ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags 2nd amendment issues , gun violence

Reply
Old 8th August 2019, 12:32 PM   #41
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
 
dudalb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 44,646
Originally Posted by BStrong View Post
I support the proposal with the proviso that military service is also required to vote or hold public office.
If I join do I also get a cool powered armor suit?
__________________
Pacifism is a shifty doctrine under which a man accepts the benefits of the social group without being willing to pay - and claims a halo for his dishonesty.

Robert Heinlein.
dudalb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th August 2019, 12:37 PM   #42
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
 
dudalb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 44,646
Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey View Post
SERVICE GUARANTEES CITIZENSHIP

Would you like to know more?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SMTz9nIUkGc

DId not like the movie at all. A travesty of Heinlein's novel, which badly distorts the points Heinleon was trying to make..many of which I disagree with.
__________________
Pacifism is a shifty doctrine under which a man accepts the benefits of the social group without being willing to pay - and claims a halo for his dishonesty.

Robert Heinlein.
dudalb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th August 2019, 12:37 PM   #43
mumblethrax
Species traitor
 
mumblethrax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 2,349
It's like the saying goes: the solution to the ills of weird constitutional fetishism is more weird constitutional fetishism.

I don't remember who said it. Probably either Abraham Lincoln or Jesus.
mumblethrax is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th August 2019, 12:40 PM   #44
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
 
dudalb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 44,646
Originally Posted by Tommok View Post
So bearing arms is a human right?

Interesting. What arms? Any arms? Where exactly do we draw the line? Nuclear arms? Why?

So what argument would work in favor of allowing anyone to bear any kind of arms and yet prohibit the Iran or North Korea from having nuclear weapons? Human rights apply to all humans, don't they?
I was going to do a serous reply on the grounds of "Sometimes Arms are necessary to defend human rights" but this whole post is so outrageous and silly and bear so little relation to reality it's best just to laugh on it.
__________________
Pacifism is a shifty doctrine under which a man accepts the benefits of the social group without being willing to pay - and claims a halo for his dishonesty.

Robert Heinlein.
dudalb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th August 2019, 12:42 PM   #45
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
 
dudalb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 44,646
Originally Posted by Ranb View Post
I'm fairly certain the people I've seen with beta mags got them solely to enhance their gun collection.

Do you think personal protection is selfish? I think it can also be selfless.


The military could find a job for just about anyone who is not completely disabled.

Sergeant Ho, is that you?
__________________
Pacifism is a shifty doctrine under which a man accepts the benefits of the social group without being willing to pay - and claims a halo for his dishonesty.

Robert Heinlein.
dudalb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th August 2019, 01:04 PM   #46
Ranb
Philosopher
 
Ranb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: WA USA
Posts: 9,837
Originally Posted by dudalb View Post
Sergeant Ho, is that you?
Nope, still have both of my legs attached.
Ranb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th August 2019, 01:11 PM   #47
The Norseman
Meandering fecklessly
 
The Norseman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 8,212
Originally Posted by BStrong View Post
I support the proposal with the proviso that military service is also required to vote or hold public office.
Is this meant to be serious?


Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
We're way past the point where "balance of firepower" is anything approaching a failsafe against tyranny.

That's why to me the 2nd Amendment isn't right or wrong, it's just not in context anymore in which it can be judged.
That's right because tyranny won.


Originally Posted by Border Reiver View Post
What was determined beyond a shadow of a doubt during the War of 1812 by both sides was that this method of raising forces was completely useless for getting effective military forces, and depending on the political feeling in the county, may or may not be completely politically reliable.
Yep, exactly. The issue is that at the time, the founders didn't want an "effective military force" which is why they explicitly said as such. The big switcharoo from having a purely defensive militia composed of all able-bodied members of society to a standing army in some sense eradicated the necessity of the 2nd amendment.


Originally Posted by ArchSas View Post
I think this is a monumentally stupid idea, for reasons people have already commented on in both threads (and way too many for me to even want to enumerate), but the one aspect I wanted to comment on is how bad of an idea I think it is to even propose this as a serious solution on a major news site.

This idea is authoritarian trash, and it's really not a good look for the people who want changes to the status quo of firearm laws/culture. I mean, I already have a problem with a lot of the ways that people on the left talk about guns, but most of that boils down to ignorance. This idea is straight up totalitarian, and that's really not the kind of thing you want your critics to be able to lobby at you if you want to be taken seriously. Especially when part of the goal of progressiveness (and what I personally like most about it) is the idea that you want to be able to provide people the freedom to do whatever they want (get healthcare, education, live a comfortable life, marry whoever you want, etc.). Forcing someone into military service because they want to own something, especially in a country as likely as this to be involved in active conflict, is downright repugnant to a person that loves individual freedom as much as I do. To me, there's seriously nothing about this proposal that works (even rhetorically - I don't care about calling people out on perceived hypocrisy or whatever, this is dumb idea that looks terrible), and I think, more than anything, it furthers the idea that liberals are a group of people that hate gun owners and want to strip rights from people. As a die-hard leftist that loves guns, it really rubs me the wrong way.

The real solution, as far as I'm concerned, is something we probably don't know yet. The US government hasn't put any research into gun safety in years. Once that happens, we'll probably have a better idea of what will work, and what won't. That, and providing mental health care and coping skills to people who desperately need it.
I agree wholeheartedly except on one point: the real solution is something we do actually know about and has been in effect since the earliest days of humanity. One hint: it isn't the state that can solve the ills of the state.


Originally Posted by Tommok View Post
So bearing arms is a human right?
Yes. Self-defense is a human right as is the defense of others. That a tool such as a firearm can be and is often used for attack isn't a problem of the tool itself.

If you want to discuss nukes, fine. I say that if people aren't to be trusted with them, then certainly a named group of people (such as a government) isn't somehow exempt from that mistrust.
The Norseman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th August 2019, 01:17 PM   #48
3point14
Pi
 
3point14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 18,000
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Not a good analogy.

Here's a better one:

Bearing arms is a human right. Here's one good reason not to infringe on it, which is sufficient to not infringe on it. But in fact, the recognition of the right itself is sufficient reason not to infringe on it, even in the absence of an exhaustive list of other reasons. Burden of proof rests on those who wish to infringe on the right.
Do you think everyone encompassed in the definition of "The People" should be allowed to carry a firearm of their choice, loaded, in public, not concealed?
__________________
Up the River!

Anyone that wraps themselves in the Union Flag and also lives in tax exile is a [redacted]
3point14 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th August 2019, 01:21 PM   #49
3point14
Pi
 
3point14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 18,000
Originally Posted by ahhell View Post
This certainly explains how we were able to so easily pacify Afghanistan.
What a gross oversimplification, well done.

There's this thing called logisitics

War isn't about what you have, it's about where you can get it to.
__________________
Up the River!

Anyone that wraps themselves in the Union Flag and also lives in tax exile is a [redacted]
3point14 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th August 2019, 01:27 PM   #50
Cain
Straussian
 
Cain's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 12,952
From the article:

"The literal language used in the Constitution focuses on the right to bear arms within the context of — if, arguably, not solely limited by — the security needs of our nation."

Not exactly.

The Constitution is primarily about the relationship between the states and the federal government. A "nation" arguably did not exist, though it was said the Articles of Confederation created a "nation of nations." James Madison, one of the main architects of the Constitution, wanted to foster a national identity, mainly by creating a stronger central/federal government. Still, people found their state identity more meaningful than a national identity. In other words, some people Virginians before they were Americans -- if they even had a concept of being "American."

The country has since evolved culturally. An example of someone who consciously identifies with his state before country is BobTheCoward, which gives some idea of how out of touch and alien that view has been (especially out west).

Modern conservatives and liberals like to imagine the Constitution was created to protect sacred individual liberty, but this is mostly nonsense (ask any African-American). People also speak breathlessly about the sacred Bill of Rights, but these were amendments added later -- not part of the core product. More obvious and essential freedoms were written directly into the Constitution (writ of habeas corpus, prohibition of ex post facto laws and bills of attainder). The states were seen as guardians of liberty -- and under threat by a strong central government. Under the AoC, the federal government could not directly draft soldiers or impose taxes, which led to collective problems, compelling Madison and others for creating a stronger central government.

One of the compromises for ratification was passing "a Bill of Rights," initially opposed by Madison. Many state constitutions had included such rights, and Madison finally warmed to the idea, in part because it was popular and would give Congress a measure of credibility. The Bill of Rights were originally intended as restrictions on the federal government. Regarding the First Amendment, for example, "Congress shall make no law..." establishing a national church. State governments still had the authority to create official churches, and a couple of them did, a fact fondly recalled by people like Clarence Thomas.

Again, the country has since changed, especially with an obscure extra-Constitutional event known as the Civil War, which chartered a more national government -- one of the people, by the people, and for the people. There were hiccups when it came to establishing a national character (see for instance the Corrupt Bargain of 1876, which effectively ended Reconstruction).

A national orientation started gathering again in subtle ways. The courts would begin to "incorporate" parts of the Bill of Rights (i.e., applying the first ten amendments to the states via the 14th Amendment, which would prohibit state authorities from establishing churches, restricting speech and so on).

And with a little of this historical background out of the way, we can finally get to the Second Amendment. The most overlooked clause is the "necessary security of a Free State." Again, the historical context of the Constitution is about distributing power between the states and central government. Some people, such as antifederalists like "Brutus," feared the central government would "swallow" up state governments, so they wanted assurances. One of those safeguards was allowing states to raise their own militias. These could be "well-regulated" -- meaning, well-equipped and well-trained.

There are a couple of rich, ironies in contemporary politics. Nowadays, the so-called supporters of the Second Amendment, people who tend to have an "originalist" view of the Constitution, will not hesitate to use the power of the federal government to overturn state and local gun laws. Richard Posner, a pro-gun libertarian/conservative judge and scholar has said Scalia's Heller opinion is more of a snow job.

https://newrepublic.com/article/62124/defense-looseness
__________________
April 13th, 2018:
Ranb: I can't think of anything useful you contributed to a thread in the last few years.
Cain is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th August 2019, 01:33 PM   #51
3point14
Pi
 
3point14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 18,000
Originally Posted by dudalb View Post
I was going to do a serous reply on the grounds of "Sometimes Arms are necessary to defend human rights" but this whole post is so outrageous and silly and bear so little relation to reality it's best just to laugh on it.
To me this demonstrates how deeply ingrained culture is.

I believe it's an important question. If you're going to have civillians armed it would seem appropriate, even essential, to have the discussion about what defines "arm". Those that wrote the document knew nothing but cannon, sword and musket.

I think this is a cultural thing. I think your response shows a lack of understanding of the role your cultural background plays in your reasoning.
__________________
Up the River!

Anyone that wraps themselves in the Union Flag and also lives in tax exile is a [redacted]
3point14 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th August 2019, 01:44 PM   #52
Galaxie
Critical Thinker
 
Galaxie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 415
Originally Posted by ArchSas View Post
The real solution, as far as I'm concerned, is something we probably don't know yet. The US government hasn't put any research into gun safety in years. Once that happens, we'll probably have a better idea of what will work, and what won't. That, and providing mental health care and coping skills to people who desperately need it.
Partly because of the Dickey Amendment. On the plus side, the wording was softened a bit last year.
Galaxie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th August 2019, 02:02 PM   #53
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 12,329
Originally Posted by dudalb View Post
DId not like the movie at all. A travesty of Heinlein's novel, which badly distorts the points Heinleon was trying to make..many of which I disagree with.
Seconded, but I was only half kidding - I'd love to have a little 4 or 5 question quiz on civics that would be required to be passed before someone could vote, but Barack Obama will be the grand dragon of the Pointy-Hat Club before that happens.
__________________
"When a man who is honestly mistaken, hears the truth, he will either cease being mistaken or cease being honest." - Anonymous

"Dulce bellum inexpertīs." - Erasmus
BStrong is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th August 2019, 04:03 PM   #54
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 36,892
Originally Posted by 3point14 View Post
Do you think everyone encompassed in the definition of "The People" should be allowed to carry a firearm of their choice, loaded, in public, not concealed?
With reasonable exceptions that pass strict scrutiny, yes.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th August 2019, 04:07 PM   #55
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 36,892
Originally Posted by 3point14 View Post
What a gross oversimplification, well done.

There's this thing called logisitics

War isn't about what you have, it's about where you can get it to.
Logistics hasn't been a problem for America since probably the Civil War.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th August 2019, 04:29 PM   #56
Minoosh
Philosopher
 
Minoosh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 9,559
Originally Posted by Ranb View Post
The Second Amendment solution to gun violence
https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/07/opini...ang/index.html

Interesting article, but he passes off opinion as fact.
It is labeled "opinion." Not speaking to its merits, but you can see from the URL, it's an opinion piece.
Minoosh is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th August 2019, 04:41 PM   #57
Giz
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 8,485
Originally Posted by 3point14 View Post
To me this demonstrates how deeply ingrained culture is.

I believe it's an important question. If you're going to have civillians armed it would seem appropriate, even essential, to have the discussion about what defines "arm". Those that wrote the document knew nothing but cannon, sword and musket.

I think this is a cultural thing. I think your response shows a lack of understanding of the role your cultural background plays in your reasoning.
I think this is a projection thing. Showing a lack of understanding of the role your cultural background plays in your reasoning.
Giz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th August 2019, 04:45 PM   #58
Giz
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 8,485
Originally Posted by 3point14 View Post
What a gross oversimplification, well done.

There's this thing called logisitics

War isn't about what you have, it's about where you can get it to.
Unbelievable.

Do you think that the failure of the USA to pacify Afghanistan was that they :

1) lacked the logistical capability to transport their incredible firepower/nukes etc to Afghanistan,
or
2) that the USA considered nukes to be inappropriate tools in combating an insurgency
Giz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th August 2019, 05:27 PM   #59
Minoosh
Philosopher
 
Minoosh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 9,559
Originally Posted by Ranb View Post
Nope, still have both of my legs attached.
As long as you're not blind, I support your right to bear arms. Even then, if you have some residual sight and like to target-shoot.

A desire for personal protection is not selfish on the level of the individual. But as far as I can tell, having more guns does not make us any safer collectively, for the depressing reasons we're all familiar with.

If it was possible in the U.S. to pull back from our current levels of gun ownership, I think I'd be more supportive of gun control. I don't see how that can happen, though.
Minoosh is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th August 2019, 05:29 PM   #60
mgidm86
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 5,534
Originally Posted by 3point14 View Post
Do you think everyone encompassed in the definition of "The People" should be allowed to carry a firearm of their choice, loaded, in public, not concealed?

No way. Hell no. It's bad enough we let many of them drive on public roads. Millions of these idiots carrying guns? I'd never leave home.
__________________
Franklin understands certain kickbacks you obtain unfairly are legal liabilities; however, a risky deed's almost never detrimental despite extra external pressures.
mgidm86 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th August 2019, 06:26 PM   #61
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 17,219
Originally Posted by 3point14 View Post
Do you think everyone encompassed in the definition of "The People" should be allowed to carry a firearm of their choice, loaded, in public, not concealed?
No. But I don't have a choice. Limiting a single person is an infringement.
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th August 2019, 06:37 PM   #62
Minoosh
Philosopher
 
Minoosh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 9,559
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
No. But I don't have a choice. Limiting a single person is an infringement.
We already do that, though. Certain people are not allowed to possess firearms.
Minoosh is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th August 2019, 07:33 PM   #63
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 17,219
Originally Posted by Minoosh View Post
We already do that, though. Certain people are not allowed to possess firearms.
And it violates the Constitution when they do.
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th August 2019, 09:25 PM   #64
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 12,222
The Swiss seem to have no trouble having all the able bodied men in the country between 18 and about 60 on active reserve
__________________
“Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore - if they're white!"
If you don't like my posts, my opinions, or my directness then put me on your ignore list.
This will be of benefit to both of us; you won't have to take umbrage at my posts, and I won't have to waste my time talking to you... simples! !
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th August 2019, 01:22 AM   #65
3point14
Pi
 
3point14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 18,000
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
With reasonable exceptions that pass strict scrutiny, yes.
Exceptions are still infringements, no matter how reasonable you think they are.
__________________
Up the River!

Anyone that wraps themselves in the Union Flag and also lives in tax exile is a [redacted]
3point14 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th August 2019, 01:24 AM   #66
3point14
Pi
 
3point14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 18,000
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Logistics hasn't been a problem for America since probably the Civil War.

You think?

Well, you're demonstrably just desperate now.

You have a nice day.
__________________
Up the River!

Anyone that wraps themselves in the Union Flag and also lives in tax exile is a [redacted]
3point14 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th August 2019, 01:27 AM   #67
3point14
Pi
 
3point14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 18,000
Originally Posted by Giz View Post
I think this is a projection thing. Showing a lack of understanding of the role your cultural background plays in your reasoning.

Really?

The statements are both very different in quality. Only one of them actually shows an understanding that cultures have different attitudes.

You'll note I didn't ridicule or insult anyone for asking a question that's viewed differently in different cultures, I just pointed it out.

The post I responded to was pure ridicule and insult.

Your rebuttal seems a bit, er, desperate. Sorry.
__________________
Up the River!

Anyone that wraps themselves in the Union Flag and also lives in tax exile is a [redacted]

Last edited by 3point14; 9th August 2019 at 01:30 AM.
3point14 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th August 2019, 01:28 AM   #68
3point14
Pi
 
3point14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 18,000
Originally Posted by Giz View Post
Unbelievable.

Do you think that the failure of the USA to pacify Afghanistan was that they :

1) lacked the logistical capability to transport their incredible firepower/nukes etc to Afghanistan,
or
2) that the USA considered nukes to be inappropriate tools in combating an insurgency
None of the above.

Would you care to keep guessing?
__________________
Up the River!

Anyone that wraps themselves in the Union Flag and also lives in tax exile is a [redacted]
3point14 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th August 2019, 01:35 AM   #69
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 24,940
Originally Posted by Ranb View Post
Since when is personal protection selfish?
Since it's a myth, perhaps?

https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/hs...e-suggests-no/

Quote:
Hemenway noted that one commonly cited statistic about guns—that 2.5 million people use them each year to defend themselves or their property — is based on faulty analysis from a 1990s study. A more reliable source of information, the National Crime Victimization Survey, pegs the number of people who use guns in this manner at roughly 100,000, according to Science Vs podcast host Wendy Zukerman. Hemenway added that there is no good evidence that using a gun in self-defense reduces the likelihood of injury. There is some evidence that having a gun may reduce property loss, “but the evidence is equally compelling that having another weapon, such as mace or a baseball bat, will also reduce the likelihood of property loss,” he said.

Addressing gun lobby assertions that crime is deterred when more law-abiding citizens carry guns, Hemenway said the evidence says otherwise. He said that even though more and more Americans are carrying concealed guns each year—the result of more states passing ‘right-to-carry’ laws—research has not uncovered a direct cause-and-effect relationship between the prevalence of guns and the U.S. crime rate. However, he noted, the presence of more guns does make crimes more violent. “What guns do is make hostile interactions—robberies, assaults—much more deadly,” he said.
https://www.kqed.org/science/1916209...search-says-no

Quote:
KQED: There's this very common belief that people are safer if they own a gun or if they have a gun in their home, and you dug into the evidence. Tell us what did you find?

Melinda Wenner Moyer: There's a lot of different ways to look at this question, which is kind of a central claim made by the gun lobby that more guns in the hands of good guys will keep you safer. But when you look at the question from a lot of different ways, it kind of all comes out the same: which is that, no, owning a gun, keeping a gun in your home, carrying a gun, none of those seemed to make you safer.

[...]

KQED: Talk about some of those conclusions.

Moyer: There's been research showing that if you keep a gun in your home, that doesn't actually reduce your risk of gun violence. It actually makes you more likely to be a victim of crime or homicide or suicide. There's also been research looking at concealed carry rates. As those have gone up in some states, have there been drops in crime and in violence? And they found largely, no. There's been some research by some controversial researchers that points to possibly, yes. But it's really largely been refuted in recent years. And then there's really the central question of, if guns are protective then that implies that Americans are using the guns for self defense all the time. And the research there also suggests that actually guns are used for self defense in less than 1 percent of all crimes that occur in the presence of a victim. People aren't really getting the chance to use their guns for protection anyway.

KQED: Gun ownership doesn't make us more safe. Does it make us less safe?

Moyer: Yes. That is what the research largely suggests. It makes us less safe.

KQED: What accounts for that? Is that because if there's a gun around, then I'm more likely use it to hurt myself or hurt another person?

Moyer: Well, certainly the suicide becomes much more likely and much more, unfortunately, sort of successful when you own a gun. But really scientists are trying to figure out exactly why this is. It could be that when you own a gun you might take a few more risks, you might go to places you might not otherwise go without your gun. You might sort of end up putting yourself in riskier situations that put you ironically more at risk for crime and violence. There could be a lot of different reasons here, and it's really hard to tease out and that's one of the reasons we need more or better research to really understand what's going on.
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.
Squeegee Beckenheim is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th August 2019, 01:58 AM   #70
Craig4
Penultimate Amazing
 
Craig4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Alexandria, VA Home to the Deep State.
Posts: 18,541
It's useful to consider that our Founding Fathers were both gifted and cursed with educations founded in the classical period, that is to say a comprehensive study of the Roman Republican period. It would be difficult to overstate the impact this education had on our the Founders. Remember, our founders were recreating the Roman Republic. Don't believe me, ask yourself why we have a senatorial political class and representative political class.

Keep in mind, the army of the Roman republic was made up of citizens who owned their own arms. Lower classes owned a simple set of armor, a shield and three javelins. As you went up in class, the set of arms and armor you were expected to own became more advanced/expensive. Wealthy classes became equestrians and owned horses and arms to fight as cavalry. Also keep in mind that these arms were intended to be used when the state called upon you to report with them and form an army. This was an army of strict discipline and an understanding of your role in it.

The Founders were equally aware of and terrified by the idea of standing, professional armies that could dictate the leadership of the new country. Doubt me? Ask yourself why Cincinnati, named after Cincinnatus was one of the first new cities founded after the Revolution.

The Founders saw that the Pretorian Guard and professional soldiers loyal to their generals could usurp civilian control and take possession of the government. That's the point of the 2nd Amendment. It's the only Amendment in the Bill of Rights that speaks to the duty a citizen has to the state. The Founders wanted to ensure that the Army would be made up of well regulated citizens ala the Roman Republican period and disperse back to their farms and shops once the war was over.

It is beyond laughable to suggest that likes of Jefferson, Washington or Adams would have been in favor of a popular revolt to restore personal liberty. That's why they specified a "well regulated militia". They were trying to recreate the army of Republican Rome. They wanted citizens armed, ready to heed the call to form an army and then go back to their farms after the war.
__________________
A MAGA hat = a Swastika arm band.
Craig4 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th August 2019, 07:18 AM   #71
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 36,892
Originally Posted by 3point14 View Post
Exceptions are still infringements, no matter how reasonable you think they are.
They sure are.

Is this your first time considering the problem of human rights, exceptions, and strict scrutiny?
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th August 2019, 07:23 AM   #72
rockysmith76
Scholar
 
Join Date: Jul 2019
Posts: 60
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
Like I said in the mass shooting thread, this is pie in the sky stuff.

Why would someone who wants a gun for hunting or home defense have to be in the military? That flies in the face of one of the central arguments of the Second-Amendmentists.
They should be properly trained in the safe use of, but mandatory Military Service isnt a guarantee of anything.
rockysmith76 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th August 2019, 07:30 AM   #73
rockysmith76
Scholar
 
Join Date: Jul 2019
Posts: 60
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
The Swiss seem to have no trouble having all the able bodied men in the country between 18 and about 60 on active reserve
And they're neutral and hoarded Nazi gold, so what?
rockysmith76 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th August 2019, 07:35 AM   #74
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 43,794
Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
Both of your sources are crap. Defensive gun use doesn't always get reported, especially if the gun never gets discharged.

Quote:
Those stats don't separate out criminals from non-criminals. Drug dealers often own guns, and they are at high risk of getting shot. So that's a big correlation for that population, and because it's disproportionately the victim of shootings, it skews the overall stats heavily. Noncriminals are at much lower risk, and those overall stats don't indicate how your risk changes if you own a gun and you aren't a criminal. And you know if you're a drug dealer.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th August 2019, 08:36 AM   #75
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 24,940
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Both of your sources are crap. Defensive gun use doesn't always get reported, especially if the gun never gets discharged.



Those stats don't separate out criminals from non-criminals. Drug dealers often own guns, and they are at high risk of getting shot. So that's a big correlation for that population, and because it's disproportionately the victim of shootings, it skews the overall stats heavily. Noncriminals are at much lower risk, and those overall stats don't indicate how your risk changes if you own a gun and you aren't a criminal. And you know if you're a drug dealer.
If you have better sources that demonstrate that you are safer with a gun, I'd be happy to read them. That, after all, is the claim here.
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.
Squeegee Beckenheim is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th August 2019, 08:45 AM   #76
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 12,329
Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
The Violence Policy Center issued a report on defensive gun use, based on hard numbers from the National Crime Victimization Survey

http://vpc.org/studies/justifiable17.pdf

The VPC is in no way a fellow traveler with any pro-gun or pro-Second Amendment operation.

According to the NCVS, looking at the total number of self-protective behaviors undertaken by victims of both attempted and completed violent crime for the three year period 2013 through 2015, in only 1.1 percent of these instances had the intended victim in resistance to a criminal “threatened or attacked with a firearm.”11

As detailed in the chart on the next page, for the three-year period 2013 through 2015, the NCVS estimates that there were 16,492,600 victims of attempted or completed violent crime. During this same three-year period, only 175,700 of the self-protective behaviors involved a firearm. Of this number, it is not known what type of firearm was used or whether it was fired or not. The number may also include off-duty law enforcement officers who use their firearms in self-defense.


Using VPC/NCVS numbers, the number of DGU 2013 - 2015 reduces to 160.46 DGU's per day in the 3 year period.

I'll give VPC credit for having the numbers in their report, but hanging their hat on DGU's that are found to be justifiable homicides is nothing but slight-of-hand.

The overwhelming number of encounters involving DGU between victim and attacker don't result in the intended victim firing their weapon - it's true of both LE and the general public's DGU.
__________________
"When a man who is honestly mistaken, hears the truth, he will either cease being mistaken or cease being honest." - Anonymous

"Dulce bellum inexpertīs." - Erasmus
BStrong is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th August 2019, 08:48 AM   #77
Cainkane1
Philosopher
 
Cainkane1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: The great American southeast
Posts: 8,650
As a gun owner, I feel there is no solution unless better security is provided to citizens who go to places en masse. By better security, I mean armed security. Even that doesn't always work but most potential shooters balk when they are faced with armed citizens who can shoot back.
__________________
If at first you don't succeed try try again. Then if you fail to succeed to Hell with that. Try something else.
Cainkane1 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th August 2019, 09:05 AM   #78
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 36,892
Originally Posted by 3point14 View Post
You think?

Well, you're demonstrably just desperate now.

You have a nice day.
I'm sure I will!

But Afghanistan is a good example. It's not a problem of logistics, but of political will. We've had robots sustaining remote firebases during protracted battles, in Afghanistan. Getting people and stuff to the battlefield is pretty much a solved problem for the US.

You should go on YouTube and check out the videos of General Schwarzkopf's briefing on the battle of Kuwait. Look at the maps. The Iraqis are bunkered up in Kuwait proper. They don't bother trying to screen off their western flank, because it's all hundreds of miles of inhospitable desert over there.

So what does Schwarzkopf do? He builds not one, but three massive logistics bases out in literally BFE desolate wasteland, and uses them as jumping-off points for large maneuver forces that sweep in from the west to cut off the Iraqi supply lines and hit them from an unexpected direction. And that's on top of the entire amphibious assault he had readied on their eastern flank. And that's on top of the entire frontal assault he launched at the same time from the south. And that's on top of the preliminary air campaign that cut off their northern supply lines and reinforcement routes.

And on top of all that, Schwarzkopf, the supreme commander of this battle, flew to the opposite side of the planet to give a briefing on how the battle was going, in the middle of the battle. Because that's how deep the US rolls. The problem in Afghanistan is not that the US doesn't have the stuff, or that it doesn't have the wherewithal to get the stuff over there. The problem in Afghanistan is simply one of not wanting to put too much stuff there, for some political definition of "too much stuff".

(It may also be a problem that isn't really solvable by sending more stuff. I think any scenario of the US government relying on federal troops to put down an armed insurgency among its own citizens would probably have the same problem.)
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th August 2019, 09:07 AM   #79
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 83,937
Originally Posted by The Norseman View Post
That's right because tyranny won.
The only way to avoid that would've been for regular citizens to have tanks and jets and nuclear weapons.

Quote:
Self-defense is a human right as is the defense of others.
I still am not buying that nuke.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th August 2019, 09:10 AM   #80
3point14
Pi
 
3point14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 18,000
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
They sure are.
(Pointless barb removed)


Just checking.
__________________
Up the River!

Anyone that wraps themselves in the Union Flag and also lives in tax exile is a [redacted]
3point14 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:02 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.