All Hail the Second Amendment

[Odoital77]

http://www.wxow.com/story/20468960/maine...ge-tenants

Is that supposed to convince someone that we should give up the right to keep & bear arms?

Odoital77

You are correct.  Freedom isn't free.  There is often a high-cost exacted in order to maintain liberty.  If you are to be free, then you must have the freedom to do that which is wrong, as well as that which is right.

And of course, the story you cite is in the extreme minority.  If it weren't, everyone in the U.S. would already be dead, as there are more loaded firearms in the country than there are citizens.  If what you say is true, he entire population would be decimated.  The fact of the matter is that guns have a civilizing effect on a population and often negate more violence than they create.  What creates gun violence are people and the ideas that they have and live by.  There are more people beaten to death in the United States than are killed by guns, but I see no one suggesting that we ban or curtail the ownership of human hands.  Do you?

[Autumnlicious]

Evidence of the beating deaths from a reputable source?

Else what can be asserted without evidence may be dismissed just as easily.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Is that supposed to convince someone that we should give up the right to keep & bear arms?

Odoital77

You are correct.  Freedom isn't free.  There is often a high-cost exacted in order to maintain liberty.  If you are to be free, then you must have the freedom to do that which is wrong, as well as that which is right.

And of course, the story you cite is in the extreme minority.  If it weren't, everyone in the U.S. would already be dead, as there are more loaded firearms in the country than there are citizens.  If what you say is true, he entire population would be decimated.  The fact of the matter is that guns have a civilizing effect on a population and often negate more violence than they create.  What creates gun violence are people and the ideas that they have and live by.  There are more people beaten to death in the United States than are killed by guns, but I see no one suggesting that we ban or curtail the ownership of human hands.  Do you?

False equivalence, the hallmark of the gun lobby.

[Joods]

I dunno. Britain has a ban on guns, if I'm correct, and the entire population hasn't been killed off by beatings. Gun ownership doesn't guarantee a more civilizing effect on a population. Evidence of that can easily be found in countries that don't allow its citizens to have guns in the first place.

[ukatheist]

I dunno. Britain has a ban on guns, if I'm correct, and the entire population hasn't been killed off by beatings. Gun ownership doesn't guarantee a more civilizing effect on a population. Evidence of that can easily be found in countries that don't allow its citizens to have guns in the first place.

Not banned, but you have to have a decent reason to want a licence, and have to jump quite a lot of hoops such as police, medical and background checks. And the guns allowed are pretty limited (e.g. no handguns/automatic or semi automatic guns permitted). And they have to be stored safely (the police do check).

My FIL has a gun licence and owns a gun (a shotgun maybe, not really sure) think it was for protection as he owned a buisness that generally kept a lot of cash on hand overnight and was higher risk of armed robbery. Never really asked why!

[Minimalist]

If it weren't, everyone in the U.S. would already be dead,

Give us time.  We pile up 30,000 bodies a year because there are too many assholes walking around with too many guns.

You cannot shoot every little problem you have.

[Odoital77]

Evidence of the beating deaths from a reputable source?

Else what can be asserted without evidence may be dismissed just as easily.

It was based upon something I'd read, but I did actually misspeak.  What I should have said was, "According to FBI statistics, you are far more likely to be beaten to death by someone's fists than you are to be killed with a rifle."  That is the more accurate quote from Sean Davis in The Federalist in June of 2016.  But the point is the same.  No one is trying to ban fists because they understand that fists are not dangerous in and of themselves but because of a causal connection between the dangers fists pose and the minds that control them.  The same is true of guns, but many would rather strip us of our rights than to treat guns with the same level of understanding as they treat fists.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Evidence of the beating deaths from a reputable source?

Else what can be asserted without evidence may be dismissed just as easily.

It was based upon something I'd read, but I did actually misspeak.  What I should have said was, "According to FBI statistics, you are far more likely to be beaten to death by someone's fists than you are to be killed with a rifle."  That is the more accurate quote from Sean Davis in The Federalist in June of 2016.  But the point is the same.  No one is trying to ban fists because they understand that fists are not dangerous in and of themselves but because of a causal connection between the dangers fists pose and the minds that control them.  The same is true of guns, but many would rather strip us of our rights than to treat guns with the same level of understanding as they treat fists.

Pity there's no real equivalence between fists and guns.

[Autumnlicious]

Rifles are rarely used in crime. Handguns are magnitudes higher.

Using rifle deaths as a reason to against gun control is like arguing against colonizing Mars because of overpopulation.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

The All-or-Nothing attitude of the NRA makes it nearly impossible to sort out individual weapons.