Second Amendment and the right to keep and bear arms

[UniBrier]

I think we can settle this with an old fashioned duel (but we’ll use paint ball guns because we’d hate to have one less of us).

Those for gun control get to use both hands. Those with weak arguments have to shoot from the hip.

We’ll do it at dawn, as long as we’ve all had our coffee first. We want wide-awake but jittery contestants.

[harper]

Originally Posted by UniBrier

Those for gun control get to use both hands. Those with weak arguments have to shoot from the hip.

Wait. This is the same group. You're going to have gun control advocates shoot each other?

[UniBrier]

There's two types gun control groups so you'll have a three way duel, just like in The Good, The Bad, & The Ugly; would that be a triel or a truel?

[poofengle]

Here's how I feel on the whole issue, this is a paper I recently wrote for English class about the topic, complete with a works cited at the end. Open the attachment and read it if you like.

[Naomi]

Originally Posted by maestro8

CORRELATION DOES NOT IMPLY CAUSATION

That looks like a fairly "head in the sand" response. Had action been possible to reduce the level of gun ownership in the USA to match that in the UK, or even drop it to zero, I think it would have caused a much lower gun death total. But perhaps you disagree, and can support that disagreement?

It would have been reasonable, and undoubtedly accurate, to state that gun ownership levels may not be the only factor affecting gun death totals.

Nao

[digigal1]

Look at it simply as the right to protect yourself: How can I protect myself, especially being a woman, if the bad guy has a gun, but I have only a knife, or an umbrella, or nothing?

[johnfoss]

Originally Posted by digigal1

Look at it simply as the right to protect yourself: How can I protect myself, especially being a woman, if the bad guy has a gun, but I have only a knife, or an umbrella, or nothing?

How much safer are you if you both have guns? In other words, there no guarantee that any shooting that occurs will be accurate. There is no guarantee you won't shoot each other. There is no guarantee the assailant will listen to reason or even care that you are similarly armed.

An attacker with a gun, if he knows what he's doing, will start by controlling your hands ("Don't move" or similar), to make sure you can't get whatever weapons you might have. Of course the world is also filled with stupid criminals, so you can never know exactly what to expect...

I'm not saying it's no better than having nothing but a Kleenex, but arming everyone doesn't make the world safer either.

[harper]

Originally Posted by johnfoss

How much safer are you if you both have guns?

Much, much safer. Although you don't point out how many conditions are possible, let's look at the two extremes.

1.) 300 pound male attacker, 100 pound female victim, both unarmed. Does someone have an advantage here?

2.) 300 pound male attacker, 100 pound female victim, both armed with the same pistol. Who has the bigger target cross section to shoot at? Who is better trained?

The point is, in the first case the victim is clearly at a disadvantage. When you, John Foss, arm them both with identical pistols, you have made the dainty female victim much safer. Now she has a chance. Thanks for your support of the second amendment and thanks for making this world a safer place.

[tobbogonist]

quick get scientists working on developing a cure for itchy trigger finger, or maybe a prevention.

chop chop!

[johnfoss]

Originally Posted by harper

Who is better trained?

Where did that part come from? Seemed a little random. Both parties can always know who's bigger, but neither can know (if they don't know each other) which one has the better training.

Aside from that, your argument is valid, not just for pistols but for most other things, such as martial arts training. Maybe the 100 pound woman can kick the man's butt, but we don't know if he's a former Navy Seal or something...

[maestro8]

Originally Posted by Naomi

That looks like a fairly "head in the sand" response.

Is this how you back up a statistical argument, with ad hominem? I'm still learning this whole business of debate, it seems...

Being that statistics can be compiled to prove virtually any point, your number-based proposition hasn't much substance... but for the sake of argument, I'll ignore this detail.

Had action been possible to reduce the level of gun ownership in the USA to match that in the UK, or even drop it to zero, I think it would have caused a much lower gun death total. But perhaps you disagree, and can support that disagreement?

Sure, take guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens, and you're left with a nation of armed criminals. Tell me, Nao, how is this going to lower gun deaths?

It would have been reasonable, and undoubtedly accurate, to state that gun ownership levels may not be the only factor affecting gun death totals.

Absolutely! You can't easily draw parallels between the US and the UK on such a complex topic without also comparing government policy, law enforcement, socioeconomics, social stratification, etc.

Simply pointing at numbers and grunting doesn't even scratch the surface of this discussion. It seems you're only stirring the pot.

[harper]

Originally Posted by johnfoss

Where did that part come from? Seemed a little random. Both parties can always know who's bigger, but neither can know (if they don't know each other) which one has the better training.

This is one of those things that you proofread and change and then see it ten minutes later with a missing sentence or partially rearranged thought. This was supposed to read something like, "Training now becomes the important factor rather than size and training is done by choice, not genetics."

[wobbling bear]

Discussing the "right to bear arms" looks like a religious matter.
I have a friend who is deeply religious and he was baffled that I had absolutely no need for an "afterlife".
I have no drive to own a gun and that could be beyond the grasp of any people who has a drive to own one ....(and vice-versa)

[harper]

Originally Posted by wobbling bear

Discussing the "right to bear arms" looks like a religious matter.
I have a friend who is deeply religious and he was baffled that I had absolutely no need for an "afterlife".
I have no drive to own a gun and that could be beyond the grasp of any people who has a drive to own one ....(and vice-versa)

This is good. There are many potential criminals who will be pleased to know this.

[wobbling bear]

Originally Posted by harper

This is good. There are many potential criminals who will be pleased to know this.

c'mon Harper you make the US look like a war zone! (and BTW I actually lived in a war zone and that did not make me fond of guns)