"Right to bear arms" should mean ... (page 24)

watson

I'll give this one more post.

There is a slight difference between a mentally disabled kid that kypes his mother's guns and goes and purposely shoots up an elementary school, for god knows what reason.....maybe he was on restriction...

and.....

The war on terrorism, where the government of Pakinstan harbors terrorists within their borders, and allows them to hide within their civilian population. These terrorists hide-out amongst the innocents, hoping for a strike so that they can use the death of innocents as a tool to inflame others in these nations to then support their terror.

Low-Key Lysmith

Innocents are still being killed, dude. And for what? So we can get revenge on a few terrorists? The ends don't justify the means.

I don't care how you try to justify it, those Pakistanis have every bit as much a right to life as those kids in CT did.

glenster

# Guns per capita by country
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country

Low-Key Lysmith

Awesome. More numbers. More stats. More figures. More graphs. All meaningless bullshit.

glenster

The BS is part of what's beyond the facts, not the facts per se. It's
interesting to use those--about gun laws, % gun ownership, crime rates,
cultures--about countries to compare them and try to imagine a way to ameliorate
this. Wihout the facts, it's all just people BSing at each other.

Assuming common human selfishness is appropriately named, and we're not going
to further isolate the US like Switzerland, it does look like greater regulation
could lead to less US crime with guns.

besty

The simple firearm death stats that I need help to understand are: (figures per capita from Wikipedia with primary sources cited there)

USA UK

Homicides 2.98 0.04

Suicides 5.75 0.17

Unintentional 0.27 0.01

So the USA firearm homicide rate is 74x that of the UK - the suicide rate is 34x - and unintentional deaths are 27x

I'd like to hear your thoughts on that, particularly the accidental deaths - nobody trying to kill or be killed there - perhaps that one is most analagous to the 'cars kill more people than guns' talking point.

sizemik

The war on terrorism, where the government of Pakinstan harbors terrorists within their borders, and allows them to hide within their civilian population. These terrorists hide-out amongst the innocents, hoping for a strike so that they can use the death of innocents as a tool to inflame others in these nations to then support their terror. . . . Watson

Looks like an extract from a CNN news report . . . or was it Fox?

Why do you make it so goddam easy for them?

You actually believe this bullshit?

Try reading what you just wrote again.

Then maybe study American miltary history, foreign policy in the ME, unofficial statements, and what dozens of whistleblowers said before they died . . . you know, things seldom discussed. And stop watching that crap on TV.

cedars

Great stats Besty.

Mind you, apparently any kind of numerical evidence is "All meaningless bullshit!"

Cedars

Max Divergent

Low Key Lysmith:

Awesome. More numbers. More stats. More figures. More graphs. All meaningless bullshit.

Quite right, if the 'right to bear arms' posiiton is one of ideology, not rationalism, reason or logic then as I wrote earlier in this thread facts are meaningless in this argument.

A JW analogy might be the blood ban: they understand the consequences of not taking blood, but stick to the ideological position even if death is a highly likley indirect consequence of refusing a transfusion. Same thing: facts are meaningless and irrelevent but the choice remans along with the consequential risk to life.

Glenster:

Wihout the facts, it's all just people BSing at each other.

But that's the point - the argument is one of ideology, not facts.

To illustrate: if the right to bear arms is objectivly a good thing, let a case be put forward for why the rest of the Western world should adopt the right to bear arms and bring their gun laws in line with the US.

If such an argument cannot be put (for adopting US gun laws in Europe etc), then the US-pro right to bear arms argument is shown to rely on special pleading (probably on the basis of US history and consitution). That would just mean there are lots of guns in the US (and exported from the US) just because the Americans decided to have them - there is no deeper reason.

Lastly, I am annoyed by people saying the rationalist arguments being put for gun control are freedom limiting like the Watchtower. That is false: accepting dogma over reason is the Witness way. Those opposing easy access to guns are putting an argument of reason and logic, not Witness-like special pleadings and other logical horrors.

cedars

Max Divergent

A JW analogy might be the blood ban: they understand the consequences of not taking blood, but stick to the ideological position even if death is a highly likley indirect consequence of refusing a transfusion. Same thing = facts are meaningless and irrelevent but the choice remans as does the consequntal risk to life.

I love that analogy. Both the JW blood doctrine and lax gun laws in the US kill thousands. Both are rigidly supported by those for whom facts and statistics are meaningless. Arguing with supporters of both is fruitless, because the emotions are involved, and emotions and sentimentality always trump facts and reason. It's just so tragic that, all the while, both are killing so many people.

Cedars

"Right to bear arms" should mean ...

Share this