sort by best latest
Best Answer Anne Gillingham says
Your approach in answering this is intriguing, you managed to answer the entire question, at the same time you didn't show any discernable bias to one side or the other of how the statement is used. It sounds like you accept this as a purposeful tool
my guns must be defective. in the decades I've had them even though thousands of bullets have gone thru them not a single thing has been killed. Maybe I can get my money back, eh?
This is dumb. Guns don't kill people. People kill people. I submit to you a test. Take any gun, anyone you want, and put it anywhere, see if the gun kills someone. I am willing to bet it wont. In fact I would stake money on it.
I totally agree with Jravity1 and Jack Burton.
- See all 5 commentsHide extra comments
Classic example. Gun as a defender is so vital and important that it needs its own amendment. But to someone concerned about its capacity to harm them, it all of a sudden is just an inanimate object no different from a pencil. Sure.
It needs it's own amd because it is a necessary tool to empower people in the face of tyranny and provide a counterbalance. Free speech need's an amd as well. But when it was the word's of Hitler, it too can be dangerous and used to harm people.
Sure, but when people express concern about it being an effective tool which empowers people to commit crime, then it magically turns into a thing no different than a baseball bat or knife. It can't be both ways.
Nobody saying guns aren't dangerous. Just no more dangerous than a van full of fertilizer which is more easily attained. People express concerns about political speech inciting violence. Do you want to restrict access to that also.
You're dodging the issue. A gun is special or it isn't. Your side only considers it special when it wants to. If it isn't special, then change the 2nd to protect your right to a van full of fertilizer, pencils, and bubblegum.
What's special is the right to protect ourselves from tyranny. The framers just recognized arms as a useful and necessary tool in doing so. If there are nuts out there that try to ban fertilizer than perhaps we'll need an amd for that as well.
You are correct. Nice job of putting it into words. See where I posted about Thomas Jefferson on the second amendment.
"Arms" are defined a weapons. Guns become the topic or "special" because that's the type of weapon that most people are focused on taking away with little regard for the fact that no credible evidence suggests gun restrictions reduce crime.
junk has problems with the idea of freedom and others being able to freely exercise it outside his narrow understanding.
Jack has problems with lying about people's positions and then insulting them. Most likely because of a complete inability to formulate any cogent and intelligent argument.
I don't think Junk has a problem with freedom. I just don't think he fully appreciates the necessity for the gov't bureaucracy to have a healthy fear of those they govern. I am sure he will disagree with that interpretation of his views.
junk..... why must you be so asinine? Get off of your high horse.
JThomp42, I agree with next to nothing Junkseller says. But try to avoid the personal attacks. It makes for a devolving dialogue. There is plenty of room to go after the merits of his positions instead.
Agreed Landmark.. it just gets so repetitive.
LW, actually I do, I just don't think our guns instill the slightest bit of fear in them, which seems clear considering their actions.
JThomp, Jack has insulted me directly dozens of times and will get nothing but contempt from me. Sorry.
I have to disagree with you there. If they gov't wasn't concerned about it, they wouldn't try to slowly take them away. It's not easy to round up armed populations.
There may be concern, but it would be concern about it being a bit more difficult and costly. That isn't fear, it is an efficiency interest.
Don't think so. Entire govt's have been overthrown by domestically armed populations. Often times it was well deserved. That is as big a fear as the gov't would ever have. If things got bad enough, the US is not immune to revolution.
- See all 18 commentsHide extra comments
Why didn't those doing all of these rash of mass shootings use a knife or a baseball bat to kill and wound all of those people?
Why didn't Tim McVeigh use an assault weapon ??? Each person uses whatever method of choice their distorted mind takes them towards. There was just a mass stabbing in a school a little more than a month ago. You can only defend against it.
How many mass shootings compared to mass stabbings in the last few years have there been?
Mass shootings or stabbings are both extremely rare. So it's a moot point. There are substantially more cases of people successfully defending themselves with firearms.
You brought up mass stabbings
In the last year or so mass shootings have been a lot more common
A lot more common than what Tim Mc did
Actually fertilizer is the most common component in terrorist bombings. But the point is that none of these are common at all as the study linked to demonstrates. In fact they are quite remote. However, self defense with guns is very common.
- See all 6 commentsHide extra comments
Fred Arnold says
Georgianna Lowery says
Agreed. Unfortunately, many people are intentionally killed with a variety of objects and in a variety of ways whether at home, school or the workplace.
H C Palting says
Anna Haun says
What is supposed to be amazing about deaths by other weapons? 2/3 of murders are by firearms.
I think the point some folks are missing is that even if there were no guns, people would still kill each other. Some people have the facts very wrong as well, an FBI report in 2013 showed more murders are committed using weapons other than guns.
2007-2011: 68,720 murders; 46,313 by firearms. That is 67%. http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-...
And the Incidents in which guns are used in self-defense are estimates to be between 50k-3 million times annually depending on the method. That's a lot more potential victims. A murderer will use whatever method available.
So what you are saying once again is that guns are special. That's the point. Or are you going to equally say that potential victims should just use whatever method is available to them? As if it were an insignificant distinction?
I agree Annie, the human pulling the trigger could be a killer, a hunter, a competitive shooter or a law abiding citizen who wants to be able to protect themselves from the lawless. Lawless gun owners are the ones people should focus on.
That guns are not the only weapons used to kill others. These also, knifes, bats, hammers, cars, axes, blunt objects. People who use gun illegally the ones doing most of the killing, serial killers, criminals, gang violence, not law abiding citizens.
I am saying that the right of the people to defend themselves is not to be infringed. The method is irrelevant. Guns are only special because that is the method most commonly attacked. If you try to ban a knife I would have a problem with that.
Fair enough, though, I don't think anyone mentioned bans (on this Q&A anyway).
No...but many are after banning guns...or restricting them in an unnecessary fashion from law abiding citizens.
junk wants to tie the limits of freedom based upon the actions of social deviants.
Jack wants to say something original but can't squeeze out anything but the same tiresome turd.
- See all 12 commentsHide extra comments
The Examiner-1 says
Look at the percentage of innocent people killed by drunk drivers every year. And use your common sense.
Subtract the people killed by guns and knives from the total of the three, and then we will work on getting rid of alcohol. My common sense says that alcohol never should have been legalized.
People kill people. For example, people throw others off cliffs, balconies, stairs, rooftops, they strangle, gang jump, pummel and use any and everything that is not bolted down. Guns are a great deterrent and lifesaver.
Express10, 1 bullet can kill 2, maybe more people at once, and fast. Can the others?
The question is whether people or guns kill, it is clearly the person and not the object. I can push several people off a cliff, down a flight of stairs, off a roof or into the traffic. I agree fully with JThomp42.
Certain people may be able to fight you back, and also more likely to survive. Usually it is very rare for someone to survive a bullet, never mind fight back - I said that it is very rare I did not say that it is impossible.
The 1st Americans hunted giant sloths, mammoths and many other large animals to extinction 10,000 years ago with spears.
Good, then you won't mind trading in your guns and American flag panties for a spear and loincloth since they are just as effective.
- See all 8 commentsHide extra comments
M. T. Dremer says
M.T. Dremer and junkseller. I agree
dashingscorpio's argument that planes weren't invented to kill, but are now used to kill is interesting, but the difference is, that guns "were' made to kill and are used to kill justifiably or unjustifiably.
vveasey, I'm not denying that guns were made to kill. I'm just also acknowledging you can't separate the gun from the (user's intention). Mankind has always looked for more effective ways to kill one another. From sling shots and spears to bombs.
That’s true, but when you say or imply that that knives, planes or anything can be used to kill. Don’t you trivialize the deadliness of those weapons that were created specifically, to be deadly weapons used to kill?
Guns were created
vveasey, I'm not trivializing the deadliness of guns. I'm just pointing out the evil in some people's hearts. They'll use anything to turn it into a weapon to kill with. I'm not pro gun but I do acknowledge evil people will always break the law.
Deadly weapons were created to kill because of the evil in some peoples hearts. I'm not pro gun or against guns. You say anything can be used as a weapon. A gun can kill multiple people at a distance.Can a knife, a rock, pencil or a book do that?
Take a look at England where guns are banned. Who has the guns in England? Is the crime rate higher now in England? The police don't have guns but the criminals do in England. Yes the crime rate in England has gone up since the banned of guns.
Mr. Dremer needs to understand that it is ALREADY illegal for certainly classes of people to buy, own, or even be in the same room whit a firearm.
- See all 7 commentsHide extra comments
Abhilash naik says
Patrick Dunning says
It takes one to know one Patrick.
SEAN KARLO says
Michael H says
Graham Lee says
Jennifer Bart says
I totally agree.
Margaret. Stewart says
I'm happen to like guns and no I'm not twitching or irate tirade either. That is how you feel but you really should ask others how they feel. Your wrong I disagree with your statement. My guns aren't for self defense, try hunting. Women do hunt.
Hunt all you want, with a registered weapon, having passed background/mental health checks, proper training, and weapons that you keep properly stored, etc.
Below you state "2/3 murders are by firearms". I respectfully disagree, as these facts are not true, at least in the US. http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/...
That article is referring to rifles and shotguns, not all firearms. While blunt weapons were used in 496 murders, handguns were used in 6,220.
Yes...handguns are used more often by murderers. Yet it is the "assault" rifle that is irrationally attacked with regularity as though it was somehow a greater menace. Which demonstrates the irrational emotional response.
Assault weapons are gone after because it is the only thing that can generate enough mass to move policy. But let's not pretend that the entire debate isn't poisoned by irrationalism, with at least as much of that coming from the pro-gun side.
That's not really accurate. My 30.06 hunting rifle is a more powerful weapon than my bushmaster AR15. Most hunting rifles generate more power than those classified as assault rifles.
I was mostly agreeing with you. People want something done, but most policy options don't have a chance. The angst about assault weapons (even if it is irrational) is the only thing that seems to draw enough support, so that's what we end up with.
But an extremely small fraction of gun violence is committed by people who buy guns legally. Criminals will never abide by any law we make. That's essentially what makes them criminals. Making it harder for innocent people is not sensible.
Firearms are a controllable commodity. There is no reason we can't restrict flows we don't want and expand flows we do. It is bizarre how many people act as if there is nothing at all we can do. It is defeatist and lacks imagination.
Not when it comes to criminals it's not. You can make a gun with some household materials if you wanted to. Kids in my neighborhood made ZIP guns all the time with staplers and pipe. Controlling guns is like controlling alcohol during prohibition.
Criminals having zipguns rather than real guns isn't a good thing to you? Zipguns might be like alcohol. Real guns are not.
Zip Guns are just one way. The point is that criminals will manufacture if need be just like they did alcohol and they do drugs. Since when do criminals obey the law. The only people who get affected are law abiding citizens. Chicago is a classic ex
Chicago restricted the flow of guns to lawful citizens without having any way to restrict flow to those who shouldn't have them which is the exact opposite of anything I have said.
But that's all that happens when you restrict the flow of guns. You can't restrict criminals because they laugh at whatever laws you pass. What do you think MS-13 is going to do say "Ohh...they're serious this time"
Obviously porous borders (e.g. Chicago, border with Mexico) limits the effectiveness of restrictions, but that is a separate issue.
It also's limited the effectiveness with prohibition and the war on drugs. That's why laws can generally only be reactive. Otherwise we could just make murder in general illegal regardless of the method. Oh wait, did that already. Didn't work either.
I'm talking about commodity regulation, not mind control.
Alcohol and Drugs are commodities that have been made illegal. Because people want to get them, they do. The only people who obey such laws are the good guys. Limiting firearm access only limits the law abiding citizen.
Now you are going in circles. Real firearms are not like alcohol and drugs, and we absolutely can tinker with the market to manipulate supply and access. It has nothing to do with obeying laws.
They're exactly the same.People buy heroin because they want it. No matter how dangerous it is, they acquire it and flout the law. Even make narcotics out of Sudafed.The same is true with criminals and guns. Restrictive laws are ignored by criminals
People buy heroin because they need it, so there is no rational decision involved, real firearms require sophisticated manufacturing/materials, which means centralized, fixed production nodes, etc. Apples and oranges.
Counterfeit money requires sophisticated technology. So should I assume criminals don't do that because it is illegal. And people selling heroin are rarely heroin addicts any more than Myer Lansky was a severe alcoholic during prohibition.
No, you should assume that there will be few, if any, garage printing shops that can come close to matching the real thing. A gun purchase is more rational than an addiction purchase and will respond more readily to price/access changes.
According to the OECD those garages are about 220 million in currency in the US alone and another 200 billion in global counterfeited goods. I am not talking about addiction. I am talking about sellers who laugh at the laws you assume they will obey
I have very clearly stated that I am in no way talking about anyone obeying laws or not obeying laws. Since you obviously have no interest in my actual argument, I am done with this conversation. You can argue with your imagination.
You don't have an argument. You want to restrict the flow of guns. A consensus of studies show it accomplishes nothing but restrict law abiding citizens. Because criminals don't follow the law no matter what the area of illegal activity.
I have an argument, you just continue to ignore it and invent an imaginary one. E.g. "restrict the flow of guns" is not something I ever said. I don't need to be here for you to argue with an imaginary argument.
You comments above implied we are lacking regulation in line 2. Which is hardly the case. New regulations mean further restriction to those of us who are not criminals and limiting/slowing access to innocent people.
"... restrict flows we don't want and expand flows we do."
Which can only be done when the people we "don't want" operate within the bounds of the regulations established. Which of course never happens...because they don't care what laws/regs are passed and simply ignore them operating in the black market.
Formal and informal markets are linked. Touch one, you touch the other. Is that even arguable? You are still for some reason continuing to talk about mind control.
When someone wishes to subvert the law they will, regardless of any linkage. Markets exist for anything in which there is a willing buyer. Firearms are no exception. Nothing will ever change that. Mind control has nothing to do with the topic.
Enact formal market policies that limits informal commodity availability which increases price and reduces access. It isn't about changing the interest of possession (mind control) , it is about making it more difficult and expensive.
There are no such feasible policies. Making a product more expensive makes it more profitable to sell in the black market which just attracts more illegal activity. Precisely what happened during prohibition.If there is demand there will be a seller
I would tend to agree, but would still argue that because guns are a rational purchase (unlike booze/drugs), that at some price point, you will lose a lot of buyers and keep the illegal market (and associated illegal activity) small.
Booze was a rational purpose during prohibition. Most people buying it were not addicted. They just wanted a drink. Which is why I favor legalizing drugs and crushing the profit margin in the black market. Let people poison themselves if they want.
Absent a comparative market analysis of behavioral purchases for the two commodities, I can't really argue my point, I guess. As far as legalizing drugs I totally agree.
I don't think such analysis is necessary. No matter the product/service, as long as there is demand, there will be a supplier. Manipulating prices will only help those in the black market.If you want to stop drug abuse you educate on the demand side
- See all 39 commentsHide extra comments