The Second Amendment

[walle]

Originally Posted by wgy

"Guns dont kill people, people kill people" is quite possibly the most ridiculous catch phrase of pro gun figure heads.

It's true, you don't have to like it though.

Hammers and knives are used to kill more people than guns, another truth. Perhaps you would view it as another catch phrase by pro hammer and knive figure heads when they point out that hammers and knives don't kill people, but people do.

And yet people kill people with hammers and knives.

[GeorgeK]

Originally Posted by walle

Hammers and knives are used to kill more people than guns

Not true I'm afraid - the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime has statistics which show that in the US the percentage of homicides by firearm varied between 66% and 67.9% every year between 2003-2010 (which is where the data I have finishes) - this being around 11,000 deaths per year.

[walle]

I wasn't focusing only on the United States,

Point here is that people are being killed, and more are being killed from hammer and knive wounds than from gun wounds.

[mucgoo]

walle I've already pointed out to you that that is completely wrong in the other thread.

[GeorgeK]

Originally Posted by walle

I wasn't focusing only on the United States,

Point here is that people are being killed, and more are being killed from hammer and knive wounds than from gun wounds.

But would these mass killings be able to happen if the bloke just had a knife or a hammer? Don't think so

[DXR_13KE]

Originally Posted by walle

I wasn't focusing only on the United States,

But the thread is about the United States...

[walle]

Originally Posted by mucgoo

walle I've already pointed out to you that that is completely wrong in the other thread.

Nope, you're wrong, unless you include suicides and accidents.

Originally Posted by GeorgeK

But would these mass killings be able to happen if the bloke just had a knife or a hammer? Don't think so

I was talking about numbers, numbers of people killed.

[mucgoo]

If your talking globally then its reasonable to request a source. I'm unable to find one for the globe.

[wgy]

Originally Posted by walle

Hammers and knives are used to kill more people than guns...

Globally, possibly. Yes, people with hammers could kill people. People kill people regardless.

But a hammer is first and foremost a tool. Used by beyond vast amounts of the populous for its intended use. Same goes for the knife, first and foremost a tool. Essential to many for their occupations and living.

However in response to these mass shootings and the USA's ease of facilitating the perpertrator with the tools of this particularly nasty trade... a semi automatic is a weapon. Its sole purpose is to end life. Not hammer in nails or fillet a fish.

The mass murderer has the hammer in his tool box already. So why make his life easier and give him an M16?

I don't believe Americans should or would give up the right to bear arms. But i wold love to see a much stricter plan in place for anyone buying a firearm. Even more so if its anything but a hand gun.

When Walmart stop selling semi autos, i will regain a little faith in America's direction.

[adidan]

Originally Posted by siliconfanatic

Frankly, ITS IN THE BILL OF RIGHTS

Yes well originally the bill of rights only applied to white male landowners, is it generally accepted that docunents crafted over 200 years ago are equally applicable today as they were back then?

The right to bear arms is an ammendment to the constitution, is it never, ever to be ammended again?

Curious concept that is.

[DXR_13KE]

What if, in the bill of rights, existed an amendment that enabled each American to own at least one slave?
Slavery at that time was common and, in certain cases, important for the economic development, it would not be strange to find something like this in your bill of rights.

If such amendment existed would you support slavery seeing as it is IN THE BILL OF RIGHTS?

[Shirty]

Despite the bill of rights (particularly the 2nd), I don't see how American citizens are any more 'free' than the rest of the developed world really. They are just more likely to be shot at/shoot at others. I know I'm not alone in holding this view, a number of Americans I know agree.

[VipersGratitude]

A few days ago I posted this, which drew me in to a discussion about the American gun issue on a facebook group. I didn't interact that much, most of my time was spent lurking, analyzing the tactics of both sides. People on both sides invoked (cherry-picked) statistics which proved their point. People invoked God on both sides of the argument. People invoked the second amendment.

Now I fall on the anti-gun side of the fence, and being a resident of Northern Ireland for most of my life I wondered how the murder rate per capita of N.Ireland compared to the USA. Could I use these statistics to prove my point?

As it turns out, despite having more restrictive gun laws than of the US the murder rate per capita of N.Ireland since 1969 tallied up to an average of 150-200% that of the US. On initial inspection one could argue that this is an argument to allow everyone in Northern Ireland to carry a gun, whereas every bone in my being tells me that proposition is false.

Now pro-gun Americans like to frame their argument in isolation. A shootout between good guys and bad guys, essentially...But the scope of human interaction is more complicated than that. One simple example is that there are no "bad guys", just "good guys" who, by necessity or personal compromise become "bad guys" - So, in arming all the good guys you're arming the bad guys too.

Human interaction is more complicated than that.

For the past month, or so, in N.Ireland we've had riots almost every night over a flag. The participants aren't members of paramilitary organizations. They're young adults, rioting for kicks. Throwing stones, bricks, sometimes even petrol bombs at the police. There have been shots fired by members of the paramilitary organizations, but not with lethal intent, simply as a show of strength. The paramilitary members are disciplined enough to know that shots fired with lethal intent would have far-reaching social and political consequences. Young adults doing it for kicks? They are not as disciplined. If each and every one of them had a constitutional right to carry firearms this past month here would have looked very different. One shot fired with lethal intent would have caused an escalation, and it would have escalated quickly. An armed population only serves to make society more volatile.

Another argument pro-gun Americans like to use was that the Second Amendment was required for the "security of a free state". Just as America was born out of resistance against tyranny, a well-armed population was required to resist a potential future tyrannical government.

Interesting....because I'm from a country who attempted an insurrection, and the choice of arms were not guns, but bombs. Why? Because the IRA would have been wiped out in a full frontal assault. Despite having easy access to black market assault rifles they knew they couldn't take on modern military weapon systems (and this was 40yrs ago). All they could do was mount a terrorists campaign. These bombs killed more of their fellow citizens than representatives of the perceived tyrannical government. Yes, there were shoot-outs during the troubles, but for the most part guns were used to discipline other citizens, through knee-cappings, or outright murder.

Now we're back to the original post. If, 40yrs ago, the IRA were smart enough to know that a full-frontal assault would have been silly - they would have been wiped out - So,why do pro-gun Americans invoke the second amendment with armed insurrection in mind? If Americans did revolt against a tyrannical tomorrow, what would it look like? If the "resistance" had guns, which weapons would the tyrannical government use? Drones? Tanks? What caliber of weapon is needed to penetrate Chobam tank armour anyway? Hence, the thought experiment...

I thought I'd share the conclusion because, to me at least, it actually demonstrates that, in a modern context, the second amendment would be more dangerous to the American population during an insurrection than the tyrannical government. An army, as they say, marches on it's stomach, so the first target is the supply infrastructure. With modern military weapons this could be done at range, from military bases, and an isolated, hungry, thirsty, desperate population would quickly turn on itself to control the scarce resources. The proliferation of firearms, as afforded by the second amendment, would expedite this.

My original post was to invite pro-gun advocates to think their argument through in a modern context, rather than regurgitate the dogma of a 200 year old solution.

[Pieface]

Since the incarnation of this thread there has been a shooting of five people in New Mexico

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-21110435

3 children dead.

[supermonkey]

Originally Posted by siliconfanatic

Probably would, if it weren't talking about a current key issue due to people generally overreacting and freaking the hell out over a bunch of nut jobs looking at columbine as a benchmark. Frankly, ITS IN THE BILL OF RIGHTS and if I'm not mistaken, the RIGHT to bear arms isn't the problem. WHY, you might ask? GUNS DON'T KILL PEOPLE. PEOPLE! kill people.

I think you're a little confused, siliconfantastic. You state that the Second Amendment is a basic human right, and that it can't be questioned because it is in the Bill of Rights. Is it just the Bill of Rights (i.e. the first 10 amendments) that you consider sacrosanct, or do you consider 11-27 important as well. I'm genuinely curious, because until 1933 I could have argued that nobody should be allowed to manufacture, sell, or transport intoxicating liquors. Thankfully the 21st Amendment nullified the 18th Amendment, and we now can legally enjoy a glass of whiskey while we debate the merits of constitutional amendments.

Otherwise, I will argue for Bill Clinton's re-election (22nd amendment), and the re-institution of slavery (13th amendment), because those aren't in the Bill of Rights.

[Guinevere]

Originally Posted by siliconfanatic

GUNS DON'T KILL PEOPLE. PEOPLE! kill people.

And if you take that argument to it's logical extreme, everyone should have the right to have a gun... or a semi-automatic gun... or a fully automatic gun... or an assault rifle... or a sniper rifle... or an RPG... or a mortar round... or an armour piercing round... or an armed drone... or a surface to air missile... or a suitcase full of semtex... or a nuclear weapon... or some air delivered bio-toxin....

At some point you have to draw the line and say 'We allow our citizens this - but we don't allow this'.

The US has a line, and shouting at us in ALL CAPS won't make the line stay put any more than being polite would.

[fix-the-spade]

Originally Posted by VipersGratitude

Do you think the 2nd amendment is woefully outdated? Is it now subject to the law of unintended consequences? Has time subverted it's original intention in to a tool of oppression?

Area 51 is a bit obvious.
RAF Mildenhall or Menwith Hill in the UK would be a better choice, it's out of the country, has full communications/garrison troops in house and Menwith has massive electronic intelligence facilities.

As far as the revolt, they would be using phones, cell phones and the internet to communicate. Ergo they will have given away the positions and names of all the leaders, write these down and dispatch SWAT teams, insurrection finished, one week tops.

If it's really bad, order strikes using GPS guided JDAMs. Finished, the four hours it takes to ready a few F15s and tanker support.

Assault rifle? Defend yourself from tyranny? Cute.

[VipersGratitude]

For clarity - The Area 51 suggestion wasn't serious. It was simply so I could crack the "Its the only one I can name of the top off my head" joke.

I can see it didn't go down well, so I'll strike that one from my next comedy routine. Thanks for the feedback

[fix-the-spade]

Originally Posted by siliconfanatic

So, you could care less for a right to protect yourself? its like ophcrack, its meant for good, so why should a few nut jobs give us reason to swing the hammer on it?

Oh dear, you seem to be confusing the right to self defence with the right to own weapons of war designed to kill Russians in body armour from three hundred meters. That's not a right, that's paranoia.

A shotgun full of bird shot is a home defence weapon, a 308 bolt rifle is a hunting tool, a 22lr target rifle is for fun and getting rid of vermin.

There's plenty of guns you can have that aren't pure weapons of war (incidentally, all those are legal here in English land too). Owning assault weapons just marks you out in all the wrong ways, what on earth do they have to with freedom anyway?

[fix-the-spade]

Originally Posted by siliconfanatic

GUNS DON'T KILL PEOPLE. PEOPLE! kill people.