Your chances of dying at the hands of some yahoo in a corvette are much much greater than being shot or terrorism or government oppression. We're all gonna die from something. Probably cancer. But unless you like to hang around drug dealers, your chances of ever being shot are extremely low.
We aren't there yet. People aren't pissed off enough. They can still watch game of thrones and drink Starbucks so they don't care that the government is shitting on their rights. They're like you. They want to catch the evil terrorists!!! I really do believe the breaking point will be if they try to confiscate the guns. The rednecks will revolt.
1. I have no problem what so ever with target shooting. It's a fine activity and I'm sure it's a lot of fun, more power to you and others that enjoy it! 1a. Though there is a limit to what you can use to target shoot, IMO. I know people like to shoot the most powerful weapons they can find, and that's not a big deal to me either. I think to own machine guns like you see on a gunship is not appropriate for citizens. But reasonable rifles are just that, reasonable. 2. Just because a particular rifle has historically few deaths doesn't mean that in and of itself means it's reasonable for citizens to own. The AR-15 platform might be reasonable, my ONLY contention was that making the point that it has fewer deaths than stabbing and punches is not a good argument. I don't care what the gun looks like, I am not firm on my position on this topic so I'm asking folks that support having gun freedoms what they see are the valid points so I can be convinced it's the right thing. If I see something that makes sense, I can then solidify my position. Once again, I don't hate guns and don't feel they should be removed from the planet. I don't love them either. I believe in being balanced and unemotional and want to and am prepared to be swayed by good evidence. So for sport shooting, how large of a magazine is reasonable? How powerful a weapon is reasonable? Maris61 says that the 2nd amendment is about taking over the government, so that isn't the same as protecting ones family, so should the magazine limit, power of the weapon, and rapidity of firing be lower than those for military use? Or is that infringing on the 2nd amendment? These are honest questions. "Most shootings involve just a handful of people, and that could be done with literally any gun" This doesn't make a good argument for me. This is no different than the other comments about people dying from other mundane methods. If we accept the premise that if something causes the most deaths it should be the thing we look to ban, then we better ban whatever handgun has been used to kill the most people. But that isn't logical either. There is more nuance to what makes something problematic or not than "It causes the most or fewest deaths". Cheers
Bandwagonfan with another logical fallacy. People kill, period. People want to be able to defend themselves. Or shoot for fun or collect guns because they are collectible. They two statements are not necessarily related. Though the 2nd does allow a means of self protection. If the 2nd isn't safe, what is? The founders surely couldn't foresee in 250 years that we need a king! 4 years and having to be elected by voters just gets in the way! It's sickening that people keep using these rare mass shootings as an excuse to further their unconstitutional agenda. Shameful.
Because they're being sold a bill of goods. The media and other sources with an agenda have been promoting the idea that "mass shootings" are happening every day. They're pushing the idea that gun violence is on the rise and it's an epidemic. If you go on even smaller sites like Oregonlive, you'll see reports of shootings every day. If something happens that involves a gun, they're going to report on it. We're inundated with every single little story about gun violence because they know people will click on it. It never fails. If there is some kind of shooting, the same people on my facebook feed will freak the fuck out and post the same stuff about how bad guns are. They don't seem to know or care about two important facts: 1) Gun violence is on the decline, which flies in the face of what the media is reporting and what they're pushing. 2) People are killed every single day, often by other people. I just find it interesting because they like to use cars as an example of how we regulate something that everybody owns. But I find it interesting that most pro-gun people say that regulation doesn't work, and that gun control won't change the problems. If anything, the regulation of cars PROVES that. We require tests. We require insurance. We require a license. We require you to wear safety equipment. We have countless laws dictating how we drive, where we can drive, what we can drive, etc. And with all that, people CONSTANTLY break the law. We all do. People speed. People speed every day. How many people go exactly the speed limit? Some people don't wear their seat belts. Some people drive drunk. Some people drive without a license. Some people drive without insurance. We have all this regulation, all these laws, all these requirements, and yet people still break the law. They drive drunk and they kill people. They speed and they kill people. They are allowed to drive well into their later years and they kill people. They text and drive, or they talk on their cell phones and drive. I pulled these articles off the front page of Oregonlive. This is just from Today. 90-year-old man arrested on accusations of killing pedestrian with car in NE Portland http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2016/06/90-year-old_man_arrested_on_ac.html "A 90-year-old man accused of killing a pedestrian with a car in a Northeast Portland this March was arrested Thursday and booked into jail. Balding's Oregon driver's license was medically suspended in late April, more than a month after the crash. The Oregon Driver and Motor Vehicle Services Division cited the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) when asked for details about the medical condition. Balding's license has outside mirror and corrective lens restrictions. 4 hospitalized after head-on crash near Sheridan http://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-n...ed_after_head_on_c.html#incart_river_home_pop "Timothy McCready, 43, was behind the wheel and attempting to pass another vehicle in a no-passing zone when his 2001 Hyundai Elantra slammed into an oncoming 2001 Hyundai Accent at about 7 p.m. Friday" 2 dead, 3 injured in Oregon City collision http://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-n...er_oregon_city_cra.html#incart_river_home_pop Hillsboro man, 22, dies after crashing into tree on Oregon 219 http://www.oregonlive.com/washingto...n_22_dies_after_cr.html#incart_river_home_pop People are CONSTANTLY killed by cars because of people breaking the laws. These are some of the most heavily regulated items that we use in our daily lives, and yet people still kill other people because of negligence. According to this article by Newsweek, "2015 BROUGHT BIGGEST PERCENT INCREASE IN U.S. TRAFFIC DEATHS IN 50 YEARS" with estimates 38,300 people were killed and 4.4 million injured on U.S. roads. I have no idea why anti-gun people think that "common sense" laws are going to do jack shit.
It's true, my chances of cancer and auto accidents are higher than being shot. But it's not a case where 'you have to pick one'. Gun control laws don't mean we can't try to cure cancer. Curing cancer doesn't mean abandoning seat belt laws. barfo
Well, then the rednecks won't revolt, so no problem. Nobody is going to be confiscating guns. People can continue to sit around and do absolutely nothing to try to solve any actual problems. barfo
Good point. Let's get rid of seat belt laws, helmet laws, speed limits, testing & licensing, and just let everyone do whatever they want on the road, because the laws don't do jack shit. It's clear traffic deaths wouldn't increase if we did that, right? In fact, let's get rid of all laws, because laws don't prevent laws from being broken. In fact, getting rid of laws would eliminate all criminal activity. barfo
Oh, I see you called. Perhaps you do not understand, the right of self defense is older than our Nation. Madison wanted it is the Constitution but had to defer until the bill of rights was taken up. The second amendment offered by Madison reflects the support of the right of self defense (by force of arms). We know men institute governments to protect their rights, and they do this for the population as a whole. But no government promises every individual protection. The individual is responsible to protect himself and family. Government may come to their aid or maybe not. More often than not, not in time. From Natural law (The law of Nations book III) "As nature has given men no right to employ force, unless when it becomes necessary for self defence and the preservation of their rights (Book II. § 49, &c.), the inference is manifest, that, since the establishment of political societies, a right, so dangerous in its exercise, no longer remains with private persons except in those encounters where society cannot protect or defend them." It seems quite logical to me, and quite prudent that I keep the best weapon available, handy, in case I ever need it. Perhaps also, a few for my family to use in the fight . Our Second Amendment, thanks to Madison, codifies this right in law, and I appreciate this very much. Now, I hope this is not too demeaning, but if you don't like this law, purpose and amendment to change it that you think will pass the amendment process. But if you don't like the suggested action, then I can give you no alternative, but Fuck off!
http://www.usatoday.com/story/life/...lis-attacked-at-north-carolina-home/86347504/ Top Gun actress Kelly McGillis says she was attacked by a stranger in her North Carolina home last week, so she got a permit to carry a concealed weapon.
What annoys me about anti-gun people is the moral high ground bullshit. "I want to save lives!" "Passing common sense gun laws will save lives!" Question - if you people care SO much about saving lives, how many times have you donated blood? Have you donated bone marrow? You, yourself, could save a life. Have you done that yet? I mean, if you're SO concerned with saving lives, there are things that YOU could do to save a life. Or I guess they could just keep posting about gun laws on facebook. That might eventually save a life.
Gun advocate kills her daughters. Sad. http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nat...-fatally-shooting-daughters-article-1.2687929
Nate, your little friends are wrong. They have been affected by the skepticism of a skeptical age. They do not believe except they see. They think that nothing can be which is not comprehensible by their little minds. All minds, Nate, whether they be men’s or children’s, are little. In this great universe of ours man is a mere insect, an ant, in his intellect, as compared with the boundless world about him, as measured by the intelligence capable of grasping the whole of truth and knowledge. Yes, Nate, there is a Santa barfo. He exists as certainly as love and generosity and devotion exist, and you know that they abound and give to your life its highest beauty and joy. Alas! how dreary would be the world if there were no Santa barfo. It would be as dreary as if there were no Nates. There would be no childlike faith then, no poetry, no romance to make tolerable this existence. We should have no enjoyment, except in sense and sight. The eternal light with which childhood fills the world would be extinguished. Not believe in Santa barfo! You might as well not believe in fairies! You might get your papa to hire men to watch in all the chimneys on Christmas Eve to catch Santa barfo, but even if they did not see Santa barfo coming down, what would that prove? Nobody sees Santa barfo, but that is no sign that there is no Santa barfo. The most real things in the world are those that neither children nor men can see. Did you ever see fairies dancing on the lawn? Of course not, but that’s no proof that they are not there. Nobody can conceive or imagine all the wonders there are unseen and unseeable in the world. You may tear apart the baby’s rattle and see what makes the noise inside, but there is a veil covering the unseen world which not the strongest man, nor even the united strength of all the strongest men that ever lived, could tear apart. Only faith, fancy, poetry, love, romance, can push aside that curtain and view and picture the supernal beauty and glory beyond. Is it all real? Ah, Nate, in all this world there is nothing else real and abiding. No Santa barfo! Thank God! he lives, and he lives forever. A thousand years from now, Nate, nay, ten times ten thousand years from now, he will continue to make glad the heart of childhood. barfo
http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local/Refrigerator-Falls-on-7-Year-Old-in-Clairemont-384395341.html 6 year old crushed by refrigerator that fell off a truck. Sad.
I broke down your argument about stabbings and punches step by step and pointed out that it specifically was fallacious. Show me how that breakdown was faulty and I will concede that point. Just saying "bandwagonfan(since1977 mind you!) with another logical fallacy" doesn't make it so. Did I confuse the point you were trying to make? I don't want to take your guns, which I've mentioned before in this thread. I value the 2nd amendment and at the same time fully expect that a debate about its merits and faults is healthy since there is nothing ever that shouldn't be able to be discussed. If the framers knew about how controversial the wording of the 2nd amendment turned out to be and could have foreseen what was unclear they would have certainly written it differently to aid interpretation. To wit: Until 2008 with District of Columbia v. Heller, the courts had not made it clear that the 2nd was meant for individuals as compared to collectively for militia. There were cases the courts ruled on prior to the 1900s that solidified their interpretation that the 2nd amendment only limited the federal government from prohibiting gun ownership. In 1939, U.S. v. Miller, a case about a sawed off shotgun came back with a result of not allowing for the 2nd amendment to protect the ownership of such a weapon since it was deemed not needed for the use in a militia. So not until 2008 do we have the courts settling the matter of guns being protected for individuals under the 2nd amendment. That is clear evidence that your interpretation is not the only reasonable one. It also shows that coming to a conclusion about individual right of gun ownership isn't as simple as just read the 2nd amendment it's all explained right there. Hence you, I and others, are having a conversation about this. This is healthy, and to say that the 2nd amendment is untouchable is unhealthy. If your arguments are sound, they will prevail. So, once again, please show me where I am at fault in my reasoning instead of ad hominem attack on the stabbing, punching, etc vs. Rifle point you tried to make. And do you concede that it is not obvious and clear what rights the 2nd amendment grants or doesn't grant? You and I both don't have to be right on every point we try to make. I fully expect that I will be wrong on things I am not expert in so I am here trying to have my arguments poked at, but I am going to do the same to others. And there is nothing wrong at all with saying a document that needs to be assessed by judges as to its meaning is possibly mildly or greatly ambiguous or subject to interpretation. Look forward to your considered reply. p.s. I am not a gun control nut trying to take your gun nor taking a knee jerk response about so-called mass shootings.
