Justice Thomas: 2a Won't be Touched

No one that I saw has argued that guns are the same as other weapons.

We are just pointing out that the difference between them doesn't matter.

The statistics are very clear on the fact that gun availability has little impact on homicide rates.

 

The bounds of a free society also put limits on how far you can go with gun control.

The statistics show that gun availability has very little impact on homicide rates.

Totally irrelevant. People who are killed with those other things are just as dead as people who are killed with guns.

 

And I'm willing to go to a point well within those limits to enact reasonable gun laws.

Not true. The statistics show that firearms are the leading instrument of death in some 67% of all homicides. CDC, WISQARS Database, cdc.gov. The statistics on mass killings and school homicides show an even higher correlation.

Not irrelevant at all. Of course dead people are just as dead, whether they die from a hand grenade, a gun wound, a knife wound, a slip and fall, an automobile accident, heart attacks or a virus--that much we can concede. Some things are easier to control than others, and people who do deliberate harm to kids are in a special class, as are the victims. Automobiles, ladders, bathtubs, etc, have a sufficient utilitarian trade-off that society is willing to risk some accidental casualties. Those products are not intended to kill. Firearms are. Your talking points sound like those of a high school debater who has just finished a contest and is eager to try out his arguments on a larger audience. But they've become a tiresome exercise in sophistry.

 

Unjustifiable bans on assault weapons go way beyond what is allowed.

Here are the homicide stats that Balbus posted here:
Justice Thomas: 2a Won't be Touched
with data on gun availability added from here:
Estimated number of guns per capita by country - Wikipedia
and with Taiwan added for a bit of balance:

US
Homicide rate: 5.1
Gun availability: 101

Canada
Homicide rate: 1.6
Gun availability: 30.8

England and Wales
Homicide rate: 0.93
Gun availability: 6.2

France
Homicide rate: 1.2
Gun availability: 31.2

Germany
Homicide rate: 0.8
Gun availability: 30.3

Luxembourg
Homicide rate: 0.8
Gun availability: 15.3

Switzerland
Homicide rate: 0.57
Gun availability: 24.45

Taiwan
Homicide rate: 1.72
Gun availability: 4.6

Note the weak correlation between gun availability and homicide rates.

If murderers could not get their hands on guns, and instead killed people using different weapons, the victims would be just as dead.

Maybe so. But we have the right to have guns that are suitable for self defense regardless of the social cost.

Since the victim is just as dead either way, how is it even remotely relevant whether they are killed with something that is designed to kill?

No sophistry. My facts are all completely true.

 

To the deceased, nothing is relevant. But to society the distinction between bathtub slips and mass murder is highly relevant.

 

It's Clarence Thomas, though...is it going to be fondled?

 

I perceive no reason for considering one death more important than another.

Why don't accidental deaths matter as much as murders?

 

Obviously it's not the deaths themselves but the manner in which the deaths were caused. Accidents happen and we try to mitigate their number by rules, regulations and education. This discussion regards regulating items which are specifically designed to kill, specifically firearms. I'm a little baffled this needs to be spelled out for you.

 

Why does the cause of death matter? The victim is just as dead no matter what the cause.

We do so because we don't consider deaths from accidents to be less important than deliberate murder.

When people make an untrue claim that a death from a gun is somehow worse than a death from a different object, it is appropriate to question just how the gun-related death is supposedly worse.

 

Except no one is saying the death is worse. I just explained that. It really cannot be made any simpler.

 

That is incorrect. People are saying it.

"to society the distinction between bathtub slips and mass murder is highly relevant."

 

Are you serious? What you quoted doesn't even say one is worse, it says there is a distinction. Are you intentionally being dishonest or do you truly not understand basic English? I have to ask because this has gotten beyond absurd.

If memory serves you are quoting Okie. @Okiefreak did you mean worse when you said distinction? Or did you mean distinction when you said distinction? Evidently there is some confusion here. LOL

 

What other reason could there be for treating one death more seriously than another death besides a belief that one is more unacceptable than the other?

Neither. I am completely correct in every respect.

 

No one is taking one more seriously. You just made that up. Let Okie answer for himself rather than you just inventing new meanings and context to his posts. I know the blatant dishonesty seems expedient to your point of view right now but you're simply ruining what little credibility you have.

Also made up. Or perhaps you're a comedian. Your material needs work.

 

I think most normal people can see the distinction between mass murder and a bathtub slip as threats to society. This has been explained to you many times. If you don't get it, your don't get it, but that fact discredits your judgment. What you've said in all these posts suggests that you're hopelessly out of touch. It's a waste of time and energy to engage with you. Rave on, and see if anybody listens.

 

Yes they are.

No I didn't.

I didn't invent anything. I took his words just as he gave them.

Gun rights advocates don't have to resort to dishonesty because the facts support our position.

Your inability to counter any of the facts that I post speaks to my credibility.

Nope. Everything I said is true.

 

Funny how you are unable to explain how one death is more of a threat than the other.

No it hasn't. You've dodged every request for an explanation.

This is understandable since there is no explanation to give. Your assertion that one kind of death is more of a threat than another kind of death is simply untrue.

No. My judgement is just fine.

 

Prove it.

You quoted someone and claimed they said something other than what was quoted. Is this a failed attempt at gaslighting?

Except that you are clearly being dishonest.

I counter and your response is more lies and assertions your opinion is a fact. Are you a child, a narcissist, or a troll? I hope you're a child.

Except the parts where you were dishonest and made over simplistic assertions based solely on your opinion and raw numbers from a pro gun website. I mean you seem unable to even understand the posts you quote and respond to.

 

Ive heard some silly arguments

But this whole deflecting to death by potato or death by bathtub might be the silliest one ever

Any reasonable person should be able to make the distinction between a freak accident and a murder by firearm