(June 13, 2016 at 12:25 am)Tiberius Wrote: So, what solutions would people suggest that don't explicitly violate the 2nd amendment?

Perhaps a true understanding of the second amendment which has absolutely nothing to do with one's right to own a gun?

Ok, so explain the 2nd amendment to me then, and what you think it actually means?

(June 13, 2016 at 12:12 am)MTL Wrote: *facepalm*


FAR more people have cars, than guns.

That may or may not be true seeing how you provided no source, there are however more guns in the U.S. than automobiles, how the ownership breaks down, who knows?

(June 13, 2016 at 12:12 am)MTL Wrote: FAR more people USE cars, than guns, on a DAILY basis.

Not to mention all the other things that are "statistically more likely to kill you" than being present at a mass-shooting.

72,000 small children are seriously injured or killed in lawnmower accidents, in America, every year.

Same reason:  a lot more people use lawnmowers, than guns, every day.

But cars and lawnmowers are used for primary purposes very different from the primary purpose a gun is used for.

And by and large, despite the huge number of people injured or killed by cars and lawnmowers,
far, far, far many more people are safely transported by cars, than killed by them, every day,
and far, far many more lawns are safely mown by lawnmowers, every day,
than are children hurt by lawnmowers.

So your logic is to focus on the thing that you're less likely to be affected by statistically?

(June 13, 2016 at 12:12 am)MTL Wrote: I think your own testicles are statistically more likely to kill you with cancer, than a bullet, is.


Maybe you should cut them off.

Feminist spotted.

The second amendment was created for the means of the militia to bear arms. The language and the way certain people interpret it has always been the problem.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/20...dment.html

You can find many other sources relating to the same understanding.

(June 13, 2016 at 12:24 am)Losty Wrote: MTL is here Wut.

Heya MTL. Where ya been?

Hi Losty!  I'm going through some rather heavy shit at the moment, and instead of getting better, it only seems to worsen and worsen, sad to report.  When shit settles down, I plan to return on a more regular basis.

I only had to visit tonight, in the wake of the Orlando shooting, to express my utter despair and completely impotent fury at the madness of this world and of religion...

....but of course I got lured into ridiculing a spectacularly stupid argument comparing guns and cars.

Very good to see you, though...and Empress and Tiberius as well, of course.

Hope everyone is well....thanks for the greeting!! 

(June 13, 2016 at 12:25 am)Tiberius Wrote: As an attempt to try and get both sides to agree on something, can we at least agree that there is a problem with gun crime in this country which doesn't happen in other countries?

Plenty of Scandinavian countries have high gun ownership, but low gun crime. This suggests to me that some balance can be made where guns aren't banned outright, but gun crime is reduced.

So, what solutions would people suggest that don't explicitly violate the 2nd amendment?

Maybe nobody buys a gun without a license, one which should be more or less analogous to the driver's test, except maybe with the addition of a brief psych exam? At least it should weed out gun nuts who don't give a shit about gun safety. That alone would probably cut down on accidental gun deaths.

(June 13, 2016 at 12:18 am)The_Empress Wrote:

(June 12, 2016 at 11:53 pm)Maelstrom Wrote: Actually, his logic is on point.

No... it's really not. People don't generally drive automobiles with the intent to injure or kill with them. Accidents happening is an unfortunate side effect that happens at a lower and lower rate as safety and security features improve. On top of that, gun deaths are on the rise, sometimes accidentally, and often intentionally.

On top of that, according to the CDC, guns are more likely to kill, so his "four times more likely" snippet is a blatant lie.

Here are a couple more links:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk...n-the-u-s/

http://www.economist.com/news/united-sta...-v-bullets

 
Four times as in body count

8,000 deaths vs 32,000 deaths.

8 x 4 = 32

Huggy, you're an idiot. Automobile use is so different from that of a firearm one cannot meaningfully compare death statistics between them. If the general population used firearms with the frequency and duration they usually drive, the casualty numbers would be much, much higher.

Well the interpretation of the amendment is down to the Supreme court, and in multiple decisions they have said it applies to regular citizens.

Do you have an actual legal basis for your claim that the 2nd amendment isn't about the right to own a gun, or is that just what you wish it meant?

I'm trying to deal with realities here. Unless the Supreme Court declares that the 2nd amendment only applies to militias, then there's no point arguing that it does, because that doesn't help the real problems the US is facing with gun crime.

(June 13, 2016 at 12:35 am)Huggy74 Wrote:

(June 13, 2016 at 12:18 am)The_Empress Wrote: No... it's really not. People don't generally drive automobiles with the intent to injure or kill with them. Accidents happening is an unfortunate side effect that happens at a lower and lower rate as safety and security features improve. On top of that, gun deaths are on the rise, sometimes accidentally, and often intentionally.

On top of that, according to the CDC, guns are more likely to kill, so his "four times more likely" snippet is a blatant lie.

Here are a couple more links:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk...n-the-u-s/

http://www.economist.com/news/united-sta...-v-bullets

 
Four times as in body count

8,000 deaths vs 32,000 deaths.

8 x 4 = 32

What the actual fuck, Huggy? Why do you think you're allowed to lie? You should probably watch out for the various cactii while you're in there.