stone cold posted:

self defence with guns is an nra myth

chesnok posted:

r.y.f.s.o. posted:

Giving in to fear and anger is all too easy; it’s one reason why the dark side is such a dangerous temptation for Force users. However, fear is weak compared to the Force. Kanan realized this in Star Wars Rebels when he fought the Grand Inquisitor. The Imperial enemy tried to use fear as a tactic against Kanan, but once the former Jedi realized the Force could overcome anything, he was unstoppable.

r.y.f.s.o. posted:

Is it? I'm a bad nerd and don't know what is or isn't. Trek > Wars anyway. Ban all phasers IMO.

Rent-A-Cop posted:

I have just been informed by reliable sources that the cartoons are canon, and let me tell you, I am absolutely livid.

Rent-A-Cop posted:

Obviously crisis actors.

stone cold posted:

meanwhile

quote:

In 2012, across the nation there were only 259 justifiable homicides involving a private citizen using a firearm reported to the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program as detailed in its Supplementary Homicide Report (SHR). That same year, there were 8,342 criminal gun homicides tallied in the SHR. In 2012, for every justifiable homicide in the United States involving a gun, guns were used in 32 criminal homicides. And this ratio, of course, does not take into account the tens of thousands of lives ended in gun suicides or unintentional shootings that year.

quote:

In 2012, there were only 259 justifiable homicides involving a gun. For the five-year period 2008 through 2012, there were only 1,108 justifiable homicides involving a gun.

quote:

In 2012 there were 20,666 firearm suicide deaths and 548 fatal unintentional shootings. Source: Federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention WISQARS database.

quote:

The reality of self-defense gun use bears no resemblance to the exaggerated claims of the gun lobby and gun industry. The number of justifiable homicides that occur in our nation each year pale in comparison to criminal homicides, let alone gun suicides and fatal unintentional shootings. And contrary to the common stereotype promulgated by the gun lobby, those killed in justifiable homicide incidents don’t always fit the expected profile of an attack by a stranger: in 35.5 percent of the justifiable homicides that occurred in 2012 the persons shot were known to the shooter.

The devastation guns inflict on our nation each and every year is clear: more than 33,000 dead, more than 81,000 wounded, and an untold number of lives traumatized and communities shattered. Unexamined claims of the efficacy and frequency of the self-defense use of firearms are the default rationale offered by the gun lobby and gun industry for this unceasing, bloody toll. The idea that firearms are frequently used in self-defense is the primary argument that the gun lobby and firearms industry use to expand the carrying of firearms into an ever-increasing number of public spaces and even to prevent the regulation of military-style semiautomatic assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines. Yet this argument is hollow and the assertions false. When analyzing the most reliable data available, what is most striking is that in a nation of more than 300 million guns, how rarely firearms are used in self-defense.

stone cold posted:

quote:

VIOLENT CRIME
According to the NCVS, looking at the total number of self-protective behaviors undertaken by victims of both attempted and completed violent crime for the three-year period 2013 through 2015, in only 1.1 percent of these instances had the intended victim in resistance to a criminal “threatened or attacked with a firearm.”11 As detailed in the chart on the next page, for the three-year period 2013 through 2015, the NCVS estimates that there were 16,492,600 victims of attempted or completed violent crime. During this same three-year period, only 175,700 of the self-protective behaviors involved a firearm. Of this number, it is not known what type of firearm was used or whether it was fired or not. The number may also include off-duty law enforcement officers who use their firearms in self-defense.

quote:

According to the NCVS, looking at the total number of self-protective behaviors undertaken by victims of attempted or completed property crime for the three-year period 2013 through 2015, in only 0.2 percent of these instances had the intended victim in resistance to a criminal threatened or attacked with a firearm. As detailed in the prior table, for the three-year period 2013 through 2015, the NCVS estimates that there were 46,673,600 victims of attempted or completed property crime. During this same three-year period, only 109,000 of the self-protective behaviors involved a firearm. Of this number, it is not known what type of firearm was used, whether it was fired or not, or whether the use of a gun would even be a legal response to the property crime. And as before, the number may also include off-duty law enforcement officers. In comparison, data from the Department of Justice shows that an average of 232,400 guns were stolen each year from U.S. households from 2005 to 2010.

COMPARING NCVS DATA TO CLAIMS THAT GUNS ARE USED IN SELF-DEFENSE 2.5 MILLION TIMES A YEAR
Using the NCVS numbers, for the three-year period 2013 through 2015, the total number of self-protective behaviors involving a firearm by victims of attempted or completed violent crimes or property crimes totaled only 284,700. In comparison, the gun lobby claims that during the same three-year period guns were used 7.5 million times in self defense (applying to the three-year period the gun lobby’s oft-repeated claim, noted earlier, that firearms are used in self defense 2.5 million times a year).

CONCLUSION
The reality of self-defense gun use bears no resemblance to the exaggerated claims of the gun lobby and gun industry. The number of justifiable homicides that occur in our nation each year pale in comparison to criminal homicides, let alone gun suicides and fatal unintentional shootings. And contrary to the common stereotype promulgated by the gun lobby, those killed in justifiable homicide incidents don’t always fit the expected profile of an attack by a stranger: in 34.4 percent of the justifiable homicides that occurred in 2014 the persons shot and killed were known to the shooter.

Rent-A-Cop posted:

lol EU, gross

archangelwar posted:

drat, I am allergic

Marijuana posted:

I just want to chime in on an argument from a few pages back regarding the Founding Fathers and 2nd Amendment: Who gives a poo poo? Jefferson, Madison, et al. had muskets and blunderbusses in mind when they wrote it. Semi-automatic rifles weren't even a dream for them.

Also, they owned slaves and thought that only propertied white men were actually people.

Also, they were all demented by untreated syphilis.

Marijuana posted:

I just want to chime in on an argument from a few pages back regarding the Founding Fathers and 2nd Amendment: Who gives a poo poo? Jefferson, Madison, et al. had muskets and blunderbusses in mind when they wrote it. Semi-automatic rifles weren't even a dream for them.

Also, they owned slaves and thought that only propertied white men were actually people.

Also, they were all demented by untreated syphilis.

Dead Reckoning posted:

It's pretty clear that they intended citizens to be able to own military small arms of all kinds, not just "muskets." You can argue that they were wrong to favor that, or that they had the right idea but that their ideas about individual and collective defense have become outdated in the last 200+ years, or that they were lovely people and that they should be ignored except when they happened to write an amendment you agree with (stopped clocks and all), but it is wrong and ahistorical to argue that the 2nd amendment doesn't enshrine an individual right to own military small arms, or that it is ambiguous, or that it is not the law of the land.

This line of discussion was started by some posters trying to argue that the Constitution does not guarantee an individual right to own military small arms, which is wrong. Your argument that it shouldn't have/should be amended not to, and that the founders were lovely people in certain ways to boot, is wholly orthogonal to that.

Dead Reckoning posted:

It's pretty clear that they intended citizens to be able to own military small arms of all kinds, not just "muskets."

Dead Reckoning posted:

It's pretty clear that they intended citizens to be able to own military small arms of all kinds, not just "muskets." You can argue that they were wrong to favor that, or that they had the right idea but that their ideas about individual and collective defense have become outdated in the last 200+ years, or that they were lovely people and that they should be ignored except when they happened to write an amendment you agree with (stopped clocks and all), but it is wrong and ahistorical to argue that the 2nd amendment doesn't enshrine an individual right to own military small arms, or that it is ambiguous, or that it is not the law of the land.

This line of discussion was started by some posters trying to argue that the Constitution does not guarantee an individual right to own military small arms, which is wrong. Your argument that it shouldn't have/should be amended not to, and that the founders were lovely people in certain ways to boot, is wholly orthogonal to that.

QuarkJets posted:

Why are you talking about military small arms, specifically? The second amendment just says arms. Presumably you should argue that citizens are entitled to own any military weapon of any kind

Nosfereefer posted:

Elizabethan Error posted:

noted invention of the late 1700s, semiautomatic rifles.

r.y.f.s.o. posted:

The arguments upthread asking why mass / school shootings are different and attacking the emotional nature of my response to them are such nonsense. Comparisons to cars are nonsense. Comparisons of annual death rates are incomplete and almost certainly disingenuous - guns are classified as "weapons" because they have unique capabilities and characteristics which put them in their own taxonomic category and have no really useful analog besides other weapons.

Dead Reckoning posted:

Dead Reckoning posted:

The right is reserved to the people, not the Militia.

Dead Reckoning posted:

The right is reserved to the people, not the Militia.

quote:

It isn't relevant.

quote:

Do you think the first amendment is rendered invalid by advances in technology since 1791?

Elizabethan Error posted:

:
pretty much, what with the CIA/NSA monitoring US citizens and the police having access to things like Stingray.

Rent-A-Cop posted:

Wrong amendment lol

hakimashou posted:

But as far as the laws and the courts and the mainstream is concerned this debate over 'militia' and 'the people' and all the other stuff was settled definitively many years ago.

hakimashou posted:

If decades of the abortion debate have taught us anything its that the side arguing for 'people's rights' tends to prevail over the side arguing for 'people's lives.'

Dead Reckoning posted:

It's pretty clear that they intended citizens to be able to own military small arms of all kinds, not just "muskets."

Dead Reckoning posted:

It isn't relevant. Do you think the first amendment is rendered invalid by advances in technology since 1791?

hakimashou posted:

If decades of the abortion debate have taught us anything its that the side arguing for 'people's rights' tends to prevail over the side arguing for 'people's lives.'

Elizabethan Error posted:

fetuses aren't people

Elizabethan Error posted:

hakimashou posted:

I didn't say they were.

Elizabethan Error posted:

so that wasn't you i just quoted, inferring that fetuses were in fact people?

Rent-A-Cop posted:

LOL there's only ten in the Bill of Rights and like three don't even matter how can you get it wrong.

Things you don't need to know about to argue about gun laws on the internet: guns, laws.

Elizabethan Error posted:

I didn't get the amendment wrong, idiot. sorry you think that privacy is still a thing in tyool 2018

hakimashou posted:

If decades of the abortion debate have taught us anything its that the side arguing for 'people's rights' tends to prevail over the side arguing for 'people's lives.'

hakimashou posted:

Right I didn't infer anything like that.

Rent-A-Cop posted:

Go read the post you quoted and then read your post and then realize what a gigantic fuckin' goob you are.

Elizabethan Error posted:

https://i.imgur.com/WsVdlFh.mp4
how about you reread it, then go look up what the Stingray does for cell phones

hakimashou posted:

If DC v Heller hadn't gone the way it did then there would be a much more compelling legal argument for a lot of gun control.

But as far as the laws and the courts and the mainstream is concerned this debate over 'militia' and 'the people' and all the other stuff was settled definitively many years ago. Its a big landmark case for a reason, and non-mainstream constitutional theories don't carry a lot of weight.

Sure, repealing the second amendment would fix the problem, but that's a tall order. People probably won't want to give up one of their rights that they're accustomed to enjoying.

If decades of the abortion debate have taught us anything its that the side arguing for 'people's rights' tends to prevail over the side arguing for 'people's lives.'

hakimashou posted:

Abortion and gun control debates are such eerie mirror images of each other that you get anti-gun and anti-abortion people baffled that they're on opposite sides of the fence and calling one another hypocrites.

Rent-A-Cop posted:

Which amendment covers your right to double down because you're getting some mileage out of it.