Just asking facts

“If a hundred people ever got stabbed at the same time, in the same place by the same person, you know what that would mean?” ... “Ninety-seven people deserve to die.”

- jim jeffries

Uh, that’s from Chris Rock’s latest stand up...

You're right. I watched a jim Jeffries right after that and got them confused

Your fucking kidding me, there aernt that many stabbing caus people have brains and don’t go killing people because they are depressed

brilliant.

Yes. I think in light of this eloquent and well cited argument we must concede to whatever points guest has.

Spreading the "rampant gang rape problem in Europe" fairytale shows either extremely poor judgement in the selection of news sources or a really mean spirit.

I agree that discussing rape in another country has no real bearing on the subject at hand, it's the equivalent of "oh yeah? At least my mom didn't sleep with the mailman!" True or not, it's neither constructive or civil. It would be fair to say however that America isn't the only country with problems, and those taking a sanctimonious attitude towards other countries lack of gun tragedy aren't just barking up the wrong tree, but themselves are prone to mean spirited indictments. Perhaps an opportunity for us all to take a retrospective and attempt to not let our emotions overshadow that we are all just humans speaking to humans.

Come on, you can do better than that. It's not only the "gun tragedies" in other comparably civilized countries, it's the overall homicide rate, fueled by americas absurd gun laws. WE all have problems but americas problem is so much bigger, the rest of the world is seriously concerned, and for a reason.

Homocide rates are extremely high because of cities like Detroit and Chicago.

Detroit is #3 (after St. Louis and Baltimore) and Chicago is #8. Even european metropoles like Paris or London would rank somewhere in the area of San Diego, El Paso or Austin. And what US Metropolis is ranking pretty low in the US? And - surely coincidently - has very strict gun laws? Don't believe me, check it yourself https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_by_crime_rate#Crime_rates_per_100,000_people

Hitting me with Wikipedia articles.
Niiiice. Just put this right with the rest of you oh so reputable sources

Even if we adjust for size or population Americas homicide rates are HUGE compared to the U.K. for example. The state of California alone sees 2-4x the homicides of the UK despite having tens of millions less people and a lass mass several times that of England and whales. But let's go to Alabama- which compared to 1900~ California homicides saw 3 in the same year. A very fun positive state, until recently you needed no firearms permits and could concealed carry without permit. Now you need a permit to concealed carry. The United States saw 17,250 homicides to over 30k traffic deaths, the U.K.? 24k despite tighter laws and license requirements and being smaller and less populated that the US. They're very different places, if we subtract gun deaths US homicides are STILL disproportionately high for a developed nation. We see a drug business here that would make the U.K. blush. And most of these gun deaths? Urban America continued.....

So again, why are guns being approached universally as if they are universal, even in America where we can see great differences by region? Why do we push that agenda but not ask what makes American cities battle fields of guns and drugs, what factors are at play and what to do about that? When we talk about differences in countries we draw a direct line and say "guns are illegal here and there isn't gun crime" but we don't look at socio economic factors, culture, geography, or history. We don't look at differences in how health care systems or social order is. No. You're right. Must just be the guns. They do something to the brain, American made guns carry an ancient tribal curse to bring the same devastation to American culture they did to native culture? Is that our finding?

I think guns stick out as a place for regulation because it can be argued that they have no real purpose beyond being a weapon. Knives, explosives, vehicles, and other items mentioned in this discussion have utility as non-weapons.

"Hitting me with Wikipedia articles. Niiiice." - The fact that you cannot use wikipedia as source in school or college doesn't make it a bad source, this is just because it's so easy to manipulate its content temporarily (!) which makes it a no-go for a graded (!) paper. If you doubt THEIR sources (at the bottom of each article) find better ones to dispute them. But of course the "you can't quote wiki" shtick is just the lazy equivalent to "You made a typo so I don't have to bother with your entire argument at all". Niiice.

@scatmandingo- I agree whole heartedly. Up until the 1970's even the NRA actually sponsored many gun control acts. The idea of a "well regulated militia" requires.... regulation. That is to say that without responsibility and discipline one shouldn't even be allowed to touch a fire arm, and that without regular and regimented training a firearm is more of a danger than an aid in most cases. The NRA itself was founded on that purpose. Rural citizens like those in the south had more experience with guns. The NRA aimed to offer instruction and guidance to create proficient responsible shooters, not that any idiot should be able to buy any weapon.

A big part of the problem (and what led to the modern NRA) was that the dialog shifted to harsh gun laws or outright bans. What are the odds a legal responsible, regular gun user would suddenly go "rogue" after 20/30/50 years? So any concession on control became a slippery slope. It was no longer about compromise but erosion to many. Each sensible law gave momentum to foolish ones and while gun rights were being eroded, provisions weren't being made for or alternatives to allow continued legal enjoyment of previous rights the majority never abused. The "ban guns" dialog is harmful to the discussion. It disregards the millions of legal gun owners and creates a schism. The security of knowing that regardless of controls ownership is a guaranteed right is questioned and most people aren't keen to help eliminate their own rights. The entire debate needs to change gears and focus on bringing back the concept of "organized militia" and trained, responsible ownership over fantasies.

That's perfectly reasonable. What's unreasonable is the notion that you should have to qualify for any right. "The right of the people to keep and bear arms" is meant for forming militias in dire times. Especially since allowing only for registered persons to keep arms undermines the spirit of the amendment.
.
EDIT I commented too soon. Oops.

Rights aren’t unconditional in the US. You have a right to vote but not if you commit a crime or you have a right to liberty but you are still obligated to follow instructions from the government as examples.
Guns are dangerous the same way an 18-wheeler is dangerous. If we require special training to operate one I don’t see why we can’t with the other.

To start- driving is a privelage not a right. It says so in the drivers handbook. But yes- you have freedom of speech but not to slander, freedom or religion but not if your religion breaks the law. You have all manner of legal rights and a whole complex system of qualifiers and rules to navigate them. The distinction is the right does not require you to qualify. Your rights come with responsibilities as a citizen. One such responsibility being to be able and willing to defend the country from all threats foreign and domestic. Intelligent gun laws by informed sources can help us live up to those rights and responsibilities while keeping the governments dual responsibility to ensure safety and liberty to its citizens. Gun laws passed in fear by people who know nothing of guns only serve to go against the spirit and intent of regulation. We need smart regulation, not a totalitarian answer which disregards not just millions of citizens, but fundamental rights undrrpinning our nation.

The driving comparison wasn’t about rights but I think you interpreted it correctly. I think we are saying the same thing about smart laws. However, I have to point out that the fact that guns have no utility beyond hunting and self defense has to be factored in from the beginning. You can add far more restrictions to guns than say, knives, because there are few legal use cases. As long as the laws allow for the legal behaviors everything else should be up for grabs. I think we can agree you shouldn’t be able to own a rocket launcher at one end of the spectrum and that a muzzle loader probably isn’t that useful for self defense at the other end. In the middle would be a semi-automatic that holds 50 rounds of ammunition. Is that really necessary for a legal use case or is potentially more likely an illegal use case?

@guest -You’re wrong. “Well regulated” meant practiced and drilled while “militia” meant any able bodied male capable of fighting.

You raise some good points, but leave out context. Beyond utilitarian purposes there are target sports and pleasure shooting. These aren't practical uses strictly, but they are interests none the less. There are many dangerous things that we could argue should be restricted to practical uses only, it just sonhappens most have far more people that would be outraged by the restriction. The common question of "is a hobby more important than a persons life" is misguided as it assumes that both can't exist from the start, and it equates the responsible enjoyment of a hobby by many to the reprehensible actions of the few. There is as you say a spectrum though. It's hard to justify a heavy explosive and a musket is practically useless. However like many objects it may all be in context. If it was never allowed to leave a shooting range, I don't see harm in allowing certain guns that have no practical use. Conversely gun owners would need to give up some far fetched and niche ideas and fantasy

Can it really be called "fantasy" if the scenario is both undesirable, and has occured before?

@pokethebear- trying for character limit. Sorry. Overall intention was that limiting people on the street with guns to people who have some accountability and demonstrated proficiency beyond taking their word they aren't idiots is a good idea in my mind. It would allow those with the skill and who actually use or at least maintain minimum proficiency to have weapons, and help keep legal guns out of the hands of those who would make responsible shooters look bad. The hope being that IF there were any shootings after that they'd be by illegal shooters and illegal guns. Can't ban something illegal, and the case becomes one for better law enforcement and security and not a pissing match over how guns make us feel.

@famousone- technically yeah. If we fantasize about being a WW2 ace it ain't likely to happen. If we fantasize about stopping a September 11th style hijacking, it's unlikely to happen. Statistically certain scenarios are unlikely, and often people aren't prepared to respond the way they say or think they would. People are very sure until they get in the shit, then the world does that thing it does and the sound gets muted and the heart starts pumping. Without training some have the instinct and do, others freeze or worse. We have seen happen the would be hero who just makes things worse too. Does that mean it's dumb to buy a gun for home defense? Depends on the person. Hell, its your life. Being honest I think we all care more about our lives than a stranger no? Playing what if it's probably better to have and not need than need and not have isn't it? Fantasy is the word I use to describe that which specifically hasn't happened and is unlikely to go as envisioned.....

.... I don't mean it to disrespect anyone with ideas of protection, just that for most people it's a fantasy or an unlikely worry. But that's the trick to intelligent gun debate- we must realize that regardless of logic people have feelings. It's a case that effects society but is highly dependent on individuals. That's why blanket generic answers don't work. Any reasonable action on gun legislation must consider all the sides and the many special or unique cases.

I meant having to contend with multiple assailants, or resist tyranny coming from within or outside. The stupidest mistake a person can make is to decide "That can't happen to me. Not here".
As I'm sure you can tell, I take my personal defense and liberty very seriously, and fall firmly into the "better to have and not need" school of thought, particularly because I have been in situations where I "need but don't have".

Is there really any practical reason to allow guns in public (besides transport)?

That's what people don't understand. There no one life. They think everyone has a life just like them. People also roll their eyes at the idea of resisting tyranny. They automatically discount any argument about guns that contains a provision for the need to form armed resistance against domestic oppression despite the precedents. I think those are elements that need considered. There's no "one size fits all" solution but most people believe one answer will fix everything. They thinks it's star wars and you "beat the head enemy" and the galaxy is safe. The challenge is finding a way to give access to weapons in a way that doesn't impede their use for intended and rightful purposes, but also doesn't make it easy for those who would abuse such rights. The thing to remember is it is just as important to defend the right to arms against people like these shooters who would abuse it and endanger the rights of legal and responsible gun owners.

@scatmandingo
Self-defense. Muggings, kidnappings, rapes, killings, and most other crimes can occur in public spaces.

@scatmandingo If you ever passed me in public you unknowingly passed a firearm in public. Mine is concealed and loaded, nobody outside a select few know it is with me at (nearly) all times. All my brothers are armed as well unless drinking. We are all legally permitted to do so. (Certain venues still will not allow two of us but the other two are LEOs and can). If my family is threatened i will respond as necessary. If I see you in a life threatening situation where intervention would be appropriate I would render necessary aid. I have a fire extinguisher and a first aid kit in my vehicles as well. There are times that being prepared are necessary, action is not always necessary but preparedness is.

One could argue that guns in public facilitate the crimes as well as providing defense against them.

The permitted are rarely the facilitators of the violent crime. The ill intentioned rarely take the time to become permitted and proficient. Why does my ability to self defend trouble you?

Erased my last. That's more succinct.

Because shooting someone is not where self defense should start.
The people I know who carry concealed do it to feel powerful. Some of them need it because they are scared and others just like the feeling of superiority. Self defense is fine cover story and all but if you carried it openly you would deter some amount of crime before it even happens. Concealing it feeds into the hero fantasy that “if there’s a crime happening I’m going to pull my gun and take care of it.” If it’s truly for self defense then wear it on your belt or better yet carry a rifle. No one mugs a dude with a rifle.

Open carry only makes you a target. That's your right, but I'm not for it. The man with a rifle isn't mugged. He's ambushed from behind, killed, and then the bad guys take his daughter and none of them are ever seen again.

@scatmandingo- I know the type, literally and figuratively. "If I was there I would have...." The real live Bruce Willis who stands in stunned inactive shock when you unexpectedly jump out somewhere and startle them for fun. You're right, to many it is a fantasy, but not to all. There are those with the training or nerves to act. Those who you NEVER try and sneak up on because of you do you may both regret it. We can't say all that carry for protection are dillusional any more than we can say that all who carry would be able to protect themselves and not cause more harm than good. But carry a riffle? Asides being lousy for tight spaces and a tad conspicuous, a riffle is a ranged weapon most effective in scenarios that fly WAY outside common self defense in urban settings. A medium riffle round at that range will go right through the attacker and anything behind them. That's a tad unrealistic in every regard.

It's an issue of respect. We have to respect not everyone lives the same life in the same place. Maybe the same gun laws don't make sense in The big City as in Bugtussle. Where I live I'd rather carry a knife than a gun for protection if I felt the need, a gun doesn't make sense here. But I've lived places where it sure did make sense. It's relative.

Not a Bruce Willis type. Just a short chubby guy that is too injured to continue my karate and refuses to let his family be victimized again. And just where oh great sage should “self defense start”?

Short chubby karate sounds perfect. We can move up from there. ;)

Did you read the whole comment? No. You clearly did not.

I guess you missed the part about being disabled?

Who said he was disabled? He doesn’t practice karate anymore. That phrase doesn’t place him in a handicapped parking spot. Besides, how can anyone resist the phrase “short chubby karate”. I even put a little smiley thing.

It’s all good, I saw it as a joke. Not disabled yet, but due to my spinal injury i most likely will be eventually.

Sorry. Didn't mean to offend. I used disabled not in a legal sense but as short hand as I didn't know the nature of the injury and is was shorter than saying "his statement clearly implies he has an injury which makes it so he cannot defend himself to his full ability unarmed." Sorry to hear about your spine @pokethebear. Back stuff is one of the worst. I hope it turns around as unlikely as that may be.