How gun advocates are bad at math

[RF667799]

Really?
Where's the evidence that all government eventually turns on the people.

One Brit poster here proudly told that concentration camps were invented by your government. Not to mention the fact that we found it necessary to give your guys the boot as they got too overbearing.

Of course, the American government didn't always treat its own citizens well, either. Massacres were sometimes the order of the day.

I dunno...maybe it would be easier if you had an example of a government that has been ever benevolent and kind...and even then I would say they maybe just haven't had enough time.

 

[Rich2018]

Really?
Where's the evidence that all government eventually turns on the people.

There is none. Zero, null, nada, zilch...

 

[jaeger19]

Yeah the UK has had a trustworthy government since 1688

I wonder why Americans make poor statesmen and politicians ?

They are too busy dealing with the effed up world that was left by the British Empire.

 

[Craig234]

If the word Militia is not important why is it there?

I often ask gun nuts why the 2nd doesn't simply say, 'the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed'. Other right don't have those qualifiers. It doesn't say, 'a well-regulates pretty industry, being essential to a free society, the right to free speech shall not be infringed'.

 

[RF667799]

I often ask gun nuts why the 2nd doesn't simply say, 'the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed'. Other right don't have those qualifiers. It doesn't say, 'a well-regulates pretty industry, being essential to a free society, the right to free speech shall not be infringed'.

It does simply say that. It also announces the federal government's interest in protecting the right.

 

[jaeger19]

I often ask gun nuts why the 2nd doesn't simply say, 'the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed'. Other right don't have those qualifiers. It doesn't say, 'a well-regulates pretty industry, being essential to a free society, the right to free speech shall not be infringed'.

Because it's not a qualifier..
Just as being secure in their " papers and homes"...doesn't qualify the right to privacy to only papers and homes.

The founders didn't envision automobiles and computers.
Nor did the founders..who SHOT EACH OTHER IN DUELS...envisioned America being a country of pantywaists that would want to disarm themselves by obsessing over the word militia.

 

[Peter]

They are too busy dealing with the effed up world that was left by the British Empire.

Why would we blame something that ended a century ago?
The Empire is history.

 

[Rich2018]

They are too busy dealing with the effed up world that was left by the British Empire.

And that makes them so untrustworthy ?

 

[JMB1911A1]

We don't care what the UK did.

Yup, not since 1783.

 

[Rich2018]

Yup, not since 1783.

Whereas the UK is open to learning from other country's militaries.

 

[jaeger19]

Why would we blame something that ended a century ago?
The Empire is history.

So is American slavery..
And that still has a profound effect today
As does the British Empire.

 

[washunut]

Gun advocates want perfect, one-sided policy effects. Whatever the policy on guns it has to be all good or all bad. A mix is too complicated.

Fact is, policies largely have those mixed effect. Some good, some bad. More of one than the other.

But gun advocates look only at one thing: thinking of themselves facing a criminal with a gun threatening them, and they ask, would they rather have a gun to defend themselves, or not? They'd rather have a gun. End of story, unlimited guns.

They are completely blind to issues such as the presence of guns in society leading to increased shootings. How situations escalate to shootings that otherwise wouldn't because guns are there, how criminals obtain many of their guns from theft or private sales.

To them, because criminals don't follow laws, criminals will always have an unlimited supply of guns that grow on trees, leaving an unprotected society if there are gun laws.

In the hypothetical situation that a law reducing guns would save 10,000 lives, but 100 people who could have defended themselves are killed, their math is that 100 > 10,000. Only that 100 matter. They're blinded to anything else. Any discussion revolves around their fantasy of having a gun against a criminal with one, or not having one.

I will start by saying that I am not a gun owner and have never owned one.

IMHO the problem with this thread is a problem I see in many of your posts. That is you fail to understand the other side of most debates here. There are at least to sides to most issues. Gun advocates have a point about self-defense. That is not to say that some/many gun owners are not concerned about the many deaths caused by guns.

Not everyone that takes the other side of your point on this or any other isue is either stupid or evil.

 

[RF667799]

I will start by saying that I am not a gun owner and have never owned one.

IMHO the problem with this thread is a problem I see in many of your posts. That is you fail to understand the other side of most debates here. There are at least to sides to most issues. Gun advocates have a point about self-defense. That is not to say that some/many gun owners are not concerned about the many deaths caused by guns.

Not everyone that takes the other side of your point on this or any other isue is either stupid or evil.

What is at least partially my intention to point out, when I note how nearly everyone- including gun control extremists- accepts the collateral death that goes along with their love of private automobiles. Deaths that could be largely avoided at the cost of some significant inconvenience.

 

[Rich2018]

So is American slavery..
And that still has a profound effect today
As does the British Empire.

But whilst the British Emoire has left a positive legacy around the world, the same cannot be said about slavery in the USA.

 

[RF667799]

But whilst the British Emoire has left a positive legacy around the world, the same cannot be said about slavery in the USA.

Heh. Comparing an entire empire to a small facet of America.

And of course America is part of the legacy of the British empire. It's just we got tired of their shit and showed them the door.

 

[jaeger19]

But whilst the British Emoire has left a positive legacy around the world, the same cannot be said about slavery in the USA.

Yeah..the British Empire did not leave a "positive legacy" around the world
Wow..."slavery in the usa"

AN EMPIRE OF SLAVERY.
Slavery formed a cornerstone of the British Empire in the 18th century. Every colony had enslaved people, from the southern rice plantations in Charles Town, South Carolina, to the northern wharves of Boston.
Slavery was more than a labor system; it also influenced every aspect of colonial thought and culture. The uneven relationship it engendered gave white colonists an exaggerated sense of their own status. English liberty gained greater meaning and coherence for white people when they contrasted their status to that of the unfree class of enslaved black people in British America.
African slavery provided white colonists with a shared racial bond and identity.
Slavery and the British Empire
The transport of enslaved people to the American colonies accelerated in the second half of the 17th century. In 1660, English monarch Charles II created the Royal African Company to trade in enslaved people and African goods. His brother, James II, led the company before ascending the throne.
Under both these kings, the Royal African Company enjoyed a monopoly to transport enslaved people to the English colonies. Between 1672 and 1713, the company bought 125,000 captives on the African coast, losing 20 percent of them to death on the Middle Passage—the journey from the African coast to the Americas.

 

[jaeger19]

Heh. Comparing an entire empire to a small facet of America.

And of course America is part of the legacy of the British empire. It's just we got tired of their shit and showed them the door.

Gee.. you know rich must have learned a different us history than I did. I recall that the institution of slavery in " america" STARTED WHEN AMERICA WAS A BRITISH COLONY!.

 

[poppopfox]

Theft from gun lawful gun owners is not a significant source of guns to criminals.

GUN THEFT IN AMERICA

Every day in the U.S., roughly 1 gun is stolen every 90 seconds. That amounts to around 380,000 stolen guns every year, many of which are later used to commit violent crimes. People buy guns to help protect themselves, but when they don’t protect them from being stolen, they’re putting themselves and their communities in danger.

But that number is insignificant to you, am I right?

I appreciate your openess and understanding that the Second Amendment protects the rights of lawful gun owners.

Does that include the 'right' for lawful gun owners to be careless with their firearms? I don't see that phrase in the 2A.

 

[jaeger19]

GUN THEFT IN AMERICA

Every day in the U.S., roughly 1 gun is stolen every 90 seconds. That amounts to around 380,000 stolen guns every year, many of which are later used to commit violent crimes. People buy guns to help protect themselves, but when they don’t protect them from being stolen, they’re putting themselves and their communities in danger.

But that number is insignificant to you, am I right?


Does that include the 'right' for lawful gun owners to be careless with their firearms? I don't see that phrase in the 2A.

1. Well it appears that number isn't significant to you.. you keep trying to take my firearms away and or making it hard for law abiding citizens to purchase firearms legally.
When clearly your own data indicates criminals get them from theft.

 

[RF667799]

GUN THEFT IN AMERICA

Every day in the U.S., roughly 1 gun is stolen every 90 seconds. That amounts to around 380,000 stolen guns every year, many of which are later used to commit violent crimes. People buy guns to help protect themselves, but when they don’t protect them from being stolen, they’re putting themselves and their communities in danger.

But that number is insignificant to you, am I right?


Does that include the 'right' for lawful gun owners to be careless with their firearms? I don't see that phrase in the 2A.

A company that sells storage "solutions" is a great source for non-hyperbolic commentary on this topic.

 

[poppopfox]

1. Well it appears that number isn't significant to you.. you keep trying to take my firearms away and or making it hard for law abiding citizens to purchase firearms legally.

Petty projection. Immature debate tactic as well. Do better.

When clearly your own data indicates criminals get them from theft.

The data comes from the NIH. The epidemiology of Gun theft victims

Now, how about you address your comrade's claim that those numbers are insignificant?

 

[Rich2018]

Yeah..the British Empire did not leave a "positive legacy" around the world

Absolutely it did.

Wow..."slavery in the usa"

An institution that caused great harm and is responsible for racial hatred to this day
I guess the writers of the Declaration of Independence forgot about slaves when writing about "unalienable rights" and "all men are created equal", huh ?

AN EMPIRE OF SLAVERY.
Slavery formed a cornerstone of the British Empire in the 18th century.

No it didn't, not in the slightest.

Every colony had enslaved people, from the southern rice plantations in Charles Town, South Carolina, to the northern wharves of Boston.

The American colonies perhaps.

Slavery was more than a labor system; it also influenced every aspect of colonial thought and culture. The uneven relationship it engendered gave white colonists an exaggerated sense of their own status. English liberty gained greater meaning and coherence for white people when they contrasted their status to that of the unfree class of enslaved black people in British America.

Nope, and Britain did more to eradicate slavery than any other country.

The transport of enslaved people to the American colonies accelerated in the second half of the 17th century. In 1660, English monarch Charles II created the Royal African Company to trade in enslaved people and African goods. His brother, James II, led the company before ascending the throne.

Yep, American colonies offered a booming market for slaves before and after independence
With many of those slave ships being American.

Under both these kings, the Royal African Company enjoyed a monopoly to transport enslaved people to the English colonies. Between 1672 and 1713, the company bought 125,000 captives on the African coast, losing 20 percent of them to death on the Middle Passage—the journey from the African coast to the Americas.

Yep, as I said the American colonies/states offered a booming market for slaves before and after independence.

 

[RF667799]

Absolutely it did.



An institution that caused great harm and is responsible for racial hatred to this day
I guess the writers of the Declaration of Independence forgot about slaves when writing about "unalienable rights" and "all men are created equal", huh ?



No it didn't, not in the slightest.



The American colonies perhaps.



Nope, and Britain did more to eradicate slavery than any other country.



Yep, American colonies offered a booming market for slaves before and after independence
With many of those slave ships being American.



Yep, as I said the American colonies/states offered a booming market for slaves before and after independence.

Looks like the British monarchy had personal investment in the institution of slavery.

 

[Rich2018]

Now, how about you address your comrade's claim that those numbers are insignificant?

There was a poster on here, now banned, called TurtleDude, who called the victims of mass shootings "statistically insignificant".

 

[RF667799]

There was a poster on here, now banned, called TurtleDude, who called the victims of mass shootings "statistically insignificant".

They are, depending on comparison.

For instance, if you compare them to the victims of the now defunct British empire, they're scarcely visible.