|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Gun Control Again | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
After I cry my eyes out over these horrific murdering rampages I yell to whomever is listening, online or off, WHERE ARE ALL OUR UPRIGHT CITIZEN GUN OWNERS TO PROTECT PEOPLE WHEN WE NEED THEM? Yeah, remarkable, isn't it? There are over 300 million civilian firearms in the USA, so out of all the nations on Earth American citizens should be the most securely protected against being shot. Why doesn't it work out like that? It's a mystery.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
Here we have this right, which was really regarded as a duty in earlier days, to be armed for our own protection and the protection of our neighbors, and we aren't using it. You know, I bet even in the golden days of the Founding Fathers primary school teachers didn't take their muskets into class to defend against potential school shootings.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
ABE: For reference to the thinking of the Constitutional framers, here's an early draft of the amendment proposed by Madison ... So why did they scrub this early draft? What you have there is a version of a second amendment that in the end Madison did not put forward and Congress did not adopt. Whatever the intentions of the Founders, I don't think the evidence of what they deliberately decided not to do can have evidential value except in the negative --- if they considered saying that, and ultimately decided not to say that, it's probably not what they wanted to say.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
I don't think this holds. Whenever we look at the originally-proposed versions of early parts of the Constitution, they are always clear, specific, and inline with the mindset we'd expect from post-revolutionaries. The versions that end up in the actual document, however, are always the distilled trash we'd expect as the byproduct of political haggling. If we are looking for intentnot sure why we are, but if we are, the final version is really not the place to look. So you're guessing that Madison himself wanted the clause, but he had to drop it because Congress would never have passed it? Well in that case, again, the omission of the clause tells us what the amendment as actually passed meant. The fact that Congress would only pass it without that clause (if you are right) would be indicative of what they meant it to mean when they voted for it.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
So if the vast majority of gun owners already follow this practice, what's the point in legislating it? Under what regime do you anticipate creating the first law that would be followed with 100% compliance? The vast majority of people don't commit murder, so what's the point in legislating against it? Under what regime do you anticipate creating the first law that would be followed with 100% compliance? Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
The Clackamas, Oregon mall guy - whose mass shooting has largely disappeared from the news as a result of this latest one, and also because, having been stopped by the actions of a concealed-carry permit holder ... But that's not true, is it?
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
No, it is true. Right, a man with a gun took cover in a store rather than shooting the guy. So then the guy shot himself because he was frightened of being shot by someone who was in no position to shoot him. And we know this because ... ?
I mean, that's almost a textbook-perfect case of how concealed-carry could abort a mass shooting scenario. Otherwise you're left with arguing for the possibility that a guy stole an AR-15, loaded up with hundreds of rounds, a side-arm, and a fully-loaded tactical load-bearing vest, bagged all of two people, and said "huh, I guess that's enough" and decided to eat one. He fired off at least twenty shots, despite his rifle jamming, and police were on the scene within a minute after the shooting started. As to what crazy people are thinking, I don't know, but I do know that it is usual for them to stop shooting other people after a while and shoot themselves instead. Most of them don't actually conduct a body count first and check pulses to see if they've killed enough people.
That doesn't make any sense to me. Clearly, the Clackamas shooter killed himself when he encountered armed resistance. Which he didn't.
It remains to be seen whether you'll adapt your position to new information ... I did. First I believed you. Then I found out the facts.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
I keep hearing different sets of statistics from the two sides of this dispute so that I no longer trust any statistics. The gun control people always claim that the statistics show crimes being reduced where guns are prohibited, and the keep-and-bear-arms side always claims that the statistics show a rise in crime when they are prohibited -- which to my mind is the more likely effect. But some statistics are getting falsified. How are we to know which are true? Ask to see the source. The real statistics will ultimately originate from someone in a position to keep count, such as the police. The made-up statistics won't.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
He executed his planned suicide at the first sign of resistance. The loaded Glock pointed at him was that resistance. So, he shot himself to prevent himself from being shot? Why didn't he use his gun for self-defense? Oh, right, because the guy with the Glock wasn't pointing it at him, he was too busy hiding.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
All the countries with a Human Development Index over 73% ("very high" according to UNDP) are represented. Figures are taken from the WP articles: * List of countries by Human Development Index - Wikipedia* List of countries by firearm-related death rate - Wikipedia * Estimated number of civilian guns per capita by country - Wikipedia Following the links will show where they got their figures from.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
First thoughts: Looks like someone hit it with a shotgun. I think the trend is fairly clear.
I see there are 47 countries in the Very High category. That's how many points the guy said were on the graph. I'll see if I can find out what happened to the rest. ETA: It must be because WP doesn't provide figures for some countries, e.g. Lichtenstein is in the Very High category of the HDI, but WP has no figures for guns per capita.
And then if I look down to where it goes below 73%, i find that to be country number 77. What's up with that? It must be that .73 was a typo for .793.
Who are "they"? Wikipedia.
Where'd you get the image from? Some guy. A biologist, I think. It hardly matters if he's using figures from Wikipedia. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Its probably due to overlap. For example, Latvia and Chile both have values of (0.805, 0.003), Luxembor and the EU are both at (0.867, 0.002). Also see the edit to my post.
What do you think the R2 value is? I don't. R2 values are high on the list of things I don't think about, just below the fact that cigarettes are bad for me and just above Newt Gingrich naked.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
... then it wouldn't matter if he used a gun or an axe. Yes it would. There is actually a reason why people buy guns rather than axes. Guns are more effective. Otherwise they could save a whole lot of money, and the National Ax Association would be bigger than the NRA. There'd be big savings for the Army, too.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
Murders happen overwhelmingly because one individual wants another individual dead, and once that guy is dead, they're done murdering. And whether a gun is around, or a knife or a necktie or a pair of bare hands, is really very immaterial to that. But I don't see any way to so restrict him, without also restricting his victim, and I very much want his victim armed with a handgun and ten rounds [...] I want the right people to die instead of the wrong ones, Rahvin. Maybe that's the difference we can't bridge, here. Killings in self-defense happen overwhelmingly because one individual wants to defend himself against an assailant, and once that guy is dead, they're done self-defending. And whether a gun is around, or a knife or a necktie or a pair of bare hands, is really very immaterial to that. Remember, guns don't protect people, people protect people.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
So what you're saying is that if there were no legal guns, there would consequently be far fewer illegal guns, 'cos criminals would have no-one to steal them from?
Yeah, that sounds about right.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024