Second Amendment Repeal / Gun Control

[Fartsniffage]

My point is that the use of cars in the US vastly outnumbers the use of guns in terms of hours that they are in use. To compare the two and then try to use is as a whataboutism argument is just bloody silly.

It's a bad argument and makes those that use it look silly.

There are good arguments to support looser gun control, that really isn't one of them.

If we are comparing cars and guns the cars loose. They cause way more death and injury through accidents than guns do through accidents. In deaths cars actually rival guns for total number of deaths, including homicide and suicide. In injures cars take home the cake, by like 2 orders of magnitude.

And there are actually more guns in the united states than cars.

Read what I said and then try again.

[Spirit of Hope]

If we are comparing cars and guns the cars loose. They cause way more death and injury through accidents than guns do through accidents. In deaths cars actually rival guns for total number of deaths, including homicide and suicide. In injures cars take home the cake, by like 2 orders of magnitude.

And there are actually more guns in the united states than cars.

Read what I said and then try again.

Unless cars are used 20-30 times more often than guns, across the board, then it is comparable. There are less than 1,000 fatal accidents with guns. There are around 20-30,000 deaths due to cars. Guns total deaths is around 30,000, including homicide and suicide which are deliberate attempts to use a gun for the harm of an individual.

Statistically cars are more dangerous than guns, you are far more likely to be injured by a car than by a gun, and there are more guns in the united states than cars.

Additionally I am talking in the general sense of which is more likely to cause you harm, and basing my reaction on that. The simple fact is a gun is way less likely to kill me than a car, unless I am committing suicide. So if I am going to complain about the dangers a gun poses to me, I have to complain about the dangers a car poses to me.

[Fartsniffage]

Read what I said and then try again.

Unless cars are used 20-30 times more often than guns, across the board, then it is comparable. There are less than 1,000 fatal accidents with guns. There are around 20-30,000 deaths due to cars. Guns total deaths is around 30,000, including homicide and suicide which are deliberate attempts to use a gun for the harm of an individual.

Statistically cars are more dangerous than guns, you are far more likely to be injured by a car than by a gun, and there are more guns in the united states than cars.

Additionally I am talking in the general sense of which is more likely to cause you harm, and basing my reaction on that. The simple fact is a gun is way less likely to kill me than a car, unless I am committing suicide. So if I am going to complain about the dangers a gun poses to me, I have to complain about the dangers a car poses to me.

So it is your contention that people in the US are using guns for a comparable amount of time that they are using cars?

[Spirit of Hope]

Unless cars are used 20-30 times more often than guns, across the board, then it is comparable. There are less than 1,000 fatal accidents with guns. There are around 20-30,000 deaths due to cars. Guns total deaths is around 30,000, including homicide and suicide which are deliberate attempts to use a gun for the harm of an individual.

Statistically cars are more dangerous than guns, you are far more likely to be injured by a car than by a gun, and there are more guns in the united states than cars.

Additionally I am talking in the general sense of which is more likely to cause you harm, and basing my reaction on that. The simple fact is a gun is way less likely to kill me than a car, unless I am committing suicide. So if I am going to complain about the dangers a gun poses to me, I have to complain about the dangers a car poses to me.

So it is your contention that people in the US are using guns for a comparable amount of time that they are using cars?

I think it isn't out of the realm of possibility that for every twenty hours a car gets used, a gun gets used for one hour. Which would mean that guns are less dangerous per hour used. Around 5% of the population has concealed carry permits, there are hundreds of thousands of police, hunting is a very popular sport, etc.

Additionally it doesn't mater in a comparison of deadliness to time used. What maters is the general threat to society, and guns are less dangerous (statistically) to society than cars are. Especially considering that the removal of guns has not corresponded to a decrease in homicides or a major decrease in suicides in other nations, while a removal of cars would probably lead to a great decrease in motor accidents and drunk driving incidents.

[Fartsniffage]

So it is your contention that people in the US are using guns for a comparable amount of time that they are using cars?

I think it isn't out of the realm of possibility that for every twenty hours a car gets used, a gun gets used for one hour. Which would mean that guns are less dangerous per hour used. Around 5% of the population has concealed carry permits, there are hundreds of thousands of police, hunting is a very popular sport, etc.

Additionally it doesn't mater in a comparison of deadliness to time used. What maters is the general threat to society, and guns are less dangerous (statistically) to society than cars are. Especially considering that the removal of guns has not corresponded to a decrease in homicides or a major decrease in suicides in other nations, while a removal of cars would probably lead to a great decrease in motor accidents and drunk driving incidents.

Sorry, where are you getting the 1 to 20 ratio from?

[Spirit of Hope]

I think it isn't out of the realm of possibility that for every twenty hours a car gets used, a gun gets used for one hour. Which would mean that guns are less dangerous per hour used. Around 5% of the population has concealed carry permits, there are hundreds of thousands of police, hunting is a very popular sport, etc.

Additionally it doesn't mater in a comparison of deadliness to time used. What maters is the general threat to society, and guns are less dangerous (statistically) to society than cars are. Especially considering that the removal of guns has not corresponded to a decrease in homicides or a major decrease in suicides in other nations, while a removal of cars would probably lead to a great decrease in motor accidents and drunk driving incidents.

Sorry, where are you getting the 1 to 20 ratio from?

In 2010 there were 30,296 fatal crashes with motor vehicles. Crash implies accident, and fatal means at least one person died.
In 2010 there were 606 fatal gun accidents
So really for accidents the ratio would only need to be 1 hour with a gun to 50 hours with a car.

Now obviously this is comparing accidents, where the vast majority of gun deaths are suicides or homicides. But the question then is: will homicides and suicides be increased by the guns being "used"? I think there wouldn't be any real increase with gun suicides from gun use, and homicides would probably only see a minor increase.

[The Batorys]

You point about comparing car deaths to gun deaths. Agreed, if we are going to do that, we should be very specific concerning whether or not the deaths are accidental or intentional, and whether or not the intentional deaths are homicide or suicide.

If that I missed the point you are trying to make you will have to specify.

My point is that the use of cars in the US vastly outnumbers the use of guns in terms of hours that they are in use. To compare the two and then try to use is as a whataboutism argument is just bloody silly.

It's a bad argument and makes those that use it look silly.

There are good arguments to support looser gun control, that really isn't one of them.

Also using a car requires license and registration. While laws vary by state, there's a pretty decent amount of paperwork even if you want to buy a used one.

[United Prefectures of Appia]

You can expect car deaths to still be higher than gun deaths, but at the current rate, that won't longer be true across the board. While traffic accidents still occur, car manufacturers have gotten a helluvalot better at saving lives by improving safety and preventative technology. It's just like how gun violence is still high, but doctors got better in saving victims from fatal gunshots wounds.

[Autonomous Titoists]

My point is that the use of cars in the US vastly outnumbers the use of guns in terms of hours that they are in use. To compare the two and then try to use is as a whataboutism argument is just bloody silly.

It's a bad argument and makes those that use it look silly.

There are good arguments to support looser gun control, that really isn't one of them.

Also using a car requires license and registration. While laws vary by state, there's a pretty decent amount of paperwork even if you want to buy a used one.

Guns have an age set and licensing and restrictions. Class 3 weapons (machine guns, Rambo shit) requires an obscene amount of time effort and cash and is in my opinion not worth it. You have to be 18 before you can buy a gun and 21 before you can get a handgun license, then there is background checks and everything else. Unless you're talking about illegal guns in which case you call up Jerome, he pull up in a Cadillac and u give him 2,000 in cash and walk away with a shiny new weapon.

[Big Jim P]

Also using a car requires license and registration. While laws vary by state, there's a pretty decent amount of paperwork even if you want to buy a used one.

Guns have an age set and licensing and restrictions. Class 3 weapons (machine guns, Rambo shit) requires an obscene amount of time effort and cash and is in my opinion not worth it. You have to be 18 before you can buy a gun and 21 before you can get a handgun license, then there is background checks and everything else. Unless you're talking about illegal guns in which case you call up Jerome, he pull up in a Cadillac and u give him 2,000 in cash and walk away with a shiny new weapon.

I know in New York you have to have a handgun permit, but there are a lot of states where that don't require them.

Edit: Really, where did you get all these misconceptions?

Edit 2: In any event you don't license a human/civil/constitutional right.

[Belchost]

I personally think that the 2nd amendment should stay but be modified to prevent any person who either has a background worthy of suspicion or any sort of mental disability from owning their own firearm. One thing i feel is so influential on this debate is the fact that a lot of gun violence happens in places such as cities where other than police officers and criminals not a whole lot of people carry or own firearms. This can cause a lot of people to associate a pistol with the word 'gun' and thus think gun=violence and unnecessary death. A lot of people own guns and don't use them for anything more than shooting wild pigs, deer, birds, squirrels that made their way onto the bird feeder etc.

[Big Jim P]

I personally think that the 2nd amendment should stay but be modified to prevent any person who either has a background worthy of suspicion or any sort of mental disability from owning their own firearm. One thing i feel is so influential on this debate is the fact that a lot of gun violence happens in places such as cities where other than police officers and criminals not a whole lot of people carry or own firearms. This can cause a lot of people to associate a pistol with the word 'gun' and thus think gun=violence and unnecessary death. A lot of people own guns and don't use them for anything more than shooting wild pigs, deer, birds, squirrels that made their way onto the bird feeder etc.

Not just "a lot" but an overwhelmingly vast majority of gun owners.

[Pragia]

Guns have an age set and licensing and restrictions. Class 3 weapons (machine guns, Rambo shit) requires an obscene amount of time effort and cash and is in my opinion not worth it. You have to be 18 before you can buy a gun and 21 before you can get a handgun license, then there is background checks and everything else. Unless you're talking about illegal guns in which case you call up Jerome, he pull up in a Cadillac and u give him 2,000 in cash and walk away with a shiny new weapon.

I know in New York you have to have a handgun permit, but there are a lot of states where that don't require them.

Edit: Really, where did you get all these misconceptions?

Edit 2: In any event you don't license a human/civil/constitutional right.

To be fair, it does say well regulated militia, so licenses are definately within the constitutional right.

[Big Jim P]

I know in New York you have to have a handgun permit, but there are a lot of states where that don't require them.

Edit: Really, where did you get all these misconceptions?

Edit 2: In any event you don't license a human/civil/constitutional right.

To be fair, it does say well regulated militia, so licenses are definately within the constitutional right.

That argument has been used before, and shot down.

[New Neros]

To be fair, it does say well regulated militia, so licenses are definately within the constitutional right.

That argument has been used before, and shot down.

Any sort of legal case you'd mind bringing up, or do you want me to take your word for it?

[Grinning Dragon]

That argument has been used before, and shot down.

Any sort of legal case you'd mind bringing up, or do you want me to take your word for it?

Because the wording "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," is a prefatory clause.
You could also see the Heller decision from the United States Supreme Court, in which they declared the 2nd Amendment as an Individual Right.

[Big Jim P]

Any sort of legal case you'd mind bringing up, or do you want me to take your word for it?

Because the wording "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," is a prefatory clause.
You could also see the Heller decision from the United States Supreme Court, in which they declared the 2nd Amendment as an Individual Right.

Thanks. I was away from my computer.

[Grinning Dragon]

Because the wording "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," is a prefatory clause.
You could also see the Heller decision from the United States Supreme Court, in which they declared the 2nd Amendment as an Individual Right.

Thanks. I was away from my computer.

You're welcome.

All one has to do is go back a few pages and read up where the argument was shot down, not just once but many times.

[Big Jim P]

Thanks. I was away from my computer.

You're welcome.

All one has to do is go back a few pages and read up where the argument was shot down, not just once but many times.

That was actually more what I meant, but bringing up the SCOTUS ruling is even better.

[Spirit of Hope]

That argument has been used before, and shot down.

Any sort of legal case you'd mind bringing up, or do you want me to take your word for it?

As already noted, DC v. Heller determined that the Second Amendment is an individual right.

McDonald v. City of Chicago determined that the Second Amendment applies to the states.

Also see this post:

After all it very clearly says "the right of the people" in the 2nd Amendment. A phrase that pops up 7 times in the Constitution, each time referring to the body of the people entire.

Preamble:
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Article One Section Two:
"The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature."

First Amendment:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Second Amendment:
"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."

Fourth Amendment:
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Ninth Amendment:
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

Tenth Amendment:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

So unless for some strange reason the framers decided to use the same phrase in the Second Amendment with a different definition, the people means people and has nothing to do with the militia.

[Pragia]

Any sort of legal case you'd mind bringing up, or do you want me to take your word for it?

Because the wording "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," is a prefatory clause.
You could also see the Heller decision from the United States Supreme Court, in which they declared the 2nd Amendment as an Individual Right.

How does the Heller decision make the term "Well-regulated" invalid?

I'm not anti-gun, I just don't see how regulation is unconstitutional.

[Imperializt Russia]

So you're saying it would have little or no effect on the rates of violent crime?

I don't think it would really. Criminals are going to criminal regardless of having a easy access to a gun.

It would, most likely, reduce the number of suicides and accidental gun deaths though.

I would legitimately take high suicides and accidental gun deaths over high gun homicides.

The 2nd Amendment was written in a time when either Native Americans or Brits were liable to be kicking down your door at any given moment, so a simple flintlock musket was a granted form of defence.

By all means, let the 2nd Amendment stay... but only extend as far as the weapons it was intended for: flintlock muskets. You can still 'defend your castle' with it, but you won't be able to slaughter an entire school in ten minutes.

Actually, the 2nd Amendment was written at a time when America had just overthrown an oppressive monarchy with guns found in homes.

Try overthrowing an oppressive government these days... what do I kill the tanks with, my handgun?

You kill the infantry supporting the tank and deploy IEDs to kill it.
Or wait for the military to inevitably fracture, if the government is deploying armoured formations against an armed insurrection, and use either their armour or their AT weapons.

[Fartsniffage]

I would legitimately take high suicides and accidental gun deaths over high gun homicides.

Right now, the US has high all three.

[Spirit of Hope]

Because the wording "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," is a prefatory clause.
You could also see the Heller decision from the United States Supreme Court, in which they declared the 2nd Amendment as an Individual Right.

How does the Heller decision make the term "Well-regulated" invalid?

I'm not anti-gun, I just don't see how regulation is unconstitutional.

Heller held that it was an individual right, that was not connected to the militia. They didn't say the right couldn't be regulated, they said that any regulations have to meet a certain criteria (strict scrutiny I believe). Meaning that while you can pass gun control laws, those laws can not unduly restrict the individuals right. DC had tried to argue that it could regulate guns however it wanted so long as they weren't weapons for use by the National Guard.

The best way to think about t is that both Heller and McDonald struck down handgun bans, they did not however strike down a requirement for background checks. The bans removed a portion of the right, while the background check only modifies the right.

[Spirit of Hope]

I would legitimately take high suicides and accidental gun deaths over high gun homicides.

Right now, the US has high all three.

We have less than 1,000 accidental gun deaths a year. That really isn't that high at all.