Liberal arguments for supporting gun ownership rights

[manifold]

We're still waiting for Chris to get specific about exactly what regulations he believes are required. He keeps saying vague bullshit like "sensible" regulation etc. But surely he must know that the "gun deaths" he likes to post stats about won't go to zero unless guns were somehow completely removed from society. So basically, I challenge Chris to man-up and either admit he supports a repeal of the 2nd amendment or short of that, put a number on exactly how many gun deaths per-capita he would deem acceptable.

 

[KittenKoder]

... put a number on exactly how many gun deaths per-capita he would deem acceptable.

Oooh ... THAT'S a good one, yeah, how many is acceptable?

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

We're still waiting for Chris to get specific about exactly what regulations he believes are required. He keeps saying vague bullshit like "sensible" regulation etc. But surely he must know that the "gun deaths" he likes to post stats about won't go to zero unless guns were somehow completely removed from society. So basically, I challenge Chris to man-up and either admit he supports a repeal of the 2nd amendment or short of that, put a number on exactly how many gun deaths per-capita he would deem acceptable.

So you're waiting on a feminized leftist male to act beyond the scope of her character? I just adore the optimists... sadly, Chris is a fool... and as such, she simply lacks the intellectual means to recognize that which you're trying to prove; and when you add to that, the level of psychological self worth that she invests in these cliche based ideology... and she will never allow herself to realize that her closest held feelings are 'wrong...' and this is without regard to the purity of your reasoning, or the structural integrity of your logic; 'it simply cannot be...'

 

[KittenKoder]

So you're waiting on a feminized leftist male to act beyond the scope of her character? I just adore the optimists... sadly, Chris is a fool... and as such, she simply lacks the intellectual means to recognize that which you're trying to prove; and when you add to that, the level of psychological self worth that she invests in these cliche based ideology... and she will never allow herself to realize that her closest held feelings are 'wrong...' and this is without regard to the purity of your reasoning, or the structural integrity of your logic; 'it simply cannot be...'

While we may agree on this particular topic Publius, you have shown to be just as pig headed on other topics as Chris and armed with about the same level of knowledge and 'outside thinking.' By demonstration you have little room to just throw an insult like that and doing so actually gives him more equal footing. However, Chris is blinded by his own ignorance and narrow thinking in this matter. The point he keeps making is that gun violence is down when there are fewer guns available, but he has not once proven that ALL violence is down when guns are not available, instead evidence points to the exact opposite, the other forms of violence actually increase when there is a lack of guns, and that these acts of violence result in just as many if not more deaths. We are still waiting for him to prove otherwise.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Oooh ... THAT'S a good one, yeah, how many is acceptable?

Plural... 'are'...

Setting that aside, the question is irrelevant, as the answer is irrelevant. Each accidental death is tragic for those close to the victim; that the accident was a function of a firearm is wholly without relevance... Meaning that the death is the tragedy... NOT the means which lead to that death.

As Chris has accidentally pointed out, a death by car accident is no less acceptable than an accidental death by fire-arm... granted that Chris realizes that she can't come out and say that, as to do so is to thoroughly discredits her own position, EVEN and ESPECIALLY, in her own mind... but the fact remains that a seemingly avoidable accident which takes a human life is notcleat 'acceptable' per se, but given that the actuarial odds of probability tell us that such accidents are otherwise unavoidable... such accidental scenarios are not a sound basis for stripping the individual of their sacred responsibility to be prepared to defend one's own life and that of their neighbors... which in the end will itself cost innocent life, which is absolutely unacceptable.

 

[KittenKoder]

Plural... 'are'...

Setting that aside, the question is irrelevant, as the answer is irrelevant. Each accidental death is tragic for those close to the victim; that the accident was a function of a firearm is wholly without relevance... Meaning that the death is the tragedy... NOT the means which lead to that death.

As Chris has accidentally pointed out, a death by car accident is no less acceptable than an accidental death by fire-arm... granted that Chris realizes that she can't come out and say that, as to do so is to thoroughly discredits her own position, EVEN and ESPECIALLY, in her own mind... but the fact remains that a seemingly avoidable accident which takes a human life is notcleat 'acceptable' per se, but given that the actuarial odds of probability tell us that such accidents are otherwise unavoidable... such accidental scenarios are not a sound basis for stripping the individual of their sacred responsibility to be prepared to defend one's own life and that of their neighbors... which in the end will itself cost innocent life, which is absolutely unacceptable.

Okay ... this I gotta say DUH! That was the point we were trying to make to Chris.

Really ... you need to work on thinking on more than one level at a time.

 

[manifold]

...We are still waiting for him to prove otherwise.

Or perhaps present a reasonable case for why the gun death stats he trumpets are unacceptably high.

I'll present a simple case that suggests it is not:

I'll assume his favorite stat, 1 million gun deaths since 1960, is accurate.

Per year that averages to: 1,000,000 / 48 or 20,833

Let's assume the US population has averaged 250 million (I don't know the exact stats but I know that's pretty close).

That means that annual gun deaths per capita over this period was 250 million / 20,833 or .0000833. In other words, 1 gun death per year for every 12,000 people.

Call me crazy, but I consider that an acceptable level of risk in return for preserving the one right that protects the people from a tyrannical government and in doing so, directly helps preserve all the other rights we hold dear (and apparently some folks like Chris take for granted).

 

[KittenKoder]

Or perhaps present a reasonable case for why the gun death stats he trumpets are unacceptably high.

I'll present a simple case that suggests it is not:

I'll assume his favorite stat, 1 million gun deaths since 1960, is accurate.

Per year that averages to: 1,000,000 / 48 or 20,833

Let's assume the US population has averaged 250 million (I don't know the exact stats but I know that's pretty close).

That means that annual gun deaths per capita over this period was 250 million / 20,833 or .0000833. In other words, 1 gun death per year for every 12,000 people.

Call me crazy, but I consider that an acceptable level of risk in return for preserving the one right that protects the people from a tyrannical government and in doing so, directly helps preserve all the other rights we hold dear (and apparently some folks like Chris take for granted).

The math is sound, but wanted to add that North America (US and Canada) comes close to 800 million people, so it would be a bit higher in the US population than you used, just I'm too lazy so not going to look up the exact number either.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

While we may agree on this particular topic Publius, you have shown to be just as pig headed on other topics ....

LOL... Yeah... it's me. Clearly... You can't advance an intellectually sound, logically valid argument... so using the typical logical construct you usually bring to the table, that sums to ME being the pig-headed moron.

ROFLMNAO... Oh GOD! That's precious...

By demonstration you have little room to just throw an insult like that and doing so actually gives him more equal footing.

LOL... well there ya go, I somehow knew it wouldn't take long...

Does it now? How specifically does an accurate assessment of the intellectual deficit of the opposition, even POTENTIALLY correlate to establishing an equitable of superior rhetorical footing for said opposition?

Now I want you to understand that I ask you this, purely to prove that you have absolutely NO MEANS to support it... Yes, yes... it is a means to ridicule you; it's mean and its not fair... but it's over now, so you can now begin the erasing of this humiliation from your fragile psyche...

However, Chris is blinded by his own ignorance and narrow thinking in this matter.

Chris is blinded by the stark absence of a scintilla of intellectual potential...

The point he keeps making is that gun violence is down when there are fewer guns available, but he has not once proven that ALL violence is down when guns are not available, instead evidence points to the exact opposite, the other forms of violence actually increase when there is a lack of guns, and that these acts of violence result in just as many if not more deaths. We are still waiting for him to prove otherwise.

Of course and that is the precise argument that an idiot would make... Where the nature is violent and the instrument which best discourages violence is taken out of the equation... violence can be expected to increase and that is precisely what is demonstrated with every experiment.

Now get busy proving your position or shut the fuck up...

 

[KittenKoder]

Funny ... never called you a moron.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Okay ... this I gotta say DUH! That was the point we were trying to make to Chris.

Really ... you need to work on thinking on more than one level at a time.

LOL... That's hysterical... you failed to make the argument and condemn those that did.

CLASSIC!

Keep workin' on that valid point, clueless.

 

[KittenKoder]

Of course and that is the precise argument that an idiot would make... Where the nature is violent and the instrument which best discourages violence is taken out of the equation... violence can be expected to increase and that is precisely what is demonstrated with every experiment.

Now get busy proving your position or shut the fuck up...

So then you are now taking Chris' side of the argument? I'm confused, since I said that he was the one ignoring all the facts and now you refute the exact same position you had taken before with that same position ... quite odd.

 

[KittenKoder]

Hmm ... now Publius appears to be on the side of more gun regulations ... how very strange indeed. Fine then, prove that by taking guns away that violence itself decreases ... unless of course you are still on the same side of this argument which I have been in saying that it's our duty as citizens to maintain the same level of armament as the government.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Funny ... never called you a moron.

SUPER... So that settles it then... you've now proven your point to be baseless, your reasoning unsound and your argument wholly invalid.

Congrats... that'll do.

Now I'm curious, how many levels of conscious reasoning did you need to work that out ... ?

 

[KittenKoder]

SUPER... So that settles it then... you've now proven your point to be baseless, your reasoning unsound and your argument wholly invalid.

Congrats... that'll do.

Now I'm curious, how many levels of conscious reasoning did you need to work that out ... ?

Now that was moronic. My arguments have only supported your original position, but it seems your position has changed to anti-gun, why?

 

[manifold]

Oh my fucking Ghandi will you two give it a rest already!

 

[KittenKoder]

Oh my fucking Ghandi will you two give it a rest already!

LOL ... Never! Dancing is fun, especially when I'm the lead, such a rare occasion.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Hmm ... now Publius appears to be on the side of more gun regulations ...

Once again a progressive confuses her skewed perception with reality. Always a risky tactic. In this case there is absolutely nothing in my stated position which could even potentially lead a reasonably intelligent person to conclude that my position represents an advocacy for greater government regulation interfering with the God given right of the individual to own and use firearms... yet this dipstick can't resist to pull just such a conclusion from her own intellectual flatulence.

Fine then, prove that by taking guns away that violence itself decreases ...

Look dumbass... human nature tends towards violence... where the individual lacks the discipline to produce talents enabling them to offer goods and services representing sufficient value to others that the exchange of said goods and services produce a sufficient means to thrive or at least survive, they will inevitably develope an irrational envy of those that do; rationalizing from a fallacious envy that erroneously leads them to conclude that they are due the same which they obvserve others having by virtue of their mere existance; and summarily, they seek to deprive the producers of their property to take it for themselves... the result of which will most likely rob the producer the producer of their health and potentially their lives in the pursuit of robbing them of their rights of their rights... the ONLY THING which deters this nature is the impression in the mind of the leftists, that the RISK of robbing the producer is GREATER than the potential gain... TAKE AWAY THE INSTRUMENT OF DETERENCE (a fire-arm)and you're CERTAIN TO INCREASE THE PROBABILITY FOR VIOLENCE and the injuries and death common to such... We have had regulations prohibiting robbery and assault since time in memorial and they offer virtually no deterent effect. The fire-arm on the other hand offers a remarkable deterence...

unless of course you are still on the same side of this argument which I have been in saying that it's our duty as citizens to maintain the same level of armament as the government.

It is the sacred duty of every free man to arm himself with the means to defend his life and that of his neighbor from those who would violate his God given rights. This is without regard to the given popularity of a position, meaning my position is wholly distinct from your position... my position rest upon the authority of Nature's God... your's rests on the authority of your own personal opinion.

I'm prepared to allow a secularist to ride on the validity of my position, but you'll never find my arguments resting upon the faux validity of implied popularity and secular arguments rest upon little else.

 

[manifold]

LOL ... Never! Dancing is fun, especially when I'm the lead, such a rare occasion.

When you dance with the devil, the devil doesn't change, the devil changes you.

 

[Chris]

Or perhaps present a reasonable case for why the gun death stats he trumpets are unacceptably high.

I'll present a simple case that suggests it is not:

I'll assume his favorite stat, 1 million gun deaths since 1960, is accurate.

Per year that averages to: 1,000,000 / 48 or 20,833

Let's assume the US population has averaged 250 million (I don't know the exact stats but I know that's pretty close).

That means that annual gun deaths per capita over this period was 250 million / 20,833 or .0000833. In other words, 1 gun death per year for every 12,000 people.

Call me crazy, but I consider that an acceptable level of risk in return for preserving the one right that protects the people from a tyrannical government and in doing so, directly helps preserve all the other rights we hold dear (and apparently some folks like Chris take for granted).

Here are more accurate figures, although a little old...

U.S. Leads Richest Nations In Gun Deaths

BY CHELSEA J. CARTER
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

ATLANTA -- The United States has by far the highest rate of gun deaths -- murders, suicides and accidents -- among the world's 36 richest nations, a government study found.
The U.S. rate for gun deaths in 1994 was 14.24 per 100,000 people. Japan had the lowest rate, at .05 per 100,000.
The study, done by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, is the first comprehensive international look at gun-related deaths. It was published Thursday in the International Journal of Epidemiology.
The CDC would not speculate why the death rates varied, but other researchers said easy access to guns and society's acceptance of violence are part of the problem in the United States.
``If you have a country saturated with guns -- available to people when they are intoxicated, angry or depressed -- it's not unusual guns will be used more often,'' said Rebecca Peters, a Johns Hopkins University fellow specializing in gun violence. ``This has to be treated as a public health emergency.''
The National Rifle Association called the study shoddy because it failed to examine all causes of violent deaths.
``What this shows is the CDC is after guns. They aren't concerned with violence. It's pretending that no homicide exists unless it's related to guns,'' said Paul Blackman, a research coordinator for the NRA in Fairfax, Va.
The 36 countries chosen were listed as the richest in the World Bank's 1994 World Development Report, with the highest GNP per capita income.
The study used 1994 statistics supplied by the 36 countries. Of the 88,649 gun deaths reported by all the countries, the United States accounted for 45 percent, said Etienne Krug, a CDC researcher and co-author of the article.
Japan, where very few people own guns, averages 124 gun-related attacks a year, and less than 1 percent end in death. Police often raid the homes of those suspected of having weapons.
The study found that gun-related deaths were five to six times higher in the Americas than in Europe or Australia and New Zealand and 95 times higher than in Asia.
Here are gun-related deaths per 100,000 people in the world's 36 richest countries in 1994: United States 14.24; Brazil 12.95; Mexico 12.69; Estonia 12.26; Argentina 8.93; Northern Ireland 6.63; Finland 6.46; Switzerland 5.31; France 5.15; Canada 4.31; Norway 3.82; Austria 3.70; Portugal 3.20; Israel 2.91; Belgium 2.90; Australia 2.65; Slovenia 2.60; Italy 2.44; New Zealand 2.38; Denmark 2.09; Sweden 1.92; Kuwait 1.84; Greece 1.29; Germany 1.24; Hungary 1.11; Republic of Ireland 0.97; Spain 0.78; Netherlands 0.70; Scotland 0.54; England and Wales 0.41; Taiwan 0.37; Singapore 0.21; Mauritius 0.19; Hong Kong 0.14; South Korea 0.12; Japan 0.05.

http://www.guncite.com/cnngunde.html