Do you think we have a right to self-defense?
Guns and terror watchlists
- Thread starter kmoney
- Start date
The only answer other than yes says there is no crime or right and wrong. Anarchy.
So, liberals who scrutinized and made a puppet of Constitutional law in their iconoclasm against public Christian objects (the Lemon test) are now trivializing the very plain text reading 'shall not be infringed' of the 2nd Amendment.
Yeah, that's the criminal Left for you.
The Constitution is ~supreme~... except when it doesn't work in your favor
Yeah, that's the criminal Left for you.
The Constitution is ~supreme~... except when it doesn't work in your favor
annabenedetti
like marbles on glass
Debunking "A Tale of Two Cities"
First off, let's start with the fact that any time the NRA tries to claim that Chicago's "unreasonable gun laws" don't do any good, it ignores the fact that Chicago is surrounded by unreasonably loose gun laws, and anybody who wants a gun just needs to drive an hour to get someplace where they can buy one without a problem. So, you know, that part's crap - Chicago's laws have minimal effect because those laws have been nullified. Or, if you really want to look at how it works:
More than a quarter of the firearms seized on the streets here by the Chicago Police Department over the past five years were bought just outside city limits in Cook County suburbs, according to an analysis by the University of Chicago Crime Lab. Others came from stores around Illinois and from other states, like Indiana, less than an hour’s drive away. Since 2008, more than 1,300 of the confiscated guns, the analysis showed, were bought from just one store, Chuck’s Gun Shop in Riverdale, Ill., within a few miles of Chicago’s city limits.
Now, let's look at the statistics as presented. Assuming they're accurate (and we'll get to that in a second), remember the phrase "pretty similar until you compare the following." Because, just taking them at face value, you have a 15% difference in African American populations, and a 14% difference in Hispanic populations. Anybody who thinks those numbers are "pretty similar" either failed statistics, or never graduated high school.
But you can just feel free to pull out your Klan membership card and claim that the higher number of blacks explain the difference in the murder rate. (Trust me, the argument has been made.) Of course, you'd then also have to explain how the lower percentage of Hispanics has affected these statistics, and I'd LOVE to hear you try to argue around that corner.
But then, just for fun, let's consider the REAL facts. (You remember "facts," right? Those things Fox News has no time for?) First of all, this link here goes to a Cost of Living calculator. Now, I want you to do a little homework (calm down, it isn't difficult). Compare the costs of living between Houston and Chicago.
Done? Did you notice that tricky little 22% percent (average) difference in the cost of living? So that a person making $78,000 in Houston would need to earn $100,000 to live in the same style in Chicago? Hmmm... I wonder if that has any effect?
But, you know, those numbers in the chart still seem a little off. And statistical analysis is probably a real pain when you're working with incorrect data, isn't it?
So I went looking, and it seems that there's this thing the census bureau does, and it's called the American Community Survey. But those are all these tables, filled with numbers and stuff, and I don't want to make anybody's head hurt worse than it probably does. So I found a website that extracts numbers from the Census Bureau's American Community Survey, and you know, it's funny. There seems to be a discrepancy here. Just a slight one.
Because, as it turns out, the median household income for the Chicago-Naperville-Joliet Illinois metro area was $59,261 in 2012. Not $38,600, as claimed. Wow, that's a little bit of a difference, isn't it?
And look here: the median household income for the Houston-Sugar Land-Baytown Texas metro area was $55,910 in 2012. Not $37,000. That's kind of interesting, too.
But, you know what else? I seem to remember just a couple of months ago, when it was big news that Chicago was the "murder capital of the USA." But, funny thing. The number of homicides wasn't 1,806, like that cute little table claimed. Seems like it was more like 500 or so. Isn't that odd?
But let's check that, shall we? How about we look at the FBI's official data? And we poke around for a while, and we see that, sure enough, the number under "Murder and non-negligent manslaughter" for Chicago was exactly 500. Kind of a round number - you know, the kind of number that might stick in your head if you had any interest in actual facts, instead of... well, I don't want to call it "fecal matter," because that would be rude. But still...
So they were... well, maybe they were off by a little bit. Roughly 1306 homicides off, to be exact: they were wrong by almost three times the actual figure! I wonder how they did with the number of homicides in Houston? Well, right there, they were MUCH closer! Houston had 217 homicides, instead of the 207 in the table! That's so much closer! I mean, it's still wrong, but it's so much better than they've been doing!
More than a quarter of the firearms seized on the streets here by the Chicago Police Department over the past five years were bought just outside city limits in Cook County suburbs, according to an analysis by the University of Chicago Crime Lab. Others came from stores around Illinois and from other states, like Indiana, less than an hour’s drive away. Since 2008, more than 1,300 of the confiscated guns, the analysis showed, were bought from just one store, Chuck’s Gun Shop in Riverdale, Ill., within a few miles of Chicago’s city limits.
Now, let's look at the statistics as presented. Assuming they're accurate (and we'll get to that in a second), remember the phrase "pretty similar until you compare the following." Because, just taking them at face value, you have a 15% difference in African American populations, and a 14% difference in Hispanic populations. Anybody who thinks those numbers are "pretty similar" either failed statistics, or never graduated high school.
But you can just feel free to pull out your Klan membership card and claim that the higher number of blacks explain the difference in the murder rate. (Trust me, the argument has been made.) Of course, you'd then also have to explain how the lower percentage of Hispanics has affected these statistics, and I'd LOVE to hear you try to argue around that corner.
But then, just for fun, let's consider the REAL facts. (You remember "facts," right? Those things Fox News has no time for?) First of all, this link here goes to a Cost of Living calculator. Now, I want you to do a little homework (calm down, it isn't difficult). Compare the costs of living between Houston and Chicago.
Done? Did you notice that tricky little 22% percent (average) difference in the cost of living? So that a person making $78,000 in Houston would need to earn $100,000 to live in the same style in Chicago? Hmmm... I wonder if that has any effect?
But, you know, those numbers in the chart still seem a little off. And statistical analysis is probably a real pain when you're working with incorrect data, isn't it?
So I went looking, and it seems that there's this thing the census bureau does, and it's called the American Community Survey. But those are all these tables, filled with numbers and stuff, and I don't want to make anybody's head hurt worse than it probably does. So I found a website that extracts numbers from the Census Bureau's American Community Survey, and you know, it's funny. There seems to be a discrepancy here. Just a slight one.
Because, as it turns out, the median household income for the Chicago-Naperville-Joliet Illinois metro area was $59,261 in 2012. Not $38,600, as claimed. Wow, that's a little bit of a difference, isn't it?
And look here: the median household income for the Houston-Sugar Land-Baytown Texas metro area was $55,910 in 2012. Not $37,000. That's kind of interesting, too.
But, you know what else? I seem to remember just a couple of months ago, when it was big news that Chicago was the "murder capital of the USA." But, funny thing. The number of homicides wasn't 1,806, like that cute little table claimed. Seems like it was more like 500 or so. Isn't that odd?
But let's check that, shall we? How about we look at the FBI's official data? And we poke around for a while, and we see that, sure enough, the number under "Murder and non-negligent manslaughter" for Chicago was exactly 500. Kind of a round number - you know, the kind of number that might stick in your head if you had any interest in actual facts, instead of... well, I don't want to call it "fecal matter," because that would be rude. But still...
So they were... well, maybe they were off by a little bit. Roughly 1306 homicides off, to be exact: they were wrong by almost three times the actual figure! I wonder how they did with the number of homicides in Houston? Well, right there, they were MUCH closer! Houston had 217 homicides, instead of the 207 in the table! That's so much closer! I mean, it's still wrong, but it's so much better than they've been doing!
musterion
Well-known member
Typed all that yourself, Annie?
I'll say this one time, and no more:
If the government gains the ability to shut down the NRA, Civil War 2.0 is immanent.
It might seem a little eccentric, but sit down and think about it, and realize that despite the berating, America does actually have a spirit like the Founding Fathers.
Americans are the unwanted, bastardized people of the world- we came here to get away from the conformity of Europe. We turned out, despite that, to be a very mighty fist- don't tread on Americans, Broseph :thumb:
Like the historical statement of the Japanese Admiral after the attack on Pearl Harbor, who was honorable and against it:
'We have woken a sleeping giant'.
If the government gains the ability to shut down the NRA, Civil War 2.0 is immanent.
It might seem a little eccentric, but sit down and think about it, and realize that despite the berating, America does actually have a spirit like the Founding Fathers.
Americans are the unwanted, bastardized people of the world- we came here to get away from the conformity of Europe. We turned out, despite that, to be a very mighty fist- don't tread on Americans, Broseph :thumb:
Like the historical statement of the Japanese Admiral after the attack on Pearl Harbor, who was honorable and against it:
'We have woken a sleeping giant'.
Yes. But the wide availability of guns hurts our ability to do that.
Demonstrate it by showing the safety of gun free zones and state and cities with strict gun control laws.
Why would shutting down the NRA cause a Civil War? Everyone would still be able to have guns. :idunno:
Why....because a bad guy with a gun is more likely to encounter someone without a gun than with a gun?
The reason I asked is because of what you said about the right of movement and flying. You seem to think the right of movement extends to flying. So why wouldn't the right of self-defense extend to guns. Flying is a means of movement. Guns are a means of defense.
It's not about shutting down the NRA specifically, but the ability.
It's a complete, textbook dismissal of the 2nd Amendment, which upholds the right of a well armed militia for the purpose of resisting tyranny and the securing of a free state.
JosephR
New member
If you make guns illegal you will just create a vacuum of black markets, not as they are not there now..
Right now a 1911 .45 that has been used in a crime in the USA known as a burner or ghost gun goes for about 150-300 street price, however if you take that to south america it triples or quads the price as when a gun leaves a boarder all the forensics disappear.
So if you take away the legal guns you take away Law Enforcement ability to use forensics in many cases,weakening there ability to keep innocents safe.
And as this has been said time and time again, if you think making guns illegal will help,look at prohibition and look at the war on drugs.HUGE FAILURES.
Right now a 1911 .45 that has been used in a crime in the USA known as a burner or ghost gun goes for about 150-300 street price, however if you take that to south america it triples or quads the price as when a gun leaves a boarder all the forensics disappear.
So if you take away the legal guns you take away Law Enforcement ability to use forensics in many cases,weakening there ability to keep innocents safe.
And as this has been said time and time again, if you think making guns illegal will help,look at prohibition and look at the war on drugs.HUGE FAILURES.
annabenedetti
like marbles on glass
It's an arms race, literally. The need of self-defense is borne of insecurity, insecurity is a product of the means of violence. Self-defense by personal armament should be a last resort, something that you do because there is no effective guarantor of security. We rely on personal weapons for self defense because the United States remains a thoroughly violent society.
I think that if the only way to achieve self-defense were pervasive gun ownership, that might be an argument. But there's little reason to believe that. You could argue that private ownership of bazookas is a matter of self-defense, in case your neighbors arrive to kill you in armored vehicles. Realistically, though, it probably would make you less safe rather than more.
But, regardless of how all those calculations end up, whatever regulations end up being applied to the possession of guns, or bazookas, or drivers licenses, or access to air transportation, it should be a product of law and due process, not left up to arbitrary administrative fiat. You can limit these things, all of them, but government officials shouldn't be empowered to make those calls on their own.
musterion
Well-known member
Prepare to be ignored.
Ask a meaningless question...get ignored. That's how it works. I could waste a lot of time trying to explain to Nick, or to you, how the question doesn't make any sense, but I don't feel like that would be a productive use of my time.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
she's been working on it ever since she got banned
Guns and terror watchlists
Israel, which has a legitimate ongoing "terrorist" problem, has a significantly lower homicide rate (0.94 per 100 000 (2009)) than the US (3.55 per 100 000 (2013)) and has a private weapons policy that is diametrically opposed to that of the NRA.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate
Israel, which has a legitimate ongoing "terrorist" problem, has a significantly lower homicide rate (0.94 per 100 000 (2009)) than the US (3.55 per 100 000 (2013)) and has a private weapons policy that is diametrically opposed to that of the NRA.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate
In many cases you will be the only guarantor of security.
Do you think that will change? Do you have a way to bring it about?
Also, do you think violence in society and personal defense is the only possible reason for the 2nd Amendment? You've said that the original intent was national security. Do you think national security has any element anymore? I know it seems absurd to think that citizens with guns will be a significant threat to an actual army, whether domestic or foreign, but if the choice is between having an armed populace and not having an armed populace, I'll take the former. :idunno: Or, when the zombie apocalypse comes I'll go find the most heavily armed friend I can find. :Grizzly:
The line has to be drawn somewhere. The examples you gave seem to be obviously on the other side. The question is about which side guns are on. And then, which types of guns. I think it's reasonable to say that guns are on the side of inclusion. Regarding your arms race, a handgun is going to put you on a level playing field in most cases, I'd wager. The mass murderers come with heavier weapons but most common criminals aren't going to be coming with assault weapons.
:up: Which is the topic of the thread, but I'm getting a bit off that now.
Going back to one of my previous questions, what do you mean by proving fitness in order to have a gun?
The Old West come back to live in our city streets.
I think it's changed as much as it can while the United States remains a violent, heavily-armed society. There's a reason some countries don't see many attacks with guns.
Well, of course there are possible sporting purposes for guns. So then, we have to decide if those uses are as important as preventing violence, and also what measures can be taken to make them safer within those bounds.
No. It never was really an effective mechanism as imagined.
I'd say join the reserves.
:idunno: Or, when the zombie apocalypse comes I'll go find the most heavily armed friend I can find. :Grizzly:
:luigi:
Why? Because we don't like to see people blown apart by rockets, but being shot isn't so bad?
I think that you've been inured by the culture of gun violence in which we marinate.
What if they surprise you? Or if they care less about the safety of you and people around you than you do? Doesn't really seem like an even playing field to me.
Well, most gun violence comes from handguns because they're legal and easy to get. Do you think mass shooters would refrain from machine guns if they were widely available? There was evidence the shooters in San Bernadino tried to convert their weapons into fully automatic but failed. Isn't that evidence that the ban on privately-owned fully automatic weapons potentially saved some lives?
Proving fitness means that you have to meet some set of conditions before you are allowed to own a gun. Proving that you have no mental health issues. Proving that you can safely keep the weapons. Proving that you aren't a dangerous felon.