The second amendment

Perspectives on our world and our universe, how it works, what is happening, and why it happens. Whether by a hidden hand or natural laws, we come together to hash it out, and perhaps provide a little bit of education and enlightenment for others. This is a place for civil discussion. Please keep it that way.
Forum rules
1) Remain civil. Respect others' rights to their viewpoints, even if you believe them to be completely wrong.
2) Sourcing your information is highly recommended. Plagiarism will get you banned.
3) Please create a new thread for a new topic, even if you think it might not get a lot of responses. Do not create mega-threads.
4) If you think the subject of a thread is not important enough to merit a post, simply avoid posting in it. If enough people agree, it will fall off the page soon enough.
Post Reply
User avatar
NorthernComfort
Crazy Person
Posts: 2745
Joined: Fri May 23, 2003 8:13 pm
Real Name: Alex
Gender: Male
Location: Brooklyn, NY

Re: The second amendment

Post by NorthernComfort » Thu Aug 11, 2016 9:46 pm

Deacon wrote:the gun-free utopia of merry old England...
While I understand it is your instinct to mock other nations for their gun control laws, the UK enjoys one of the lowest gun homicide rates in the entire world. Per capita, the US has 45x more gun-related deaths than the UK. It's a serious topic and honestly I think it deserves more respect than glib comments about utopian gun-free nations: neither the UK nor Germany is actually gun-free. And per capita, the US has 3x more mass shootings than Germany. Facts and statistics are a lot more interesting to me than NRA talking points and jests.

And this is the big issue. People who are otherwise independent free-minded thinkers simply recite NRA talking points, exactly like Trump is doing now. And if you think the NRA considers Trump a tool, imagine what they think of all the intelligent American voters who parrot their talking points ver-batim and recite stupid jokes like these. Don't be a tool of a special-interest lobby. They are not the valiant defenders of the fucking Constitution. People would do well to remember what the NRA actually is.

"[The Second Amendment] has been the subject of one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word 'fraud,' on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime." - Warren Burger
"I guess I have a gift for expressing pedestrian tastes. In a way, it's kind of depressing." -Bill Watterson

User avatar
Deacon
Shining Adonis
Posts: 43995
Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2003 3:00 pm
Gender: Male
Location: Lakehills, TX

Re: The second amendment

Post by Deacon » Thu Aug 11, 2016 10:21 pm

NorthernComfort wrote:While I understand it is your instinct to mock other nations for their gun control laws....
You wound me, sir. I "mock" (seems like a strong word, but OK) only those who think that very different nations with very different histories, population, government, demographics, and so forth, where guns are illegal, are immune to gun crime, mass shootings, assassination attempts, terrorist attacks, or whatever else. Whether UK, France, Germany, or wherever else.
Per capita, the US has 45x more gun-related deaths than the UK.
Are you lumping in suicides and such into that kind of number? Because I bet Saudi Arabia has a lot more camel-related deaths than the US, but it's hard to put the blame on camels if you were reasonable about it. There simply exist more camels. And unless you want to kick people's door in and seize all their camels, you're not going to stop a camel from occasionally sitting on someone or whatever, even if your main argument is that there are way more "deaths involving camels" than in the US.

Only half of all people who committed suicide did so using a gun as the tool. (http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/suicide.htm) Even if you could magic away all firearms in the universe, you'd still be left with a lot of suicides, and it's a frustrating falsehood that someone who doesn't have access to a gun therefore doesn't bother committing suicide. But people still lump in suicides as though they were gun violence, because inflating numbers and using the vacuous term "gun related deaths" sounds more impressive. The same people who argue (rightly) that doctor assisted suicide should be 100% legal. And they see no conflict there.
And per capita, the US has 3x more mass shootings than Germany.
Do you mean more people are killed in mass shootings per capita? Or something else?

And if people really cared about facts and statistics, especially broken down per-capita, they wouldn't be arguing for "assault weapons" to be outlawed. The wouldn't push for "gun free zones" where it's illegal to stop a mass shooter. They wouldn't cherry pick camels or firearms or whatever else as a single source of blame for deaths but actually look at who and where and why crimes are being committed, regardless of weapon. Because if you were to cut out the numbers from inner city street gangs and black market drug related crimes, it would be a massively different picture. But symptoms are easier than causes. People don't want to solve problems. Instead they want to outlaw tools. They don't want to end drug prohibition that is the cause of so much violence--including by police. Instead they want to outlaw guns. They hear about the broken window theory and instead of putting abandoned buildings to use they want to outlaw rocks. It's maddening. Cops are racist killers and only they should be allowed to have guns.

So no, I have no problem supporting the NRA in general. Not because they are "valiant defenders of the fucking Constitution" but because they're one of the only things standing between me and the politicians and special interest groups who either haven't thought it through or who don't care. So even if their attempts to infringe on my rights fail only because of NRA pressure, at least it failed. I'm not under any delusions about what they are, just a lobby group. And I think it's dangerous that people suggest that anything they support must therefore be dumb or ignorant or flawed or crazy or dumb. In the same way it's dangerous and wrong for religious fundamentalists to say that anything Planned Parenthood supports must be dumb or ignorant or flawed or crazy or dumb.

Are you familiar with Andrew WK? Here's something he wrote recently in the Village Voice that's fantastic: http://www.villagevoice.com/music/ask-a ... le-6644226
Last edited by Deacon on Thu Aug 11, 2016 10:44 pm, edited 4 times in total.
The follies which a man regrets the most in his life are those which he didn't commit when he had the opportunity. - Helen Rowland, A Guide to Men, 1922

User avatar
Rorschach
Crazy Person
Posts: 17503
Joined: Tue Feb 18, 2003 7:35 am
Gender: Male
Location: Glasgow, Scotland

Re: The second amendment

Post by Rorschach » Thu Aug 11, 2016 10:29 pm

I love you, man. But you are bit mocky.
I've seen you trolling the BBC news pages many times.
:lol:
To Let

User avatar
Deacon
Shining Adonis
Posts: 43995
Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2003 3:00 pm
Gender: Male
Location: Lakehills, TX

Re: The second amendment

Post by Deacon » Thu Aug 11, 2016 10:46 pm

Touché.
The follies which a man regrets the most in his life are those which he didn't commit when he had the opportunity. - Helen Rowland, A Guide to Men, 1922

User avatar
NorthernComfort
Crazy Person
Posts: 2745
Joined: Fri May 23, 2003 8:13 pm
Real Name: Alex
Gender: Male
Location: Brooklyn, NY

Re: The second amendment

Post by NorthernComfort » Thu Aug 11, 2016 11:31 pm

Deacon wrote:Are you lumping in suicides and such into that kind of number? Because I bet Saudi Arabia has a lot more camel-related deaths than the US, too.
Suicides are included in that number, for both the US and UK. Nitpicking suicides vs. murder numbers is a very old and very cynical NRA talking point. The NRA’s original intent in raising the issue was to counter mid-90s gun control activists that would compare gun homicide rates between the US and Europe, while excluding suicides. Nowadays the talking point has evolved to mostly try to confuse any statistics related to gun deaths, as well as bizarre moralizing about who is and isn’t going to commit suicide.
Deacon wrote:it's a frustrating falsehood that someone who doesn't have access to a gun therefore doesn't bother committing suicide
Gun owners commit suicide at a higher rate, since the combination of speed and potency is very well-suited to rash decisions. Would some suicidal people, lacking a gun, still seek out alternate methods? Of course. Do some rethink their decision? Obviously yes, if you check the numbers. This is also just common sense, but at this point the NRA is on autopilot and can’t stop reciting the bullshit you parroted in the above quote.

The truly sad part is this is totally orthogonal to a debate about the 2nd amendment, but that's their point.
Deacon wrote:Do you mean more people are killed in mass shootings per capita? Or something else?
I believe you know the definition of a mass shooting and what per capita means.
Deacon wrote:So no, I have no problem supporting the NRA in general.
I support the 2nd, and vehemently reject the NRA. There is a middle ground of sanity. And trust me, the sane side is not hanging out with Trump and defending the absolute bullshit that’s pouring out of his mouth. NRA are a bunch of hacks and they are betting on a total faker bullshit artist. Fuck those clowns.
Deacon wrote:Are you familiar with Andrew WK? Here's something he wrote recently in the Village Voice that's fantastic:
Uhhh you read the village voice? Did not see that one coming. Nice sentiments, but there are some people who are just pieces of shit and need to get thrown out. Trump and Wayne LaPierre come to mind.
"I guess I have a gift for expressing pedestrian tastes. In a way, it's kind of depressing." -Bill Watterson

User avatar
Deacon
Shining Adonis
Posts: 43995
Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2003 3:00 pm
Gender: Male
Location: Lakehills, TX

Re: The second amendment

Post by Deacon » Fri Aug 12, 2016 3:05 am

NorthernComfort wrote:Gun owners commit suicide at a higher rate, since the combination of speed and potency is very well-suited to rash decisions.
Yes, that's the fallacy the CDC says is wrong. But maybe the CDC is working for the NRA to stage a cover up?
This is also just common sense
Much of what counts as self-assured "common knowledge" or "common sense" is, unfortunately, anything but.
The truly sad part is this is totally orthogonal to a debate about the 2nd amendment, but that's their point.
Well, to be fair, saying that guns cause suicide while ignoring the actual causes of suicide and debating the best way to prevent them, while myopic, is still less frustrating than completely ignoring causes of violence and instead trying to ban one of the tools used--and not even the most prominent version of it, in fact one of the least. We have actual problems we can actually address, and we continue to ignore them in favor of trying to strip law abiding citizens of their rights in the name of "common sense legislation to keep our children safe."
I believe you know the definition of a mass shooting and what per capita means.
Alright. You don't have to make a big deal of it. </Colin Quinn>

But seriously, you said simply there are more mass shootings per capita. You're probably right whichever way that's supposed to be taken, but the definition of mass shooting has been twisted quite a bit recently depending on which anti-gun propaganda piece you're reading, and there are generally three primary arguments you could've been making, arguments that others sometimes use:

1) There are more occurrences of mass shootings per capita
2) There are more people killed in mass shootings per capita
3) There are more people killed per mass shooting per capita

The one thing the authors of the anti-gun pieces generally choose to bury is how many of those mass shootings are committed in places where it's either directly illegal to stop them or is at least functionally so. Which is pretty much all of them. I haven't yet been able to come up with a single one that bucks that trend. Of course, there's no guarantee that just because it's not illegal to stop it that someone will be able to. But you can guarantee they won't when you make illegal to do so.
I support the 2nd, and vehemently reject the NRA. There is a middle ground of sanity. And trust me, the sane side is not hanging out with Trump and defending the absolute bullshit that’s pouring out of his mouth. NRA are a bunch of hacks and they are betting on a total faker bullshit artist. Fuck those clowns.
I understand how you got there. But while I think it's likely your view may be colored by the constant attacks by the anti-gun types (or just stuff like The Daily Show in general), which sometimes have a point but are sometimes just Trump-like unfair denigrations, I can also understand why they'd back Trump. Like most single topic groups, that's all they're taking into account. Hillary has repeatedly reinforced her desire and intention to undermine the Second Amendment. Trump claims the opposite. Therefore they back Trump. Not because they believe he's an amazing human being and a great overall choice to be president, but because he claims to support their cause, or at least to not be hostile to it. If they were ideological purists instead of pragmatic realists, they'd be backing Johnson, either instead or at least also. But they're hitching their wagon to what they see as the horse with the best odds that won't shit all over their single issue.
Uhhh you read the village voice? Did not see that one coming.
Everyone tends to think that anyone who sees things differently or has a different perspective is an idiot, or worse. I think that's kind of the point of that piece.
The follies which a man regrets the most in his life are those which he didn't commit when he had the opportunity. - Helen Rowland, A Guide to Men, 1922

User avatar
NorthernComfort
Crazy Person
Posts: 2745
Joined: Fri May 23, 2003 8:13 pm
Real Name: Alex
Gender: Male
Location: Brooklyn, NY

Re: The second amendment

Post by NorthernComfort » Fri Aug 12, 2016 5:33 am

Deacon wrote:
NorthernComfort wrote:Gun owners commit suicide at a higher rate
Yes, that's the fallacy the CDC says is wrong. But maybe the CDC is working for the NRA to stage a cover up?
Most (~79%) suicide deaths are men, and about half of men use firearms. There is a linear correlation between gun ownership per capita per state and suicide rate per capita by state. Curious about your CDC citation on this. I'm happy to chart the data for you on github.
Deacon wrote:saying that guns cause suicide while ignoring the actual causes of suicide...
I didn't say the bolded part, which you imply I did.

Guns do not cause suicide. Guns enable suicide. The rest is pretty off-topic. I don't know who Colin Quinn is and haven't enjoyed Daily Show in a long time, and never agreed with Stewart's gun control stances.

Maybe you should read that Andrew WK Village Voice piece again? I dunno, I wouldn't recommend reading Village Voice to my enemies... and musicians aren't really the people I look to when I want political wisdom.

And then we have this pointless exchange:
NorthernComfort wrote:And per capita, the US has 3x more mass shootings than Germany.
Deacon wrote:Do you mean more people are killed in mass shootings per capita? Or something else?
NorthernComfort wrote:I believe you know the definition of a mass shooting and what per capita means.
Deacon wrote:1) There are more occurrences of mass shootings per capita
2) There are more people killed in mass shootings per capita
3) There are more people killed per mass shooting per capita
My totally obvious meaning was #1, but I'd love to hear exactly why you think the distinction is necessary.
Deacon wrote:Hillary has repeatedly reinforced her desire and intention to undermine the Second Amendment. Trump claims the opposite.
Okay, let's look at Trump 16 years ago:
Donald Trump, 2000, The America We Deserve wrote:The Republicans walk the NRA line and refuse even limited restrictions....
I generally oppose gun control, but I support the ban on assault weapons and I support a slightly longer waiting period to purchase a gun.
Yeah, the NRA has your back! :lol: :lol: :lol:
Deacon wrote:Everyone tends to think that anyone who sees things differently or has a different perspective is an idiot, or worse. I think that's kind of the point of that piece.
I grew up in the middle of a city of 3.5 million, metro > 8 million. And you think I see things in black and white? Haven't seen other perspectives? Yeah fucking right. I've just been reading people quote NRA bullshit for over a decade and I'm done letting it slide. I will support the 2nd, as interpreted in the last century, with my every bone in my body. Because I want the right. I'm fucking honest about it. I don't support the NRA. They aren't honest about it. And with the way you wiggle around with their talking points, I don't think you're capable of being real about it either.
"I guess I have a gift for expressing pedestrian tastes. In a way, it's kind of depressing." -Bill Watterson

User avatar
Deacon
Shining Adonis
Posts: 43995
Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2003 3:00 pm
Gender: Male
Location: Lakehills, TX

Re: The second amendment

Post by Deacon » Fri Aug 12, 2016 3:26 pm

NorthernComfort wrote:There is a linear correlation between gun ownership per capita per state and suicide rate per capita by state. Curious about your CDC citation on this.
Sorry, I assumed you caught it before...
Deacon wrote:Only half of all people who committed suicide did so using a gun as the tool. (http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/suicide.htm)
I don't know who Colin Quinn is
Dang! Great comedian, from your neck of the woods, and my text-based impersonation is lost :)
musicians aren't really the people I look to when I want political wisdom.
Well, it was not about any particular political stance but about how humans relate to each other, and I think it was good.
My totally obvious meaning was #1, but I'd love to hear exactly why you think the distinction is necessary.
Because, like I said, definition of mass shooting has been kneaded and reshaped and reformed recently to suit the purposes of anti-gun groups and media outlets, when it used to be just the FBI's definition everyone took for granted. And the occurrences of a mass shooting per capita just seemed a little odd to bring up, if that's what you were intending, so I sought clarity before responding.
Okay, let's look at Trump 16 years ago:
Yes, Drumpf's seemingly random policy positions flip-flop around almost at a Clintonian level. I have no desire or intention to defend Trump.
I will support the 2nd, as interpreted in the last century, with my every bone in my body. Because I want the right. I'm fucking honest about it. I don't support the NRA. They aren't honest about it. And with the way you wiggle around with their talking points, I don't think you're capable of being real about it either.
I think the problem is you're taking any "talking points" to be bunk, which isn't necessarily true, and then conflating those with anything I say, and then reach the conclusion that I'm not "real" or "honest" in my positions. I really do disagree with that assertion.
The follies which a man regrets the most in his life are those which he didn't commit when he had the opportunity. - Helen Rowland, A Guide to Men, 1922

User avatar
NorthernComfort
Crazy Person
Posts: 2745
Joined: Fri May 23, 2003 8:13 pm
Real Name: Alex
Gender: Male
Location: Brooklyn, NY

Re: The second amendment

Post by NorthernComfort » Fri Aug 12, 2016 4:55 pm

OK, I need to be more specific. Let's piece this back together. I stated that gun owners commit suicide at higher rates, which is true. You said this was false, and said the CDC said it was wrong. Here is the exchange:
Deacon wrote:
NorthernComfort wrote:Gun owners commit suicide at a higher rate, since the combination of speed and potency is very well-suited to rash decisions.
Yes, that's the fallacy the CDC says is wrong.
I asked you to cite this, and you then linked to the CDC's fast stats sheet, and quoted yourself saying that 50% of suicides use guns. Here is your citing of the CDC:
Deacon wrote:Sorry, I assumed you caught it before...
Deacon wrote: Only half of all people who committed suicide did so using a gun as the tool. (http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/suicide.htm)
Nothing on the fast stats page refutes what I stated above. It's not even relevant to what we were talking about.

Feel free to prove me wrong by actually citing the CDC debunking the fact that gun owners commit suicide at higher rates, as you initially claimed. Keep it real, keep it honest, I'm sure you'd like to prove that's what you're all about.
"I guess I have a gift for expressing pedestrian tastes. In a way, it's kind of depressing." -Bill Watterson

User avatar
Deacon
Shining Adonis
Posts: 43995
Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2003 3:00 pm
Gender: Male
Location: Lakehills, TX

Re: The second amendment

Post by Deacon » Fri Aug 12, 2016 5:31 pm

It's impossible to say whether gun owners kill themselves more than others, as there is no forced registration of gun ownership in this country. All we can readily say is that half of suicides are committed without guns (and probably a lot more failed ones) while half are committed with guns. How many of those with guns used a gun they owned? How many of those that did not use guns could have? It's not really possible to say, but in any properly academic discussion it wouldn't be the end of the discussion even if we could know, because your assertion is that gun owners commit suicide more often than those who do not or cannot legally own guns. So then you'd have to get into how many gun owners there are, and then how many of them commit suicide and why, and figure out whether the rate of gun ownership is even corollary before being able to ascertain whether something about gun ownership tends to prompt suicides.

The only thing we know is the much vaunted statistic that there are somewhere north of 300 million guns in the US, that out of those 300 million+ guns there are about 8,000 murders where guns were used as the tool, including any mass shootings, and that there were around 20,000 successful suicides, about half, where a gun if some sort was used as the tool, while in the other half they weren't used. It would be interesting to know how many were unsuccessfully attempted with and without guns. And it would be fascinating to break down how many of the murderd were during the commission of another crime like robbery, how many were because of drug prohibition, how many of the guns used were otherwise obtained and possessed and carried legally.

But the point is that if even we only count successful divides, according to the CDC fully half were done without the use of guns. So how can you say that gun owners commit suicide at a higher rate, much less materially so? The implication that if we magicked civilian owned firearms out of existence we would cut out the half that used them would still need to be proven, but even so, only half of successful suicides even used them.
The follies which a man regrets the most in his life are those which he didn't commit when he had the opportunity. - Helen Rowland, A Guide to Men, 1922

User avatar
NorthernComfort
Crazy Person
Posts: 2745
Joined: Fri May 23, 2003 8:13 pm
Real Name: Alex
Gender: Male
Location: Brooklyn, NY

Re: The second amendment

Post by NorthernComfort » Fri Aug 12, 2016 5:42 pm

Deacon wrote:It's impossible to say whether gun owners kill themselves more than others, as there is no forced registration of gun ownership in this country.
Ever heard of a survey? Yep, they use those fancy surveys and can determine gun ownership by state. Who knew that all you had to do was ask people! It seemed impossible!!!

And then you can use state data on suicide, and you'll find a linear correlation between the two statistics! But it was all supposed to be... IMPOSSIBLE!!!

Got that CDC citation yet? (Hint: the survey was done by the BRFSS which is part of the CDC.)
"I guess I have a gift for expressing pedestrian tastes. In a way, it's kind of depressing." -Bill Watterson

User avatar
Deacon
Shining Adonis
Posts: 43995
Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2003 3:00 pm
Gender: Male
Location: Lakehills, TX

Re: The second amendment

Post by Deacon » Fri Aug 12, 2016 6:16 pm

No, I don't believe you have posted that citation. I posted the one that shows that half of successful suicides were carried out using a gun, and half were not. Im not sure how far beyond that you're trying to go, because if the rate of gun use in suicide is 50%, then it's not higher (much less majorly so) than the other 50%.
The follies which a man regrets the most in his life are those which he didn't commit when he had the opportunity. - Helen Rowland, A Guide to Men, 1922

User avatar
The Cid
Crazy Person
Posts: 7150
Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2004 12:23 pm
Real Name: Tim Williams
Gender: Male
Location: The Suncoast
Contact:

Re: The second amendment

Post by The Cid » Fri Aug 12, 2016 6:32 pm

I swear, you're both smart and reasonable and well-written, but the two of you live in entirely different realities.

To me, that's a big problem when it comes to trying to actually discuss important issues. It's hard for even reasonable people doing their best to be respectful to even agree on a baseline reality.

I know that's a little off-topic, but I'm very much interested in both points of view and I keep reading Deacon and NC thinking "how do two people in the same country have such wildly different and polar worldviews when both prove constantly that they're intelligent people who put a lot of time into forming their opinions?"
Image
Hirschof wrote:I'm waiting for day you people start thinking with portals.

User avatar
NorthernComfort
Crazy Person
Posts: 2745
Joined: Fri May 23, 2003 8:13 pm
Real Name: Alex
Gender: Male
Location: Brooklyn, NY

Re: The second amendment

Post by NorthernComfort » Fri Aug 12, 2016 6:38 pm

Deacon wrote:No, I don't believe you have posted that citation.
Image

Higher gun ownership rate = higher suicide rate. You claimed this was false. Check the numbers.
Deacon wrote:I posted the one that shows that half of successful suicides were carried out using a gun, and half were not.
And this data point remains as irrelevant as before. Do you have the CDC citation that shows the above data is a fallacy? Good luck, since this came from WISQARS (a CDC database that I am assuming you aren't familiar with).
"I guess I have a gift for expressing pedestrian tastes. In a way, it's kind of depressing." -Bill Watterson

User avatar
NorthernComfort
Crazy Person
Posts: 2745
Joined: Fri May 23, 2003 8:13 pm
Real Name: Alex
Gender: Male
Location: Brooklyn, NY

Re: The second amendment

Post by NorthernComfort » Fri Aug 12, 2016 7:12 pm

The Cid wrote:I know that's a little off-topic, but I'm very much interested in both points of view and I keep reading Deacon and NC thinking "how do two people in the same country have such wildly different and polar worldviews when both prove constantly that they're intelligent people who put a lot of time into forming their opinions?"
I honestly have no idea. I'm a programmer, I like to deal with data and facts. I think my worldview is mostly shaped by data and facts. I support the 2nd amendment, but I think the NRA is full of shit. Their talking points are half-truths and they prefer to deny the less pleasant realities about guns. I think it's childish and ultimately detrimental to their cause.

I think a rational person can support the 2nd amendment and also acknowledge that higher gun ownership rates have unpleasant side effects, such as higher suicide rates and more shootings. It's common sense. It's a baseline of reality that we all need to accept before we can have any reasonable debate.
"I guess I have a gift for expressing pedestrian tastes. In a way, it's kind of depressing." -Bill Watterson

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests