Defend the Second Amendment!

MeAgain

I agree money and the lobbying it can buy has a lot to do with it [in access, campaign contributions and propaganda] especially given the relatively general weakness and often irrationality of so many pro-gun arguments.

 

Shall a well-regulated militia exclude children ? Are children with bb guns not well-regulated ? The 2nd amendment is stupid .
Make a new one .

 

Yep, your post is another fine example of the way you advance the OP.

 

Yep, this comment is another fine example of the way you advance the OP.

No, I am not. I'm saying that weapon's effectiveness depends the circumstances.

 

[SIZE=11pt]Old [/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]- Are you saying you think guns in general terms are more effective than knives or not?[/SIZE][SIZE=11pt] -[/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt][/SIZE]

And as pointed out in the right circumstances a pillow might be the best weapon but I think any rational person will see a gun as been in general terms a much more superior weapon to a pillow.

I think you understand and acknowledge this it’s just that you wish to try and stop the advance of the debate for some reason - I’m surmising because you know that the pro-gun arguments don’t stand up well in an honest debate.

 

The thing is that I agree with some of the things mentioned in the OP – I’ve often said that what the US needs is a strong pull from the left and the suggested ‘Workers Party’ is a good start fighting as the OP says for “better wages, benefits, job security, and better/safer working conditions” I just disagreed with the idea of introduction more guns into a society that already has a seeming problem with easy access to guns.

Commenting - If you have a lot of people killed because there are many guns in circulation how does it help by putting more guns into circulation why not try and lessen the number of guns in circulation?

But I’d also add that if that Workers Party began attracting large numbers of left wingers who began organising themselves into armed ‘workers militias’ preaching revolution, the establishment would very quickly be bringing in stringent gun regulation and even go as far as to get the Second Amendment, changed

 

Any rational person knows that a modern gun is in general terms the superior weapon for attack and defence, and if available, is most likely to be the weapon most desired by those who wish to attack others or defend themselves.

The thing is that in such situations if things do go wrong the likelihood of fatality is most probably going to be greater because of that superiority.

*

Now a lot is said about gun related suicides, but if someone is low enough to want to kill themselves its likely they will find a way and this seems to be supported when comparing suicide rates

Suicide rate
US - 12.5
France - 14.7
Germany - 12.2
UK - 11.8
Switzerland - 11.2

It seems from this that the developed counties all seem around the same area for suicides

It’s once we look at homicides that there seems to be something interesting.

Homicides by any method per 100.000
US - 2011: 5.1
England and Wales - 1.03
France : 1.2
Germany 0.8
Switzerland 0.57

The developed counties all seem around the 1 level except the US

Gun related homicides per 100,000
US 2011: 3.6
England and Wales: 0.06
France - 0.22
Germany - 0.2
Switzerland 0.16

The thing is that if you take away gun related homicides [3.6] from overall homicides [5.1] the US has an average homicide rate [1.5] comparable with that of other developed countries.

 

And you would be correct in the right circumstances a pillow might be the best weapon.

As for "I think any rational person will see a gun as been in general terms a much more superior weapon to a pillow", thanks for the ad hominem attack but calling me irrational does not prove anything.

I have answered your question several times over and you just won't accept my answer and it seems because you don't like my answer it is you that is stalled, as for the discussion it seems to be going on quite well with out you.

 

Repeating this over and over does not make it true. Yes there are a lot of people killed in the US and yes there are a "many guns in circulation" in the US and there are "a lot" people killed with guns in the US but It does not logically follow, you might assume it, but It does not logically follow that "you have a lot of people killed because there are many guns in circulation".

Okay, you're a socialist and you don't like guns.

I kind of thought that is where you want this country to go, no guns, no Second Amendment, except for the fact it would probably be fascist instead of socialist.

 

Okay, let me spell it out for you, your use of the phrase "Any rational person knows" is saying that you are a rational person and that any who agree with you are also rational and all who disagree with you on this are irrational. It is an illogical attempt to get people to bow to your belief without having to prove its validity.

If things go wrong? People can die if "things go wrong" lighting a propane Bar-B-Que and no one is calling for a ban on Bar-B-Ques. If a propane tank explodes it could take out the side of a house, talk about "superiority".

You bring up "if things do go wrong" as if to imply that it often the case but the trouble is the opposite could be true since when something goes right and a thief, robber or molester runs off, it is seldom reported.

Okay but what's the matter with people in France?

A very good point, thanks.

But you make it sound so easy saying; "if you take away gun related homicides", perhaps you can tell us how it is to be done?

Gun regulation hasn't seemed to work so far, maybe if you just eliminated guns from the US, made them illegal?

But then that really hasn't worked for for Americans in the past has it? Look at prohibition, that worked so well and we still have crime syndicates to show for it.

I mean if Americans want something they'll find a way to get it. Look at drugs for instance, drugs being illegal hasn't even slowed Americans down, in fact they've made a multibillion dollar business out of it. But perhaps If you can find a way to ban guns, Americans will make a multibillion dollar business out of selling guns as well.

 

[SIZE=11pt]Old[/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]Brush off and misdirection[/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]So are you saying that in general terms in your rational opinion a pillow is a superior weapon to a gun? [/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]Misdirection and brush off[/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]You reply to the question so far has been that in the right circumstances a knife would be an equal or even better weapon than a gun – but what about in general terms? [/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]Misdirection[/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]This is what we are discussing so far your main counter argument seems to be that other weapons are in the right circumstances the equal to guns and so that even if guns were not so easily available other weapons would be used to kill just as many people. [/SIZE]
[SIZE=11pt] [/SIZE]
[SIZE=11pt]As pointed out this doesn’t seem the case in other developed countries. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]I’m a pragmatic Keynesian socialist with strong green leanings and I’m not really bothered about guns – however I am interested in the issue of guns within US society. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]Brush off[/SIZE]

This is the problem – you don’t listen – I’m not saying no guns (see my post to Meagain above)

[SIZE=11pt]Misdirection and rather silly[/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]A gun (a weapon) is not a Bar-B-Que (a cooking devise) I think there are not that many hold ups using a BBQ cooker or drive by BBQings or such cooking devises been used in spur of the moment domestic disputes. [/SIZE]

Misdirection

First do we have to keep repeating that it’s not about a complete ban (see my post to Meagain above)

Second drugs (intoxicants) are not guns (weapons) both have their own issues that need to be addressed in their differing ways. There can be links between the two as has been discussed (see above), but they are differing problems.

The problem here is that you don’t seem to want to discuss anything in a rational or reasonable way you seem to wish to try and stop the advance of debate by muddying the water - I’m surmising that in this case this is because you know that the pro-gun arguments don’t stand up well in an honest debate.

 

To move this issue on all is needed is some political will but when you have well funded pro-gun lobbyists and individuals seemingly claiming that any minor regulations is somehow akin to a total ban, an attack on the sacred text of the US constitution, the very freedom of the American people and a vast left wing conspiracy to enslave the world – then that political will doesn’t seem to be there.

And there is also an elephant in the room in this discussion that is often hinted at but rarely if ever mentioned openly and that is the matter of race.

In my 14 years here I can remember only one pro-gun American saying it openly he said that white pro gun Americans would never embrace gun control as long as gun related homicide were mainly a black on black thing that took place in poor areas and not around where they lived.

And while blacks are significantly more likely than whites to be gun homicide victims, blacks are only about half as likely as whites to have a firearm in their home (41% vs. 19%). Hispanics are less likely than blacks to be gun homicide victims and half as likely as whites to have a gun at home (20%).

*

Here is a the conservative Rod Dreher on the subject –

"Yesterday the Baton Rouge Advocate published a lengthy analysis of the 2012 murder stats in the city…Last year, 83 people died by homicide in Baton Rouge. Of that number, 87% were black, and 87% were male. Two-thirds had been in trouble with the law before, and one-third had been in trouble with the law for drugs. The median age of victims: 26.

Of the perpetrators, the median age was 22. Get this: 96% of them were black, and 90% were male. Almost two-thirds had previous arrests. One out of four had a drug record. Most of the murders took place in the poorest parts of the city.

What can we learn from these statistics? That murder in Baton Rouge is almost entirely about young black men from the poor part of town killing other young black men from the poor part of town. It's mostly a matter of thugs killing thugs."

The right wing Ann Coulter is even clearer claiming that the murder rate among white Americans is as low as the murder rate in Belgium. "So perhaps it's not a gun problem," she concluded. "Perhaps it's a demographic problem."

Which basically seems to imply that the ease of access to guns in the US only seems to be resulting in the premature deaths of large numbers of young black people so that’s all right then, so there is no real problem associated with having that ease of access to guns then.

Because in general right wing policies toward dealing with this ‘demographic problem’ seem aimed at making things worse rather than better.

Also I think some of the fear some Americans feel about their society is that one day the ‘problem’ will break out of the poor areas.

*