"[L]aws that reduce access to firearms" to law abiding human beings are a serious violation of fundamental human rights and the COTUS - especially during the Age of Genocide. People who advocate for restrictions on the right to bear arms have their priorities mixed up. A quick review of recent human history might help.
Any political party that runs on a platform of restoring constitutional carry in the US will win elections. Sadly, the RP is not that party.
"We must take into account the rights of law abiding gun owners and allow them to see to their safety" and screw the rights of law abiding non-gun owners is what I hear, while the majority of American want more gun control. 84% support UBCs. The "unorganized" militias are not exempt from "well regulated" and it is the governments job to do that. The editorial sited notes the downturn in gun violence as the US's crime rate fell at the same time. He notes the downturns were in urban areas and noted the difference in gun laws. If you'll note Texas fell the least and on the upswing with the least strict gun laws, so I don't know what the point is in your argument. The same author did a study demonstrating poverty and age are key factors in gun homicide and concluded that of homicide and firearm homicides—"we find are severely mitigated or disappear altogether once the economic playing field is leveled." Your suggestion that the social safety net is somehow for "subsidizing" poverty, so it follows, it's removal would make it go away and not make it worse with more desperate people taking more risks to get by, as in more crime. Interesting, and there is evidence for this? Gun availability leads to gun violence. Not in everyone's hands of course that is why it needs to be well regulated. The reason for the OP. Firearms are "specifically designed and manufactured to efficiently save and prolong life and improve quality of life" They have done exactly the opposite in the real world. What's your problem as to where illegal gun owners get their ammo? There are no studies or "proof", but they get their ammo from somewhere and in most states anyone can get ammo in a store or on-line. Is there evidence they don't? Women can make bad decisions, just like men, and it's worse with a lethal weapon in hand. "Age of Genocide"? Do you live in Rwanda?
Please show how my ownership of an object violates someone else’s rights. Go... Please provide the US code or Militia Act text reference showing the unorganized militia is to be well regulated. Go... If 84% wanted UBC you would already have UBC. I’m afraid like all those before you, you have made statements you can not support with any evidence. The point is what it’s always been. Access to firearms is not causal in relation to gun violence. Let’s see the study. I don’t comment on things I can’t read. When did I say anything about removing a social safety net? Can you quote me saying that? Only in your mind. In reality availability does not lead to violence as I’ve presented numerous streams of evidence to demonstrate. You said: I’m telling you there are firearms regulated by the ATF and subject to background checks that are "specifically designed and manufactured to efficiently save and prolong life and improve quality of life". Your claim firearms are all designed specifically to kill efficiently is false. Again you try and discuss thing you not only don’t understand but don’t even know exist.
You cannot show where gun availability leads to gun violence, despite being asked frequently. You have also not shown how or where illegal gun owners obtain ammo. And you don't even support women being able to defend themselves. But you have no problem with telling others what they can and cannot have, quite ironic. I don't think you should own any guns.
Firearms save and prolong life and improve quality of life and firearm availability does not lead to firearm violence? Someone is living in upside down world. We have the most liberal gun laws and he highest gun related body count in the developed world and you accuse me of not dealing with reality? The phrase "a well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," is interpreted as unorganized militia is exempted? And the rest is spun into....Laws? We don't need no steeking laws. Another case of ideology over reason. There was a hyperlink of the study on study but it's at: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/2158244015573359 if you care to comment. I did not accuse you of calling for the removal of the social safety net, if you will reread, but you called it "subsidized" poverty. Subsidized synonyms are promote, sponsor, underwrite which implies you think it is a bad thing or unhelpful. I suggested since you think it's not helpful, It's alternative would lead to even more crime as seen in third world countries. Your friend, the number guy, has a similar problem as you; logic escapes him. You cannot have gun violence without gun availability. It sounds simple but we have another case of ideology over reason.
You are very slow on the uptake. Your assertion all firearms are designed to kill is false. In my business many own firearms specifically designed to save and prolong life. They serve no other purpose. This is a fact. Of course facts are irrelevant to your assertions because your argument is emotional, not factual. Here is a link that may help you understand your error. Your error is common—a result of ignorance of the subject matter. https://cap-chur.com/product/cap-chur-ss-cartridge-fired-rifle-2/ Who has the most liberal laws and highest body counts? New Hampshire and Vermont? Or St.Louis or Chicago? Yes, you are completely unaware of reality. Please quote the part of the 2A that mandates any militia be well regulated. Or the text of the Dick Act that mandates the unorganized militia be well regulated. Or any text from any Militia Act from 1792 foreword that mandates the entire militia be well regulated. If the militia were to all be well regulated at all times, why has it never happened? If it’s the law it must be well regulated , why no penalty for violating that law? You (and others) cannot demonstrate the entire militia was EVER intended to be well regulated. Your entire premise is false. So the poorer the youth, the more likely to perpetrate gun crime. Yep. And certain demographics over represented. Yep. Now, is it poverty CAUSING the criminal behavior or is it some other factor CAUSING poverty AND criminal behavior? Bet you never even considered that! Unhelpful to whom? Are subsidized health insurance premiums “bad” and “unhelpful “ in your opinion? LOL Subsidized poverty is certainly helpful to many! As is gun violence. But my criticism of subsidized poverty is not a call for removal of a safety net. It’s a call to remove the adhesive applied to the safety net that keeps those who fall in it from climbing back up on the trapeze to FLY! Oh, and you are the one with a logic problem. I prefer to end VIOLENCE—not just firearm violence. If we could snap our fingers and remove all firearms from planet earth, violence and suicide would remain. And you would have a plethora of unintended consequences ranging from devastation of agriculture to increased violent home invasions and rape to unbalanced and unhealthy wildlife populations.
Guns are not violent, nor are knives and sticks. People are the problem, so why not address the people who commit the crime and leave the rest of us to our legally owned property?
Your emotional investment has indeed overcome your logic. Your "firearms specifically designed to save and prolong life" and then referencing a tranquilizing gun is a dodge and not what we are talking about and you know it. You used that phrase in reference to all guns. If you are still behind the statement "firearms are specifically designed to save and prolong life" we have to ask why does that work? Your logic seems to stop before that question. It is because the person is holding a tool designed to kill and not a fork. Logic continues to evade you. Your counterargument to our having the highest body count in the developed world is to reference cherry picked state's body count? That proves nothing compared to other developed countries with stricter gun laws. It does prove states with large populations of urban poor have a higher gun homicide rate (BTW Missouri has liberal gun laws). More illogic. You compare subsidizing health insurance and poverty? Subsidizing a good thing is an inherently positive thing to do. Subsidizing a bad thing (poverty) is an inherently negative thing to do. No comparison, but it is good to hear you want social programs to get people out of poverty. The logic of things will fall apart scare tactic in a world without guns seems to fall apart if you look at the rest of the developed world. The well regulated part of 2A is played out in gun laws, national and state, although not regulated enough, in my mind, to insure public safety. Near poverty and poverty does encourage criminal behavior, because once a population achieves middle class it disappears. See the early history of Irish and Italian immigrants.
Guns are efficient, easy to use tools to express that violence, that is why it needs to be difficult for those prone to use violence to not have access to the tool, which is the subject of the OP.
^^^^^ Abject ignorance. The power of Congress to arm and discipline the militia - that is, to regulate it, well or otherwise - is unrelated to the right to keep and bear arms, save that said regulation cannot infringe upon the right to keep and bear arms.
It was in reference to the number guy saying an unorganized militia was somehow exempt from "well regulated". 2A does not refer to organized or unorganized just militia, if you want to go to original intent.
You are the one that claimed all firearms are designed to kill. You made a false claim and I’m correcting you. I never claimed all guns were designed to save life. You are making that up to divert from your false claims. You are cherry picking counties if I’m cherry picking states. The fact remains, if there are places (anywhere) with liberal gun laws and many guns but very little gun violence, guns and access to guns is NOT CAUSAL to gun violence—period. Full stop. Any other conclusion is ILLOGICAL. Let’s make this real simple. If you aren’t out murdering, raping, and robbing with a firearm, then access to firearms doesn’t cause violence. See how easy that is? But what’s good here is subjective. You may not think poverty is good, but there are many who do think it is good. That’s why they subsidize it! You ever do any research on the number of kangaroos in Australia that are wounded and die slow agonizing deaths because hunters tasked with controlling them don’t have access to semiautomatic firearms? Of course you haven’t. You aren’t educated enough on the issue of firearms use to even know it’s a concern. That’s the problem with ignorant people wanting to make laws that affect others but not themselves directly. They aren’t even aware of the problems they cause. If you don’t care about roos, check out the abuse of women in Australia where there is no option for firearms for self protection. Just because some anti gunner blew smoke up your skirt doesn’t mean there aren’t unintended consequences in the real world. You think regulation of militias is achieved through gun laws? LOL. It’s 1793 and a bunch of dudes show up with their arms and form up in front of their officers. An officer says “all right men, in case those red coats come back we need to be ready. So here’s how we are going to do that. We are going to pass universal background check laws, waiting periods, and limit you to two shots per minute rate of fire. Those dang British won’t stand a chance”. LOL You’re positive there can’t be an independent factor causing the poverty and the violence? Can you tell us why some poor people are poor their whole lives and never become violent?
guns are efficient tools to save us from violent criminals. the same ones who prey on women, who you would deny safety. it's a bit cowardly to go after law abiding citizens and not the criminals.
Your arguments are getting weaker to just plain silly..... Yes, you never said all guns were designed to save life, just like I never said all firearms are designed to kill. You knew the subject was firearms that used lethal projectiles not tranquilizer guns when you made that statement. Are we trying to back out now? Who is trying to divert and make things up? Who is cherry picking? Is the US a developed country or not? I said all other developed countries do not have a gun homicide rate near our body count because of stricter gun laws. Then you state "The fact remains, if there are places (anywhere) with liberal gun laws and many guns but very little gun violence, guns and access to guns is NOT CAUSAL to gun violence—period. Full stop." Prove your point, where is that imaginary place? As you would say "GO". Some people think poverty is good that's why it's "subsidized"? What a strange statement. I think it would be entertaining for you to explain that. To defend your over the top scare tactic in a world without guns you bring up kangaroo hunting? Kangaroo hunting is analogous to deer hunting. Do you need a semiautomatic weapon to deer hunt? You don't seem to be educated on how to hunt. This study found that in 2015 there were just 16 justifiable homicides of women killing a man with a gun and 1,686 cases of a man killing a woman with a gun. Most of the men doing the killing were husbands or a significant other and 93% were a man they knew. A women's chances of a violent death increase three fold when there is a gun in the house. This isn't 1793 "LOL" Most poor are peaceful and non-violent. If you didn't know, humans have a range of behaviors. Those behaviors can be influenced by economics, childhood trauma, religiosity, temperament, upbringing, social status, interpersonal relationships.....do I need to go on? Again, that is not what the OP is about and I'm sorry you live in fear of violent criminals.
"Well-regulated" modifies "militia", not arms, and not a single gun control law currently in force is related in any way to the regulation of the militia.
You made a definitive statement. Here it is again. I’ve simply illustrated your statement is incorrect. Vermont is a good example. And it’s very real. North Dakota is another very real example. What’s to explain? You think big business don’t want enough poverty to guarantee a supply of workers willing to work cheap? Have you ever read the classic novel “The Jungle” by Upton Sinclair? I recommend it for your edification on how capitalism and poverty relate. You think politicians don’t want dependent classes of society? The rich can buy politicians, but politicians can afford to buy more poor votes than middle or upper class votes and numbers of votes is what counts. Are you a US citizen? You don’t seem to know much about this joint. Sigh.... You are just making yourself look less and less informed. Kangaroo hunting is for depredation. Deer hunting generally is not. It is VERY illegal to shoot deer after dusk. Kangaroo hunting is mostly done at night with spotlighting. Deer hunters generally only have one or two tags. Professional hunters of kangaroos have no such strict limits. Deer hunting is only allowed in the late fall after fawns are weaned. Kangaroo hunting occurs when joeys are nursing so a wounded nursing female also means a Joey starved to death. Joeys that can be located must be euthanized by law. There are very few similarities between hunting deer and kangaroo. If I hunted deer I would use a semiautomatic firearm because it gives the best chance to get a follow up shot on a wounded animal and animal welfare is central to my life. I prefer semiautomatic firearms even in euthanasia scenarios with domesticated animals based on animal welfare. So you prefer rape and abuse with no recourse for women. Ok. Oh. So the meaning of the Constitution and US code changed a little bit every turn of the calendar page so that in time the text means something entirely different? LOL indeed. Ahhhh. You admit it isn’t access to weapons after all! You were jus putting us on with all that nonsense! I live in fear of criminals? If I feared criminals I would start by locking my door and removing the keys from the hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of vehicles and machinery in my yard. Of course you may be able to find a quote of me saying I’m afraid of violent criminals. Why don’t you go looking. LOL
What's it like to live in a world where you never need to be concerned for your safety, and do you think everyone else lives that way?
I'll stand behind "It is a tool designed specifically to kill efficiently" and your dodge from the subject at hand (lethal weapons) noted. Continue to cherry pick states while I am comparing countries? Okay, let's take Vermont. Their homicide rate is 4.9 homicides per 100k and the UKs is 1.2 per 100k. Isn't that 4 times the homicide rate of you cherry picked state? Ireland BTW has a high poverty rate and a higher crime rate than the US and its homicide rate is 0.9 per 100k. Compare that to my city which was 23 per 100k in 2020. Guns make a difference...not in a good way. Business see low wages as a good thing. I don't know that they see poverty as a good thing. I am sure they would be perfectly happy to see no poverty (because that drains their tax money or bottom line) and low wages plus your "politicians want a dependent class", both sound like right-wing conspiracy theory. There seems to be only one party, anymore, trying get people out of poverty. Then it's back to the kangaroo sideshow. You seem to be under the impression a wounded animal will stand there and wait for you to squeeze off another is why you need a semiautomatic weapon to hunt. Here is an example of a humane kangaroo hunter. He doesn't hunt at night because you will lose the wounded animal in darkness and no joeys are left orphaned and left to run off in the darkness to starve to death. There are other recourses for women who are being abused because if there is a gun in the house it is most likely to be used on her rather than him. So I am more concerned about a women's safety than it appears you are. Your 1793 scenario made little sense. What are you emergently preparing for? So you disagree most poor are peaceful and non-violent? I can see why you live in fear of poor people. It was a reference to the "unorganized" militia.
Point remains: With regard to the right of the people to keep and bear arms, the militia, and however it is regulated, is irrelevant.
No dodge. Just pointing out your errors. I’m going to be very kind and give you the benefit of the doubt and let you correct your erroneous statistic for Vermont homicide rates. You have the chance to show you are taking this seriously. Use that chance wisely. While you are looking up the homicide rate in Vermont, put some thought into what the UK and Vermont have in common that may have an affect on both having very low murder rates. There is NO party trying to get people out of poverty. If this sounds like a right wing conspiracy it’s because you’ve been misinformed by whoever you get your information from. I am a socialist at heart—you won’t get right wing conspiracies on economics from me. Can you explain how a business would convince workers to work for low wages if those workers were all wealthy? Real world negative consequences resulting from the foolish ideas of “progressives” is not a side show. You’ve proven again you know NOTHING about practical use of firearms. If animals stood there waiting for follow up shots you would not need a semiautomatic. The fact they DON’T hang around motionless is why you DO need a semiautomatic to be as humane as possible. So because there is one person in Australia who doesn’t like kangaroos to suffer, we can ignore all the kangaroos that do suffer? That’s nuts. Of course I’m happy this bloke exists and is ethical, but someday, if it hasn’t happened already, he will encounter circumstances where a semiautomatic would be preferable. What, defecating on demand and rape whistles? You do realize “gun in the house” is very different than “gun owned and carried” by the women? Does it ever bother you that statistics like that are used to mislead you? Or do you even notice things like that? Of course since about 90% of all violence/gun violence is perpetrated by men we would expect nothing less than the majority of domestic gun violence being perpetrated by men. Again, you should probably look into the small demographic committing the majority of domestic gun violence. It’s not “legal gun owners” specifically. LOL Well, you changed the definition/meaning of “well regulated” to suit your purposes. I just used a little humor to point out how silly your assertion was that restrictive gun law “regulates” militias today. It probably went over your head because you understand so little of the history of militias. It’s fine, it was more for edification of third parties anyway. Why do you think I’m preparing for something? You make a lot of assumptions without any evidence. It’s habitual in your case it seems. Well, since I lived half my life very poor, I’m pretty aware of how non-violent poor people can be. I never saw or heard a drive by shooting. Never saw any gang activity or violence of any kind. Certainly never any gun violence—even though many of us poor kids had basically unrestricted access to firearms from the age of 8-10 up. By early teen years this poor kid was expected to use firearms for practical purposes when parents weren’t there to do it. On average, I still prefer the company of poor people over more well to do folks even though I’m no longer in poverty myself. Now, what exactly (be very specific, using quotes preferably) makes you think I fear poor people? You say the strangest things—can you explain why you make such statements? [/QUOTE]
[/QUOTE] Oops...maybe to many cocktails. I'm glad someone is alert. Vermont's homicide rate is 1.8 per 100k. My mistake. The US is 5 per 100k. Vermont is largely rural and the poverty rate is 10%. Memphis has roughly the same number of people as the state of Vermont. It is urban with twice the poverty rate (21%) and liberal gun laws. Memphis homicide rate is 28.5 per 100k. London is urban and it's poverty rate is 22% with strict gun laws. It's homicide rate is 1.4 per 100k and still beating Vermont. Do you see a pattern or are we in denial? The Stimulus Bill will cut child poverty in half. It will last a year but Dems hope to extend it. Is one example. What have the Republicans done? Trump's "Opportunity Zones" made money for investors but did little for the distressed neighborhoods it was supposed to go to. Again with the pointless kangaroo sideshow. If you want to debate bolt vs semi go here. Women in the U.S. are 21 times more likely to die by firearm homicides than women in other high-income nations. I noted earlier a study that in 2015 there were 16 justifiable homicides of men and 1,686 cases of men killing women with a gun. You will probably say we don't know how many times a woman was saved by brandishing a gun. We can also say we don't know how many times men coerced, threatened, raped, beat, or wounded with a gun, but by the homicide ratio it may be 100 to 1. 64% of women were killed by a family member or significant other usually at home. Should they carry a gun at home? I did not say women should not have a gun but it is not a simplistic decision as you think and studies have shown owning a gun puts you at greater risk of dying by a gun. An active threat would be her best reason for getting a gun. The fear of the poor comment was for Buri. This is a long way from trying to keep guns out of the hands of criminals per the OP.
Oh yes I see a pattern. But you don’t. You are tantalizingly close when you reference poverty but that isn’t it. How will giving money away cut child poverty in half? If mama buys new earrings and the sperm donor buys crack, where does that leave the child? LOL Unintended consequences of the laws you advocate for are not pointless. I’m sorry you have been shown to be completely ignorant of hunting and animal welfare issues, but consequences of laws must be considered. Your feelings are not relevant. Have you discovered what demographic is perpetrating most of this violence against women in the US? Ok. There are unintended consequences for law abiding people and animals and the environment when laws you advocate for are implemented.
