Strong Reason to Retain the Second Amendment

Sukerkin

Have the courage to speak softly
MT Mentor
Lifetime Supporting Member
MTS Alumni
Joined
Sep 15, 2006
Messages
15,316
Reaction score
479
Location
Staffordshire, England
I'm putting this here rather than in the, admittedly relevant, Armed Citizen thread because I think that thread lost it's way a while back and it is just chasing it's own tail now with emotions determining responses rather than intelligent consideration.

That said, this is an emotional testimony but with rather good reason given the history of the man giving it. The words that really resonated with me are quite simple:

"I've been through it. I've been there. You people don't know what freedom is because you never lost it".

[video=youtube_share;N1ABw6IMKn0]http://youtu.be/N1ABw6IMKn0[/video]
 
OP
Sukerkin

Sukerkin

Have the courage to speak softly
MT Mentor
Lifetime Supporting Member
MTS Alumni
Joined
Sep 15, 2006
Messages
15,316
Reaction score
479
Location
Staffordshire, England
Another good, clear, speech on this topic that I think is from some time ago as I have heard the numbers used in various other places of late:

[video=youtube_share;v2jc1TzlqLo]http://youtu.be/v2jc1TzlqLo[/video]

Some good analogies in the first part but I think my favourite phrase was when this 'virtual' President tells the assembled 'politicians' that it is their sworn oath of office to protect the entirety of the Constitution, not just the parts they personally approve of.
 

DennisBreene

3rd Black Belt
Lifetime Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 22, 2012
Messages
956
Reaction score
19
Location
Illinois
Another good, clear, speech on this topic that I think is from some time ago as I have heard the numbers used in various other places of late:

[video=youtube_share;v2jc1TzlqLo]http://youtu.be/v2jc1TzlqLo[/video]

Some good analogies in the first part but I think my favourite phrase was when this 'virtual' President tells the assembled 'politicians' that it is their sworn oath of office to protect the entirety of the Constitution, not just the parts they personally approve of.

While I'm pessimistic that any discussion of the second amendment will remain 'reasonable' for long, I think these are two excellent opening salvos. From a personal perspective; I began target shooting a couple of years ago simply because I was ignorant of firearms and wanted to learn. I have followed all of the arguments, both here and else where and have reached conclusions of my own. My vote on the issues is less relevant than the discussion of the co-mingled arguments about violence in our societies, weapons and their justifiable use, self-defense and reasonable force, governmental power and it's misuse, and the second amendment. The arguments are passionate because the outcomes to violence are so devastating. Reasonable people can and will come to very differant conclusions for many reasons. I would wish that this forum of fellowship of martial artists would refrain from inflicting further verbal and emotional violence on it's members as it discusses these issues. There are many educated and informed people on this site who, I think, have something to offer to the debate and possibly can contribute concrete recommendations for the reduction in injury and death in relation to gun violence. I think solutions are too often buried in a maelstrom of passionate argument that goes off course. I would like to see respectful disagreement and an acknowledgement of each other's different perspectives. I don't see the point in repeated threads that devolve into repetitive arguments without some achievement of reasonable recommendations for change. There is no public mandate in this forum to advise the society as a whole, but as a group it would be refreshing to see the dignity and respect expected in the dojo applied to the discourse over contentious issues.
 
OP
Sukerkin

Sukerkin

Have the courage to speak softly
MT Mentor
Lifetime Supporting Member
MTS Alumni
Joined
Sep 15, 2006
Messages
15,316
Reaction score
479
Location
Staffordshire, England
I was surprised to come across this dramatised information film made by the DHS of all organisations that deals with the horrible situations of what they call Active Shooter Events. I've not watched it yet but it's only short and I am interested to see what they have to say about the contributions of armed citizens in such circumstances:

[video=youtube_share;1ESNae7OoyM]http://youtu.be/1ESNae7OoyM[/video]

EDIT: Sadly, it doesn't mention gun armed citizens, only the use of improvised weapons.
 

celtic_crippler

Senior Master
Joined
Jan 15, 2006
Messages
3,968
Reaction score
137
Location
Airstrip One
Why do you need to exercise the 2nd Amendment when you can just stab a shooter in the eye with a pair of scissors? :fart:
 

billc

Grandmaster
Lifetime Supporting Member
Joined
Aug 12, 2007
Messages
9,183
Reaction score
85
Location
somewhere near Lake Michigan
Sukerkin, I see you have discovered Bill Whittle...one of my favorite video commentators...as usual this is a great piece...
 
OP
Sukerkin

Sukerkin

Have the courage to speak softly
MT Mentor
Lifetime Supporting Member
MTS Alumni
Joined
Sep 15, 2006
Messages
15,316
Reaction score
479
Location
Staffordshire, England
:grins: I have ever said that sense is sense - I try not to get hung up on where the 'sense' comes from. If I agree then I will say that I do, even if the person saying the things I agree with is supposed to be on the 'other side' than I am. For me that is how all issues have to be and it's something I have ever championed is the strength of the British Liberal :D ... until the party showed that, like all of the rest, principle burns quite nicely on the pyre of expediency ...

... not that I am upset with how the Liberals have behaved whilst being in bed with the Tories :lol:.
 

billc

Grandmaster
Lifetime Supporting Member
Joined
Aug 12, 2007
Messages
9,183
Reaction score
85
Location
somewhere near Lake Michigan
Did you see Bill Whittle on Han Solo shooting first...I have posted it before...it's really good...

Slowly, but surely, you are being led to the dark side Sukerkin...give in to your...common sense...
 

arnisador

Sr. Grandmaster
MTS Alumni
Joined
Aug 28, 2001
Messages
44,560
Reaction score
435
Location
Terre Haute, IN
I was surprised to come across this dramatised information film made by the DHS of all organisations that deals with the horrible situations of what they call Active Shooter Events. I've not watched it yet but it's only short and I am interested to see what they have to say about the contributions of armed citizens in such circumstances:

Required watching as part of training for some govt. agencies--all new employees have to view it (as part of online training).
 
OP
Sukerkin

Sukerkin

Have the courage to speak softly
MT Mentor
Lifetime Supporting Member
MTS Alumni
Joined
Sep 15, 2006
Messages
15,316
Reaction score
479
Location
Staffordshire, England

arnisador

Sr. Grandmaster
MTS Alumni
Joined
Aug 28, 2001
Messages
44,560
Reaction score
435
Location
Terre Haute, IN
as a reason to disarm and punish the otherwise law-abiding

If what you're taking away from all this is that those favoring gun control want to "punish" gun owners then I don't know what to say. But in the U.S. we often mandate safety devices and procedures for relatively rare events--in cars, swimming pools, bathrooms (the type of electrical outlet allowed), toys (choking hazards), etc.
 

DennisBreene

3rd Black Belt
Lifetime Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 22, 2012
Messages
956
Reaction score
19
Location
Illinois
If what you're taking away from all this is that those favoring gun control want to "punish" gun owners then I don't know what to say. But in the U.S. we often mandate safety devices and procedures for relatively rare events--in cars, swimming pools, bathrooms (the type of electrical outlet allowed), toys (choking hazards), etc.

Many of these measures for safety are essentially passive (with the exclusion of seat belts). The user is not required to do anything, only the manufacturer. I think this places the argument somewhat out of the sphere of gun ownership though I will yield the point that mandating magazine size and banning semi-automatic may be constued as passive "restraints" like airbags. The analogy is thin when you realize that your V-10 sports car capable of 200mph has the same airbags as an econobox and both are legal to drive and own. And the restrictions on how you drive (ie, speed limits, stop signs) don't change with the type of car you drive.
 

Bob Hubbard

Retired
MT Mentor
Founding Member
Lifetime Supporting Member
MTS Alumni
Joined
Aug 4, 2001
Messages
47,249
Reaction score
767
Location
Land of the Free
This, rather than being a strong advocacy piece for retaining the Second Amendment unmolested, instead kicks the chocks from underneath those citing the threat to the young as a reason to disarm and punish the otherwise law-abiding:

http://gunssavelives.net/blog/cnn-a...-among-children-are-literally-1-in-a-million/

It's about control and political favor. Actual public safety has nothing to do with it. Articles like that validate the numbers I've repeatedly posted, and that only Arni continues to ignore.
 

arnisador

Sr. Grandmaster
MTS Alumni
Joined
Aug 28, 2001
Messages
44,560
Reaction score
435
Location
Terre Haute, IN
I think this places the argument somewhat out of the sphere of gun ownership though I will yield the point that mandating magazine size and banning semi-automatic may be constued as passive "restraints" like airbags.

Child-proof safeties, effective drop-proof firing mechanisms, and better storage/security systems are some other things often mentioned and they could also be passive.
 

DennisBreene

3rd Black Belt
Lifetime Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 22, 2012
Messages
956
Reaction score
19
Location
Illinois
Child-proof safeties, effective drop-proof firing mechanisms, and better storage/security systems are some other things often mentioned and they could also be passive.

And all probably realistic general gun safety issues, though I'll tread lightly here because I'm not a gunsmith and don't know the tecnical issues involved in some of them. But, sadly, I don't see any of these items as particularly useful in preventing the intentional or grossly negligent misuse of firearms. Keeping weapons away from the incompetant (homicidal, suicidal or just plain stupid) is on the face of it the rational solution and so far the only hammer for that nail that keeps being thrown into the debate is "take guns away from everyone, that'll fix it". I don't buy that solution any more than I buy the "sky is falling" alarmist rhetoric that is being drummed by a contingent of gun owners. I fear that when an issue has become this polarized, we end up not finding a reasoned response and productive answers.
 
Last edited:

Bob Hubbard

Retired
MT Mentor
Founding Member
Lifetime Supporting Member
MTS Alumni
Joined
Aug 4, 2001
Messages
47,249
Reaction score
767
Location
Land of the Free
Child-proof safeties, effective drop-proof firing mechanisms, and better storage/security systems are some other things often mentioned and they could also be passive.

Child-proof safeties - experts claim they are ineffective and can actually render guns more dangerous.
effective drop-proof firing mechanisms - in effect since 30+ years ago
better storage/security systems - like trusting the government and giving up your guns right?
 

arnisador

Sr. Grandmaster
MTS Alumni
Joined
Aug 28, 2001
Messages
44,560
Reaction score
435
Location
Terre Haute, IN

In a 10 year period, that's 703+7766=8469 deaths or injuries among children 15 or 14, resp., and younger. The language indicates that they are not double-counting children who are injured twice or more (but if that is not perfectly clear than I think it's safe to assume that that happening in separate years is extremely infrequent). Hence about 776 children per year are injured. The govt. gives all children 17 and younger as about 72.7-74.1 million per year over those years (http://www.childstats.gov/americaschildren/tables.asp). That gives about 776/73.4M injured children per year--less if some children are being counted twice. That's about 1 in 95,000, and actually more since it's children under 14 injured as a fraction of children under 17. (I get odds of about 1 in 78,000 by multiplying the population figure by 14/17.) Put another way, if the odds are 1 in a million per year and 776 children per year are injured then either there are about 776 million children in the U.S. (which is over twice the population of the entire nation), or the average child injured by a gun in a given year is actually shot in about 10 separate instances that year.

If they did the calculation as 7776 over all children who were under 14 for some period of time in the 10 year period, then in round numbers you'd have something like 7776/100M or about 1 in 129,000. If the 1 in a million figure is right based on 7776 children, then there were over 7 billion children in the U.S. during that time.

What am I missing about how the 1 in a million figure is being calculated?
 

arnisador

Sr. Grandmaster
MTS Alumni
Joined
Aug 28, 2001
Messages
44,560
Reaction score
435
Location
Terre Haute, IN
And all probably realistic general gun safety issues, though I'll tread lightly here because I'm not a gunsmith and don't know the tecnical issues involved in some of them. But, sadly, I don't see any of these items as particularly useful in preventing the intentional or grossly negligent misuse of firearms. Keeping weapons away from the incompetant (homicidal, suicidal or just plain stupid) is on the face of it the rational solution and so far the only hammer for that nail that keeps being thrown into the debate is "take guns away from everyone, that'll fix it". I don't buy that solution any more than I buy the "sky is falling" alarmist rhetoric that is being drummed by a contingent of gun owners. I fear that when an issue has become this polarized, we end up not finding a reasoned response and productive answers.

In quite a few of the recent mass shootings the guns have been stolen from a family member or neighbor who kept them unsecured. Safe storage/biometrics could make a difference there. The total tally of gun deaths per year is about 30,000 so addressing some of the 70-some deaths 700-some accidental shootings by kids per year isn't entirely negligible.
 

Bob Hubbard

Retired
MT Mentor
Founding Member
Lifetime Supporting Member
MTS Alumni
Joined
Aug 4, 2001
Messages
47,249
Reaction score
767
Location
Land of the Free
and yet never will there be an answer if 776 out of 73,400,000 is a significant number.
 

Latest Discussions

Top