The Second Amendment, Gun Control, and School Shootings.

[WoundedKnee]

Yup....she's fully confident if a couple of big guys with knives or even guns of their own attack her she'll be able to kung-fu them off. ...

As Dr. Dae Shik Kim argues, if I am not able to defend myself, when slapped upon the cheek, I have no choice but to turn the other. If I can defend myself, then turning the other cheek is a noble gesture.

And here's the rub. It's okay for nations to outlaw guns and clearly Kim loves the fact that she will not be confronted by a gun in her home nation and thus needs no recourse to a gun.

So, if you're a 5'2" 105# Sheila and a 6'4" 300# bogun decides to take you, what is your self-defense? Annoy him? Piss him off? Bear spray? Bear a severe beating in the course of the rape, or just meekly submit like a good woman should?

After all, she can always get an abortion.



Because, yes you have a right to self-defense, but only if it relies upon the law and the police to protect you. The law has no force in the heat of the moment and the police, in any nation, are not proactive but reactive.

 

[IG_88]

The very notion of 'natural' rights rests on the understanding that the law can't create or dissolve them. So there's no point saying 'according to US law'. If you're going to argue for gun ownership being a natural right, you can't really bring the law into it. (Also note the US is pretty much the only place that says this ... begging the question that if it's so freaking 'natural', why don't we all have enshrined in law?)

Our Bill of Rights are essentially considered natural law. Free speech, freedom of religion, freedom from oppression, etc. To us it is indeed a natural right. That's why it almost certainly will never be taken away.
You can argue all you want about what other countries think but it doesn't matter. Just like their laws or what they believe is natural or not doesn't matter to us.
Our constitution will not change based on what anyone outside of the country believes.

 

[KimGordon67]

You cannot see the forest for the tree.

You are not reading what I am saying, you are reacting from the same flawed position and no matter how it is presented to you as being fallacious, you keep circling around to the very same point. That point seems to be that guns are the source of gun violence.

The real point is not the tool, but the source of the violence which in all cases and all weapons human nature and human passions.

You have to be freaking kidding me - of course guns are the source of gun violence. If you remove guns from the equation, it's just 'violence'.

The point I'm trying to make (sorry dead horse, but I can't stop myself) is this:

'homicides' = gun homicides + non-gun homicides.
If you remove guns (I'm going to the limit case here - I know 'removing guns' altogether isn't feasible nor probably desirable), then you remove gun homicides.

Various people are arguing 'ah, the quotient of homicides will remain the same, because those currently using guns will use something else'.
Others are saying 'ah, the quotient of homicidees will remain the same, because law-abiding people no longer have guns to defend themselves'.
I'm saying that it's likely - not inevitable, but likely - that the total quotient of homicides will reduce.

 

[IG_88]

You have to be freaking kidding me - of course guns are the source of gun violence. If you remove guns from the equation, it's just 'violence'.

The point I'm trying to make (sorry dead horse, but I can't stop myself) is this:

'homicides' = gun homicides + non-gun homicides.
If you remove guns (I'm going to the limit case here - I know 'removing guns' altogether isn't feasible nor probably desirable), then you remove gun homicides.

Various people are arguing 'ah, the quotient of homicides will remain the same, because those currently using guns will use something else'.
Others are saying 'ah, the quotient of homicidees will remain the same, because law-abiding people no longer have guns to defend themselves'.
I'm saying that it's likely - not inevitable, but likely - that the total quotient of homicides will reduce.

What was the homicide rate before guns were invented?

 

[KimGordon67]

Our Bill of Rights are essentially considered natural law. Free speech, freedom of religion, freedom from oppression, etc. To us it is indeed a natural right. That's why it almost certainly will never be taken away.
You can argue all you want about what other countries think but it doesn't matter. Just like their laws or what they believe is natural or not doesn't matter to us.
Our constitution will not change based on what anyone outside of the country believes.

Again, the argument from a natural rights perspective would be that it doesn't matter if it's a natural right 'to us' ... the naturalness of the right exists external to any perception or law. If something is a 'natural right', then it's a right everywhere, not just in countries that have laws that make it so. From that perspective, it's like gravity - you can't legislate for or against gravity.

Just to be clear - I utterly disgree with that perspective in respect of guns. I'm still undecided about the existence of 'natural' rights as a category, although I tend to think that 'rights' are a human construct ... but I've seen some convincing arguments for the opposite. (Not from these muppets though.)

 

[KimGordon67]

What was the homicide rate before guns were invented?

I don't think people kept very reliable figures back then.

 

[KimGordon67]

As Dr. Dae Shik Kim argues, if I am not able to defend myself, when slapped upon the cheek, I have no choice but to turn the other. If I can defend myself, then turning the other cheek is a noble gesture.

And here's the rub. It's okay for nations to outlaw guns and clearly Kim loves the fact that she will not be confronted by a gun in her home nation and thus needs no recourse to a gun.

So, if you're a 5'2" 105# Sheila and a 6'4" 300# bogun decides to take you, what is your self-defense? Annoy him? Piss him off? Bear spray? Bear a severe beating in the course of the rape, or just meekly submit like a good woman should?

After all, she can always get an abortion.



Because, yes you have a right to self-defense, but only if it relies upon the law and the police to protect you. The law has no force in the heat of the moment and the police, in any nation, are not proactive but reactive.

Ah this again. So, again (and sorry for those who have heard this before), in the instances in which my safety has been at risk, no guns have been involved. In one instance, I fought the guy off; in the other instance, my husband chased him out of the house. No police were involved in either incident. (There are others, but those are the two that come to mind.)

Yes, in the first example he may have overpowered me - possible it was just luck that I fought him off (although you can be assured that I do NOT 'meekly submit' to anything). But I am 100% certain that if he'd had a gun (as would have been his right, in your universe) I would have been raped. Possibly I could have had a gun to, but I've seen plenty of evidence that using a gun as self defense in close physical situations like that is not particularly effective.

In the second example, if the guy in our house had a gun, I have no idea what might have happened. The likelihood that we could have mobilised our own hypothetical gun in self defense is remote, as we were asleep.

 

[BotanyBoy]

It's a right in the US because you've made it so. It's not a natural right. (We could revisit the argument about whether 'natural' rights actually exist or not, but that gets a bit complex.)

The very notion of 'natural' rights rests on the understanding that the law can't create or dissolve them.

1) it is but it also isn't...in the absence of government oppression (laws against arming oneself) what does damn near every human being do? Arms themselves with something.

2) It doesn't create or dissolve the right to armament....because in a shit situation if you can you're going to grab whatever weapon you can around you and proceed to defend yourself, laws be damned.

So is it a "natural" right? with as tightly related to self defense as armament is, one can argue/see that as a yes.

So there's no point saying 'according to US law'. If you're going to argue for gun ownership being a natural right, you can't really bring the law into it. (Also note the US is pretty much the only place that says this ... begging the question that if it's so freaking 'natural', why don't we all have enshrined in law?)

Because not all societies see it as a right...they want and support government oppression that hinders the right to self defense.

And even then...even as remote and isolated as some places might be who have banned weapons?? Still happens, only at a reduced rate. You can't get rid of it anymore than iron fist of of the Soviet Union could get rid of capitalism....

The law has no force in the heat of the moment and the police, in any nation, are not proactive but reactive.

That is the unfortunate reality.

Some societies see it as acceptable....others have a greater respect for the right and choose not to oppress it.

IMO it's just different strokes for different folks. How much of what kind of oppression do you want from your government?

Except for the US, the 1st world seems to think you shouldn't be able to defend yourself....so fuck em.

If the USA properly shit cans 2A, I'll be gettin' the fuck out.

If they try to circumvent it without a proper convention....gonna be CWII

 

[WoundedKnee]

reduction = opinion

Nothing more. You just admitted that.
You do not give a shit about the reduction of gun crimes in our states that have allowed conceal/carry to those states with strict gun prohibitions. All you care about is how you "feel" about the issue (you don't even fucking live here) and what you imagine to be true and you are willing to Google the results you want (and we all know what kinds of search results Google has fine-tuned their algorithms to deliver).

And I, for one, am still waiting for some sort of coherent answer, as posed to you by the OP, how my right to self-defense infringes upon yours.

Why do you ignore the question other than to circle back around and simply restart your argument?

 

[BotanyBoy]

Possibly I could have had a gun to, but I've seen plenty of evidence that using a gun as self defense in close physical situations like that is not particularly effective.

What evidence??

Every security, police and military force on the planet I've ever come into contact with, including yours, disagrees.

 

[WoundedKnee]

That's right BB.

But here's the rub of freedom.

If you truly believe that you do not need a gun for self-defense in the USA, then no one is going to force you to own a gun. PERIOD!

If you're female 5'2" and woke, you might want to get a .38 and some training and practice because you know bear spray will get your ass fucking kicked. Hell, we had to stand at attention in a tear-gas filled hut and recite our daily orders of the guard, say the pledge of allegiance and sing the hymn to teach us that that shit cannot, will not, stop you.

 

[KimGordon67]

reduction = opinion

Nothing more. You just admitted that.
You do not give a shit about the reduction of gun crimes in our states that have allowed conceal/carry to those states with strict gun prohibitions. All you care about is how you "feel" about the issue (you don't even fucking live here) and what you imagine to be true and you are willing to Google the results you want (and we all know what kinds of search results Google has fine-tuned their algorithms to deliver).

And I, for one, am still waiting for some sort of coherent answer, as posed to you by the OP, how my right to self-defense infringes upon yours.

Why do you ignore the question other than to circle back around and simply restart your argument?

I've answered this question ad nauseum. Directly and explicitly. If you can't follow the logic of the response, then I can't help you. I haven't once mobilised my 'feelings' - I've provided actual research that produces actual data.

And yes ... the old 'we can't trust data because scary algorithms' argument. There's no responding to that. You should go back to polishing your tin foil hat.

 

[WoundedKnee]

What evidence??

Every security, police and military force on the planet I've ever come into contact with, including yours, disagrees.

Even our government buried and hid their own statistics on the efficacy of self-defense by gun. The only story they wanted to tell was "deaths by gun."

They know the kind of statistics that Kim loves to consume.

http://reason.com/blog/2018/04/20/cdc-provides-more-evidence-that-plenty-o

http://reason.com/archives/2018/05/14/assault-weapons-explained

 

[KimGordon67]

What evidence??

Every security, police and military force on the planet I've ever come into contact with, including yours, disagrees.

I can't find it now, but someone had some a while back in another similar argument. But basically, the guns-as-self-defense argument rests on everyone carrying a gun, and being prepared (and trained) to use it at all times. (I quite often walk around with no bag, and because girl clothes, no handy gun-sized pocket.) Having actually been attacked on the street at night when I was 15 (which I think even in the US would make carrying a gun illegal?), I'm not confident that this is the reality. And if some guys on top of me, holding a gun to me, I don't really see how I'm able to get my hypothetical gun of the bag I'm carrying.

 

[WoundedKnee]

I've answered this question ad nauseum. Directly and explicitly. If you can't follow the logic of the response, then I can't help you. I haven't once mobilised my 'feelings' - I've provided actual research that produces actual data.

And yes ... the old 'we can't trust data because scary algorithms' argument. There's no responding to that. You should go back to polishing your tin foil hat.

Bullshit. If you have a pat answer, spout it. I always do. You are as terrified of your positions as you are of guns.

I think I'll leave you to Botany. He loves this circular shit and will dog you to death.

So, I'll leave you to the bogun and you can defend the fuck out of yourself with, I guess, your sharp wit and fingernails, but remember, Bubba gets fucking mean and dangerous when he's really pissed.

Peace out.

 

[KimGordon67]

Even our government buried and hid their own statistics on the efficacy of self-defense by gun. The only story they wanted to tell was "deaths by gun."

They know the kind of statistics that Kim loves to consume.

http://reason.com/blog/2018/04/20/cdc-provides-more-evidence-that-plenty-o

http://reason.com/archives/2018/05/14/assault-weapons-explained

Hasn't Kleck's work been pretty soundly discredited?

 

[WoundedKnee]

I can't find it now, but someone had some a while back in another similar argument. But basically, the guns-as-self-defense argument rests on everyone carrying a gun, and being prepared (and trained) to use it at all times. (I quite often walk around with no bag, and because girl clothes, no handy gun-sized pocket.) Having actually been attacked on the street at night when I was 15 (which I think even in the US would make carrying a gun illegal?), I'm not confident that this is the reality. And if some guys on top of me, holding a gun to me, I don't really see how I'm able to get my hypothetical gun of the bag I'm carrying.

Bull-fucking-shit.

How did you let this gun-toter close on you? Lack of situational awareness?

 

[KimGordon67]

Bullshit. If you have a pat answer, spout it. I always do. You are as terrified of your positions as you are of guns.

I think I'll leave you to Botany. He loves this circular shit and will dog you to death.

So, I'll leave you to the bogun and you can defend the fuck out of yourself with, I guess, your sharp wit and fingernails, but remember, Bubba gets fucking mean and dangerous when he's really pissed.

Peace out.

Cut and paste from #119:

Your 'right' to carry a gun creates a culture in which gun ownership is widespread.
Cultures in which gun ownership is widespread have demonstrably higher rates of intentional homicide than those in which gun ownership isn't widespread.
If I live in a culture in which the rate of homicide is high, there is a higher risk that I will be killed.
Minimising the risk of being killed is a form of self defence.
Therefore my protection of a culture in which gun ownership is low is a form of self defence - y'all argue pretty vocally that we all have the right to self defence.

Basically, a culture that thinks gun ownership is a 'right' creates a context in which each individual's life is at greater risk. Therefore, my argument is that the right of the individual to live in a safer culture should override the right of people to carry guns.

 

[KimGordon67]

Bull-fucking-shit.

How did you let this gun-toter close on you? Lack of situational awareness?

I was extremely situationally aware. But you can't draw a gun on someone who's just walking past you in the street.

 

[WoundedKnee]

Hasn't Kleck's work been pretty soundly discredited?

Probably in circles where it was paramount and essential to the anti-gun argument that he be discredited, and that is a standard pat reply, but when the CDC numbers were actually unmasked, he was 100% vindicated. Please do try to keep up with current events instead of vesting in propaganda.

 

[KimGordon67]

Probably in circles where it was paramount and essential to the anti-gun argument that he be discredited, and that is a standard pat reply, but when the CDC numbers were actually unmasked, he was 100% vindicated. Please do try to keep up with current events instead of vesting in propaganda.

I'll follow that up when I have time.

 

[WoundedKnee]

I was extremely situationally aware. But you can't draw a gun on someone who's just walking past you in the street.

Only if you are alone is this scenario going to happen.
Now you are just inventing scenarios.

Please, stop it.

(Because if everyone is armed, and you're on a populated street, someone else can draw a gun. What? Do you think we're stupid?)

 

[KimGordon67]

Only if you are alone is this scenario going to happen.
Now you are just inventing scenarios.

Please, stop it.

(Because if everyone is armed, and you're on a populated street, someone else can draw a gun. What? Do you think we're stupid?)

I'm not 'inventing scenarios'. I'm talking about an experience I actually had, as described above.

 

[WoundedKnee]

I'll follow that up when I have time.

Oh, there have been several moments in this thread, when motivated, you went straight to Google to follow up.

Please, you do think we're stupid. You just do not want to accept facts and statistics that might be counter to your firmly held belief.

 

[WoundedKnee]

I'm not 'inventing scenarios'. I'm talking about an experience I actually had, as described above.

So, you were alone, and didn't try avoidance and didn't start screaming fire at the top of your lungs. Do you fucking know anything what-so-ever about actual self-defense?

I really doubt it. I think you were more likely caught unaware, safe in your little self-absorbed cocoon.