Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Regulate this! Even Insane Serial Killer Rapists Deserve a Gun!

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Guns Donate to DU
 
texshelters Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-10-11 02:19 PM
Original message
Regulate this! Even Insane Serial Killer Rapists Deserve a Gun!
This is a repost to highlight all the nonsense written against sane gun regulation.
Support the original post here: http://texshelters.wordpress.com/2011/01/10/regulate-this-even-insane-serial-killer-rapists-deserve-a-gun/

Post for all the people who think guns are more important than life, and for the lovely patriots that know guns are for hunting (for food) and defense at home.

God created guns so we could protect ourselves. He also created guns to piss off liberals. Only people who want to give up their rights would pass any kind of law regulating firearms! Remember, guns = liberty. People in the United States are the best in the world at using guns, especially handguns. That means we're the most freedom loving country in the world.

For example, we have the highest rate of firearm deaths of any industrialized country (http://www.wagv.org/gun-violence.php). Our firearm murder rate is nineteen times higher than that of thirty-five other high-income countries combined (ibid). That means we're highly efficient at shooting guns and people in loser countries like Italy can't fire a gun for crap. That's why the Italians change their government every six months. Our democracy functions so well, because of guns, that most of us don't see any reason to vote. Now that's democracy!

Here's proof that firearms protect you. According to the Center for Disease Control (CDC), there were 500 "legal interventions" due to guns in the year 2000. That means 500 people protected themselves with guns. So you see gun haters, guns protect. It's the best way to protect, unless you consider guards dogs. But dogs won't get to kill intruders because people won't enter if they hear them bark. With a gun, you get the good feeling of doing your civic duty and killing. That always makes me feel good.

Please don't read any more of the CDC study and get the funny idea that the 776 unintentional gun deaths (accidents) prove anything about gun safety or gun misuse! So what if there were 276 more gun deaths due to accidents than protection. Moreover, don't read the part that says there were 79 gun related homicides a day in the United States for a total of 28,663. Liberals will use that information to conclude that criminals shouldn't own guns. But what about the Second Amendment, you leftist assholes! The Second Amendment doesn’t say criminals can’t own guns! Once they keep guns out of the hands of insane serial killer rapists, you know whose guns they'll go after next. That's right, yours, mine, and granny's gun! We have a Second Amendment that guarantees the right to a gun, and don't you forget it! (http://www.cdc.gov/mmwR/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5214a2.htm).

Liberals, who don't know a thing about using guns, think that it's a bad thing that so many young people, and especially young black males, get killed with firearms. It's the number one cause of death for black males aged 15-24, and the number two killer of young Hispanics and whites (http://www.wagv.org/gun-violence.php). Just because people die, doesn't mean we should do anything about gun violence.

Leftists in our midst want to say gun deaths are due to guns. However, I know all this gun violence is a result of not having enough firepower in these neighborhoods. If everybody had a gun in poor neighborhoods, there would be fewer deaths, just like carrying guns into universities would stop gun rampages on campuses everywhere. I just proved it, so shut up you liberals! You lost the argument! I am trying to protect the Second Amendment here and you are concerned with a few deaths (28,663) of people I never even met? What the hell is wrong with you?
If they take away guns from a few people, the next thing you know, they'll be arresting you for making copies of protest flyers or talking on the radio and criticizing the president. You see, once they get the guns out of the hands of serial killing rapists, then we will have a fascist dictatorship where everyone will be arrested for any questionable speech! It's a slippery slope we're on, dear patriots.

So what if gun laws were passed because of gun violence. That doesn't prove gun violence caused gun laws. No, gun laws caused the gun violence. Strict gun laws were passed in Washington, D.C. and gun violence just went up! That proves that anti-gun legislation doesn't work and actually causes gun violence. You hate freedom and America if you suggest that guns from Virginia (a state with few gun-owning restrictions just a few miles across the Potomac) cause the gun violence in Washington, D.C. We have the Second Amendment people, and that supersedes any logical argument against gun violence.

The Nazis took away guns from their citizens just before they took over Europe. Gun regulation is the exact same thing as taking away guns (as the Nazis did), you liberal fascists! That proves that if you take guns away from insane serial killer rapists then we will have a fascist state! If only the Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals, intellectuals, and other Nazi targets had had the Second Amendment, they'd still be alive.

If Tibetans protesting their treatment in China had owned guns, they could have protected themselves with groups of armed militias. The Chinese Army wouldn't have had a chance against armed and determined Tibetans. Tibetans need a Second Amendment to ensure their freedom! Then they could have stopped the Chinese like the well-armed Branch Davidians stopped the FTA at Waco with their firearms.

Guns are also used in cases of domestic violence. Whatever happens in the family, including shooting, is private, so butt out! So what if "the risk of intimate partner homicide (is) more than five times compared to instances where there are no weapons (http://www.wagv.org/gun-violence.phpgd)." Besides, an abusive husband has just as much right to a gun as a loving husband under the Second Amendment! There is no clause that prevents a wife beater from owning a gun in the Constitution, so don't think about it you fascists!

If wimpy kids had guns in schools, bullies could be shot! That's why Tex Shelters Industries designed the 22 caliber Nerd-Slinger 3000. At only 4 inches long, it holds 4 deadly 22 caliber bullets and can be hidden in any PDA holder and put out of site. The plastic polymer design will easily get by all gun detectors at schools across America. Beware bullies; death is at your door!

The story of the eight teenage girls who beat up another girl was tragic. Why? Because they didn't have guns! If the attackers had only had guns, they wouldn't have had to beat up their victims. They could have just shot them! And the girls who did the beating and were so concerned with their looks? If they had used guns, they would have had only a few powder burns on them instead of nicks and cuts from the girl as she defended herself against the attack. What kind of country do we live in that gangs attack individuals without carrying the proper firearms? If they had been gangs in the hood, Italian, Black or otherwise, there would have been properly loaded guns on hand. Didn't the girls know they had the Second Amendment right to have a gun?

Dads, are you prepared when you go to your sons hockey, baseball, or basketball games? We have the Ref. Alert-max mini 9 mm sniper rifle for silencing bad officiating at your daughters' soccer games. That father who beat the other dad to death at a hockey game could have saved so much trouble if he only had at the Fan-Foe Silencer 22 mm. The dad who got killed could have protected himself if only he had bought the Fan-Foe before the game. It's a tragedy when parents go unarmed to their children's sporting events because some leftist Democrats hate life, America, the Constitution, and love fascism.

We need to bring guns to anti-war rallies and shoot the opposition. There's no better way to show you are against violence and war than shooting someone. Anti-war protestors should form armed militias today.

Why do lawmakers insist on a minimum age (18 in most states) for gun ownership?! What's next, a minimum age for drinking, voting, or driving! Damn those liberals! They want to keep guns out of the hands of two year olds! Isn't that unconstitutional and against the Second Amendment? The Second Amendment TO THE CONSTITUTION doesn't say we can keep guns out of the hands of 2 year-olds, so it shouldn't be banned! In fact, we should be arming fetuses against their mothers who might want to abort them.

Shut up you liberals! There are too many guns out there to do anything, so why don't you just give up trying to regulate them. Gun deaths are only a black problem anyway, so who really cares. Certainly not Republicans or most Democrats.

We shouldn't let the courts decide if an insane serial killer rapist should have guns, just like we shouldn't let the courts keep people from having sex with underage children if their religion says it's okay. Why should the court prohibit us from forcing religion on heathen children? Any decision the courts make, like upholding freedom of speech, is fascist.

Owning is a gun is a right and we have the Second Amendment. Any attempt to regulate its use or access, as I have proven here, is bad! You're either with us or against us! Some mealy-mouthed liberals talk about regulations like those that we have for cars, safety devices on guns, background checks for owners, and a waiting period to prevent rash decision making and killing. That is just the Nazi inside all liberals talking. Either you will allow anyone, anywhere, any time, have a gun, or you can go to hell!

Now go out and take your best shots, patriots!

Peace,
Tex Shelters

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-10-11 02:24 PM
Response to Original message
1. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-10-11 02:25 PM
Response to Original message
2. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
jody Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-10-11 02:26 PM
Response to Original message
3. Congratulations, you earned the beetle award.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
texshelters Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-10-11 04:22 PM
Response to Reply #3
7. Why thanks
Peace,
Tex Shelters
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
villager Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-10-11 02:31 PM
Response to Original message
4. "guns are more important than life" -- you've boiled down their world view quite well
n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
texshelters Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-10-11 04:22 PM
Response to Reply #4
8. I try. To much right-wing talking
points out there to ignore.

Peace,
Tex Shelters
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SteveM Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-10-11 05:02 PM
Response to Reply #8
10. Yours is culture war. And you have lost.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
texshelters Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-10-11 06:54 PM
Response to Reply #10
16. And your point is
what? What culture war. What ist he point of that comment? How is it a "culture war"?

So, you think NO ONE anywhere in the US wants ANY gun regulations? Do you think everyone ones convicted violent felons to have guns?

I don't think so. You make it a "war" and we all lose.

Peace,
Tex Shelters
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Recursion Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-10-11 02:56 PM
Response to Original message
5. "Just because people die, doesn't mean we should do anything about gun violence."
Edited on Mon Jan-10-11 02:56 PM by Recursion
Oh come on. A lot of us just don't think legally prohibiting guns would do anything to reduce the number of guns and amount of gun violence out there. We've banned pot and cocaine; they're not exactly hard to find.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
texshelters Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-10-11 04:24 PM
Response to Reply #5
9. I didn't say anything about
banning guns, but many people have your condition and consider any regulation a "ban".

Perhaps we should just give up and give everyone and AK-47 and some cocaine then?

Peace,
Tex Shelters
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SteveM Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-10-11 05:04 PM
Response to Reply #9
11. You have discredited yourself again...
Just curious, are you in favor of drug prohibition?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
texshelters Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-10-11 06:56 PM
Response to Reply #11
17. What? How have I discredited myself, because you failed
again to address the topic?

This is about guns, not drugs, and your train just left the tracks with that last comment.

Try to be more coherent and make and actual point and we can discuss the issue.

Peace,
Tex Shelters
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
beevul Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-10-11 05:07 PM
Response to Reply #9
12. Unless you are a medical professional...
You might wish to cease "diagnosing" anyone with a "condition".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
texshelters Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-10-11 06:58 PM
Response to Reply #12
18. I have some training and I diagnose you with
oppositional defiance disorder.

Do you even read the comments, or are you just rejecting them off hand because you are afraid taht someone wants to take your security blanket, gun, away?

Check that again, will ya.

Peace,
Tex Shelters
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
beevul Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-10-11 07:08 PM
Response to Reply #18
22. Mine was a vague reference...
to a rule thats often enforced hereabouts.

Yes. I read the comments.

However, as I said, I was referring to the rules - namely that accusing/diagnosing/insertsemanticshere another poster of being mentally deficient - is generally against them, as far as I can recall.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Katya Mullethov Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-10-11 10:19 PM
Response to Reply #22
34. And labeled me a sexual deviant
Labels freak me out man !
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pipoman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-10-11 05:10 PM
Response to Reply #9
13. What specific regulation are you suggesting?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
texshelters Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-10-11 07:00 PM
Response to Reply #13
19. Two day waiting period, background checks, magazines with
10 or less rounds, registration like for cars, some limits as to locations for guns, home always okay, permits for concealed use, etc.

Peace,
Tex Shelters
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pipoman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-10-11 08:34 PM
Response to Reply #19
23. Let me first say
that I believe there should be demonstrable significant positive impact on society as a whole before effecting any limitations on enumerated civil liberties..any civil liberty.

A two day waiting period..There are many examples of state enacted waiting periods, while 2 days wouldn't really be a problem for me, there is no evidence that they have accomplished anything. Very, very few homicides occur with a newly (within a week) purchased gun..they just don't happen. With that I don't feel that the return justifies the infringement.

Ten rounds or less...may have an occasional effect. There are hundreds of millions of large magazines on the market and in society. I don't see that changing.

Registration..for what purpose? Canada's registration attempt has been unbelievably expensive and hasn't accomplished a single thing. In this most recent incident we (the public) knew the origin of the gun within 3 hours. I don't remember the last criminal case I have heard of which the origin of the gun was a mystery.

There are limitations on locations for guns. None in schools, court houses, and any business which puts up a sign. Chicago and DC had laws in place prohibiting guns in homes.

Most states require permits for concealed carry. I agree it is a good idea from a standpoint of making people understand the responsibility of carrying and assures a basic understanding of firearms safety.

You strike me as honest and well meaning on this subject. I have been following this issue for years. I would like to give my position on changes.

The illusive "gun show loophole"..the private sale of firearms between residents of the same state do not require an NICS background check. All purchases from licensed gun dealers anywhere in the US requires an NICS background check. The issue is that the US government has absolutely no jurisdiction over intrastate sale of personal property, they can't enact legislation requiring background checks between private parties. They also have made no way for a private seller to determine that a prospective buyer is eligible to buy a gun. I believe there should be a way for me as a seller of one of my guns to determine if that person is qualified voluntarily for free or very reasonably.

Of all of the NICS background denials, less than 1% is ever investigated. A denial often means that a person has lied, under penalty of perjury, and is actively trying to buy a gun. It is perplexing to me why these aren't investigated and prosecuted more often than they are. If we can't even investigate these people unlawfully trying to aquire a gun, how can we enforce new laws?

We may disagree, but if you are interested in this subject read back in the threads with an open mind. Right now these threads are pretty incendiary.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
texshelters Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-10-11 09:12 PM
Response to Reply #23
26. two day waiting period will have little effect
but if it saves on life, that's enough for me.

I haven't studied the literature on guns for a while, but investigating backgrounds still seems like a reasonable idea to me.

Any way to reduce gun violence would help. So I am not against trying something new. What were doing isn't working well.

Peace,
Tex Shelters
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pipoman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-10-11 09:33 PM
Response to Reply #26
29. What if it costs one life?
I find it more plausible that if someone is being threatened by a stalker, 2 days may be the difference between life and death.

Actually, according to the FBI we have been on a 20 year decline on violent crime, and a 30 year decline on gun related accidents even though every year there are more guns and over the last 20 years we have gone from 4 states with concealed carry to 46. I can't say that these things are contributing to the lower crime rates, but the certainly don't seem to be effecting crime rates negatively. There are some interesting FBI statistics here:

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/index.cfm?ty=kfa#419



Since 1994 violent crime rates have declined, reaching the lowest level ever in 2009.

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/glance/viort.cfm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
X_Digger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-10-11 10:07 PM
Response to Reply #26
33. Ahh, the 'if one life' canard..
Hey, here's an idea.. let's cut off every person's index finger, then nobody can shoot anyone. It'll definitely save at least one life.

Cool?

*shakes head*
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Katya Mullethov Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-10-11 10:22 PM
Response to Reply #33
35. Damn that might work !
We need forward thinkers like you in DHS . You ever eat a kitten ?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
X_Digger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-10-11 10:28 PM
Response to Reply #35
36. Do dares count? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Katya Mullethov Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-10-11 11:56 PM
Response to Reply #36
38. Hands and feet or no dice
We would still be forced to dwell in the palpitating proliferation of guns and ammo
and easy killing in the feet of the proletariat . Witness the potential for blood letting !
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tlMz2sCDCA4
This could work , but they'll never go for it, unless you do it one phalange at a time .
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eqfan592 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-10-11 09:28 PM
Response to Reply #19
28. And what evidence do you have....
Edited on Mon Jan-10-11 09:35 PM by eqfan592
...that would prove that any of that would actually lead to a reduction in violent crime?

Edit:
You say "If it can save just one life" yet given how statistically insignificant the impact of, say, a 2 day waiting period has been, it's possible that one was lost (remember, people do actually use firearms for defense after all, and there's no way to tell when that need may arise). You will likely dismiss this, but remember it was you that set the standards so low, statistically, with your requirement for only one life being saved.

Much more good would come from us concentrating are efforts on dealing with our poverty and poor education system. These, I feel, are the real causes of our violence problem, not firearms.

And remember, setting up mass shootings as an example of the "main problem" as you have done is a really poor idea, given that mass shootings make up an amazingly small percentage of violent crimes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lawodevolution Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-10-11 11:35 PM
Response to Reply #19
37. "19. Two day waiting period, background checks, magazines with "
Sorry I don't accept any of these foolish restrictions you listed. My donations to various pro-gun rights groups ensure this. Hope this doesn't hurt your feelings too much.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-10-11 03:58 PM
Response to Original message
6. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
bossy22 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-10-11 05:17 PM
Response to Original message
14. This is stupid
this post is childish and doesnt do anything to foster a healthy debate. Also its down right insulting to those of us who may disagree that gun control is the answer.

by posting this all you do is make yourself look silly and childish
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
texshelters Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-10-11 07:06 PM
Response to Reply #14
20. Thanks for your oh so mature feedback.
You are offended because I have mocked the irrational logic of the far-right gun crowd? Okay. And you found that "immature"? Fine. I was actually mocking the irrational, illogical, knee-jerk defense against any reasonable gun control.

How can you foster debate with people that think background checks are a slippery slope toward facism? Really? I have tried the "rational debate" route, and the nut jobs just come out of the woodwork and reject any reasonable suggestions. They insults and deride and it's a waste of time.

Do you see how well it all went for Obama, this "reasonableness"?

I hope that you write a "mature reasonable post" about what you feel, and actually try to make an argument for responsible regulation and see what you get.

This approach comes from experience with gun fetishists.

Thanks.

Peace,
Tex Shelters
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Katya Mullethov Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-10-11 09:01 PM
Response to Reply #20
24. I 'm still looking for volunteers
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=351287&mesg_id=352940

Please mind your language about gun fetishists . Challenging or debasing of one's sexuality is a violation of board rules . We must embrace our diversity if we are ever to achieve our goal of a peaceful Utopia .



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
texshelters Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-10-11 09:09 PM
Response to Reply #24
25. You are the one who took the work "fetish" to a sexaul place that
I didn't intend. Perhaps you should evaluate your own mind on this.

Thanks.

Peace,
Tex Shelters
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Katya Mullethov Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-10-11 09:16 PM
Response to Reply #25
27. But it's who I am
Are you challenging my right to that personal choice ?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Straw Man Donating Member (986 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-10-11 05:25 PM
Response to Original message
15. Don't...
...give up your day job.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
texshelters Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-10-11 07:07 PM
Response to Reply #15
21. Ha ha, what an original retort
to a very original post.

Sorry it's too difficult for you to make an actual comment about.

Read it more carefully and you might actually have an original thought next time.

Peace,
Tex Shelters
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Straw Man Donating Member (986 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-10-11 09:38 PM
Response to Reply #21
30. A slightly more original response:
What a sad collection of overblown classist clichés, monumental straw men, and puerile attempts at humor. If this is what passes for satire these days, Jonathan Swift must be doing the dervish dance in his grave.

In other words, don't give up your day job.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eqfan592 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-10-11 09:40 PM
Response to Reply #21
31. Wow, that's kinda sad....
...that you think your post was original I mean. ;)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
friendly_iconoclast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-10-11 09:47 PM
Response to Reply #31
32. Self-anointed guardians of morality here *always* think they're original and witty,
smarter than their opponents, and they just looove the sound of their own voices.

In other words- just like Beck,Palin, O'Reilly and Limbaugh...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Euromutt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-11-11 04:53 AM
Response to Original message
39. That's got to be the biggest straw man I've ever seen (and I've seen some pretty big ones)
For example, we have the highest rate of firearm deaths of any industrialized country (http://www.wagv.org/gun-violence.php ).

So what? A person who's been shot to death is no more dead than a person who gets beaten, knifed or strangled to death. What matters is the overall homicide rate, not the means by which it's achieved. The Russians and Estonians manage to murder each other by means other than firearms with a higher frequency than Americans with firearms.

According to the Center for Disease Control (CDC), there were 500 "legal interventions" due to guns in the year 2000. That means 500 people protected themselves with guns.

No, it means 500 people died from gunshot wounds inflicted either by law enforcement ("legal intervention") or by private citizens in self-defense (yeah, the CDC calls that "undetermined"). That number does not reflect the number of assailants non-fatally wounded and/or driven to flight or surrender. That number has been estimated by various sources as ranging from 750,000 to 2.5 million annually; admittedly, that was in the 1990s, and since violent crime has dropped by about half since then, the number of defensive gun uses (DGUs)

With a gun, you get the good feeling of doing your civic duty and killing.

Rarely. In over 90% of DGUs, no shots are fired.

So what if there were 276 more gun deaths due to accidents than protection.

We don't count the effectiveness of firearms as tools of personal defense by the number of bodies in the morgue, just like we don't measure the effectiveness of a police department by how many people its members shoot every year.

Moreover, don't read the part that says there were 79 gun related homicides a day in the United States for a total of 28,663.

Work on your reading comprehension. It doesn't say "28,663 gun related homicides," it says "28,663 gun related deaths," and the sentence immediately goes to break down those deaths into suicides (57.9%), homicides (37.7%), unintentional (2.7%) and legal interventions/"undetermined" (1.7%).

So over half those gun-related deaths are suicides. The U.S. suicide rate is quite unremarkable compared to other industrialized nations, and notably lower than those of countries like Russia or Japan, in spite of those countries having pretty stringent laws on private gun ownership. It is reasonable to surmise, therefore, that tightening laws on private firearms ownership in the United States would not reduce the number of suicides, but simply lead to method substitution.

The homicides are a problem, but it's worth bearing in mind that the U.S.'s non-firearm homicide rate is higher than the overall homicide rates of many industrialized nations. There are other factors at work besides guns, and it's not inconceivable that those play a larger role than firearms laws. There isn't country on Earth where it's impossible to acquire a firearm illegally if one so desires, and organized criminals do, even in China.

The Second Amendment doesn’t say criminals can’t own guns!

It kind of does, actually. It says that the right of the people to keep and bear firearms shall not be infringed. Given that, at the time of writing, the standard punishment for felonies (which were far fewer in number then than they are now) was death or banishment, convicted criminals ceased to be members of "the people" (and thus had no right to keep and bear arms) in a very real sense.

As for the rest of your post, find me someone on this forum who actually advocates any of the things you've said, and I'll be willing to address that point. But for the most part, it's just one big straw man.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Apr 23rd 2024, 03:37 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Guns Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC