Mass shooting at Madden tournament in Jacksonville

[PocketZeven]

It kinda does in the bigger picture. Whats the biggest deterrent?

But do you also agree if i somehow feel threatened by my governement or a country I will need to arm myself with nuclear weapons to properly be able to defend myself? Do you think a person should have that as a right?

 

[Blood Eagle]

But do you also agree if i somehow feel threatened by my governement or a country I will need to arm myself with nuclear weapons to properly be able to defend myself? Do you think a person should have that as a right?

 

[ImaRobot]

But do you also agree if i somehow feel threatened by my governement or a country I will need to arm myself with nuclear weapons to properly be able to defend myself? Do you think a person should have that as a right?

Um... what? Who in the world has that right? Isn't that a bit too extreme of a scenario to be used in this discussion?

 

[PocketZeven]

Um... what? Who in the world has that right? Isn't that a bit too extreme of a scenario to be used in this discussion?

I agree that its extreme. But you are talking about the right to defend yourself. The idea of the 2nd amendment was the right to bear arms, to defend oneself against a tyrannical goverment. A gun would not be very usefull weapon against that. My whole point is that owning a gun should be a privilege and not a right.

edit: cleaned up post

 

[ImaRobot]

I agree that its extreme. But you are talking about the right to defend yourself. the idea of the 2nd amandment was the right to bear arms, to defend oneself against a tyrannical goverment. A gun would not be very usefull weapon against that. My whole point is that owning a gun should be a privilege and not a right.

I'm really not understanding how that is proving any kind of points you've been discussing about guns. It just seems a distraction from the discussion.

 

[PocketZeven]

I'm really not understanding how that is proving any kind of points you've been discussing about guns. It just seems a distraction from the discussion.

The discussion isnt about just guns and its role in mass shootings. It is also about the unique postition it has in US law. I already argued how dated the 2nd amendment is and should be ratified to modern times. It isnt about the right to defend oneself, It is about the us constitutional right to "bear arms".

 

[McLaren]

But I didnt claim it was to defend themselves as you stated. I was saying exactly what you are saying. Criminals arm themselves to have an advantage over their victims. The more armed a potential victim is, the more the criminal need to arm themselves to keep an advantage.

You said a criminal is forced to arm himself if we have guns. That’s bull****; nobody forces criminals to arm themselves the same way nobody forces them to be a criminal in the first place.

A criminal is armed regardless if the individual has his own weapon. That’s the whole basis of letting people keep their weapons; the more armed a population is, the less incentive there is to rob people. Dearm the population, the criminal remains armed for easier victims.

 

[Danoff]

The discussion isnt about just guns and its role in mass shootings. It is also about the unique postition it has in US law. I already argued how dated the 2nd amendment is and should be ratified to modern times. It isnt about the right to defend oneself, It is about the us constitutional right to "bear arms".

The 2nd amendment doesn't preclude permits. It doesn't need to be amended for that. These kinds of comments make me think you're after a larger ban, which you keep saying you aren't.

 

[PocketZeven]

You said a criminal is forced to arm himself if we have guns. That’s bull****; nobody forces criminals to arm themselves the same way nobody forces them to be a criminal in the first place.

A criminal is armed regardless if the individual has his own weapon. That’s the whole basis of letting people keep their weapons; the more armed a population is, the less incentive there is to rob people. Dearm the population, the criminal remains armed for easier victims.

I meant forced in the sense of neccesitate to keep an advantage.

Not all criminals are armed.

Less incentive to rob= less robberies? Yet this doesnt show in statistics?

The 2nd amendment doesn't preclude permits. It doesn't need to be amended for that. These kinds of comments make me think you're after a larger ban, which you keep saying you aren't.

I perhaps used too extreme examples to express my point. The amendment states keeping and bearing arms as a right. This puts it in the same league as the right to owning a house, car etc. which are all covered by the right to property. A right should not exclude anyone based on race, gender etc. But in my opinion bearing and keeping arms should be earned as a privilege. By being law abiding, trained etc. thats why I think it should be amended.

edit: corrected a wrong sentence

 

[Danoff]

Less incentive to rob= less robberies?

Not less incentive to rob. Less incentive to rob specific people.

 

[PocketZeven]

Not less incentive to rob. Less incentive to rob specific people.

So if everybody was armed, there would be less robberies?

 

[Danoff]

So if everybody was armed, there would be less robberies?

That doesn't follow from what I said. There could be exactly the same incentive to rob, and less incentive to choose one person over another.

If given the choice between robbing someone they think is armed and robbing someone they think is not, a criminal will choose the unarmed person (unless they're insane/high). That does not mean they would be law abiding citizens if they were given the choice between robbing two people they think are armed. It also does not mean they would be more likely to rob if both people were unarmed.

 

[PocketZeven]

That doesn't follow from what I said. There could be exactly the same incentive to rob, and less incentive to choose one person over another.

If given the choice between robbing someone they think is armed and robbing someone they think is not, a criminal will choose the unarmed person (unless they're insane/high). That does not mean they would be law abiding citizens if they were given the choice between robbing two people they think are armed. It also does not mean they would be more likely to rob if both people were unarmed.

Yes but the USA is a country where the victims are more likely then not going to be armed compared to other countries. Should that not deter criminals from robbing more statistically then in my country, where the majority does not have guns? I also assume criminals dont know who is armed or not.

Or is your view, that if us citizens did not have guns, crime would rise higher?

 

[rono_thomas]

Yes but the USA is a country where the victims are more likely then not going to be armed compared to other countries. Should that not deter criminals from robbing more statistically then in my country, where the majority does not have guns? I also assume criminals dont know who is armed or not.

Or is your view, that if us citizens did not have guns, crime would rise higher?

Crime is influenced by more than just guns.

 

[PocketZeven]

Crime is influenced by more than just guns.

Sorry we were specifically talking about robbery. I should have been more specific.

 

[Danoff]

Yes but the USA is a country where the victims are more likely then not going to be armed compared to other countries. Should that not deter criminals from robbing more statistically then in my country, where the majority does not have guns?

Only if you're talking about criminals that are shopping around which country they want to rob people in.

Or is your view, that if us citizens did not have guns, crime would rise higher?

It depends on the manner in which they do not have guns. If they do not have guns because it became illegal to own them overnight, and so millions of law abiding citizens turned in their guns but people with illegal guns for the purpose of committing crimes do not... well then yes I would expect crime to rise. If you could magically erase all guns (illegal and legal), first I'd wonder why you didn't just magically erase the illegal ones. Assuming you can only magically erase both illegal and legal guns together, I would expect changes in the overall profile of types of crimes that occur. Different offenses should become more or less prevalent. I'm not sure what would happen to the crime rate overall.

Things I know would happen if you could wave a wand and eliminate all guns
- mass shootings would dissapper
- suicide by gun would cease
- segments of the population would be less able to defend themselves
- gun accidents would be eliminated
- people would still murder each other

Things I do not know would happen if you could wave a wand and eliminate all guns
- mass killings would decrease
- suicide would decrease
- crime would go down/up

Keep in mind that the non-gun US murder rate is higher than the UK's entire murder rate.

Sorry we were specifically talking about robbery. I should have been more specific.

Robbery is influenced by more than just guns.

 

[McLaren]

I meant forced in the sense of neccesitate to keep an advantage.

An armed civilian negates an armed criminal’s advantage. Criminals are not armed to combat armed civilians, what point of this escapes you?

Less incentive to rob= less robberies? Yet this doesnt show in statistics?

Why not? That’s how your logic was flowing a couple pages ago. Less of 1=less of another.

The less incentive comes from what danoff said; if you know the population is armed, there’s less incentive to attempt to rob them. I didnt say it would stop robberies altogether. You yourself have already said most robberies happen when no ones home.

 

[stonesfan129]

But do you also agree if i somehow feel threatened by my governement or a country I will need to arm myself with nuclear weapons to properly be able to defend myself? Do you think a person should have that as a right?

Those types of weapons were not intended by the founding fathers for everyday people to keep in their homes. Did anyone in those days own a cannon, artillery or have a warship parked on their dock? No. But they did have muskets and other firearms of the time. Small arms are what the founders intended everyday people to own and this is supported by years of court opinion as well. Asking if someone can have nukes because it doesn't specifically say it is like saying someone should be able to yell fire in a crowded theater because the first amendment.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Did anyone in those days own a cannon, artillery or have a warship parked on their dock? No.

They did though. It's a poor argument. As with most of Europe there was as much heavy armament in the hands of the landowners as there was in the hands of the monarchy (or government, where applicable).

 

[Dotini]

They did though. It's a poor argument. As with most of Europe there was as much heavy armament in the hands of the landowners as there was in the hands of the monarchy (or government, where applicable).

Somerset's advance at Tewksbury, War of the Roses

 

[TenEightyOne]

Somerset's advance at Tewksbury, War of the Roses

Indeed. That's always a tough period for me to consider having been adopted into a half-Lancastrian half-Yorkshire family

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

Yes but the USA is a country where the victims are more likely then not going to be armed compared to other countries. Should that not deter criminals from robbing more statistically then in my country, where the majority does not have guns? I also assume criminals dont know who is armed or not.

Or is your view, that if us citizens did not have guns, crime would rise higher?

Say who? So you used a stat that was very general quite a bit here. Where you took the number of weapons legally in circulation and then did a flat comparison to the population size. Now while that is easy for showing the gravity of how many fire arms per capita the U.S. has or [Insert other gun friendly countries], it doesn't not actually correlate to that many people having a gun.

In fact it has been shown that a very small sector of the population owns guns, in other words (who'd of guessed it) a gun owner is more likely to have more than one weapon and thus that ratio of weapons to population becomes quite empty. So to bring this back full circle you can not say that victims in the U.S. are more likely then not going to be armed. In fact all you've done is hinge much of your argument on simple stats knowledge and reject other things to keep arguing a supposedly clear (it's not) view that more guns =/= less crime. We actually don't know that, and to @Danoff 's point it doesn't really matter since there is a human right for people to protect themselves.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...as-guns/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.7d80e14866bf

so when less than a quarter of the entire population owns 50% of the guns in legal circulation, and less than 5% owns the other 50% of that, it's quite telling that most of the population in fact doesn't own a weapon. This could then mean why crime is still quite high, but as @rono_thomas said crime tends to have many factors one why it happens and can't be settled on just one.

 

[rono_thomas]

Motive then means.

 

[PocketZeven]

An armed civilian negates an armed criminal’s advantage. Criminals are not armed to combat armed civilians, what point of this escapes you?


Why not? That’s how your logic was flowing a couple pages ago. Less of 1=less of another.

The less incentive comes from what danoff said; if you know the population is armed, there’s less incentive to attempt to rob them. I didnt say it would stop robberies altogether. You yourself have already said most robberies happen when no ones home.

I am trying to follow your logic which doesnt make sense for me. You arm yourself to defend against criminals to get an advantage. But in my country civilians and these criminals cant arm themselves with guns so the criminal arm themselves perhaps with a knife. In the USA however they civilians are very likely to have a gun, so a criminal almost certain need to have a gun to not have a disadvantage.

The point isnt escaping me. You have to look at the point of view of a criminal. He does not know with a certainty which civilian has or does not have a gun. So he needs to carry one to not have a disadvantage. In a potential gunfight, the person who draws first and has the element of surprise always has the advantage. I dont see how this negates the advantage of a criminal? I rather prefer to have the majority of criminals to not have guns.

In your logic, because there are lots of people with guns in the usa. Therefor less incentive to rob these areas. So in the statistics areas with large gun ownership should have less robberies then areas with little gunownership? Because the criminals have more incentive to rob areas with less gunownership?

In the case of homicides I have seen numbers where there are more homicides in areas with large concentrated gunownership. In the links I posted there is no edvidence that gunownership makes you safer.

Those types of weapons were not intended by the founding fathers for everyday people to keep in their homes. Did anyone in those days own a cannon, artillery or have a warship parked on their dock? No. But they did have muskets and other firearms of the time. Small arms are what the founders intended everyday people to own and this is supported by years of court opinion as well. Asking if someone can have nukes because it doesn't specifically say it is like saying someone should be able to yell fire in a crowded theater because the first amendment.

How do you know what the founding fathers intended? There were no Nuclear bombs, or even weapons with bullets at the time they wrote it. I am certain they didnt intend that civilians would use guns against each other over a disagreement, used in mass school shootings, because a person is mentally unhealthy. I am also pretty much certain they meant that the right to keep and bear arms was in the context of a well formed militia. The point is without them here to explain what they intended, one can intrepet the text a lot of ways. One of the reasons it should be updated or changed.

edit: cleaned up post

 

[BobK]

In the USA however they civilians are very likely to have a gun

WRONG

This has been pointed out to you but you continue to ignore it.

edit: cleaned up post

...and still got it wrong.

 

[PocketZeven]

WRONG

This has been pointed out to you but you continue to ignore it.


...and still got it wrong.

88 guns per 100 capita
With an estimate of 22-30% owning at least 1 gun

 

[Johnnypenso]

88 guns per 100 capita
With an estimate of 22-30% owning at least 1 gun

22-30% =/= very likely. It means it's very likely that they do not own a firearm.

 

[PocketZeven]

22-30% =/= very likely. It means it's very likely that they do not own a firearm.

I said it in the context compared to other countries.

 

[McLaren]

I am trying to follow your logic which doesnt make sense for me. You arm yourself to defend against criminals to get an advantage.

Wrong.

You arm yourself to negate their advantage.

But in my country civilians and these criminals cant arm themselves with guns so the criminal arm themselves perhaps with a knife. In the USA however they civilians are very likely to have a gun, so a criminal almost certain need to have a gun to not have a disadvantage.

Wrong.

1. Criminals use knives here as well. Arming yourself negates that advantage as well although in the US, using a weapon in self defense against a criminal with a knife requires absolute proof your life was in immediate danger.
2. Compared to other countries, maybe. In reality, only 25% of the US population has a weapon.

In reality, only about 25 percent of Americans own a gun.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...wners-thats-a-problem/?utm_term=.8f3414692ef0

Gun ownership is also on the decline.

For each respondent, we compared that forecast with their estimate of the current population of gun owners, to see how they thought things would change. Sixteen percent thought gun owners would become a smaller percentage of the population; 12 percent thought there would be no change; and a whopping 72 percent thought gun ownership would expand. That’s extraordinary, considering that 30 years of data show either a decline or rough stability in personal gun ownership.

The number of American households with guns has dropped 19 percentage points from 50 percent in 1977 to 31 percent in 2014 according to the General Social Survey of the National Opinion Research Center, which has surveyed about 2,000 Americans on the same set of questions since the early 1970's.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/despit...-of-households-owning-guns-is-on-the-decline/

The point isnt escaping me. You have to look at the point of view of a criminal. He does not know with a certainty which civilian has or does not have a gun. So he needs to carry one to not have a disadvantage.

He already has an advantage carrying; only 25% of the population carries a weapon. Out of 4 possible people he could rob, only 1 is likely to brandish a weapon.

In a potential gunfight, the person who draws first and has the element of surprise always has the advantage. I dont see how this negates the advantage of a criminal?

Civilians and criminals aren't looking for gunfights to begin with; neither wants to lose a life. Most criminals looking to brandish a weapon more than likely don't intend to use it. It's there for intimidation & to force cooperation.

In your logic, because there are lots of people with guns in the usa. Therefor less incentive to rob these areas. So in the statistics areas with large gun ownership should have less robberies then areas with little gunownership? Because the criminals have more incentive to rob areas with less gunownership?

That's not what I said, now was it?

If you know the population is armed, there’s less incentive to attempt to rob them. I didnt say it would stop robberies altogether.

Them, as in face-to-face. Robbing an area is a different matter completely; again, most robberies happen with the victims gone. For a criminal, that eliminates the chance of an armed person altogether.

 

[BobK]

88 guns per 100 capita

You are simply obsessed with that 88 guns per capita, as if it means that for every 100 people, very nearly 88 of them (a) own a gun and (b) have it with them at all times.

Get this straight: It does not mean that.