Every day, 20 US Children Hospitalized w/Gun Injury (6% Die)

[waitforufo]

 

 

Indeed they do but the point is, they don’t do it through force. I.e. no guns are needed...

I can name one that did. Come to think of it two counting Ireland. Even India's independence wasn't completely without armed revolt.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_National_Army

 

 

After the INA's initial formation in 1942, there was concern in the British-Indian Army that further Indian troops would defect. This led to a reporting ban and a propaganda campaign called "Jiffs" to preserve the loyalty of the Sepoy.^[8] Historians likePeter W. Fay who have written about the army, however, consider the INA not to have had significant influence on the war.^[9]The end of the war saw a large number of the troops repatriated to India where some faced trials for treason. These trials became a galvanising point in the Indian Independence movement.^[10] The Bombay mutiny in the Royal Indian Navy and other mutinies in 1946 are thought to have been caused by the nationalist feelings that were caused by the INA trials.^[11]Historians like Sumit Sarkar, Peter Cohen, Fay and others suggest that these events played a crucial role in hastening the end of British rule.^[12][13] A number of people associated with the INA during the war later went on to hold important roles in public life in India as well as in other countries in Southeast Asia, most notably Lakshmi Sehgal in India, and John Thivy and Janaki Athinahappan in Malaya.^[14]

 

 

 

 

Doesn't change my point. I said nothing about generals. But what's more likely to make that private refuse — being ordered to shoot an armed protester, or an unarmed one? (not that being unarmed would stop all of them)

They are more like to join armed patriots. Besides, the military won't be needed if the rabble isn't armed. The police would likely surface.

Edited April 8, 2016 by waitforufo

[swansont]

They are more like to join armed patriots.

Because...?

 

Besides, the military won't be needed if the rabble isn't armed. The police would likely surface.

And the police are less likely to be sympathetic to the cause of overturning a tyrant because...?

 

And I'd be interested in how this coup d'etat that allowed the tyrant to seize power would have been achieved without the military being on board in the first place. Someone who is bypassing all the checks and balances in place and still wielding power. There must be examples abounding of failed coups elsewhere owing to the soldiers refusing to carry out orders that you can use as a precedent, if your notion has merit. Because we hear a lot about successful ones.

[dimreepr]

Even India's independence wasn't completely without armed revolt.

 

 

They may have tried force but independence was due to peace.

 

 

Edit/ And the same can be said for Ireland.

Edited April 8, 2016 by dimreepr

[waitforufo]

 

 

They may have tried force but independence was due to peace.

 

 

Edit/ And the same can be said for Ireland.

If that makes you feel better, go ahead and believe it.

Because...?

 

 

And the police are less likely to be sympathetic to the cause of overturning a tyrant because...?

 

And I'd be interested in how this coup d'etat that allowed the tyrant to seize power would have been achieved without the military being on board in the first place. Someone who is bypassing all the checks and balances in place and still wielding power. There must be examples abounding of failed coups elsewhere owing to the soldiers refusing to carry out orders that you can use as a precedent, if your notion has merit. Because we hear a lot about successful ones.

Because first they would be forced to make the decision to shoot, and second because it's easier to join a side that can defend itself.

 

The police are more likely because their jobs depend on local authority.

 

Who says their would be a coup d'etat? Elected officials can declare martial law.

[dimreepr]

If that makes you feel better, go ahead and believe it.

 

 

If you didn't have firearms, I'd say the same to you, followed by but you might shoot me .

Edited April 8, 2016 by dimreepr

[waitforufo]

 

 

If you didn't have firearms, I'd say the same to you, followed by but you might shoot me .

You have nothing to fear from me or the vast majority of gun owners. We are law abiding citizens.

[John Cuthber]

You have nothing to fear from me or the vast majority of gun owners. We are law abiding citizens.

That's what they all say.

And yet 20 kids are shot each day.

Do you understand that there is a discontinuity there?

This question seems to imply that citizens are going to form independent military forces to take on the US army, navy, and air force. No such thing needs to happen. Mass unorganized armed civil unrest will be enough to bring down any tyrant. The people serving in the US army, navy, and air force are not going to enter their home towns and start fighting the people they grew up around for standing up to a tyrant. They won't do it to cities that look like the one they grew up in either.

"The people serving in the US army, navy, and air force are not going to enter their home towns and start fighting the people they grew up around"

OK, so there's no need for a militia then is there?

If, for example, Mr Trump gets to be president and decides to enslave the US citizenry they won't need to rely on their own pea-shooters- because- as you point out they will have teh whole population including the army on their side.

 

​So there's no need for the private citizens to have guns.

 

Still waiting for a response to this

waitforufo, on 07 Apr 2016 - 2:24 PM, said:

Indeed, and now tell those 20 kids a day how they are so safe.

The formatting is botched, but I'm still waiting for Watiforufo to explain to me how those 20 kids who got shot are so much safer because the US doesn't restrict gun ownership.

 

Btw

http://news.groopspeak.com/army-chief-of-staff-republicans-are-wrong-about-guns-keeping-us-safer-video/

Edited April 9, 2016 by John Cuthber

[overtone]

Do you seriously think that the arms that the US citizens can carry would actually match up with the military, if a group decided they needed to "insure it stayed that way"?

 

But if the military is going to stand up to the tyrant, that sort of makes the case for armed citizens meaningless, doesn't it? It just needs enough backbone in the military to not carry out unlawful orders.

 

 

In the US, as well as all over South America, the fatuity of this entire argument has always been obvious to everyone except gun control extremists. Just one acronym should be enough: KKK.

 

And that completely sufficient response has been posted right here in front of these same posters at least six times, with dozens of illustrative examples from Haiti to Chile to Peru to Afghanistan to Cliven Bundy vs Black Panthers.

 

To no effect. That's what an extremist deadlock looks like - one side fantasizing about Red Dawn insurgencies against Obama's commie minions, the other one unable to see the slightest risk in things like the KKK, or the deployment of Blackwater mercenaries into a disarmed New Orleans, after Katrina, by American fascist politicians elected to high office.

 

This is more of the real anti-tyranny argument, which is only a part of the gun rights argument: Tyranny is almost never enforced by the military, and without the ability to terrorize an unarmed population with minimal and informal paramilitary forces few tyrannies (even local ones, like company towns) look feasible past the coup. Potential tyrants are seldom fools, in that sense, and an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. So like other supposed uses of firearms in self defense, the supposed benefit is seen in the absence of the bad thing happening.

 

So there are counter-arguments to this. But we don't see them. We see the deadlock above, instead.

 

 

That's what they all say.

And yet 20 kids are shot each day.

Do you understand that there is a discontinuity there?

 

There isn't, really. There are many tens of millions of "kids" (they are counting young teenagers in there) in this country, and most of them live outside the heavy drug war centers. So they are safe, realistically. And anyone who wants to make their kid even safer can simply banish both drugs and guns from the child's home - the risk goes from from negligible to vanishing.

Edited April 9, 2016 by overtone

[iNow]

Prevention of tyranny by way of firearm doesn't ipso facto require unfettered, unrestricted, unregulated access to guns and ammunition.

 

The current status quo in the US can be enormously improved without us all by default falling victim to authoritarian oppressors and regimes.

[Raider5678]

While your at it, focus on something that's helps the country more. Before I start this discussion, let me say you're biased john. My reasoning is that you say your trying to save lives, by making guns harder to get to. Alcohol kills 88,000 people a year, and thats not counting how many children are abused, beaten, and hurt ever day from a drunk friend/relative.I would be killed by a gun before I would allow some one to beat me to a pulp every night when my parent comes home drunk. I'm sure most abused kids would agree. And I can speak of this from experience, I was one. Now guns on average kill a little more then 30,000. This is obviously less then alchohol, and alcohol leads to abuse far more then guns. When was the last time you heard of abuse coming from guns? It happens but way less often. Now alcohol is way easier to get to then guns, and it kills more. Why don't you riot about alcohol rather then guns if you want to help somebody.

[Endy0816]

You can be against both, not that England exactly has the same problem with gun deaths we do.

[iNow]

*you're

 

also, just because heart disease kills more people than diabetes doesn't mean diabetes should/can be ignored

[dimreepr]

 

To no effect. That's what an extremist deadlock looks like - one side fantasizing about Red Dawn insurgencies against Obama's commie minions, the other one unable to see the slightest risk in things like the KKK, or the deployment of Blackwater mercenaries into a disarmed New Orleans, after Katrina, by American fascist politicians elected to high office.

 

 

If you have a logjam you wouldn’t call the logger trying to find the key log, an extremist.

Edited April 10, 2016 by dimreepr

[John Cuthber]

While your at it, focus on something that's helps the country more. Before I start this discussion, let me say you're biased john. My reasoning is that you say your trying to save lives, by making guns harder to get to. Alcohol kills 88,000 people a year, and thats not counting how many children are abused, beaten, and hurt ever day from a drunk friend/relative.I would be killed by a gun before I would allow some one to beat me to a pulp every night when my parent comes home drunk. I'm sure most abused kids would agree. And I can speak of this from experience, I was one. Now guns on average kill a little more then 30,000. This is obviously less then alchohol, and alcohol leads to abuse far more then guns. When was the last time you heard of abuse coming from guns? It happens but way less often. Now alcohol is way easier to get to then guns, and it kills more. Why don't you riot about alcohol rather then guns if you want to help somebody.

The obvious answer is that it's a false dilemma- you can restrict both- and most governments do.

 

But a better answer is because drinks are not designed to kill people- but guns are.

 

Whenever I have raised that in the past people have sad that their guns are not designed for killing people. I think they are mistaken.

 

Think about it; imagine some "magic" trick produces a gun that can be used for target shooting or hunting, but can't be used to kill people; if you point it at a person, it won't fire. It magically knows and won't fire, even if a ricochet would hit someone.

 

I'm not saying it's possible or practical- but just imagine that it did somehow exist.

 

I'd have a very hard time arguing against ownership of that sort of gun for anyone who wanted one. (You could , of course, still use one for vandalism- but there are so man things you can break stuff with that adding one more barely matters)

 

The interesting thing about this non-killing gun is that it wouldn't be protected under the 2nd amendment.

It couldn't be used by a militia.

 

So, when people tell me that their guns are for target shooting and hunting, that's fine- except that most guns were not made for that (most, after all, are made for the military- and they aren't playing sports with them).

 

The only guns that the 2nd amendment enshrines are guns that are those designed to kill people (at least as a secondary use).

And yet, that's why they say they should be allowed to keep their guns which are not used for that.

[Raider5678]

The obvious answer is that it's a false dilemma- you can restrict both- and most governments do.

 

But a better answer is because drinks are not designed to kill people- but guns are.

 

Whenever I have raised that in the past people have sad that their guns are not designed for killing people. I think they are mistaken.

 

Think about it; imagine some "magic" trick produces a gun that can be used for target shooting or hunting, but can't be used to kill people; if you point it at a person, it won't fire. It magically knows and won't fire, even if a ricochet would hit someone.

 

I'm not saying it's possible or practical- but just imagine that it did somehow exist.

 

I'd have a very hard time arguing against ownership of that sort of gun for anyone who wanted one. (You could , of course, still use one for vandalism- but there are so man things you can break stuff with that adding one more barely matters)

 

The interesting thing about this non-killing gun is that it wouldn't be protected under the 2nd amendment.

It couldn't be used by a militia.

 

So, when people tell me that their guns are for target shooting and hunting, that's fine- except that most guns were not made for that (most, after all, are made for the military- and they aren't playing sports with them).

 

The only guns that the 2nd amendment enshrines are guns that are those designed to kill people (at least as a secondary use).

And yet, that's why they say they should be allowed to keep their guns which are not used for that.

First of all, that wasn't the point I was trying to make. Now the fact about guns being for a hunting rather then militia is not exactly a valid argument. If you go back to the time of the revolutionary war and the civil war you will find that guns used inside of those wars were mostly hunting rifles. While the union had actual guns made by factories, they were still a lot of farmers and hunters, and they often used their own guns. As for the revolutionary war, most of their guns were used for hunting and self-defense, but they sure were useful when British soldiers attacked after the american colonist declared war. Since the constitution obviously didn't allow the government to take away guns in the 1700s, when in the world did we decide the founding fathers actually wanted to strip away all the guns because they were used for hunting rather then militia?

 

Since the founding fathers obviously are not here to defend what the said, people have decided that the fathers actually hid a SECERT message in the constitution about making it hard or impossible to own guns. Now in my mind the constitution defended guns that CAN be used in a militia rather then guns MADE for use in militia, which means your gun that detects people wouldn't in fact, be able to be protected by the constitution.

[John Cuthber]

First of all, that wasn't the point I was trying to make. Now the fact about guns being for a hunting rather then militia is not exactly a valid argument. If you go back to the time of the revolutionary war and the civil war you will find that guns used inside of those wars were mostly hunting rifles. While the union had actual guns made by factories, they were still a lot of farmers and hunters, and they often used their own guns. As for the revolutionary war, most of their guns were used for hunting and self-defense, but they sure were useful when British soldiers attacked after the american colonist declared war. Since the constitution obviously didn't allow the government to take away guns in the 1700s, when in the world did we decide the founding fathers actually wanted to strip away all the guns because they were used for hunting rather then militia?

 

Since the founding fathers obviously are not here to defend what the said, people have decided that the fathers actually hid a SECERT message in the constitution about making it hard or impossible to own guns. Now in my mind the constitution defended guns that CAN be used in a militia rather then guns MADE for use in militia, which means your gun that detects people wouldn't in fact, be able to be protected by the constitution.

"First of all, that wasn't the point I was trying to make. Now the fact about guns being for a hunting rather then militia is not exactly a valid argument. If you go back to the time of the revolutionary war and the civil war "

I can't and nor can you.

What happened back then is history.

I'd rather focus on what's happening today where people draft vacuous arguments that guns are OK because they are not the only thing that kills people (and that was the essence of your point- alcohol kills people too so we shouldn't advocate gun control.)

 

Well, as I pointed out, there's a difference (which you chose to ignore).

Drinks are not actually intended to kill people.

Guns, on the other hand, are intended to kill people.

 

If they were not able to kill people, the 2nd amendment wouldn't apply to them because there's no point in having a militia whose guns won't kill.

 

It's good to know we agree on this bit

"your gun that detects people wouldn't in fact, be able to be protected by the constitution. "

That was my point.

The gun lobby wants to have its cake and eat it. they say " my guns aren't made for killing people" and "I have a right under the constitution to keep a gun"

But the right to keep a gun only applies (as we both agree) to guns that kill people- so their first claim must have been false or their second one was false.

Take your pick.

If you buy a gun for self defence the same point applies- it's no use if it doesn't kill.

That makes it clearly distinct from other things , like beer and cars, which sometimes kill, but are not designed to.

 

So there are two answers to your post.

You made a logical fallacy by suggesting that we should not ban guns because we don't ban alcohol .

You failed to spot the difference of intention between guns and alcohol.

Incidentally, where did this

"people have decided that the fathers actually hid a SECERT message in the constitution about making it hard or impossible to own guns. "

come from- did you dream it up or what?

Who are the "people" you refer to?

[Der_Neugierige]

Americans are so psycho when it comes to guns. I call this "nation-psychosis".

Edited April 10, 2016 by Der_Neugierige

[Raider5678]

"First of all, that wasn't the point I was trying to make. Now the fact about guns being for a hunting rather then militia is not exactly a valid argument. If you go back to the time of the revolutionary war and the civil war "

I can't and nor can you.

What happened back then is history.

I'd rather focus on what's happening today where people draft vacuous arguments that guns are OK because they are not the only thing that kills people (and that was the essence of your point- alcohol kills people too so we shouldn't advocate gun control.)

 

Well, as I pointed out, there's a difference (which you chose to ignore).

Drinks are not actually intended to kill people.

Guns, on the other hand, are intended to kill people.

 

If they were not able to kill people, the 2nd amendment wouldn't apply to them because there's no point in having a militia whose guns won't kill.

 

It's good to know we agree on this bit

"your gun that detects people wouldn't in fact, be able to be protected by the constitution. "

That was my point.

The gun lobby wants to have its cake and eat it. they say " my guns aren't made for killing people" and "I have a right under the constitution to keep a gun"

But the right to keep a gun only applies (as we both agree) to guns that kill people- so their first claim must have been false or their second one was false.

Take your pick.

If you buy a gun for self defence the same point applies- it's no use if it doesn't kill.

That makes it clearly distinct from other things , like beer and cars, which sometimes kill, but are not designed to.

 

So there are two answers to your post.

You made a logical fallacy by suggesting that we should not ban guns because we don't ban alcohol .

You failed to spot the difference of intention between guns and alcohol.Incidentally, where did this

"people have decided that the fathers actually hid a SECERT message in the constitution about making it hard or impossible to own guns. "

come from- did you dream it up or what?

Who are the "people" you refer to?

Ok, I'm quoting your entire post rather then adressing spot by spot because I don't know how to spread the quotes out. Now guns being intended to kill people.... They are intended to save people. Originally they were used as a defense against invading enemies. Then they became more evolved and were (my auto correct put safely here for some reason) used to kill lots of people, from Indians to civilians, a lot of people suffered from the power of guns to kill. By let's not look at history eh? In modern day they are used to prevent the deaths of millions of people every year. Guns are here to stay, we pretty much both accept that, so banning guns in one country would result in massive casualties. The reason is that if a country falls behind in weapon development its usually anililated quickly in the event of a war. That's of course saying you take away guns from everybody, military and civilian alike. Now obviously that's a bad idea, but that's how they protect millions of lives every year. So in a sense they are designed to kill people so they can protect people, so that's your argument of the fact they are designed to kill is addressed.

 

Now obviously we both agree that guns are made to kill, but wether for animals or people, its usually people. So that means the first statement is incorrect.

 

Now a gun is no use in self defense if it doesn't kill, but its also no use if you don't have one. People killed in schools are usually because the school was a gun free school. If you look it up a school whose teachers were armed killed the armed attacker trying to kill children in the school. Which obviously means it saves lives there. Also simply having a gun means your less likely to be attacked by another person. Which is the same point, it DOES save lives, even if you don't use it.

 

Now as for beer and cars not being designed to kill, I can't argue with you there because that's true.

 

As for the founding fathers, politicians are taking the meaning of the second amendment, and saying the founding fathers actually meant something else, rather then the meaning that has been accepted for centuries. Just because something seems really simple, doesn't mean it has to be dissected and the meaning changed.

[John Cuthber]

Most people consider a shield to be a defensive item, and a gun as an offensive one.

As for "They are intended to save people. "

I'm reminded of the quote "the idea of war is not to die for your country- but to make damned sure that the other man dies for his".

" In modern day they are used to prevent the deaths of millions of people every year. "

You seem to have overlooked the 20 or so a day which form the topic here; they don't get saved.

More importantly, who is saved by guns, and how?

Are you talking about people whose country isn't invaded because they have an army?

Because that's got nothing to do with the topic of gun control. Nobody is suggesting that the armed forces shouldn't be armed.

 

"Now a gun is no use in self defence if it doesn't kill, but its also no use if you don't have one."

It's also no use if it is safely locked up. But unless it's locked up, the kids (who are the topic of the thread) can get at it.

 

Have you read the thread- a lot of these things have already been raised.

[swansont]

Who says their would be a coup d'etat? Elected officials can declare martial law.

Only under certain conditions can one declare martial law. You already have to have some kind of rebellion ongoing. You need congressional approval to use the military domestically. If one tried that as a power grab, that would be a coup. So I'm not seeing how the military, if they are being used in accordance with the law, are going to not follow orders. The rebellion is going to be seen as unlawful.

 

Beyond that, I don't see what tyranny can arise within the system. It's pretty clear from the federalist papers that the fear was of a usurper who had the backing of the military, which is one reason they didn't want to have a substantial standing army. Without that, what power can you really have?

 

Is a tyrant just someone you don't agree with?

[overtone]

If you have a logjam you wouldn’t call the logger trying to find the key log, an extremist.

That's correct. I would call the guy nailing his favorite log in place, so no one could move it, part of the problem, though. Also the guy blaming all the other logs for the problem, but not his. And so forth.

 

 

If you buy a gun for self defence the same point applies- it's no use if it doesn't kill.

Most defensive employment of guns - such as the one on the ordinary police officer's hip, or the one every potential housebreaker in a rural area knows is somewhere inside with the owner - involves no firing of the gun even, let alone killing with it.

 

 

Guns, on the other hand, are intended to kill people.

They are intended to threaten people.

 

 

Most people consider a shield to be a defensive item, and a gun as an offensive one.

These people are wrong. Threats, in general, are very often defensive. And shields - like bulletproof vests, or ABM systems - are often threats.

Edited April 11, 2016 by overtone

[dimreepr]

That's correct. I would call the guy nailing his favorite log in place, so no one could move it, part of the problem, though. Also the guy blaming all the other logs for the problem, but not his. And so forth.

 

 

Whilst we blame the NRA and manufacturers for nailing and bracing the key log in place, we don’t blame all the other logs, but we do question them for allowing it to happen.

 

My point is your extremist argument isn’t valid, because whilst one side is taking the extreme position of letting anyone own a gun, even those incapable of being responsible, the rest of us aren’t demanding an absolute ban, which is the other extreme; we’re merely suggesting checks on the responsibility of potential owners and limiting children’s access to them, that seems to be a very reasonable position (far from extreme).

[iNow]

 

Guns, on the other hand, are intended to kill people.

They are intended to threaten people.

 

Bullshit

Edited April 11, 2016 by iNow

[overtone]

My point is your extremist argument isn’t valid, because whilst one side is taking the extreme position of letting anyone own a gun, even those incapable of being responsible, the rest of us aren’t demanding an absolute ban, which is the other extreme;

That's not the NRA extremist position, and not the damaging extremist position of the gun foes either.

 

 

 

we’re merely suggesting checks on the responsibility of potential owners and limiting children’s access to them,

No, you're not.

 

 

 

"They are intended to threaten people."

 

Bullshit

 

Not bullshit. That's what they're for - from the guy holding up the convenience store to the cop with the piece on his hip.

Edited April 11, 2016 by overtone

[dimreepr]

That's not the NRA extremist position, and not the damaging extremist position of the gun foes either.

 

 

Really, have I conflated the gun lobby with the NRA? Looking from the outside that’s how it seems, please explain my mistake.

 

 

No, you're not.

 

 

 

That certainly seems to be the position of everyone on this thread, (I may have missed one or two with a stronger position) nevertheless, please explain how you know my position.