Without 2A, What Good Are the Other Amendments?

[Lonestar]

[/quote]
That's why I bought a shotgun instead of a handgun. Harder to miss, and often just the sound of the pump action will deter any intruders/attackers.
[/quote]

In an emergency situation, racking a shotgun means you are ejecting and wasting the round in the chamber (lowering your capacity), or you started the situation without a round in the chamber. I realize the "sound" might scare an intruder, but if you find yourself in an acute situation there may not be time to go through the racking process, or with adrenaline flowing you may not remember.

I find it interesting that TV and movie law enforcement like to appear very dramatic going into a potential firefight and racking the slide of their semi-automatic handgun at the last moment. It's inconceivable that one would risk their life by not having a handgun ready to fire in an emergency.

[Libertarian666]

Ok, so where does the definition of arms or 'armaments' stop for you then? Landmines? Tanks? Missiles? Is there no line to what weapons a civilian can own? Can they build their own personal nuclear arsenal should they have resources?

That's generally how these conversations go. Ultimately the person against the 2A will bring up tanks and nuclear bombs.

My answer to that is "Any weapon that has defensive uses is included under the 2nd Amendment".
I'm not aware of any such uses for nukes, even the jokingly referenced "Recreational McNukes", so they wouldn't be included.

[Lonestar]

Tom,


I would argue that a gun is the quickest and easiest force multiplier that exists. No other weapon compares to the amount of damage a fully automatic gun can inflict in a crowded setting.

I am not aware of any mass shootings in this country recently that involved a fully automatic gun. As mentioned, legally obtaining this type of weapon requires stringent requirements, and I would bet an extremely small percentage of gun owners possess full-auto guns.

MADD reports that in 2017, 10,874 people died in drunk driving crashes – one every 48 minutes – and more than 300,000 were injured in drunk driving crashes. How does this compare to gun injuries and deaths? I seldom hear of the need to place tighter restrictions on the sales or ownership of alcoholic beverages.

[Mark Leavy]

Lever actions are way under rated. 1860 Henry if you want to cause trouble.

[dualstow]

Here’s an interesting older thread on home defense firearms:
viewtopic.php?f=9&t=6772
(Jan 2015)

[yankees60]

Maybe not directly answering your question but it seems that making it more difficult to acquire guns does result in less gun deaths.

A little over half of all gun deaths are suicides, so I would expect alternate means if suicide in places with higher gun restrictions.

What if suicides made up 50% of gun deaths, violent crime made up 20%? And we restricted guns and the total number of gun deaths dropped but the number of violent crime gun deaths rose? Because the criminals doing violent crime won’t stop, and May even be emboldened by lack of armed victims.

For example, suppose 1000 gun deaths in an area. 500 suicides, and heck let’s say 500 violent crimes gun deaths. 50-50.

We restrict guns and suicide by gun drops from 500 down to 50. But still 500 total suicides, those 450 switched to pills or jumping off a bridge.

But the number of violent gun deaths increased from 500 to 750. A 50% increase. The total number of gun deaths is down by 20% because of decline in gun-related suicide.

Regarding suicide.

I used to think that suicide was the end result of the natural progression of someone going downhill. Instead, I read that it can be an impulsive act. Your argument seems to be that each suicide was inevitable. If what I read was correct then it seems that most of the suicides by guns are happening by gun because they are the most effective means of committing suicide. Perhaps if there was not such an easy way to commit the act of suicide there would be many fewer suicides since all other means require much more effort. The process of making all that effort the suicide results in the suicide impulse subsiding.

Isn't that just basic human nature? We all have impulses. If it's relatively easy to follow them we do them. If they require more effort then many times we do not follow through on those impulses.

Vinny

[yankees60]

Tom,


I would argue that a gun is the quickest and easiest force multiplier that exists. No other weapon compares to the amount of damage a fully automatic gun can inflict in a crowded setting.

Sure, people can still make pipe bombs or whatever but that requires a degree of preparation and premeditation. In a fit of rage a person who has been fired, jilted, bullied, whatever has the ability to grab a gun an unload holy hell on anyone within eyeshot in a moments notice. That doesn't exist with other weapons.

You sound like someone who’s never fired a gun before, or been to a public range and watched average citizens shoot guns.

I would way rather the crazy person have a gun than an SUV. It’s far easier to run over people with a vehicle than gun them down in large numbers.

It’s really hard to get accurate shots on vital zone targets, especially if after the first round, people start running away. Whereas with an SUV, you could run over a dozen people quite easily and do far more damage to them.

If what you say is true, why do I hear and read about all these mass shootings but relatively few mass killings via SUV's?

Vinny

[Mark Leavy]

If what you say is true, why do I hear and read about all these mass shootings but relatively few mass killings via SUV's?

Vinny

Mass murderers aren't are best and brightest.

Hell, can you imagine what would happen if the smart people tried to commit mass murder? I wonder if there is a correlation?

[yankees60]

Tom,


I would argue that a gun is the quickest and easiest force multiplier that exists. No other weapon compares to the amount of damage a fully automatic gun can inflict in a crowded setting.

I am not aware of any mass shootings in this country recently that involved a fully automatic gun. As mentioned, legally obtaining this type of weapon requires stringent requirements, and I would bet an extremely small percentage of gun owners possess full-auto guns.

MADD reports that in 2017, 10,874 people died in drunk driving crashes – one every 48 minutes – and more than 300,000 were injured in drunk driving crashes. How does this compare to gun injuries and deaths? I seldom hear of the need to place tighter restrictions on the sales or ownership of alcoholic beverages.

We did have Prohibition. But the American public made clear it could not live without its alcohol.

All these deaths and casualties via alcohol consumption was just one of the reasons why I decided to stop consuming alcohol (stopped December 1974). No longer wanted to support an industry that was responsible for wreaking so much havoc on Americans and their families.

I guess I'll get a response that all that carnage is ultimately the result of those individuals who decided to imbibe and then subsequently drive. But If there were no alcohol they'd not be able to make those poor decision.

Definitely color me an idealist on this one. I just decided all I could do was not give the industry any more support from me.

Vinny

[Libertarian666]

If what you say is true, why do I hear and read about all these mass shootings but relatively few mass killings via SUV's?

Vinny

Mass murderers aren't are best and brightest.

Hell, can you imagine what would happen if the smart people tried to commit mass murder? I wonder if there is a correlation?

Smart people don't commit mass murder, because that's illegal and not very profitable.
They start wars instead.

[Lonestar]

But If there were no alcohol they'd not be able to make those poor decision.

Vinny

I applaud your decision to do what's best for you. However, preventing responsible consumption of alcohol sounds so much like the perpetual argument for firearm ownership, i.e. restricting responsible gun ownership because of the negligence and stupidity of a few.

[Mark Leavy]

Smart people don't commit mass murder, because that's illegal and not very profitable.
They start wars instead.

Touché

[doodle]

Tom,


I would argue that a gun is the quickest and easiest force multiplier that exists. No other weapon compares to the amount of damage a fully automatic gun can inflict in a crowded setting.

Sure, people can still make pipe bombs or whatever but that requires a degree of preparation and premeditation. In a fit of rage a person who has been fired, jilted, bullied, whatever has the ability to grab a gun an unload holy hell on anyone within eyeshot in a moments notice. That doesn't exist with other weapons.

You sound like someone who’s never fired a gun before, or been to a public range and watched average citizens shoot guns.

I would way rather the crazy person have a gun than an SUV. It’s far easier to run over people with a vehicle than gun them down in large numbers.

It’s really hard to get accurate shots on vital zone targets, especially if after the first round, people start running away. Whereas with an SUV, you could run over a dozen people quite easily and do far more damage to them.

If what you say is true, why do I hear and read about all these mass shootings but relatively few mass killings via SUV's?

Vinny

Happens in Europe all the time, just not reported on in the US.

Also, the terrorists want us to strip the constitution so they’ll use guns to encourage gun control; similarly, the terrorists want us to pat down 90 year old grandmothers at the airport.

I looked up some stats...from 2014 to 2017 there have been a total of 173 intentional vehicle ramming fatalities.. worldwide. When you look at those numbers and compare them to the number of gun fatalities from Mass shootings (defined as events where 4 or more people are shot) that occur everyday within what constitutes 5 percent of the world's population in the United States I think the disparity between the numbers is obvious.

That being said this is somewhat of a red herring relative to my argument. You have sidestepped my question,...where is the line as to what armaments civilians can own? I want to be clear that if the role of the 2A is to guard against government tyranny then it seems logical that the population should be equipped with military equipment including if necessary chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons. Or, are you going to draw a line there?

[Xan]

I looked up some stats...from 2014 to 2017 there have been a total of 173 intentional vehicle ramming fatalities.. worldwide. When you look at those numbers and compare them to the number of gun fatalities from Mass shootings (defined as events where 4 or more people are shot) that occur everyday within what constitutes 5 percent of the world's population in the United States I think the disparity between the numbers is obvious.

Did you actually do that comparison?

[doodle]

Based on this...

Screenshot_20201002-080310.png (305.72 KiB) Viewed 4125 times

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sour ... 63001

[doodle]

Then maybe compare that to mass shootings in United States in 2018

323 mass shootings in United States in 2018...(defined as incidents where 4 or more people shot by perpetrator)...almost one per day.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_ ... s_in_2018

[yankees60]

Then maybe compare that to mass shootings in United States in 2018

323 mass shootings in United States in 2018...(defined as incidents where 4 or more people shot by perpetrator)...almost one per day.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_ ... s_in_2018

Most of those sound gang-related. We need to exclude suicides and gang-related attacks because people will just find other ways to kill them selves and gangs will just use knives, clubs, bow and arrow, etc.

Testing your logic. Correct me if I'm wrong. England, Japan, Australia ban private gun ownership and have almost no gun deaths? By your theory, all the deaths that would have occurred if guns had been allowed are now happening in the ways you cite? Do the facts support your theory? Do those countries / entities have similar murder rates / violent deaths to the United States?

Vinny

[Mountaineer]

I posted something very, very similar to this in the Trump has Covid thread. Only thing that changes the bad actor - [Covid 19] to Gun violence. Same song, different verse.

My opinion is this gun violence [Covid-19 sickness] is going to go on for quite a while, until the Last Day [we develop herd immunity, or a vaccine, or something we have not yet discovered happens]. Hopefully, I'm healthy enough to survive it; if not, it's still all good. When gun violence [Covid-19] disappears into the ordinary 'past plague' category, there will be a new something to attack us. Always has been, always will be. No matter how smart man thinks he is, there are always unintended consequences. Thanks be to God for all our social engineering [medical and scientific advances], but we are never quite smart enough. Planes still crash, bridges still fail, earthquakes and hurricanes and tornados still happen. Go look at an abandoned house or lot or concrete pad ... not long until the weeds and rot take over; nature always wins. When man abandons God, bad things happen too; lots of weeds, rot and microscopic critters and wars rear their ugly heads. From my Biblical understanding, these 'plagues' are a result of the curse in Genesis 3 which came on the heels of man wanting to be like God. It's our own fault things just don't work the way God intended pre-fall (pre-curse) and will not until after the Last Day when the new heavens and new earth arrive; I intend to be part of that new heaven and new earth; I hope you all are too. In the meantime, let's enjoy life, enjoy friends and family, enjoy our internet buddies, even if remotely or virtually. I think I'll go make some Bang Shrimp (or should that be bang-bang?) to celebrate.

[doodle]

How come no one will answer my question?

[yankees60]

How come no one will answer my question?

Which specific one?

Vinny

[Cortopassi]

...where is the line as to what armaments civilians can own? I want to be clear that if the role of the 2A is to guard against government tyranny then it seems logical that the population should be equipped with military equipment including if necessary chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons. Or, are you going to draw a line there?

And sometime in the future, it will include lasers, phasers, energy weapons, etc.

I own a gun, a regular semi automatic S&W Shield 9mm. Why do I have it? Not 100% sure actually. I have gone to the range, and am a good shot, better than my police friend I went with.

But, in a night time home invasion? What can I actually do? I'd have to find my glasses, run to the safe, open it up, put in the magazine, and then with my heart beating 150 times a minute go find and confront a robber? Better off with a dog.

I think people who have guns to put down a government uprising or some such are fooling themselves. You'd get destroyed, esp. if you are shooting! Yeah! I took one with me, but still dead.

I only see the gun as useful in an apocalypse type situation where I needed to protect my home from rogue elements. And even with that, assuming they have banded together in groups of 2 or more, I'm screwed.

So, I don't know why I have a gun.

[Libertarian666]

...where is the line as to what armaments civilians can own? I want to be clear that if the role of the 2A is to guard against government tyranny then it seems logical that the population should be equipped with military equipment including if necessary chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons. Or, are you going to draw a line there?

And sometime in the future, it will include lasers, phasers, energy weapons, etc.

I own a gun, a regular semi automatic S&W Shield 9mm. Why do I have it? Not 100% sure actually. I have gone to the range, and am a good shot, better than my police friend I went with.

But, in a night time home invasion? What can I actually do? I'd have to find my glasses, run to the safe, open it up, put in the magazine, and then with my heart beating 150 times a minute go find and confront a robber? Better off with a dog.

I think people who have guns to put down a government uprising or some such are fooling themselves. You'd get destroyed, esp. if you are shooting! Yeah! I took one with me, but still dead.

I only see the gun as useful in an apocalypse type situation where I needed to protect my home from rogue elements. And even with that, assuming they have banded together in groups of 2 or more, I'm screwed.

So, I don't know why I have a gun.

The way you have it, I don't see it either.
It should be somewhere that you can grab it and make it ready to fire in 10 seconds or less.
Do you have small children or some other reason it has to be locked in a safe?

[Cortopassi]

...where is the line as to what armaments civilians can own? I want to be clear that if the role of the 2A is to guard against government tyranny then it seems logical that the population should be equipped with military equipment including if necessary chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons. Or, are you going to draw a line there?

And sometime in the future, it will include lasers, phasers, energy weapons, etc.

I own a gun, a regular semi automatic S&W Shield 9mm. Why do I have it? Not 100% sure actually. I have gone to the range, and am a good shot, better than my police friend I went with.

But, in a night time home invasion? What can I actually do? I'd have to find my glasses, run to the safe, open it up, put in the magazine, and then with my heart beating 150 times a minute go find and confront a robber? Better off with a dog.

I think people who have guns to put down a government uprising or some such are fooling themselves. You'd get destroyed, esp. if you are shooting! Yeah! I took one with me, but still dead.

I only see the gun as useful in an apocalypse type situation where I needed to protect my home from rogue elements. And even with that, assuming they have banded together in groups of 2 or more, I'm screwed.

So, I don't know why I have a gun.

The way you have it, I don't see it either.
It should be somewhere that you can grab it and make it ready to fire in 10 seconds or less.
Do you have small children or some other reason it has to be locked in a safe?

Our house was burglarized about 10 years ago. At one point I had the gun in quick open gun case under my bed, but after that event I decided to put it in a more "safe" location. I would have hated for that to be found and stolen and used in some bad way.

[doodle]

Better to have and not need than need and not have. Rarely if ever conceal carry...but always quickly accessible from where I sleep. No children so not a worry in that regard. Although thinking bear spray and goggles might be better option. Less messy than putting holes in things.

Still no answers to my very simple question. I can see why getting anything done legislatively in this country with regards to taxes, healthcare or immigration or anything else for that matter...can't even address simple questions.

[dualstow]

Better to have and not need than need and not have. Rarely if ever conceal carry...but always quickly accessible from where I sleep. No children so not a worry in that regard. Although thinking bear spray and goggles might be better option. Less messy than putting holes in things.

I often carry bear spray. Next to my umbrella, it kind of looks like another umbrella.