US Election 2016

[Malcador]

I'm not convinced the only viable reason for wanting stricter gun control is that it would prevent mass shootings, though.

What other reasons could there be then? Should have a good reason to say someone shouldn't own something in a society.

[Hurlshort]

 

I'm not convinced the only viable reason for wanting stricter gun control is that it would prevent mass shootings, though.

What other reasons could there be then? Should have a good reason to say someone shouldn't own something in a society.

 

 

I'd imagine he was referring to the high rate of regular gun violence, accidents, and suicides.  Much like terrorist attacks, your chances of being involved in a mass shooting are extremely low, but they get the bulk of the attention.  

 

The counterpoint to that is typically something about how dangerous cars are.  

 

I'm just not feeling this debate.  

[Malcador]

Hah, suicides. Because bridges and subways are out of vogue

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

 

As far as self-defense homicides being rare, it's not unusual for a gun owner to pull out a gun and the criminal to run away. 

 

 

Actually, yes, it is unusual - according to the NCVS, the intended victim pulling a gun on their assailant only happens in 0,9% of violent and 0,2% of property crimes, and it must be even more rare for this to have the intended effect (sadly, I have no numbers on that though).

 

 

While it might be unusual, it doesn't really matter for the sake of the arguments at hand.

 

Also, the NCVS has a number of fundamental problems with the methodology in which it's conducted, not the least of which is that it's generally only looking at data that law enforcement is ever told about, which is certainly not representative of reality. Believe it or not, there no small number of people out there who do not call the police when violence or threat of it occurs. In fact, I'd say it's probably safe to say that majority of the violence and especially the majority of the threat of violence that ever occurs in the U.S., aside from the kind that's very hard to hide (such as murder) is never reported to the government.

 

 

 

The problem is that even if we assume severe underreporting, the numbers still remain tiny. Let's say there are twice as many cases where people scare criminals away than reported - now we're up to 1.8% of violent crimes and 0.4% (less than half percent!) of property crimes. Five times as many? 4.5% and 1%, respectively. Ten times as many? 9% and 2%. Given that the US has more guns than people (112.6 civilian-owned guns per 100 residents), these numbers are... less than encouraging.

 

 

 

 

I'm not convinced the only viable reason for wanting stricter gun control is that it would prevent mass shootings, though.

What other reasons could there be then? Should have a good reason to say someone shouldn't own something in a society.

 

 

I'd imagine he was referring to the high rate of regular gun violence, accidents, and suicides.  Much like terrorist attacks, your chances of being involved in a mass shooting are extremely low, but they get the bulk of the attention.  

 

 

 

Well yes, as I mentioned earlier, the average US resident is more than twice as likely to get killed in a firearm-related accident than a criminal is to die to an armed victim. Add to that the almost 40 thousand stolen firearms per year (which are overwhelmingly likely to end up in the hands of criminals, I'd wager), and, well, the ideas about a well-armed society being safer start to evaporate.

[Malcador]

Seems like six of one and a half dozen of another, but fair enough. Always wonder people use gun control when they really intend to ban, heh.

[Zoraptor]

Hah, suicides. Because bridges and subways are out of vogue

 

Bridge and subway require some reflection and time to organise though, and a lot of people change their mind either before or part way through (which is why women typically have a higher suicide attempt rate, but lower success rate than men) an attempt. You don't have much time to reflect and none to change your mind if you've just grabbed your shotgun and pulled the trigger. Won't stop the committed person who wants to kill themselves- only thing that stops that is proper treatment or locking in a padded cell equivalents- but does stop or reduce the severity of more acute or opportunistic suicide attempts.

[Guard Dog]

Once we start talking about statistics we start to lose sight of what this discussion is really all about. When the United States became the United States we designed a government that understands there is a set of basic rights that every human is entitled to. Our Constitution specifically forbids that government from infringing on them. We all agree we have the right  to speak freely, worship as we choose, assemble or associate freely, petition the government, bear arms to protect our nation and ourselves. We all agree that our homes, our money, and our property are ours and that we have the right to be secure in them and defend them. If charged with a crime we have the right to fair and open treatment, and protection from self-incrimination, continuous prosecutions, or cruel punishment. No one can be forced into servitude, and all of us are equal before the law. The government cannot take these rights away from use because the government did not give them to us. They are ours the moment we are born. But God knows they are trying.

 

Whatever you might think about firearm ownership by private citizens understand this: it is a right. Now that right is not absolute. There is room for reasonable restrictions. It reasonable to place limits on the types of weapons that may be owned. It is reasonable to prohibit ownership by felons because they have already forfeited some of their rights. It is reasonable to place regulations on how weapons may be carried and where. And we have done all those things. As Val pointed out a few pages ago we have bent as far as we are willing to bend. Restrictions after this are only steps to prohibition. That cannot be allowed because this is a right we are discussing.

 

It is the height of hubris and arrogance to assert as so many politicians do (and many of the people on this board do) that “you don’t need firearms” or “guns don’t make you safer”. They do not get to tell you what you need. Only YOU get to do that. It’s a funny thing about freedom. So many talk about it but truly very few actually believe in it. If you don’t like guns you can choose not to own one. But so many argue the choice should be taken away from everyone. And why? Because evil people did evil acts? So the solution is to seize the freedom and property of millions of people who did no wrong? Punish the innocent for the acts of the guilty? Is that a society any of you want to live in? It was in the news last month a gay couple in Chattanooga has been arrested for sexually abusing the son of one of the parents. Should gay couples be forbidden to have children because of the evil acts of just two people?

 

Some of the most horrifyingly evil acts ever committed by the human race begin when one group of people believes it knows better how another group of people should be living, or think they have something they shouldn’t. You will understand why I am unwilling to surrender my freedom, any of it, just because someone does not think I should have it. We all decided in the beginning that there are a set of basic rights that all of us have. Did that suddenly become untrue. If so what rights do any of us have if they can be taken away for no reason other than a group of people has decided we shouldn’t have them? None.

 

That’s all I have to say.

Edited April 23, 2016 by Guard Dog

[Longknife]

It is the height of hubris and arrogance to assert as so many politicians do (and many of the people on this board do) that “you don’t need firearms” or “guns don’t make you safer”.

 

 

Please explain how guns make you safer by naming one significant situation in American history in the last 100 or so years where someone (a private person rather than an officer) owning a gun was to everyone's benefit and helped defuse a dangerous situation. The only situations I can think of involve a home owner shooting an intruder who did or did not have a weapon, and I believe I recall one news story about a mass shooter being shot first. This is dwarfed by all the accidental shootings, the cases similar the Trayvond Martin, mass shootings themselves, or even cases where a citizen ACKNOWLEDGED owning a firearm but a scared as **** cop shot them dead anyways with the attitude of "ask questions later."

 

 

Here's the thing: the government or government entities are not a danger to you via sheer force, they are a danger to you politically. If the government truly has a vendetta against you, then brandishing a gun is about the stupidest thing you can do. It's going to give the government an excuse to defame you and label you as dangerous. Imagine if Edward Snowden were a gun owner and the government had photos of him with an M16. Imagine if Snowden had a gun...do you think he would've shot anyone that tried to label him a traitor or terrorist and then everything would be sunshine and rainbow farts...? Hell no, that would've been used against him if he shot people while making his brave escape, and he'd probably be dead by now as Russia would have even more difficulty making a case to house him without serious reprocussions. If not, I'd imagine we'd have overzealous fans of him saying "HE USED A GUN SO I SHOULD TOO," and then you just have dead bureocrats for no god damned reason.

 

 

In the society we live in today, brute force without any degree of thought will get you absolutely nowhere. Trying to fight tyranny with gun ownership rather than evidence or the wits to oppose slander and propaganda? That's far more dangerous to you than any cop with a gun.

 

If you wish to make a case for the people having a right to basic firearms so as to be able to defend against any situation where the government or government bodies go nuts and start trying to slaughter their own people, so be it. However, I would stress how insanely unlikely this situation is. Let's say tomorrow we elect a new president and this president says we need to kill all black people. You now have armed black citizens vs. every police force that goes along with the President's orders. Anyone that stands against the police would be branded a criminal, and what you now have is a war between citizens and the police/anyone that sides with them. This is going to be a slaughter. Thousands will die, if not millions. Comparatively you could do a protest at the White House and, with enough social pressure, the President must bend. Economic sanctions from other supportive countries, a crowd so large that it's the clear majority and the country is actively suffering from the amount of people protesting rather than working, or even the simple ability to - as a giant protest group directly in D.C. - at least get to the doorsteps of the White House before fighting breaks out, are all going to afford you better odds for progress than every citizen openly brandishing a gun and demanding change.

 

 

To say that guns are the solution is insanely shortsighted and in denial of the world we live in today. I think you'll find that Martin Luther King, Ghandi and Malala Yousafzai all did not own guns, and yet their messages are heard and they brought about/are bringing about change. Interestingly, all three of them were shot, only one of them survived (for now). Even now, Russia is being punished for their actions in Ukraine not with all out warfare, but with economic sanctions that are absolutely crippling it's economy. Times are indeed changing.

 

 

 

You want change? This is how you do it.

 

Stop worshipping the words of the founding fathers unconditionally. Ask why they said what they said and ask if it applies to today. They were insanely intelligent, but there's only so much foresight one can have for 200+ years.

 

The police force and the military need better screening and training. The police training program in the USA is an absolute ****ing joke. You know why there's so many cases of police brutality? It's nothing to do with the government trying to control the people and everything to do with every yahoo on planet earth being viable to become a cop. Wouldn't you know it, a lot of the nutjobs out there who REALLY want an excuse to shoot a gun go and sign up to be cops. Lo and behold after their 6 week/month/whatever abysmally small length of time the US demands training course at the police academy, the FIRST sign of any potential threat and they've shot someone, guilty or not. Suddenly you and a good portion of the nation want to own a gun, but what you fail to realize is that even if a bat**** crazy officer pulls a gun on you and you shoot him, the very first word the other officers are gonna hear is "officer down," and you're gonna be standing there with a gun. Do you truly believe your gun has made you safer now? No, you were royally ****ed regardless, and not because you did or did not own a gun, but because the police force in the USA is a joke that's often more dangerous to the people than it is helpful. The police training is the issue, NOT gun ownership.

 

Second, after you train those guys? Lock their damned guns in place. In Germany, cops have to unlock their pistols. If I pull a gun on a cop here? I'll win. He's dead for sure. GOOD. That's how it should be. Just like a firefighter accepts that he will put his life at risk by running into fires, a cop should understand it's their own ass on the line, not the ass of every citizen they talk to. Ever been pulled over in the USA? Then you know the song-and-dance: they walk up to your car with sunglasses on so you can't see their eyes or their expression, and the whole time they have a hand on their holster like they're Clint ****ing Eastwood. **** this crap. That's so unneccesary and does so much to escalate the tension between a cop and every person they speak to. Get these action hero wannabes out of the police force by making it impossible to pull a Quick Draw McGraw on citizens, and you'll find suddenly the only cops left are the ones that act like responsible human beings.

 

Third, the US needs to admit that a lot of the people who sign up for military service are ****nuts insane. Not all of course, but yes a decent percent. You know who shot Martin Luther King? Ex-military.

 

You think most shootings involve illegally acquired firearms...? I would theorize that part of what allows for this is that a lot of people are getting access to firearms through the military, then they either use legally owned firearms irresponsibly, or they deal firearms they have access to to others who are less trustworthy themselves. But no, this is the USA. How DARE anyone ever question the honor of a US soldier!?! They risk their lives for our freedoms!! No, **** that, some of these guys are looney tunes. Let's acknowledge that. You want weapons of the streets? I promise you the military and our liberal recruitment of soldiers has something to do with it. What's truly tragic here is that there are screening processes in place to try and keep dangerous people out, but clearly it's not working and there's only so much they can do. Why? Well having been invited to join the military myself, I can say it's probably because the US military targets young kids in high school and actively has the right to recruit in high schools. If I am being approached and persuaded to join when I have a prosthetic leg, do you think these recruiters give two ****s about the morals of the kids they recruit? Hell no. The attitude of recruitment and the age of recruitment is the problem here: recruiters are just expected to get results, the QUALITY of said results is irrelevant. And when we recruit in High school...? Yeah, damned right the nutjobs slip through. They're too young to have done anything bad yet.

 

Sadly, that point I think is a tragic side affect of being a warhawk nation. If we've got tons of guns and tons of soldiers, yeah, I expect some of that stuff to trickle back home. This, I feel, would be the hardest point to address when trying to kill off America's gun culture.

 

 

If you accomplish the above three, I think you'll find you have little reservation with gun restrictions. As I said, if a nutjob police officer pulls you over and for whatever reason wants an excuse to shoot you, then having a gun...? Dude it's gonna buy you a chance to run to Mexico, that's it. The first thing the officers will likely hear is "officer down," and if history/statistics are any indication, they'll be taking you dead, not alive. Guns have not made you any more or less safe, the true variable is the quality of the cop.

 

 

So listen, I can fully respect any stance where gun ownership should exist to dissuade tyranny, but total reverence for the Amendment without any thought? A lack of acknowledgement for the world we live in today...? The fact of the matter is that if the USA were to become a tyrannical state, it would be slapped with so many economic sanctions it's not even funny. We are not in a position where the rest of the world simply wouldn't care if the people were mistreated. Hell no, the USA is far too powerful and influential for that; the interest in this election by foreigners is a testament to that. I mean we're not even in the primaries and other countries are commenting. And the idea that guns will bring peace...? This happened once in our history. It was called the American Revolution, and it gives credit to the case the founding fathers make. Everything since, from the Civil war to WWII, would've been the same without private gun ownership. But this is not 1776, it's 2016. The most influential revolutionaries that brought about real, tangible change were not wielding guns to make their case. Hell, they were the ones that got shot. If you wish to argue we'd have enjoyed MLK or Ghandi longer had they had guns, this is again in blatant ignorance of the cases. (not to mention their philosophies) If someone wants you dead, they'll get you. MLK would've been shot whether he had a gun or not, Ghandi would've needed to be quickdraw mcgraw to be alive. Long range rifles and concealed carry are actual factors.

 

 

A case can be made both for "give everyone weapons" and "give no one weapons," depending on the circumstances in play. It would be foolish to consider either of these stances to be absolutely correct 100% of the time. If I view the circumstances of the world we live in however? It's painfully obvious that the USA needs to make efforts to restrict gun ownership and usage, both amongst the private citizens and legal bodies/forces and authority figures, because in the end, our government bodies are composed of normal people like you and me, and you better believe dangerous individuals are gonna be willing to sign up with the police force or the military if it means they get to shoot some people.

Edited April 24, 2016 by Longknife

[Valsuelm]

 

It is the height of hubris and arrogance to assert as so many politicians do (and many of the people on this board do) that “you don’t need firearms” or “guns don’t make you safer”.

 

 

Please explain how guns make you safer by naming one significant situation in American history in the last 100 or so years where someone (a private person rather than an officer) owning a gun was to everyone's benefit and helped defuse a dangerous situation. The only situations I can think of involve a home owner shooting an intruder who did or did not have a weapon, and I believe I recall one news story about a mass shooter being shot first. This is dwarfed by all the accidental shootings, the cases similar the Trayvond Martin, mass shootings themselves, or even cases where a citizen ACKNOWLEDGED owning a firearm but a scared as **** cop shot them dead anyways with the attitude of "ask questions later."

 

Uh.... I personally have witnessed at least two such events in my life off the top of my head, and have been told of a few by friends who have experienced such events. Such things really are not all that rare.

 

When I have more time, I'll finish reading your post, and perhaps relate these examples to you (I've related a couple of them before on this forum, though it's been awhile). However you're WAY off in your reasoning in your opening paragraph Longknife. The number of times private citizens pull weapons out, guns or other, to diffuse a situation with other humans (or animals), is absolutely not dwarfed by the number of times bad accidents (I'm not going to include the number of times people accidentally cut themselves with a knife) occur. Quite the opposite, on the order of magnitude of thousands if not tens of thousands to one when all weapons are considered, and on the order of magnitude of at the very least hundreds if not thousands to one with guns alone. And this isn't even considering all of the potentially bad situations avoided all together by bad intentioned person/animal X not doing bad thing X simply because they know or just think the desired victim has access to a gun. Most of the time a weapon is pulled for protection, gun or other, it fortunately need not be used.

 

Also, most of the time such things occur, the police are not notified. And on top of that, the vast majority of the time the police are notified about such things (and a great many others), a news article is not written.

Edited April 24, 2016 by Valsuelm

[Bartimaeus]

 

I'm sorry, Longknife, I really am: I just can't do it anymore. The painful and pointlessly long length and rambling nature of way too large a percentage of your posts aside (I think it was Hurlshot* who said "why write a paragraph(s) when a single sentence will suffice" or something along those lines - maybe it wasn't Hurlshot, but it was somebody), ya' randomly stick extra returns in between paragraphs for no reason and that, above everything else, drives me crazy.

 

Like, I'm not trying to be mean - even though I know I am actually being mean - but please take a technical writing class to more concisely write your thoughts, for your own sake for communicating with others. I just can't bother myself to read these short papers anymore when they could be written in half the length or less.

 

(e): *It was Zoraptor: "No need for an essay when a clause will do. Succinct, to the point and gets the important take home message across as quickly and easily as possible." Also, changed "literally almost every" to "way too large a percentage", since it wasn't quite actually literally almost every post - just way too many as it is.

Edited April 24, 2016 by Bartimaeus

[Leferd]

I'm sorry, Longknife, I really am: I just can't do it anymore. The painful and pointlessly long length and rambling nature of literally almost every single one of your posts aside (I think it was Hurlshot who said "why write a paragraph(s) when a single sentence will suffice" or something along those lines - maybe it wasn't Hurlshot, but it was somebody), ya' randomly stick extra returns in between paragraphs for no reason and that, above everything else, drives me crazy. :pLike, I'm not trying to be mean - even though I know I am actually being mean - but please take a technical writing class to more concisely write your thoughts, for your own sake for communicating with others. I just can't bother myself to read these short papers anymore when they could be written in half the length or less.

TLDR: Bullet points please.

[Guard Dog]

Longknife, I'm sorry but you missed the point entirely. It is hubris to say guns won't keep you safe because it-does-not-matter if the statement is true or not. If you had solid statistical evidence my guns will come to life in the middle of the night and shoot me it still does not matter. Because I have not broken any laws and complied with the reasonable restrictions we now have, nothing and no one can tell me I can not own them. It is a right, granted not by the founders. It is a right I had the moment I was born. All the statistics in the world changes nothing. I have the right to the defense of self and property and the tools for that defense. Any argument for the abrogation of that right based on a "it's for your own good" argument immediately fails. Even if it were true (not a point I am conceding by the way). 

 

This changes in just two ways:

1. The Government ignores the Constitution and we lose that freedom through legislative or judicial fiat. The former is more likely than the latter. The Supreme Court is unlikely to reverse Heller in the future because the court has traditionally adhered to the principle of Stare Decisis. In the case of the former i expect that will lead to a violent insurrection if not a full blow schism. I will say with absolute seriousness, the day they come for mine will be the day I die. And not alone if at all possible,
2. Constitutional Amendment: Convince 2/3 of your fellow Americans to surrender a piece of their freedom and their private property by passing a 28th Amendment to repeal the 2nd. If that happens, then I'll go along with it peaceably. I may hate the outcome but it would have been done openly and fairly.

[Hurlshort]

If we really want to capture the spirit of the 2nd amendment, we should worry less about our individual stockpile of guns and get into an organized militia.  But those people get labeled as crazies.  

[Guard Dog]

If we really want to capture the spirit of the 2nd amendment, we should worry less about our individual stockpile of guns and get into an organized militia.  But those people get labeled as crazies.  

Even one man alone with a gun could be an effective weapon against an invader. General John Sedgwick was shot and killed by a Virginia farmer using a flintlock Long Rifle from over 400 yards at the Battle of Spotsylvania. That was a hell of a shot for that time. Sedgwick was the only experienced leader in the Union army 9th Corps. The other general Gouverneur Warren was a congressman and civil enginner. He had no clue what he was doing. After Spotsylvania and the rest of the Overland Campaign Lee turned north for his date with destiny at Gettsyburg. Had Sedgwick survived Spotsylvania might have ended in a Union victory and it's very possible the invasion of Pennsylvania and Gettysburg never would have happened.  

[Leferd]

Still going with the Second Amendment? Isn't there a guns and ammo thread somewhere here?

 

Here's a cool graphic.

 

 

• California
• Tuesday, June 7
• Bound delegates available: 172
• Original Trump delegate projection: 93
• Allocation method:
• 13 delegates awarded winner-take-all based on statewide vote.
• Three delegates in each congressional district (159 total) awarded winner-take-all based on district vote.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/a-state-by-state-roadmap-for-the-rest-of-the-republican-primary/

 

That's for the Republican Primary. I'm not sure of the process for the Democratic side anymore. But either way, Clinton's going to take it.

 

 

Edited April 24, 2016 by Leferd

[ManifestedISO]

I thought he was German and immobile, or less mobile. Maybe diatribes are therapy for both conditions.   

[Gromnir]

If we really want to capture the spirit of the 2nd amendment, we should worry less about our individual stockpile of guns and get into an organized militia.  But those people get labeled as crazies.  

well, the Bill of Rights is kinda 'bout personal rights, so...

 

*shrug*

 

one o' the difficulties faced by those who wanna limit the 2nd Amendment protections is the fact that we is most often talking 'bout the kinda weapons that is ordinarily in the hands o' hurl's crazies, no?  if Gromnir were serious wanting to organize a militia that would repel foreign invaders or to put down a whiskey rebellion, am thinking we would prefer our citizen soldiers to have something such as an ar-15 and an m1911 pistol, no? easily concealable handguns, on the other hand, don't sound like a militia weapon.  

 

personal, am much in favor of altering the 2nd Amendment.  we wouldn't lose any sleep if handguns o' all types were having Constitutional protections eliminated.  assault weapons?  *snort*  we pity the foreign or domestic force that would try and occupy parts o' west virginia or kentucky where every adult male over the age o' 10 has likely has access to a hunting rifle and a shotgun.  not particular need handguns nor assault rifles to make foreign or domestic armies quale at the thought o' suppressing large portions o' US citizenry through conventional means. that being said, we thinks handguns, in particular, result in far too much innocent American blood being shed to continue defending their ownership and proliferation.  we wouldn't mind an Amendment that precluded handguns... and assault rifles.

 

however, there is a process for altering the Constitution.  is not as if Americans is being held hostage by antiquated notions o' the founding fathers.  don't like the 2nd Amendment?  fine.  change it.  we got an Amendment process specific so that the Constitution may be changed.  the founding fathers had foresight to recognize that the Constitution would need be altered.  can't get the votes to change the Constitution?  tough.  work harder to get the votes rather than trying to do an end around on Constitutional protections.  

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Valsuelm]

2. Constitutional Amendment: Convince 2/3 of your fellow Americans to surrender a piece of their freedom and their private property by passing a 28th Amendment to repeal the 2nd. If that happens, then I'll go along with it peaceably. I may hate the outcome but it would have been done openly and fairly.

 

The successful adoption of an amendment to the U.S. Constitution does not equate to 2/3 of Americans being convinced that amendment is a good idea. This certainly was not the case with a number of amendments. The 16th and 18th at the time they were adopted for certain, and arguably others.

 

The adoption of an amendment is also not necessarily done 'openly and fairly', i.e. there are many who have argued the adoption of 'reconstruction amendments' and the 16th amendment were done in ways that were anything but open and fair.

 

Hell, there were many people considered 'founding fathers' (Patrick Henry comes to mind), that didn't think the entire creation of the U.S. Constitution itself was done openly and fairly. It's also questionable that 2/3 of the American people were behind that at the time.

 

All that said, if an amendment overturning the 2nd ever was adopted, at least as many people as ignored the 18th would ignore that one. Also, there's a good chance humanity will have entered a new Dark Age if such a thing should ever come to pass.

Edited April 24, 2016 by Valsuelm

[Malcador]

Bridge and subway require some reflection and time to organise though, and a lot of people change their mind either before or part way through (which is why women typically have a higher suicide attempt rate, but lower success rate than men) an attempt. You don't have much time to reflect and none to change your mind if you've just grabbed your shotgun and pulled the trigger. Won't stop the committed person who wants to kill themselves- only thing that stops that is proper treatment or locking in a padded cell equivalents- but does stop or reduce the severity of more acute or opportunistic suicide attempts.

True, mentioned those two as they are the most common ways people do it here so that came to mind. Are also other fairly immediate ways of doing it, rope or blade or pills - cousin of mine went out via the former. Was something new for sure, never really heard suicides as a reason for guns being evil.

[Valsuelm]

This was entertaining:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5uoeGKbEQPE

Probably the best speech I've seen him give (I've only seen a few).

[Longknife]

 

Longknife, I'm sorry but you missed the point entirely. It is hubris to say guns won't keep you safe because it-does-not-matter if the statement is true or not. If you had solid statistical evidence my guns will come to life in the middle of the night and shoot me it still does not matter. Because I have not broken any laws and complied with the reasonable restrictions we now have, nothing and no one can tell me I can not own them. It is a right, granted not by the founders. It is a right I had the moment I was born. All the statistics in the world changes nothing. I have the right to the defense of self and property and the tools for that defense. Any argument for the abrogation of that right based on a "it's for your own good" argument immediately fails. Even if it were true (not a point I am conceding by the way). 

 

This changes in just two ways:

1. The Government ignores the Constitution and we lose that freedom through legislative or judicial fiat. The former is more likely than the latter. The Supreme Court is unlikely to reverse Heller in the future because the court has traditionally adhered to the principle of Stare Decisis. In the case of the former i expect that will lead to a violent insurrection if not a full blow schism. I will say with absolute seriousness, the day they come for mine will be the day I die. And not alone if at all possible,
2. Constitutional Amendment: Convince 2/3 of your fellow Americans to surrender a piece of their freedom and their private property by passing a 28th Amendment to repeal the 2nd. If that happens, then I'll go along with it peaceably. I may hate the outcome but it would have been done openly and fairly.

 

 

 

When did I ever claim your guns were going to shoot you? That's a blatant strawman.

 

I said that you proposed guns are neccesary to protect the people from a tyrannical government, should that day come. I'm arguing that if a tyrannical government should arise, your guns won't save you because A.) The most common issue would be an idiot cop with a gun that can't wait to shoot it tries to shoot you, you luckily shoot him first, but then every cop in the county hears "officer down" and the likelihood you get shot by one of them is ridiculous, and B.) We live in a world of economic sanctions and political pressure. Any president or government that would try to act tyrannical towards the American people would be the subject of international pressure, because the USA is powerful and influential enough that half the world has an interest in our business. Attempting to install a tyrannical government would be suicide and highly unlikely, and even if it were to happen, could be resolved without a need to fire a shot.

 

If you want a pistol on the premise of self-defense, go nuts. However, if we're talking about some sort of realistic demand for a right to bear arms...? I think you are blatantly missing the issue. If anything, the USA needs better police training and less stress on the importance of a standing military when we've not suffered an attack on our own soil sans Pearl Harbor for aaaaages. A culture that calms the **** down will help the USA become safer, NOT more assault rifles.

 

 

@Bartimaeus

 

ya' randomly stick extra returns in between paragraphs for no reason and that, above everything else, drives me crazy.

 

 

This is my favorite part of your complaint. Makes me laugh. And if you're curious, that's likely because of ****ing reddit needing an extra, so now I've grown stupidly paranoid with the damned things. Still find it hilarious it bothers you so much though.

 

 

@Valsuelm

 

 

Also, most of the time such things occur, the police are not notified. And on top of that, the vast majority of the time the police are notified about such things (and a great many others), a news article is not written.

 

 

How ****ing convenient for you and your stance on the matter!

Edited April 24, 2016 by Longknife

[Bartimaeus]

It's super annoying because you otherwise write superbly in a technical sense (as an aside, it's hilarious to me and also ironic that the "technical writing" class I mentioned earlier is actually the opposite of what I mean when I say it here, even though I'm correct in both cases). In contrast, Bruce writes like complete and utter garbage in so many different aspects of his posts (but generally manages to get his point across clearly, albeit almost always poorly supported and not always as concise as it could be) - you, on other hand, write near perfectly in a technical sense (with that one exception of having 2-4 returns seemingly randomly in between paragraphs), but you are literally probably the absolute worst I've met at getting across your point, nevermind writing it in a concise manner. So really, you've got worse things to worry about than the random returns...but they're still annoying to me, yes.

Edited April 24, 2016 by Bartimaeus

[Longknife]

It's super annoying because you otherwise write superbly in a technical sense (as an aside, it's hilarious to me and also ironic that the "technical writing" class I mentioned earlier is actually the opposite of what I mean when I say it here, even though I'm correct in both cases). In contrast, Bruce writes like complete and utter garbage in so many different aspects of his posts (but generally manages to get his point across clearly, albeit almost always poorly supported and not always as concise as it could be) - you, on other hand, write near perfectly in a technical sense (with that one exception of having 2-4 returns seemingly randomly in between paragraphs), but you are literally probably the absolute worst I've met at getting across your point, nevermind writing it in a concise manner. So really, you've got worse things to worry about than the random returns...but they're still annoying to me, yes.

 

 

Law in Germany has a "Gutachtenstil," where you are expected to let nothing slip through the cracks. Basically, when addressing a case, you're expected to both attack the stance of your opposition on all points while simultaneously mentioning everything that supports your case. Mentioning support gets you the sweet grades, failing to even acknowledge or attack a point can flunk you. This is likely what you're seeing and lamenting, because yeah, I understand I can write more concisely, but I much prefer to get all my points and thoughts out. After all, if you or anyone else doesn't care to read, you don't have to, I'm just making my stance available, nothing more.

 

Also you're implying Bruce has points. You're full of ****.

Edited April 24, 2016 by Longknife

[BruceVC]

It's super annoying because you otherwise write superbly in a technical sense (as an aside, it's hilarious to me and also ironic that the "technical writing" class I mentioned earlier is actually the opposite of what I mean when I say it here, even though I'm correct in both cases). In contrast, Bruce writes like complete and utter garbage in so many different aspects of his posts (but generally manages to get his point across clearly, albeit almost always poorly supported and not always as concise as it could be) - you, on other hand, write near perfectly in a technical sense (with that one exception of having 2-4 returns seemingly randomly in between paragraphs), but you are literally probably the absolute worst I've met at getting across your point, nevermind writing it in a concise manner. So really, you've got worse things to worry about than the random returns...but they're still annoying to me, yes.

You know what Barti you may be right about me writing garbage but people do have debates with me and do seem to understand me even if they disagree....so my posts cant all be garbage but yes you may  have a point because some people just dont respond to me ?

 

But then I made that post about asking for constructive criticism and hardly had any negative feedback?

 

 in life a person cant be expected to put in more effort than that on a forum....well to be accurate I cant be expected to. I firmly believe in the view "  I dont want to waste time making posts if people dont want to debate with me" 

[Bartimaeus]

Also you're implying Bruce has points. You're full of ****.

In the sense I was using it, as in a "get to the point" sort of way, Bruce absolutely has points. Hillary is a great presidential candidate, romance in video games are great, there's absolutely nothing weird about a 40+ year old man hanging out with teenage girls, etc. Those are some of his points. Are they points I agree with, or think he's able to support in a sufficient manner? Well, we already know the answer to that, don't we?

 

Law in Germany has a "Gutachtenstil," where you are expected to let nothing slip through the cracks. Basically, when addressing a case, you're expected to both attack the stance of your opposition on all points while simultaneously mentioning everything that supports your case. Mentioning support gets you the sweet grades, failing to even acknowledge or attack a point can flunk you. This is likely what you're seeing and lamenting, because yeah, I understand I can write more concisely, but I much prefer to get all my points and thoughts out. After all, if you or anyone else doesn't care to read, you don't have to, I'm just making my stance available, nothing more.

Yes, well, the 3 or 4 friends I have that are Germans and that live in Germany do not share your posting mannerisms...and the needless thoroughness and redundancy is making it impossible for the rest of us to read your posts. Your choice, though.

 

You know what Barti you may be right about me writing garbage but people do have debates with me and do seem to understand me even if they disagree....so my posts cant all be garbage but yes you may have a point because some people just dont respond to me ?

 

But then I made that post about asking for constructive criticism and hardly had any negative feedback?

 

in life a person cant be expected to put in more effort than that on a forum....well to be accurate I cant be expected to. I firmly believe in the view " I dont want to waste time making posts if people dont want to debate with me"

As much as I hate to say it, I wasn't even really trying to offend you, Bruce: in a technical sense, you write horrifically. You use punctuation wrong more than you use it right (when you use it at all), you often erroneously place spaces where they should not be, your sentence structure generally leaves much to be desired, your word usage is...actually, pretty much just fine. What I said had no bearing upon the quality of your arguments or your thoughts (though I routinely have very negative feelings about both of those as well, but it is a separate matter) - merely the quality of your writing. I also did not say it with the expectation that you'd like, magically get any better or anything - I don't expect anyone to understand English to any great degree at all, as a matter of fact. So, my apologies for you using as an example - you're just what came to mind.