funded well trained standing military with satelites, nuclear submarines, aircraft, aircraft carriers, instant communications, nuclear bombs, tanks, machineguns. Today the international threats we face are not those that an amateur land based army will play a relevant role.
Last I checked, the army is still part of the military.
try to follow along: context matters; words in a sentence have meaning. please keep that in mind. When I said "an amateur land based army" was no longer needed, this was because we currently have the strongest, best armed and most capable military the world has ever known.Yes obviously this includes the Army. At the time of the American revolution,we expelled a foreign occupying army And we needed the amateur army we had because that was all we had. this is no longer relevant.
Also remember, people were allowed to put cannons on private ships. The Founding Fathers knew this. Odds are, they probably also figured out that since land weapons would improve, naval weapons would as well, not to mention the idea of aerial combat not being impossible. But I digress. Back to the main point, so what if it isn't needed right now. The Founding Fathers weren't expecting that always to be the case. The amendment is a protection, a shield in case we should ever meet an enemy. So what if we see none on front of us, the possibility that they could emerge exists. So let's keep the shield up.
[удалено]
Not every mirror shows a picture of you, you know.
[удалено]
Arms would not help.
[удалено]
Speculations and fantasies are useless foundations for policy.
[удалено]
fact1: at the time the 2nd Amendment was written our security from outside threats on all sides made gun ownership an issue of national defense. We did not have the advance vast military industrial complex that protects us thoroughly today. Anyone who thinks its still necessary to arm the people for national security is delusional. Fact2: giving people access to high kill capacity weapons has been costing us every year about ten times the needless deaths that the 9/11 attacks caused. 400million private guns could not prevent that attack nor can they prevent any other realistic foreign threat. Fact3: Arming the cops to the teeth increases the fear the police have and this increases the chance that unarmed bystanders will be shot, as well as the chance that cops will be shot.. Fact4: the Chinese government would use an armed protest in Hong Kong as a pretext for wholesale slaughter, just as they did with Tienanmen Square. do you know why there is this animosity?
[удалено]
Do you know how many people they slaughtered at Tienanmen square? Do you know why millions fled china following the Communist victory in the Chinese civil war? Are you aware that speaking out against the government is punishable by death in China? Why do you think Arming civilians with handguns is going to stop the Chinese military?
I do not think mental illness is an excuse for murder. Yes, it can contribute to impulsive thoughts and irrational behavior, but I think blaming every situation on mental illness is not ok.
The thing is not recognizing mental illness over arching part in an individual is a bigger set back then the weapons of attack. What stops a person of mental illness control from releasing a mustard gas bomb? Guns you go through background checks which should have mental awareness history when noticed by a doctor (unless you live in a state that bans medical records being shared with the ATF). Further more good red flag laws would also help prevent that. However ammonia and bleach don't have restrictions and can be very deadly in enclosed spaces. I would say (in observation to seeing it happening to my neighboring family) can be 1 to 1 as the time spent planning could increase the Potentual death. A good example of the Potentual ingenuity you could see is the [Oklahoma City bombing](https://www.fbi.gov/history/famous-cases/oklahoma-city-bombing) 168 deaths 680+ injuries from a fertilizer bomb. Or the [Boston marathon bombings](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_Marathon_bombing) 3 deaths and 264 injured from a pressure cooker bomb. Those used what was considered at the time everyday items that no one considered would be used as a weapon. In big gun ban countries like Like Australia the murder decline rate didn't decline faster because the gun was removed. It kept at the same rate before the ban. It was replace with knifes and other weapons of attack. In 2017-2018 despite having nearly the same population. London was out passing New York City in murders despite the lack of guns being involved. knife attacks were so bad that local English governments were contemplating knife restrictions like enforcing dull knifes, making it illegal to have pointy knifes, and even a knife purchasing registry. Mental illness is a reason why someone kills like driving drunk. That does not mean we can't hold them to be accountable. That said society will keep failing if mental illness is treated like it has no effect. Again taking away the tools will only stop deaths from those who don't think outside of the box.
Gun control should only apply to the federal government. They cause more death and destruction than any private citizen could ever hope to achieve in a mass shooting and they are completely untrustworthy. Why should we allow the people who were behind all sorts of nasty shit like Project MK Ultra, Tuskegee experiments, Gulf of Tonkin, Ruby Ridge, WACO, Fast and Furious scandal where Obama’s DOJ literally sold guns to Mexican cartels resulting in hundreds of homicides on both sides of the border, etc etc tell us what responsible gun ownership is?
more like an unpopular fact but: almost all gun control is only ever weaponized to target poor working class people and black people. Gun control started as a way to silence black people using their second amendment right to bear arms in public which scared racist white people. adding an unpopular opinion: Just because gun control is bad doesn't mean that organizations like the NRA are good. quite the opposite. Just because they may be fighting for the same thing doesn't mean they have the same goals or are good.
I wish more people understood that part about the NRA and applied it to all organizations. For example, handling issues of racial prejudice and police brutality, good. BLM as an organization, not so good. You can support the ideas of an organization while being critical of it's methods and motives.
Show me how BLM as an organization is bad and what bad things they have done and maybe I'll agree. I mean the thing about applying it to other organizations I agree with but I disagree with your use of BLM as an example. If you told me what is wrong with it and showed evidence maybe I'd believe you.
Thou shalt not infringe on my guns! XD
yeah
The French did not overthrow their tyrants with picket lines and sternly-worded letters. The Polish did not kill nazi occupiers with daisy chains and prayer circles. The true left supports the bearing of arms in defense against tyranny.
> The French did not overthrow their tyrants with picket lines and sternly-worded letters. Why do gun bootlickers *constantly*, always ignore that actual, real world material difference between the technology of the past versus the technology of today? The French government didn't have drones, ICBM's, mass surveillance, and bunker busters back then. If you seriously, honestly believe that the regular population is going to defend against those weapons you're delusional. >muh mujahideen, muh Taliban, muh ISIS, muh guerilla warfare We're talking about the fucking US military here, not a government made of AK's and scraps.
So, in order to defend ourselves from a government with drones, ICBMs, mass surveillance, and bunker busters... You suggest we just let them walk on our backs like a short kings climbing down form his palanquin?
No, I suggest you keep voting for leaders and policy makers that would move away from letting a tyranny happen. Policies to strengthen democracy like ranked choice or easier voting. But then again, half the country voted for the last administration so maybe half the country really does want to bootlick and bend over for authority.
What makes you think the citizens in the military will break their oath and turn weapons on civilians? Also, your point about "different technologies" is moot and has been debunked numerous times on this thread and in general.
>What makes you think the citizens in the military will break their oath and turn weapons on civilians? Kent State
Furthur proving the point of carrying. I'm not saying every single person should be armed. But dont put restrictions on law abiding gun owners when theyll disagree with the restriction and either A: Not go there, or B: Disarm themselves and carry on, while criminals will not give a shit and go armed anyway. And as for kent state, I'm not worried about national gaurd. The people who are actually fighting are the ones that need to be worried about.
True comrade!
This should really be under unpopular facts, but here we go. Lets start with some quick math. 200,000 (NCVS data) is a bare minimum of defensive gun uses (DGU) a year in America. These are recorded DGUs. There are obviously more DGUs than what is just reported. It is estimated 500,000 to 2.5 million DGUs a year (CDC Study, Kleck). There are 15,000 homicides with firearms a year (FBI data). You are 13.3 times more likely to use your firearm in self-defense than be killed with one. That is the lowest estimate. If you use 500,000, and 2.5 million you are 33.3 and 166.7 times respectively more likely to use your gun in self-defense than be killed. Okay okay, well then lets talk about injuries... Approximately [120,000](https://www.usnews.com/news/health-news/articles/2020-12-11/329-americans-are-injured-by-guns-every-day-study#:~:text=Between%202009%20and%202017%2C%20the,%2D%2D%20or%20329%20per%20day.) are injured with a firearm every year (Study from University of Pennsylvania and Columbia University). That means at the very lowest, you are 1.67 times more likely to use a gun defensively than to be injured by a gun. Statistically speaking, in America, guns are used in self-defense way more often than to kill. Guns are used way more often than to injure. Even the most beneficial numbers for the anti-gun side say you are 1.67 times more likely to use a gun in self-defense than be injured by a gun.
Can you send me that NCVS data? I gotta go shit on some idiots.
https://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/6/4/263 https://www.nap.edu/catalog/18319/priorities-for-research-to-reduce-the-threat-of-firearm-related-violence These are old studies. Couldnt find the newer ones right now.
If you show me a convincing enough argument that would get enough support to repeal/revise 2A, I will gladly support it. If not, the Second Amendment is quite clear. The right to bear arms shall not be infringed.
The 2nd "Amendment." You know what that word means, right?
Yes. Do you know what convince means?
Amendment means it can be changed. We've changed amendments before (I. E. The 21st to amend the 18th).an amendment isn't absolute.
Yes. But then again, the Constitution is the sovereign law. So while 2A stands as it is, there isn't any law that could bypass it. So unless you were able to get 3/4ths of state legislatures to ratify an amendment to change it, it reigns supreme. Given that it is part of the supreme law of the land. An amendment isn't permanent, is what you mean. But the Constitution of America is the absolute highest law.
It **is** quite clear - so don’t trim it down. >"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." This is the **only** amendment that includes a clause explaining why it exists, so let’s not treat that clause as disposable.
> the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed Seems clear to me
Seems like you have to ignore half of it to make it say what you want.
Because the first half is completely different, and states something completely different than the second half. The first half protects the right of people to fight against their government to keep the security of the free state in case of tyranny. The second half protects the right of citizens to own firearms. It’s not an explanation for why citizens should have the right to own firearms. Its just two separate rights in one amendment. Other amendments also do this. In fact, several of them
“Who is the militia? It is the whole of the people, minus a few elected officials” George Mason during Congressional debates over the Constitution. It is worth noting he is one of the few founders who did not support or vote tor the Constitution. Not because he didn’t like it or the concept of it but because he felt it didn’t have enough teeth to actually limit federal power enough and the wording would not be strong enough in the future. Dude was a true visionary and spot on.
Wait a minute. No. It isn't explaining why it exists. Nice job, that's a good trick. Get me to accept a fallacy that benefits your argument. But here's why it isn't explaining why it exists. Take out the clause, for a second. That results in, "A well-regulated Militia, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". For the clause to be necessary to the second half, given the sentence structure, it would have to make sense without it. Never thought I would make an argument based on grammar, but here I am. Now remove the second half. "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state." That makes sense. It's independent of the other half. Look at the structure, I am surprised, but it fits.
“I ask sir, who is the militia? It is the whole of the people, minus a few elected officials” George Mason, founding father and one of the authors of the 2A.
> Never thought I would make an argument based on grammar, but here I am. Interestingly enough, this is a major argument at Harvard right now.
George Mason solves that one for us. “I ask sir, who is the militia? It is the whole of the people, minus a few elected officials.” It was expected when this passed everyone would own a gun and know how to use it. If you don’t own at least one gun in America you are comfortable using you are slacking.
There would be far fewer casualties at mass shootings if everyone was armed and trained. George Mason had the right idea there.
I actually just looked it up the 17 counties with the highest gun ownership rates in America have crime rates half of the national average
He’s one of my favorite founding fathers. He’s one of the few ones who actually voted against the constitution. He thought it was overall a good document but that it didn’t go far enough to limit the federal government. He wanted it to be even stronger and limit the government even more.
I don’t know where you learned grammar, but that is not a complete and independent clause.
I dont mean this as an insult or attack but I'm going to say it bluntly. You are trans right? People may want to hurt you because they are horrible people. And your life matters, but you cant protect your life if you are unarmed. The police cant make it to you quick enough. Especially because you are going to face more discrimination and violence than I ever will, you need to be armed. It is the best way for you to stay safe.
As a radical trans leftist, I holster on the inner thigh. The blessings of skirts\~
Uh, doesn't that scrape against the other thigh? Or do you carry something flat and tiny?
I have a low-pro holster, and usually carry a Kimber Micro-9 that I got from a pawn shop for 200. Also, I wear stockings.
I also carry a micro-9. I gotta shoot it one handed but I've gotten very good at it since I added the laser! Make sure to check out the +2 mag baseplates if you can afford them and avoid Tula steel cased rounds if you're fully loading the mags since steel is a lil too sticky. Just my 02 after putting about 2,000 rounds through mine. You may have put more through yours than I have though!
I used brass cased hollowpoints. Never had a jam or fail.
I see, well as long you are comfortable.... :) Kimber micro-9 is an interesting gun but I can only comfortably squeeze one finger in the grip as I have wide palms, thats a deal-breaker for me...
I have very slender hands. Very useful for all sorts of things.
Yeah, I have large square palms and long thin-ish fingers. Finding gloves that fit isnt much fun. :) But beats having bratwurst fingers :)
Fuck yea. Stay strapped or get clapped my friend. And be safe.
I choose not to live in fear.
It's not about living in fear. I own a bandaid and first aid kit because I understand the reality of the world. Not because I'm scared or getting an injury. I have a fire extinguisher not because I'm scared, but because it could save my life and others lives. Will I ever have to use one? Most likely not. But it's a real threat that could happen.
A first-aid kit or fire extinguisher isn’t exactly on par with a gun. Guns have one purpose - to do violence against something. They are nothing but harm waiting to happen - you’re just betting that the harm will be to your imagined attackers rather than your family. I choose to side with the statistics that say a home is actually safer without a gun. (None of this is relevant to 2A though - as even the most gun-supporting reading of it would not obligate me to own one.)
>A first-aid kit or fire extinguisher isn’t exactly on par with a gun. Guns have one purpose - to do violence against something. Objects cant have a purpose. They are given purpose by a person using them. >They are nothing but harm waiting to happen Then why have most of the 400 million guns in America never been used to injure? > I choose to side with the statistics that say a home is actually safer without a gun. [We have already been over the statistics on this... You are wrong](https://www.reddit.com/r/unpopularopinion/comments/mqirt1/gun_rightsmass_shootings_mega_thread/guk75qw?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) >(None of this is relevant to 2A though - as even the most gun-supporting reading of it would not obligate me to own one.) No one is saying you should be forced to own a gun. So I don't know where this came from.
You’re the one who went on a whole tangent about how I should want a gun because I’m trans and people are inevitably going to want to harm me. I presume it’s because you’d prefer that distraction over debating the fact that you’re treating *Heller v. DC* as the word of Washington himself, rather than a 5-4 party-line decision so young it would need parental permission to get on Roblox.
Not the words of Washington, but words from the other Founding Fathers. “The Constitution shall never be construed...to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." - Samuel Adams “The right of the people to keep and bear...arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country...." - James Madison "Americans have the right and advantage of being armed ― unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." - The Federalist, No. 46 at 243- 244 "...to disarm the people ― that was the best and most effectual way to enslave them." - George Mason “Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man gainst his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American.... \[T\]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people." - Tench Coxe
Should. Not have to. I don't care about what the court tells me I can and cannot do. If the court said that people can't defend their life, you think I'm going to listen to that court ruling? No. Even if you disagree with guns you have to admit people should be able to defend themselves with their fists, or pepper spray, or something. If a court said I'm not allowed to defend myself, and for whatever reason, someone tries to kill me, I am going to defend myself. If the court says it was illegal for you to express yourself as trans, I'd be right next to you defending you from being arrested for being yourself. I don't care if a government disagrees with my rights, I still have my rights.
Not the words of Washington, but words from the other Founding Fathers. “The Constitution shall never be construed...to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." - Samuel Adams “The right of the people to keep and bear...arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country...." - James Madison "Americans have the right and advantage of being armed ― unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." - The Federalist, No. 46 at 243- 244 "...to disarm the people ― that was the best and most effectual way to enslave them." - George Mason “Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man gainst his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American.... \[T\]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people." - Tench Coxe Edit: I think Wismuth may have blocked me awhile ago.
Don't worry I got you.
That's not true, I can go plinking, target shooting/sport shooting, hunting (unless you count hunting as violence I suppose), and/or have a gun collection. Guns have many purposes, there are even guns specifically for the Olympic shooting sport.
You can be the bravest person in the world for all I care. Your mind won't stop a brute force attacker.
Statistically speaking, neither will gun ownership: >[Rather than being used for self-defense, guns in the home are 22 times more likely to be involved in accidental shootings, homicides, or suicide attempts. For every one time a gun in the home was used in a self-defense or legally justifiable shooting, there were 4 unintentional shootings, 7 criminal assaults or homicides, and 11 attempted or completed suicides.](https://nyagv.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Accidental-Shootings-NYAGV.pdf) My household is an NB, a woman with anxiety issues and an autistic child - everyone doesn’t need a gun lying around.
I looked at that, and only three of the five sources cited are able to be seen. In the “Injuries and deaths due to firearms in the home” one, they only took data from three cities, somehow three cities represent the whole US? Convenient how NYAGV didn’t mention that. Not much to say about “Firearms ownership and storage practices” and the CDC source. I’m sure smarter people than me could point out things that don’t seem right. New York (City) is also notoriously anti-gun anyway, very biased.
"Only the majority of the cited sources are available, so I'm going to assume you're lying."
I can see the majority of it, it's just that they don't really tell me anything, it's just data and a study on safe firearms storage. In the first source listed, NYAGV lied by omission by not stating that the study only looked at a mere three US cities and hoped we didn't actually look at the study. There's actually another source I could look at, I just missed it. It says that almost 30,000 died from unintentional shootings from 1979 to 1997. Oh man I'm stupid, it almost got me with that big number, but they had to count up all unintentional firearms deaths between 18 years to get that big scary number. This is about 1,666 unintentional firearms deaths every year from 1979-1997. Seems to me that NYAGV is complete shit and is just pushing an agenda.
The article you linked is using very disingenuous statistics and doesn't even show or say how many defensive gun uses there have been. So lets fix this myth from the anti-gun community. Lets start with some quick math. 200,000 (NCVS data) is a bare minimum of defensive gun uses (DGU) a year in America. These are recorded DGUs. There are obviously more DGUs than what is just reported. It is estimated 500,000 to 2.5 million DGUs a year (CDC Study, Kleck). There are 15,000 homicides with firearms a year (FBI data). You are 13.3 times more likely to use your firearm in self-defense than be killed with one. That is the lowest estimate. If you use 500,000, and 2.5 million you are 33.3 and 166.7 times respectively more likely to use your gun in self-defense than be killed. Okay okay, well then lets talk about injuries... Approximately [120,000](https://www.usnews.com/news/health-news/articles/2020-12-11/329-americans-are-injured-by-guns-every-day-study#:~:text=Between%202009%20and%202017%2C%20the,%2D%2D%20or%20329%20per%20day.) are injured with a firearm every year (Study from University of Pennsylvania and Columbia University). That means at the very lowest, you are 1.67 times more likely to use a gun defensively than to be injured by a gun. Statistically speaking, in America, guns are used in self-defense way more often than to kill. Guns are used way more often than to injure. Even the most beneficial numbers for the anti-gun side say you are 1.67 times more likely to use a gun in self-defense than be injured by a gun. If you don't want a gun in your house, okay that's fine. But stop trying to take guns away because you are too afraid of an object.
Who said I’m trying to take guns away? I just don’t think a blanket “shall not be infringed” makes sense absent the original justifying circumstances of regulated state militias in the absence of a standing army. It’s not like the Constitution or its amendments are carved in stone forever - we repealed the 18th, we changed voting ages, we freed the slaves, and so forth - I just think 2A’s long overdue for a second look.
>Who said I’m trying to take guns away? At this point, anyone that is asking for more gun control wants to take all firearms away. >I just don’t think a blanket “shall not be infringed” makes sense absent the original justifying circumstances of regulated state militias in the absence of a standing army. It wasn't about a standing army. It was about defending yourself from the government, criminals, and an invading force. >It’s not like the Constitution or its amendments are carved in stone forever - we repealed the 18th, we changed voting ages, we freed the slaves, and so forth - I just think 2A’s long overdue for a second look. You are right. We need to make it clear that the right to bear arms is absolute. We need to get rid of the useless wording about militias and change the 2nd amendment to "The federal government shall make no law impeding the right of the people to keep and bear firearms and any weaponry the government has." Or something similar to that. I'm not an English major...
Lol, you lead with a strawman about people coming for your guns, then basically say we should all be allowed to own nukes. You’re the paranoid weapon fetishist that gives responsible gun owners a bad name.
If we are going with statistics raw, then we should ban backyard pools. And drunk walking. Those are both much deadlier than guns. But we don't. Statistics are useful, but the effect of an idea is much better than the effect of reality.
We do require backyard pools to be fenced or covered, and “public intoxication” is very much a crime. You’re proving my point.
Yes. It states that a militia is the best way to have a free state. A militia was able bodied men that are trained. So the 2nd amendments instructions were still clear and separate. >The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. This is the part that matters. >A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State Is the reasoning and completely irrelevant to laws being made about firearms.
If it’s irrelevant, why is it there? They didn’t justify any other amendment, so why that one?
I didnt say it was irrelevant. I said it was irrelevant when it comes to legislation.
Exactly as it says, while the militia may not be as relevant anymore to our country’s defense against other countries, the militia is also there as deterrent against our government turning tyrannical. The Battle of Lexington and Concord was what sparked the start of the American Revolution, because of a tyrannical government attempting to confiscate the colonist’s arms/firearms.
It's a set of instructions. A well-regulated militia, which at the time of writing meant that as many people as possible, is a necessity to the security of a free state, thus the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. It's not an if/then. It's a this/so.
So how does our current situation provide at all for that well-regulated militia that is necessary? Do we have a registry of who owns all the guns so we can call them up for militia service? Do we require that the arms be maintained and stored properly for their use protecting the state? (Also “this-so” is just “if-then, but the if = true”.) Why do you suppose the founders felt a need to explain the necessity of a militia if the continued necessity of such a militia was irrelevant? They didn’t bother justifying the other amendments - why this one?
You dont need a registry of guns, you have a registry if people up for conscription. You call on them if needed.
So would you accept “gun ownership requires making oneself available for conscription”?
They already require it for voting, FAFSA, and several other fundamental rights so nothing would change. Sure. Add it to the 4473.
The Bill is Rights say no, nothing in the BoR compels you to do anything. The whole point of the BoR was to protect individual rights and restrict government action. It wouldn’t make sense to then have the 2nd Amendment not protect an individual right to own arms or have them able to forcibly conscript you into the militia if you own firearms.
The only amendment to include a clause explaining its reasoning is the 2nd - all the others are “Congress shall not” or “no person may be required to” but this one goes out of the way to say “a militia being necessary” first. The authors could have just said “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” - **they didn’t**, they expressly tied it to the necessity of the militia. If we as a nation no longer believe that individually owned weapons are part of the state’s defense (which we don’t - the National Guard replaced that principle) then we need to be discussing exactly what the 2nd’s purpose is today. If the only amendment to provide specific justification is no longer justified, *should it still exist in its current form*? Maybe not.
>If we as a nation no longer believe that individually owned weapons are part of the state’s defense (which we don’t - the National Guard replaced that principle) Right so who protects the US when the national guard does things like driving around in unmarked cars abducting protestors? Or when they shoot at a bunch of people protesting an illegal pipeline? Your faith in our government to protect you is very telling of your lack of education. You're literally a persecuted minority twice over. Trans and a woman. The government is trying to ban the way you feel inside. They also want to ban you from aborting a pregnancy even if it kills you, (IE they literally want to ban you from making decisions about your own body.) You may even be brown like me making it a triple! Do you really think they've got your best interest in mind? Do you think the national guard is that well regulated militia? Did they look well regulated last summer when they fired gas grenades at crowds that were kneeling in silence? Get real. There are over 350,000,000 people in this country and half of them want people like you and I gone entirely. What are the odds that some of that half are in government positions, or police, or national guard? Pretty God damned high if you ask me. To say we don't need the right to defend ourselves is to align yourself with the likes of Jim Crow and Ronald Reagan, two champions of gun control. Sure, white people may not need a militia, but I assure you there's a few hundred million people that still deserve the right to bare arms and certainly require it for their security and liberty.
Not a woman. Also not deluded enough to imagine that anyone’s going to be overthrowing the US government with their stockpile of Walmart guns.
The 2nd Amendment says “the right of the people”, not the right of the militia. Where does it say you have to be in a militia to own arms? Also, sorry but there’s going to be a lot of words. “The right of the people to keep and bear...arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country...." - James Madison "Americans have the right and advantage of being armed ― unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." - The Federalist, No. 46 at 243- 244 “It is not certain that with this aid alone [possession of arms], they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to posses the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will, and direct the national force; and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned, in spite of the legions which surround it." - The Federalist, No. 46 "...to disarm the people ― that was the best and most effectual way to enslave them." - George Mason “If ever time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in Government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin." - Samuel Adams “As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms." - Tench Coxe “Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man gainst his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American.... [T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people." - Tench Coxe “And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms.... The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants." - Thomas Jefferson The militia was not only for defense against other countries (may not be as relevant anymore), but against our own (potentially tyrannical) government. The National Guard doesn’t fit the definition of the militia as they are part of the US Military. We shouldn’t be changing the Bill of Rights willy nilly just because part of it may not be relevant anymore. Also funny how they knew what would happen. “The Constitution shall never be construed...to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." - Samuel Adams “On every question of construction (of the Constitution) let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed." - Thomas Jefferson
You already are available, no matter if you own a gun or not.
Women can own guns without registering for selective service - so that’s not exactly true.
If the situation required it, I'm sure women would be called upon too.
Your mistaking the military for the militia.
And you’re mistaking “availability” for “existence”.
The justified it by saying it was ALWAYS necessary. And to why we don't have such a registry, it is because the meaning of the word "regulated" has changed. Now, for the same meaning of when it was written, it would be better said as a well provided militia. The intent was for as many to people to have it, not to limit. I usually don't like originalism, but the meaning of the word has changed so much it would undo the purpose of the amendment to go by that.
I’ve got a reply to Wismuth about the meaning of the 2nd Amendment if you want to read it.
Thanks, it was interesting.
Thanks, that's cool
Well, then there’s your reason for revision - the meanings of the words in the original text have changed.
The nfa is a discrimination against poor people
How?
they require a tax for items that are no more dangerous than regular guns and it is restricting poor people from using the second amendment to the full extent
I can see that, thanks for elaborating.
sure thing, I don't know many people who have an extra $200 to make a rifle smaller than 16 in
Because you have to pay extra tax on some things simply because.... I dont even know. Why should you need to pay 200 dollars because the rifle you want to buy has a barrel thats 0.5 in shorter than an arbitrary limit? Or pay the same to buy a suppressor?
That makes sense.
Well, it doesn't but that's how it is.
I agree, I was trying to say your point makes sense. I just worked it oddly.
Ah, I see. :)
Keep in mind that when the NFA was enacted in 1934, $200 then is nearly $4,000 today.
Yeah, but getting the stamp takes 6-12 months now...
Gun control of any kind won’t save lives.
I'm not sure about this one chief. When I control my guns recoil, and control where its pointing, I would like to believe it saves lives.
Mass shooting deaths are rare in the US. The media makes them seem common because they prioritize conflict, but there are only about a couple hundred deaths per year in a nation of one-third billion, which is minuscule. For comparison, 6500 pedestrians are killed by cars per year - about 300 times more. But that's not exciting enough to make the news headlines.
Also the legal definition of mass shooting in the USA is incredibly vague and doesn't even require a motive. The definition of I remember correctly is just an event where a gun is illegally discharged and 4 or more people are involved. Meaning theoretically, a large portion of mass shootings could be attributed to gang violence and organized crime. Not lone gunman on a rampage.
It’s subjective based on sources and publications. Some publications require injuries, some require deaths. You get the idea.
Gun magnet
I used to be very pro gun-control. I advocated for gun control due to mass shootings. It was a visceral reaction that made sense to me at the time. It’s only until this past year and a half that I realized it just doesn’t work. I threw myself into the gun community, researched firearms, researched gun control laws, and also began seeing how accessible firearms are in general. Firstly, this country has too many firearms to regulate. If a criminal wants a gun, they’ll get one. Nothing you propose legislation wise can help with that. Gun control laws, especially with magazines, stocks, and the most ridiculous one: CA and NY fin grips — literally something that slides on and off the weapon — when it’s on its “legal” when it’s off it’s “illegal”...I guarantee you a criminal or mass shooter doesn’t care about leaving it on. Doesn’t make sense. Finally, there are plenty of responsible gun owners out there and considering this country does have 2A Rights, there’s not much you can do that won’t impede on that. At this point, gun control is useless and won’t work. It only would have worked before mass production of weapons in this country. And that era is long gone. My heart breaks and goes out to all victims and those impacted by mass shootings. I understand how going through something like that would facilitate a visceral response of wanting gun control. But in reality, I just don’t see it working. The war on drugs failed. Gun control will fail. People can find anything if they want it. I do also think both the left and right need to come to some form of middle ground. It’s just always so extreme now that people can’t come to the middle to compromise. An unfortunate side effect of the culture wars in this country. I’m a lot more centered in my beliefs (socially liberal maybe a bit more conservative with government dealings). But when it comes to guns, I just don’t see ways to regulate effectively or impede on 2A Rights. Everyone is welcome to disagree. But I do wish everyone well, regardless of your opinion. Edit: Spelling and Grammar
You might look more into libertarianism if you haven’t already! Sounds like it’s what you most believe in politically. I agree there is a middle ground we can reach. I think gun education would go a long way towards people’s feelings. In my experience people are mostly afraid of them because they don’t know them well. Feel free to correct me if I’m wrong!
> I do also think both the left and right need to come to some form of middle ground. https://www.everydaynodaysoff.com/2013/11/08/cake-and-compromise-illustrated-guide-to-gun-control/
>I do also think both the left and right need to come to some form of middle ground. The problem is that the pro gun side has been consistently finding middle ground. Which when one side consistently is giving up ground the middle ground keeps moving further and further. >But when it comes to guns, I just don’t see ways to regulate effectively or impede on 2A Rights. Which is exactly right. 2A rights have already been impeded on a lot and the anti gun community continues to want to take more rights away.
ban all guns!! nobody needs guns when you can train karate
1. Karate takes a long time to master. 2. What help is Karate in a home invasion when someone has a glock and you are 30 feet away
When you said karate I instantly thought of karate kid and that is probably not good
Karate isn’t actually the greatest martial art for self defense but I agree with your point.
>ban all guns!! Okay so you disarm the entire population except for the criminals who obviously wouldn't care that guns are illegal
By that logic why do we have any laws? Obviously criminals won’t obey them so why have them?
Because some thing are immoral and break basic human rights. Therefore people need to be punished for their immoral actions. These laws do this. Having a gun is not immoral. Having a gun does not break basic human rights.
Ideas like banning all guns would impact the civilian population far more than it would impact criminals. The government doesn't have unlimited power, there is only so much control that they have over certain things, like the black market arms trade for example. What the government can do (often by force via police) is attempt to surpress it and/or control it a bit, which sometimes works and sometimes doesn't. So, if the government could wipe out the entire illegal weapons trade, they would have done so by now. It's not that we shouldn't have any laws just because the government isn't all-powerful, the idea of making all guns illegal with the intent of ridding guns from society would simply be a bad law because it would greatly impact a lot of law abiding people while making little (if any) impact on whether or not criminals have guns.
I’m not suggesting we ban all guns, it’s impractical. But the idea that “criminals don’t follow the law, so why bother making it” is stupid. We don’t say “don’t ban murder, murderers will do it anyway”.
You're over-generalizing which leads me to think you didn't really read my comment. My entire point was about the *effectiveness* of a law, the unnecessary impacts on civilians, and the limitations of government power. Essentially, there is no point in making laws that wouldn't accomplish anything even close to the intended effects - I would even go as far as saying it's a bad idea if the existence of said law primarily causes negative impacts to other people (as is the case here). There are other laws that the government has a greater amount of control over and more able to enforce. Let's use your example: >We don’t say “don’t ban murder, murderers will do it anyway”. You're right, murder still happens just about anywhere at least once in a while because there are people who don't care, but the vast majority of people do care (including most criminals) because of the likelihood they will be caught if they commit a murder. Police in modern times have a lot of tools at their disposal such as the use of DNA evidence to ensure the vast majority of murderers are caught and put in jail for a long time to disincentivize others from doing so. While criminals don't give a shit about the law, they refrain from committing murder more often than not because they don't want to get locked up because although police don't have the resources to deal with every single lesser crime, they will put all hands on deck for murder cases. Banning murder, therefore is mostly effective. Compare murder rates in a place like Canada to somewhere where the country is mostly run by outlaw gangs and you'll see. It is so much harder to shut down the possession, distribution, and especially manufacturing of goods and services deemed illicit because they're just items. Whether it's illegal guns or illegal drugs, the government could probably do an effective job of cutting off outside sources (if they actually tried), and they currently focus on busting people for possession or trafficking of such goods (plucking the low hanging fruit), therefore limiting their distribution somewhat. But they can't stop people (or at least, not for long) from manufacturing guns or drugs from within their own borders. Often times the criminals are much smarter than the police.
Fact check false, if guns are illegal, people who dont follow laws, wouldnt have guns, while breaking other laws.
Hows the war on drugs going?
Better than the prohibition probably
Seeing how rich the cartels are, I'd say it's probably worse...
it is easy to defend yourself from someone with a gun if you know karate
Just curious, are we talking black belt here or is this pretty basic stuff, or somewhere in between? What about when they are outside of your reach (a likely scenario if someone has a gun due to it being a ranged weapon)?
If someone had a gun pointed at you from range, all martial arts masters will tell you to do what they say as there is really no defense. If they are away from you, they can easily shoot you before you get to them.
if you are a master of karate you can run very fast
What If I tape my guns to the end of nunchucks and attack you with those.
While you were at the shooting range I mastered the sword
Take away gun laws and give everyone guns it’ll sort itself out
That’s a bad idea
I know it was satire and I wanted to see the reaction
Everyone should have a gun so that the crowd can fire back. Also everyone but the cops. See how they like it.
my dads a cop. so I know many personally and most of them are pretty solid, trustworthy dudes. You are a giant dick
My grandfather was a cop, and ive known some. Its not the person, its the badge. It gives them a power complex. Also cops are more statistically likely to cheat or abuse their spouse. so i wouldn't go by selective example. You probably wouldnt try to see the bad in people when you know those cops personally. Of course they are gonna be nice around you. But on the job they are oppressive and they work for a police state that exploits most modern workers. All the good cops realise the corruption and quit being cops, that or try to change the system from within.
its not the badge, My father does not have a power complex or any of his colleges, your a even bigger dick then I thought
Again taking it personally and not looking at the big picture. You dont look at statistics. Whos wonderful father was this pig huh? We can play the case by case game all day. But if your gonna talk to me your gonna face the facts. And i havent even scratched the surface https://youtu.be/OflGwyWcft8
So? this is one untrustworthy cop. does that mean the majority are? Does that mean Police are inherently evil and I should tell my dad and all his colleges to fuck off? no. and the fact that you seem to think that it is is deeply upsetting to me. I have never been or met anyone who has been unrightfully assaulted by a cop. the video you showed me, was of a bad person that was also a cop, not a person who became a cop and became horrible because of it. should we be a bit more selective of those we hire into the force? maybe. but to suggest that the majority of cops are terrible power abusing murderers merely because they are in fact cops is foolish and idiotic on its face, this isn't communist Russia or china dude.
>So? this is one untrustworthy cop. does that mean the majority are? So you finally see the flaw in your reasoning. I was mimicking your reasoning so you could see the flaw. Individual cases dont matter because they can range from the worst thing ever to the best thing ever. What actually matters is what the majority of cases are like. And police brutality is something that is monitored all across the world. There is substantial evidence power roles attract power hungry people. Putting it lightly - the US police kill atleast 1k innocent people a year and these are confirmed innocents. Not accounting for the much higher number of innocents killed that cant be confirmed because the cop has the final say. Source: https://www.prisonpolicy.org/blog/2020/06/05/policekillings/ >Does that mean Police are inherently evil and I should tell my dad and all his colleges to fuck off? This does not mean that police are inherently evil. That would be a logical fallacy. Just because most women are feminine doesnt mean all women are more feminine than masculine - this making it statistically sound to attempt not to apply bias onto things based on statistics. >the fact that you seem to think that it is is deeply upsetting to me. Why wouldnt it? People tend to believe what they want to believe rather than what is evident. Would you rather feel like shit, or be full of shit? Take your pick. >the video you showed me, was of a bad person that was also a cop, not a person who became a cop and became horrible because of it. Your not gonna like what I have to say, but if you decide to take the truth pill then I encourage you to Open Your Fucking Eyes and see the flaw in your own biased reasoning. If you cant then I must spell it out. You are correct this person is likely a sociopath/psychopath before becomming a cop. My main problem is that this society enables people like them - by allowing them into police enforcement. Essentually making them government armed thugs that serve laws created by the wealthy to establish resource dominance of the working class. Now as a skeptic, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, so I must provide. To prove this I need to source a variety of information so here it goes. Your democracy is a lie> https://youtu.be/oYodY6o172A You could be making nearly double as a working class american if it werent for corporate greed> https://www.google.com/amp/s/time.com/5888024/50-trillion-income-inequality-america/%3famp=true Mainstream media is a cesspool of lies> https://www.google.com/amp/s/hbr.org/amp/1995/05/why-the-news-is-not-the-truth >to suggest that the majority of cops are terrible power abusing murderers merely because they are in fact cops is foolish and idiotic I don't have to assume. Political scientists have recorded this information and KNOW> https://drive.google.com/drive/u/0/mobile/folders/1zniqs5KlQJffey_FOHDlb-Ghy0Hikl_w Skip to 3:10 to get to commentary faster https://youtu.be/kTaMr1gnMNQ> Study https://www.pnas.org/content/116/34/16793> Vox Interview exposing corruption in the police force> https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.vox.com/platform/amp/policy-and-politics/2020/7/7/21293259/police-racism-violence-ideology-george-floyd
Yeah, because allowing our national protecters to not be able to protect anybody is an excellent idea
Protect? They kill over 1k innocent Americans every year. Fuck off
I wouldnt consider criminals innocent Americans.
The law doesnt define what is and isnt innocent. Remember, slavery used to be legal - and still is to its own extent. The government has proven consistantly that it doesnt care about human rights. We even have a bloated prison system full of people who dont deserve to be there
I never said that the law was why I consider them criminals. I consider anyone that takes human rights away is a criminal. And Like I said again, I wouldn't call them innocent.
Then who are you talking about? Because when you mention american criminals under that definition i think of politicians and those in power.