[Img][/img]

That kills more and is less regulated?

Apparently alcohol killing 90,000 people per year is acceptable.

And with 10,000 dui deaths it does kill innocent people, including over 1000 children aged 0, to 14

Apparently we need to ban guns to reduce deaths, but cant ban alcohol, because that ban wouldnt work.

backyard swimming pools, and now, apparently, big trucks.

Some are just against guns.

Children are not allowed to use pools without supervision.
One is not allowed to use a car without a driver's license.

And on the other side, there is no licensing when it comes to owning guns.
No test whether you know the laws concerning gun-ownership.
No theoretical lessons how to use or not to use a gun in this or that situation.
No practical lessons how to take care of a gun.





"A relaxed population being necessary to a peaceful state of society, the right of the people to use ponds, lakes and pools for refreshment shall not be infringed."

"The opportunity of swift transportation being necessary to the wellbeing of the State, the right of the people to use chariots and horses shall not be infringed."


What a wonderful world that would be. Anybody would have a 2nd Amendment right to use his car. And if people start dying en masse in car-accidents and vehicular manslaughter, the National Automobile Association will fight for the right that everybody is free to drive around with his car.
Can you imagine the traitors who demand a "car-free zone"? People have a right to take their cars everywhere!

That might be some local law in places. I can own or drive s car without a license, registration and insurance. Those are only required to operate on the public roads.

Next...

The situations are not comparable because you are mainly damaging yourself with alcohol, not others.

don't count as others?

Nobody gives a fuck about that and nobody is willing to do anything about that out of fear of breaking with cultural norms.



But to answer your question: They do count as deaths due to alcohol.
The difference is that alcohol is everywhere and readily available and can even be made at home. I can assure you that the US WOULD see an uptick in gun-related deaths if guns and ammo were sold as freely as alcohol. And I can assure you, that the US WILL see an uptick in gun-related deaths once 3D-printers spread and everybody can manufacture guns at home.

We should accept that gun deaths will happen and not push for additional laws.

The beer-lobby is fighting to keep marijuana an illegal drug. There is a less-lethal alternative to alcohol available, but money and culture keep it from going mainstream.

They and the ones making hard alcohol want to keep their monopoly.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/shootings-in-newark-surge-1439945824

"In Newark, drug trafficking, particularly of marijuana and prescription pills, is the main cause of the uptick in gun violence, said Eugene Venable, director of the Newark Police Department. He also said the recent removal of state police, who had been stationed in the city to assist the local police, was to blame in part for the shooting increase.
...
“When I was growing up it wasn’t as bad,” said Ms. Galarza, who has lived in Newark all her life. “But now I’m scared to let my kids out to play. It’s the gangs, people on the corners, selling drugs and all that.”

Larry Hamm, who in 1983 founded the People’s Organization for Progress, a Newark community group, said improving the city’s economic and educational opportunities would do more to solve violent crime than policing or political policies."


Plenty of well-known causes,and potential remedies.

Based on zero evidence, and zero study on your part, your "assurances" are worth exactly nothing. Liberal criminologists James Wright, Peter Rossi and Gary Kleck (to name just three) started their careers assuming a relationship between the raw number of guns and gun violence. They changed their minds as they learned more about the issue. Then you have the serious problem of national gun violence declining as gun ownership rises..........and this, over decades.

So much flail and fail.

The more you know about "gun control" ("redneck" control, in reality) the less it stands up.

card. My last handgun I bought I had to show ID, fill out a form, and then wait for my background check to go thru. Seems the wine (alcohol) was much easier to buy.

http://responsibility.org/get-the-facts/research/statistics/drunk-driving-fatalities/

According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 33,561 people died in traffic crashes in 2012 in the United States (latest figures available), including an estimated 10,076 people who were killed in drunk driving crashes involving a driver with an illegal BAC (.08 or greater). Among the people killed in these drunk driving crashes, 65% were drivers (6,688), 27% were motor vehicle occupants (2,824), and 8% were non-occupants (810).


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate

Added up, 10.38 people per 100,000 and year died a firearm-related death in 2014 in the US.
With a population of 300,000,000 that's 31,140 gun-related deaths.


10,000 people per year get killed by alcohol-caused accidents. 30,000 people per year die from guns.


https://www.niaaa.nih.gov/alcohol-health/overview-alcohol-consumption/alcohol-facts-and-statistics

90,000 people per year die from alcohol-related causes. Substract the 10,000 people killed by drunk drivers and you get 80,000 people who killed themselves with alcohol.




So, yes, alcohol is more of a danger to oneself than to others.

considering two thirds of gun deaths are suicides.

But since you want me to name a price, I'd want the same ability to buy privilege as the 1%ers already have. So maybe 2 billion should cover myself and families security for a lifetime.

Are not transferable to a government without a thorough and ongoing background check.
The vetting process will take into account, the but will not be limited to:

Past attrocities

Unjust wars

Forced regime change in sovereign nations that have not attacked the USA

Incarceration rate of it's own citizens, for non violent victimless crimes

The use of secret lists to strip it's own citizens of thier right to travel

Laws passed to protect government enforcers from justice, both civilly and criminally, while allowing them to commit crimes with impunity.

Mass roundup and unlawful internment of it's own citizens, Japanese internment camps come to mind.

The militarization of it's police force, turning them from peace officers, to soldiers.

More criteria not needed, but feel free to add more if you like, my government has failed the background check already. Rights will not be transferred.

My government may petition it's citizenry at some future un named date to attempt to prove it's innocence. Then they can start the background check over and see if they can then transfer more of my rights into privelages.

It becomes tiring, seeing folks try to negotiate my rights away to a very troubled government, who can neither ensure peace, or even keep it's enforcers from destroying it.
The good news is, even if the anti-crowd fails to see it, is that violent crime and homicides are at historic lows. They have roughly halved in the last quarter century, but to hear it from the anti's, you would think things have never been worse. Sad days ahead i'm afraid.

The common good, therefore, is the end of civil government, and common consent, the foundation on which it is established. To effect this end, it was necessary that a certain portion of natural liberty should be surrendered, in order, that what remained should be preserved: how great a proportion of natural freedom is necessary to be yielded by individuals, when they submit to government, I shall not now enquire. So much, however, must be given up, as will be sufficient to enable those, to whom the administration of the government is committed, to establish laws for the promoting the happiness of the community, and to carry those laws into effect. But it is not necessary, for this purpose, that individuals should relinquish all their natural rights.

Some are of such a nature that they cannot be surrendered. Of this kind are the rights of conscience, the right of enjoying and defending life, etc.

Yates 1787

Because others abuse it?


Not too mention all the great posts above mine!

You are not willing to give up your rights, no matter how many people die?

but since the conversation always starts and ends with "gunz" I don't see the need right now. Once you open your mind to other solutions then I will be more than willing to work with you.

....harmed anyone by exercising my rights.

I will NOT, give up a civil liberty, I WILL, defend all civil liberties, owning a gun is a RIGHT, not a privilege. My rights are not dependent on you "liking or supporting" them.

This is just me, You can feel free to give up yours.

Those are even the rights of those who are willing to abuse them.

Unless he isn't incuded in "everybody", they're his rights too.

Or the 1st?

Bear in mind that Cheney and Bush were really keen on people giving up their rights to be safe. Patriot Act, anyone?

that cause 70-80% of the gun violence*, I think then a reasonable next step would be to start having lawful peoples' rights evaluated.


*Richmond, Calif: among America’s highest per capita rates of gun violence: 70 percent of their gun violence in 2008 was caused by fewer than 1 percent of the city’s residents.

Cincinnati: less than 1 percent of the city’s population was responsible for 74 percent of homicides in 2007.

Chicago: a city of 2.7 million people, about 1,400 are responsible for much of the violence, all of them are on what the department calls its Strategic Subject List.

Newark: Shootings have increased by nearly half in 2015, drug trafficking, particularly of marijuana and prescription pills, is the main cause of the uptick in gun violence, said the director of the Newark Police Department. Initiatives require police and prosecutors to focus on the small number of lawbreakers responsible for most violent crimes. In Newark, that’s 1,470 people, less than 1 percent of the city’s 277,000 residents

etc. etc.

As Chicago says: “We are targeting the correct individuals,” Mr. Johnson said. “We just need our judicial partners and our state legislators to hold these people accountable.”



Until that time comes, and people are REALLY serious about spending the $$ and instituting the programs they know work, the numbers will be what they are.

As Chicago says: “We are targeting the correct individuals,” Mr. Johnson said. “We just need our judicial partners and our state legislators to hold these people accountable.”

It seems to be a common theme in the local news...somebody murders someone, and it turns out they were recently given probation for being a felon in possession of a gun.

We don't enforce our current gun laws (likely due to prison over-crowding).

someone who otherwise wants to get rid of the 2nd amendment and the security against infringement it provides.

And what else they would be willing to put up with to make it so?

50%? 60% 70% 80%?

Actually seems doable to some extent in that range.

Assuming so-called "assault weapons" account for half or even 2/3 of the ~270 rifle murders annually in this country (a fair assumption given that they are by far the most popular civilian rifles in the United States), yet the fundamentalists want nationwide bans, and many want mass confiscation---from 20-50 million people, depending on how defined---over that ~200/yr.

To put that into perspective, ~720/yr are killed riding bicycles.

I'm against the perpetual Cold War the permanent presence of guns creates in everyday-life. And sometimes this Cold War gets hot and somebody dies. Oops.

If the current rulings per the 2nd remained mainly in tact? I.e. The ones who lost rights/privileges were those known to LE to be the problem?

Gun violence has been in decline since 1993. Were it to start rising dramatically, would it be because suddenly gun accidents jumped? No. It would be because of serious social unrest and the disappearance of law and order --- in which case NO amount of money could separate folks from the most effective tool for self-defense they currently possess.

Restriction supporters need to think up fantasy scenarios due to the fact that actual facts don't support their "cause".

If I kill one person unjustly then I will surrender my right to own firearms.

No one else should loose their rights because of my action. I, and I alone, am responsible and should be the only one to suffer the consequences.

Anything else would be unjust

should not interfere with the choices others make regarding their self-defense.

Murders with guns and murders with non-guns are linked; generally speaking, about two-thirds of murders are with guns and one third are with non-guns. Gun accidents are a very small percentage of gun-related death.

For any number you list, you'd have to add a number, equal to about half of the original number, which would be non-gun murders. Which would be an indication of an overall increase in violent crime.

E.g., 100,000 gun-related murders a year would have about 50,000 non-gun-related murders a year. This is about ten times our current rate. What kind of severe change to our country would increase the violent crime rate (including murders) by a factor of 10?

I don't know but it might involve the policies of President Trump.

I didn't commit any of them.

If the 2nd Amendment right can be identified as the cause of gun-violence (funny how the US is doing everything to sabotage research into gun-violence), how many deaths would it take to convince you to turn the right into a privilege?

You're asking me to accept the violation of my rights based on the crimes of others to which I am not a party.

My right to self defense is absolute. It only becomes forfeit if I -- not someone else -- violate the rights of another. The means for realizing my rights are immaterial.

You may find this overly restricting to your agenda but anything less and all of of rights will be weakened.

Would you give up that right for a greater good?





I'm curious how the 2nd Amendment right relates to other rights. For example:

Can a right be given up for a greater good?

Should a right be given up for a greater good? Is there some greater good of more importance than a right?

Who has that right? Does one even has that right if one does neither demand nor assert it?

Do other people have 2nd Amendment rights as well even though they do not assert them in their constitutions? From where do these rights enter?

I can waive my own rights but I have no right to abrogate the rights of others; I would merely violating their rights.

Without wanting to sound accusatory, you seem to be fixated on the fact that the right to self defense has been codified in the 2nd Amendment. Even if those words were never committed to paper the right would still exist. It is an extension of the right to one's own life.

I believe what you are trying to accomplish is also meant to preserve the right to life but what you are effectively saying is, and I apologize for the harshness, "We will attempt to preserve the right to life by suspending the right to self defense because of the abuse of others. If you find yourself in need to exercise your right to self defense in order to preserve your right to life you must either submit to your attacker or face the full weight of the law."

I do not see that as becoming either moral or practical.

If nothing else, please allow me to take a moment to thank you for the civil discourse. It is seldom seen and I appreciate it.

Except that it can't be. Peoples decisions cause gun violence. Guns are an instrument in the equation. Nothing more, nothing less.