What can be done to stop gun violence

[1cthlctrth]

By the way, notice that the Leftist media doesn’t seem to care or report it when blacks are the victims of shootings in Chicago and Baltimore.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Not one of the Aug2019 mass shootings would have been prevented by Universal background checks.

When Missouri loosened their background check regulations, homicides went up. When Connecticut strengthened their background checks, homicides went down. Yup. They work.

 

[Nihilo]

Nihilo:

…the US is the oldest non-monarchical classical liberal democracy on the earth…

On what grounds do you dismiss all the monarchical and all the non-classical liberal democracies?

All of the monarchical democracies in 1776? England. And I mentioned them.

And do you think that democracies without some sort of constitutional-like protection of rights is worth the paper its name might be written on? I don’t.

If you limit your consideration enough you will be down the US and US alone.

The originator of the species is the originator of the species. Often imitated, never duplicated.

My statement was correct as it stands.

There is no older classical liberal democracy than America. Your statement contradicted this.

The point you deflected away from

I did not deflect anything.

is that the recognition of an inherent, natural, etc. right to bear arms is pretty much unique to the US.

It is.

That does not speak well of it being a universal truth that all should recognize.

Appeal to popularity.

Don’t you find it the least bit concerning, for example, that the Catholic theology does not have a similar expression of a right to bear arms?

The Catechism assumes the right to bear arms. And while that is arguable, it is not arguable that the Catechism does not teach against the right to bear arms.

Continued below.

 

[Nihilo]

Continuing.

If the right is so inherent to man and so essential that the US Constitution needed to spell it out

Object to “needed to.” The Second Amendment establishes that the people have a right to a well regulated militia, who are civilians who carry weapons of war on the streets for all lawful purposes. The right to bear arms is not created but recognized as already existing in the Second Amendment.

, certainly Catholic teaching, which deals with natural human rights more extensively than any secular government

I’m sorry? Why would you think this? And can you provide some citations that do demonstrate that Catholicism was “extensively” concerned with human rights, before the Constitution of the US was ratified? Which was the first time in history that the rights of common men were extensively affirmed writ large.

would not overlook this important right as worthy of explicit mention. And don’t say “the right to self-defense” because that right does not say anything about a right a specific kind of weapon. It is only about what you may do if you do happen to have a weapon.

It is the same right.

…Every other liberal democracy is a variation upon the theme of American classical liberalism.

Yet how many of those younger democracies adopted an equivalent to our 2nd amendment?

There is no country, some variation of liberal democracy or otherwise, that is better at defending the basic human right to bear arms, than America.

They copied what they saw was good and did not copy what they did not think was good for them.

Well of course. It’s their country. They can do what they want.

 

[LilyM]

Continuing.

LeafByNiggle:

If the right is so inherent to man and so essential that the US Constitution needed to spell it out

Object to “needed to.” The Second Amendment establishes that the people have a right to a well regulated militia, who are civilians who carry weapons of war on the streets for all lawful purposes. The right to bear arms is not created but recognized as already existing in the Second Amendment.

, certainly Catholic teaching, which deals with natural human rights more extensively than any secular government

I’m sorry? Why would you think this? And can you provide some citations that do demonstrate that Catholicism was “extensively” concerned with human rights, before the Constitution of the US was ratified? Which was the first time in history that the rights of common men were extensively affirmed writ large.

would not overlook this important right as worthy of explicit mention. And don’t say “the right to self-defense” because that right does not say anything about a right a specific kind of weapon. It is only about what you may do if you do happen to have a weapon.

It is the same right.

…Every other liberal democracy is a variation upon the theme of American classical liberalism.

Yet how many of those younger democracies adopted an equivalent to our 2nd amendment?

There is no country, some variation of liberal democracy or otherwise, that is better at defending the basic human right to bear arms, than America.

They copied what they saw was good and did not copy what they did not think was good for them.

Well of course. It’s their country. They can do what they want.

Oh Americans are excellent at defending the 2nd amendment - not so good at defending THE fundamental human right without which none of the others matter, which is the right to life itself.

You are killing your unborn especially in sickening numbers. None of your gun-toting John Wayne wannabeeism is effective in the slightest in defending those unborn lives, which form the vast bulk of all murders in the US.

 

[Cruciferi]

which is the right to life itself.

Under that we also have the right to defend ourselves and others, using proportional force, against unjust aggression.

None of your gun-toting John Wayne wannabeeism is effective in the slightest in defending those unborn lives, which form the vast bulk of all murders in the US.

Take that up with the Supreme Court and Congress. We’ve been marching for decades and they still won’t listen.

 

[LilyM]

LilyM:

which is the right to life itself.

Under that we also have the right to defend ourselves and others, using proportional force, against unjust aggression.

None of your gun-toting John Wayne wannabeeism is effective in the slightest in defending those unborn lives, which form the vast bulk of all murders in the US.

Take that up with the Supreme Court and Congress. We’ve been marching for decades and they still won’t listen.

Right. Because the Founding Fathers marched for independence … and then shrugged their shoulders when the UK courts and Parliament didn’t listen.

People who.thought slavery was evil marched for abolition … and then shrugged their shouldees when.the courts and Congress didn’t listen.

I thought an unfettered right to bear arms was about using those arms in defence of those who otherwise are defenceless? As was done in the Revolution and the Civil War?

And who more truly defenceless than babes in the womb at risk.of.abortion?

Just taking your thinking to iits logical conclusion.

 

[Cruciferi]

Sounds to me like you’re advocating armed resistance… Or do you just misunderstand the 2nd Amendment?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

The right to bear arms is not created but recognized as already existing in the Second Amendment.

That’s what it asserts. That does not prove it is true in any context outside of the US legal system.

There is no country, some variation of liberal democracy or otherwise, that is better at defending the basic human right to bear arms, than America.

If the US is unique in defending this right to bear arms, that should make you wonder if it really is a universal right after all. I mean if it is so universal, everyone should recognize it, don’t you think? Why do you think they don’t?

 

[vz71]

Source??

.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Source for what? An obvious logical conclusion from facts we both agree on?

 

[vz71]

Source for what? An obvious logical conclusion from facts we both agree on?

You claimed:

When Missouri loosened their background check regulations, homicides went up. When Connecticut strengthened their background checks, homicides went down.

I just think you should list where exactly you got this.

 

[1cthlctrth]

Here are some average yearly death statistics to consider:

• 32,885 auto accidents
• 10,839 drunk driving
• 1,817 knives
• 674 blunt objects
• 453 rifles
• 18 military assault rifles
  Here's Why Someone Would Need To Own An 'Assault' Rifle | Investor's Business Daily
  https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/811552

 

[1cthlctrth]

Guns save more lives than they take and prevent more injuries than they inflict.

• Guns used 2.5 million times a year in self-defense. Law-abiding citizens use guns to defend themselves against criminals as many as 2.5 million times every year — or about 6,850 times a day. [1] This means that each year, firearms are used more than 80 times more often to protect the lives of honest citizens than to take lives.
• Of the 2.5 million times citizens use their guns to defend themselves every year, the overwhelming majority merely brandish their gun or fire a warning shot to scare off their attackers. Less than 8% of the time, a citizen will kill or wound his/her attacker.
• As many as 200,000 women use a gun every year to defend themselves against sexual abuse.[4]
• Even anti-gun Clinton researchers concede that guns are used 1.5 million times annually for self-defense. According to the Clinton Justice Department, there are as many as 1.5 million cases of self-defense every year. The National Institute of Justice published this figure in 1997 as part of “Guns in America” — a study which was authored by noted anti-gun criminologists Philip Cook and Jens Ludwig.
• Armed citizens kill more crooks than do the police. Citizens shoot and kill at least twice as many criminals as police do every year (1,527 to 606).[6] And readers of Newsweek learned that “only 2 percent of civilian shootings involved an innocent person mistakenly identified as a criminal. The ‘error rate’ for the police, however, was 11 percent, more than five times as high.”
  Fact Sheet: Guns Save Lives | GOA

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Guns save more lives than they take and prevent more injuries than they inflict.

These are misleading statistics. The statistics on “guns used in self defense” are not all instances of a life being saved. They could be anything from scaring off a bunch of kids knocking over garbage cans to showing a gun in a crowd of scary looking Mexicans. Also these statistics leave off the largest killer of all by means of guns - suicide.

And armed citizens killing more than police just shows that citizens are unable to de-escalate a situation - they can only kill. Police are trained not to kill.

In short, it is totally bogus to say that privately held guns save more lives than they take. It just cannot be supported by unbiased facts.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

Source for what? An obvious logical conclusion from facts we both agree on?

You claimed:

When Missouri loosened their background check regulations, homicides went up. When Connecticut strengthened their background checks, homicides went down.

I just think you should list where exactly you got this.

Certainly. Here is the source for the Missouri data:

research@BSPH | Johns Hopkins | Bloomberg School of Public Health

The Connecticut data is from here:

https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/full/10.2105/AJPH.2015.302703

 

[LilyM]

1cthlctrth:

Guns save more lives than they take and prevent more injuries than they inflict.

These are misleading statistics. The statistics on “guns used in self defense” are not all instances of a life being saved. They could be anything from scaring off a bunch of kids knocking over garbage cans to showing a gun in a crowd of scary looking Mexicans. Also these statistics leave off the largest killer of all by means of guns - suicide.

And armed citizens killing more than police just shows that citizens are unable to de-escalate a situation - they can only kill. Police are trained not to kill.

In short, it is totally bogus to say that privately held guns save more lives than they take. It just cannot be supported by unbiased facts.

I tend to agree.

If guns are there, people use them, which is not to say at all that people can’t or don’t defend themselves equally well when guns are NOT available. Police who are unarmed in places like the UK seem to do at least as well as armed-to-the-teeth American LEOs.

If guns were an inherently superior method of self-defence then high rates of gun ownership would consistently correlate with low crime rates, which they don’t.

And - if brandishing weapons or firing a warning shot works in 90+ % of cases, then we may as well be handing out realistic-looking and sounding replicas to 90% of gun owners. Leave the actual guns to the 10% who have the best training and marksmanship.

 

[LilyM]

Sounds to me like you’re advocating armed resistance… Or do you just misunderstand the 2nd Amendment?

No, not particularly an advocate of armed resistance personally.

Just wondering why all those guns that you claim to have right to own for defence, including defencde against tyrannical/oppressive governments, aren’t then being used in the one situation where it seems to me the government is being MOST oppressive and tyrannical.

 

[nearlycatholic]

I don’t or won’t point any of my guns at anyone unless an innocent is in danger of losing his/her life. If everyone would practice that, problem solved. The only solution to a heart problem is our living loving Jesus.

 

[pnewton]

s

As I know of cases where assault rifles have killed more, I will remain skeptical of why investors.com pulled these supposed stats the one year they did. Do you ever look at the sources you read and consider if they are partial, or using stats like propaganda.

Besides, I have said before the whole argument is illogical on face value. Saving lives are about saving lives that can be saved, even if every accident or incident of violence cannot be stopped. This tired, senseless rhetoric that we should do nothing because we cannot do this, that, or everything, is fooling no one outside of the NRA.