Guns and Stuff.


2ndRateMind
 Share

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Google and ye shall find:  

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defensive_gun_use

The most conservative estimates have 50,000 annual defensive gun uses to 35,000 gun deaths, or 1.4:1.  The more likely figure is in the range of 2 million defensive gun uses, or 57:1.  The high-end estimate is around 4 million, or 114:1.

It does strike me that the discrepancy in estimates of DGU is so wide (55,000 to 4,700,000) that really they are saying 'ummm, actually, we don't really know!'

But it was an interesting article, nonetheless.

Best wishes, 2RM.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, 2ndRateMind said:

It does strike me that the discrepancy in estimates of DGU is so wide (55,000 to 4,700,000) that really they are saying 'ummm, actually, we don't really know!'

But it was an interesting article, nonetheless.

Best wishes, 2RM.

There’s not a universal definition of what entails a “defensive gun use” (does it have to it the target, or be fired in the target’s direction, or just fired into the air, audibly cocked, or just brandished to “count”?)  and when you get right down to it, a lot of academic social science study results are not replicable.  (https://arstechnica.com/science/2016/03/social-science-reproducibility-not-great-but-not-as-bad-as-reported/)

But even the lowest surveys significantly outnumber the number of innocents killed by guns.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, 2ndRateMind said:

Do you have evidence for this, or is it an unsupported assertion?

Best wishes, 2RM

Look it up It was recently in the news. Most only hear or believe what they like. Look it up London has a burglary rate of over over an average 100%. I find it ironic that members trust CNN more than fellow members. Every one wants to go against illegal drug abuse. Alcohol takes more lives than all drugs combined. Vicodin is taken at 30 times the indicated dosage or it would never be a problem. We just a bunch of puppets. Politicians only want to appear to be helping the problems.Big Pharm just wants to force us to switch to something more expensive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Lost Boy said:

I don't think it needs to be that complex.  If you have a smaller class size and have the same teacher year after year, the students and teacher will form a bond of trust.  As such the students are more likely to let the teacher know if there are issues at home and if there is something additional that needs to happen.  Makes it far easier for the student to show up.  Far easier to deal with bullying as well.    

But the thought is to keep the status quo and then complain about it.  No real push to fix the real issues.  The only real way to fix poverty in the US is to educate it out of the people.  There are far too many people that are professional poverty cases....  people that learn to work the system and never find the need to get out of the system.

I think that's a huge oversimplification.  You can take all the inner city schools and transform them into the greatest educational institutions in the world and it won't matter a whit to a kid who drops out because he's learned that selling dope on the street is easier and more lucrative to stay in school and get a high school diploma just so he can go out and find a minimum wage job.

At the same time, know what the biggest predictor is of individual success?  An intact family.  A lot of these kids take the criminal path because they lack a father at home to teach them.  Sure, moms try but a single parent is a single parent, and still has to work to feed the kids.

Not to mention the race baiting that's going on, convincing youth that they're all victims and rather than empower them by encouraging them to go to school and improve their own lot,  they're told to expect handouts in the name of "social  justice."

That's just 3 factors contributing to the problems in high crime areas th at have nothing whatsoever to do with the schools.  I agree with you that education reform is needed, but it's not the magical elixir we wish it could be. 

1 hour ago, Lost Boy said:

Nah,  there are those who truly don't want to hurt someone, but would if they have to, and then there are those that would be proud of themselves for taking out the bad guy.  I would never feel proud for taking a life, even in self defense.   I would grieve quite a bit.

You make it sound as if those who don't want to kill are in the minority.  Is that your intention?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, john4truth said:

Look it up It was recently in the news. Most only hear or believe what they like. Look it up London has a burglary rate of over over an average 100%. I find it ironic that members trust CNN more than fellow members. Every one wants to go against illegal drug abuse. Alcohol takes more lives than all drugs combined. Vicodin is taken at 30 times the indicated dosage or it would never be a problem. We just a bunch of puppets. Politicians only want to appear to be helping the problems.Big Pharm just wants to force us to switch to something more expensive.

I am quoting facts but the other side makes up numbers with no proof and no one asked them to back it up. I don't have a way to document the truth. It is more dangerous in DC than Iraq. I understand the truth is hard to find in a country where many of the antis are given the microphone. I am a constitutionalist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MormonGator
6 minutes ago, unixknight said:

You make it sound as if those who don't want to kill are in the minority.  Is that your intention?

@Lost Boy isn't some kind of hero. No one, not even the most ardent 2nd amendment supporter wants to kill someone. That's a misnomer. 99.9% of gun owners would dread the idea of having another persons blood on their hands, even if it's self defense. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

I respect that; and appreciate that you aren’t out to curb the liberties of those who believe differently.

I’m not sure whether I’d be able to do it either.  It’s mostly been a nonissue for me right now because I have very young children; and I know I’m not conscientious enough to never leave a gun out where my kids might get it (they’re quite resourceful little imps).  Lately I’ve been thinking about it, though, just because a neighbor to my workweek-apartment happens to be a hotheaded wife-beating multi-felon and I’ve kind of been centrally involved in the court proceedings that got his kids taken away . . . I am afraid hoping to get rid of  violence dream world look in our prisons should be safe with no weapons

I suppose one issue is that you never really know whether an intruder is an assaulter or a mere burglar until he’s on his way out.  Seems to me that the most likely rule of thumb would be—if he’s on his way in, shoot.  If he’s on his way out—if he hasn’t assaulted anyone, let him go.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, 2ndRateMind said:

I have already been warned. And I am trying to be even more civil than I have been so far. So, will you encourage your people likewise? As I said elsewhere, if you all play nicely, I will play nicely.

Best wishes, 2RM.

They have been, however the onus lies with you.  You showed up swinging and didn't like the pushback.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, 2ndRateMind said:

No Christian can contemplate school mass murders without their thoughts and prayers reaching out to those wounded, bereaved and emotionally shaken by this latest atrocity.

But it seems that Americans love their guns rather more than they love other people's children, given this kind of event has happened many times before, and doubtless will happen many times again, and the arms industry lobby has always triumphed politically over the loss of innocent lives in the past, and looks set to continue to do so.

What is the position on the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints on sensible weapon reforms, such as extensive criminal and mental health background checks, the limitation on types of firearms civilians may legally own, etc?

Best wishes, 2RM.

 

There's no background checks on murderers

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Lost Boy said:

Nah,  there are those who truly don't want to hurt someone, but would if they have to, and then there are those that would be proud of themselves for taking out the bad guy.  I would never feel proud for taking a life, even in self defense.   I would grieve quite a bit.

That is certainly a noble thought.  And I don't disagree at all with that sentiment.  Having to kill someone is just that -- a "HAVE TO".  And if I HAVE TO, I want to be able to do so.  I believe I'm more prepared than most because of my background.  But I still don't expect to be Clint Eastwood.

I'm reminded of a story a couple years ago where a father came into his barn to find one of the recently hired farm hands raping his 10 yo daughter.  Everything went red in his mind.  He just completely lost it.  He beat the guy senseless.

When the father finally came to his senses, he realized that the guy might be dead.  He called 911.  Many people were confused to hear his reaction.  They were all for beating this guy to death.  But as the father was talking to the 911 operator, he kept begging them with tears to get the medics there as fast as they could so the guy wouldn't die.  "You gotta get here soon.  This guy's gonna die on me.  He can't die.  I can't kill him.  I can't.  Get here soon. I can't believe he's going to die on me. Oh NO.  I killed him. You can't let him die on me!"  He simply couldn't have that on his conscience.  He was now worried about this guy's life.

As I recall, the guy was still alive when the paramedics got there.  But he was so far gone that he died soon after.

Some people may not be prepared to know what it's like to take another life even if they deserved it.  And truly, some really don't care as long as they deserved it.  But most have a strong reaction to having killed someone.  It's part of our nature.  We kill for food.  That's normal.  But to kill a human for any cause, it is difficult to process.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MormonGator
5 minutes ago, mirkwood said:

They have been, however the onus lies with you.  You showed up swinging and didn't like the pushback.

Typical keyboard warrior. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, done my chores. Here's a few comments on the Second Amendment, for us all to tussle over.

Quote

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

So, it seems to me there are three concepts going on here, arranged in a hierarchy of goodness.

The highest good is the security of the free State. 

The next highest good is a well regulated militia, which is justified by its necessity to the security of a free State.

The final (or lowest) good is the right of the people to keep and bear arms, so far as that contributes to a well regulated militia, and so far as that militia contributes to the security of a free state.

To construe the Second Amendment in this way has consequences:

1) If a well regulated militia is not necessary to the security of a free state, that militia can be dispensed with. And so far as internal threats go, I cannot see the invasion of Kentucky by New Hampshire in the US any more than I can see the invasion of Kent by Hampshire in the UK. And external threats are far more effectively dealt with at the national level.

2) The right of the people to keep and bear arms is relevant only in the context of a well regulated militia. If you don't or can't or won't serve in the militia, the wording of the Second Amendment is such that one can derive the conclusion that you don't get the right to keep and bear arms.

3) The right of the people to keep and bear arms is relevant only in the context of a well regulated militia. If there is no militia, or if that militia is no longer relevant the security of a free state, then that right evaporates.

So, this is a philosophical analysis of the wording of the Second Amendment, not a legal one. Doubtless lawyers could wrangle over this for ever, and earn themselves fat fees for doing so. The issue is, so far as this thread goes, what do you make of it?

Best wishes, 2RM.

Edited by 2ndRateMind
Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, 2ndRateMind said:

It does strike me that the discrepancy in estimates of DGU is so wide (55,000 to 4,700,000) that really they are saying 'ummm, actually, we don't really know!'

But it was an interesting article, nonetheless.

Best wishes, 2RM.

Baloney even Wikipedia is extremist for the crooked

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, 2ndRateMind said:

So, done my chores. Here's a few comments on the Second Amendment, for us all to tussle over.

So, it seems to me there are three concepts going on here, arranged in a hierarchy of goodness.

The highest good is the security of the free State. 

The next highest good is a well regulated militia, which is justified by its necessity to the security of a free State.

The final (or lowest) good is the right of the people to keep and bear arms, so far as that contributes to a well regulated militia, and so far as that militia contributes to the security of a free state.

To construe the Second Amendment in this way has consequences:

1) If a well regulated militia is not necessary to the security of a free state, that militia can be dispensed with. And so far as internal threats go, I cannot see the invasion of Kentucky by New Hampshire in the US any more than I can see the invasion of Kent by Hampshire in the UK. And external threats are far more effectively dealt with at the national level.

2) The right of the people to keep and bear arms is relevant only in the context of a well regulated militia. If you don't or can't or won't serve in the militia, the wording of the Second Amendment is such that one can derive the conclusion that you don't get to keep and bear arms.

3) The right of the people to keep and bear arms is relevant only in the context of a well regulated militia. If there is no militia, or if that militia is no longer relevant the security of a free state, then that right evaporates.

So, this is philosophical analysis of the wording of the Second Amendment, not a legal one. Doubtless lawyers could wrangle over this for ever, and earn themselves fat fees for doing so. The issue is, so far as this thread goes, what do you make of it?

Best wishes, 2RM.

Yes Teddy Kennedy was anti gun but always had one in his pocket. We have no honest place to learn the truth. The Media has proven they cannot be trusted. Just today I read if a Federal Judge who took payoffs for years to fix trials... who do you trust. I had a local law enforcement officer Tell me he doesn't eat with state troopers because they brag among themselves about stopping our teenage daughters primarily hoping to commit statutory rape.. I only trust God and believe the end is near for we live in total corruption

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, john4truth said:

Yes Teddy Kennedy was anti gun but always had one in his pocket. We have no honest place to learn the truth. The Media has proven they cannot be trusted. Just today I read if a Federal Judge who took payoffs for years to fix trials... who do you trust. I had a local law enforcement officer Tell me he doesn't eat with state troopers because they brag among themselves about stopping our teenage daughters primarily hoping to commit statutory rape.. I only trust God and believe the end is near for we live in total corruption

This is an old anti gun argument. Like claiming pot is the gateway drug when alcohol is more dangerous and always the first drug used. Old arguing with only the end of days being a solution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

@Lost Boy isn't some kind of hero. No one, not even the most ardent 2nd amendment supporter wants to kill someone. That's a misnomer. 99.9% of gun owners would dread the idea of having another persons blood on their hands, even if it's self defense. 

However, I know a lot of gun owners that talk up how they would take out a perp as if a perp is not human.  They are scum, but still human.  So I don't think a lot of people have truly thought it through.  I would dare bet that many don't realize what they have done until after the deed.  I have heard of people needing a lot of counseling afterwards.  That is why I don't talk up self defense.  I have a german shepherd to keep the peeps out of the house and to go on walks with the girls.  I doubt she would really do anything, but her bark is intimidating enough.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MormonGator
14 minutes ago, Lost Boy said:

However, I know a lot of gun owners that talk up how they would take out a perp as if a perp is not human.  

I knew  a few guys in karate who would act super tough and throw around "Oh yeah, I'd kick the butt of anyone who messed with me, I'm super tough." They were silly and stupid men, immature or trying to overcompensate for their own weaknesses and failures. I know of no gun owner who acts like that. None. 

But I'm sure you do. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, 2ndRateMind said:

So, done my chores. Here's a few comments on the Second Amendment, for us all to tussle over.

So, it seems to me there are three concepts going on here, arranged in a hierarchy of goodness.

The highest good is the security of the free State. 

The next highest good is a well regulated militia, which is justified by its necessity to the security of a free State.

The final (or lowest) good is the right of the people to keep and bear arms, so far as that contributes to a well regulated militia, and so far as that militia contributes to the security of a free state.

Thank you for a well thought out, quite logically connected discourse.  Here's my response.

1) I don't see the need to separate into levels of "highest good".  It makes no difference in the concept of the "why" we have a second amendment.
2) You're working with this idea that the logic train goes in one direction only.  But that is not the history of how the 2nd Amendment came to be worded as it is.  When we run through the history, we begin to understand that it is a parallel right, rather than a straight line.

The original wording when it was first introduced by Madison (after the Ratification of the Constitution itself) was the following:

Quote

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person

--Gales and Seaton's History of Debates in Congress.

From this, we learn that the two goals were of twin importance.  We want people to be able to bear arms without the government's intrusion.  We also want to secure a free state.  And the "best way" to secure a free state would be with a body of armed citizens who are free to defend their own homes.  They work in tandem.

As this idea gained momentum, they felt the need to further develop the definition of "militia".  Even today we debate this definition because no one cares to look at history.

Quote

A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms

--Annals of Congress

Several months later, the amendment was separated from the Due Process clause (5th Amendment) and given its separate amendment.  When they did so, they wanted to be brief.  They decided the definition was unnecessary. (Hah!) They figured, of course everyone knows what a militia is.  And they struck the conscientious objector clause as well for similar reasons.  Of COURSE no one was going to FORCE you to bear arms. This was about protecting the rights of those who DO want to bear arms.

Quote

A well regulated militia, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

-- Journal of the Senate of the United States

Then there was the wording of "being the best security".  So, they changed it to its current form with "necessary" wording.  Now, think of that wording change.  They came from "hey there are many options and this is the best" to "this is the ONLY way to secure a free state". 

Kinda puts a different light on it.  

Quote

To construe the Second Amendment in this way has consequences:

Well, since we don't construe it that way, then the following is kinda pointless.  But I'll go through it anyway.

Quote

1) If a well regulated militia is not necessary to the security of a free state, that militia can be dispensed with. And so far as internal threats go, I cannot see the invasion of Kentucky by New Hampshire in the US any more than I can see the invasion of Kent by Hampshire in the UK. And external threats are far more effectively dealt with at the national level.

The security of the free state is not about protecting form invaders from without, but from the government from within.  This argument is invalid.  Q.E.D.

Quote

2) The right of the people to keep and bear arms is relevant only in the context of a well regulated militia. If you don't or can't or won't serve in the militia, the wording of the Second Amendment is such that one can derive the conclusion that you don't get the right to keep and bear arms.

Because it was not a straight line dependency, but a parallel dependency, this argument is invalid.  Q.E.D.

Quote

3) The right of the people to keep and bear arms is relevant only in the context of a well regulated militia. If there is no militia, or if that militia is no longer relevant the security of a free state, then that right evaporates.

Fist, the right is inherent.  It is parallel to the security of the free state, not subordinate to it.

In the context of the 2nd Amendment, any citizen who owns a gun is part of the militia.  And thus, with the 2nd Amendment in place, there will always be a militia.

The argument is invalid.  Q.E.D.

Quote

So, this is philosophical analysis of the wording of the Second Amendment, not a legal one. Doubtless lawyers could wrangle over this for ever, and earn themselves fat fees for doing so. The issue is, so far as this thread goes, what do you make of it?

Best wishes, 2RM.

As a legal argument, it falls apart.  As a philosophical one, it's based on false interpretations of each phrase and the meanings thereof as well as the words therein.

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, john4truth said:

This is an old anti gun argument. Like claiming pot is the gateway drug when alcohol is more dangerous and always the first drug used. Old arguing with only the end of days being a solution.

Are you carrying on a conversation with yourself?  Or do you not know how to quote another post properly or start a fresh post in an existing thread?

Just asking.

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just a reminder - to myself as much as anyone else.

Not everyone who thinks we should have additional restrictions on who can possess a firearm thinks that nobody should have a firearm and the 2nd amendment should be abolished.

Also, not everyone who thinks they should have the right to own a firearm thinks that anyone should be able to get a firearm.  OK - this one i'm not so sure about.... :)   But i hope you guys can affirm my hopes in this regard.

Anyways, good rhetoric is cut and dry.  The crafting of good and effective policies about gun ownership/control --- not so much.

Edited by lostinwater
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MormonGator
1 minute ago, lostinwater said:

Just a reminder - to myself as much as anyone else.

Not everyone who thinks we should have additional restrictions on who can possess a firearm thinks that nobody should have a firearm and the 2nd amendment should be abolished.

Also, not everyone who thinks they should have the right to own a firearm thinks that anyone should be able to get a firearm.  OK - this one i'm not so sure about.... :)   But i hope you guys can affirm my hopes in this regard.

Anyways, good rhetoric is cut and dry.  Good, effective laws --- not so much.

I agree. I'm not against restrictions on who can own a firearm, even though I'm nervous about the "If you give a mouse a cookie" argument. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, MormonGator said:

I agree. I'm not against restrictions on who can own a firearm, even though I'm nervous about the "If you give a mouse a cookie" argument. 

Is that the same as the camel's nose in the tent?  Moving the goalposts?

That's the main reason I'd be persuaded to NOT allow any restrictions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share