4 minutes ago, NewGuy87 said:

This part of your argument makes no sense.

It is also statistically unlikely that you'll get HIV or die in a motorbike accident, but people use condoms, wear helmets and wear seat belts.

People who can swim also wear life jackets under various circumstances and people even wear helmets riding bicycles, despite the chances of death being rare.

People also take the precaution of going for various screenings and health check ups when it is highly unlikely anything will be found.

Actually, assaults are quite common. I probably don't know a single guy that hasn't been violently assaulted a few times in his life.

I'm 76 and have never had any kind of altercation since the 4th grade, so "everybody" doesn't fit.

Those who go looking for trouble, find it. And guns don't help noway, nohow.

Use a gun, whether to defend yourself or your property, you're the one who will suffer the consequences!

6 minutes ago, NewGuy87 said:

This part of your argument makes no sense.

It is also statistically unlikely that you'll get HIV or die in a motorbike accident, but people use condoms, wear helmets and wear seat belts.

People who can swim also wear life jackets under various circumstances and people even wear helmets riding bicycles, despite the chances of death being rare.

People also take the precaution of going for various screenings and health check ups when it is highly unlikely anything will be found.

Actually, assaults are quite common. I probably don't know a single guy that hasn't been violently assaulted a few times in his life.

You've complete failed to understand equivalence.

Condoms, seat belts, bicycle helmets, life jackets and health screenings are all safety measures designed to reduce risk while people engage in normal everyday activities.

A firearm is not analogous to a seat belt.

The equivalent comparison would be carrying a parachute every time you drive to the supermarket because there's a tiny chance your car might become airborne.

My point wasn't that low-probability events shouldn't be prepared for. It was that if you genuinely believe there's a meaningful chance you'll need to engage in a lethal gunfight to protect your family, then you're describing a society with an extraordinarily high level of danger.

And if that danger were truly as common as some gun advocates imply, then armed guards, panic rooms, security fences and armoured vehicles would also be rational precautions.

As for "I don't know a single guy who hasn't been assaulted", that's another anecdote. I know plenty of men who have never been violently assaulted in their lives. Neither proves anything.

Public policy is based on population-level outcomes, not on the social circles of individual posters.

1 hour ago, richard_smith237 said:

Why do you think you're going to end up in a "combat situation" in the first place?

Are you really that unpopular in person?

Since you seem to have missed his point about being old and frail, let me explain: weapons, such as guns, level the playing field for old, frail, weak, small people, and women or men who are out numbered or outmatched.

It allows everyone to have a better chance to defend themselves, including easy targets (no, not unpopular people; now you are being obtuse)

3 minutes ago, unblocktheplanet said:

I sure think you live in the wrong neighbourhood, are perhaps agressive in your intentions and actions, and certainly hang out in bad places with bad people.

These things don't happen to normal people!

The thing about the pool que is particularly enlightening...

According to the author's Fantasy if he was there with a gun he could have taken revenge and got off a few shots towards the attacker and maybe hit some innocent bystanders with stray bullets maybe even killing his own sister accidentally all because he decided to try and imitate some 1950s Hollywood Western where they never miss in a bar shootout.

It would be funny if it wasn't so delusional. 😒

3 minutes ago, unblocktheplanet said:

I'm 76 and have never had any kind of altercation since the 4th grade, so "everybody" doesn't fit.

Those who go looking for trouble, find it. And guns don't help noway, nohow.

Use a gun, whether to defend yourself or your property, you're the one who will suffer the consequences!

A close friend of mine was stabbed at university and survived with no lasting injury.

The assumption that a more heavily armed society would somehow have prevented that is fundamentally flawed. There's every chance he would have been shot instead.

That's the point many gun advocates seem to miss. NewGuy87's friends might not have been victims of serious assaults, stabbings or eye injuries in a heavily armed society. They may simply have ended up as homicide statistics.

1 hour ago, richard_smith237 said:

Because, unlike most consumer products, their primary purpose is to injure, incapacitate or kill. That's literally what they were designed to do.

There are 4-5 million guns in the US, and about 45,000 gun deaths per year.

There are about 3 million cars in the US, and about 42,000 car deaths per year.

So, there are significantly more deaths per car than per gun, so to claim that the primary purpose of guns it to kill is ridiculous.

You don't like guns, and you want them taken from the people that do like guns.

1 hour ago, richard_smith237 said:

"I like them" may be an honest argument, but it's not a particularly strong one when discussing public policy.

The fact that people enjoy something does not automatically outweigh the risks and costs associated with making it widely available. That's especially true when the object in question was designed from the outset to project lethal force.

You really don't understand the concept of false equivalence, do you?

Cars are heavily regulated because they save lives and serve an essential transport function. We accept licensing, registration, insurance, speed limits and safety standards because they reduce harm.

So comparing gun regulation to speed limits isn't an argument against regulation. It's an argument for it.

If you want to compare cars and guns, at least use an equivalent comparison.

A car's primary purpose is transportation. A gun's primary purpose is to project lethal force.

The equivalent isn't an ordinary car being driven normally. It's a car being driven at 100 mph through a city centre, or 60 mph through a crowded shopping mall. In that scenario, the car is no longer being used as transport - it's being used as a weapon.

That's the false equivalence that gun advocates and you continually miss. One object is designed primarily to move people around. The other is designed primarily to injure, incapacitate or kill.

You do not understand the concept of rights, do you?

12 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

I'm genuinely sorry those things happened to you, but the plural of anecdote is not statistics.

Nobody is denying that violent crime exists, nor that people can be assaulted, stabbed, burgled or worse in countries with stricter gun laws.

The question is whether widespread firearm ownership improves outcomes at a societal level.

You're presenting a collection of personal experiences and using them to justify a national policy affecting hundreds of millions of people. That's not how public policy works.

For every example you've given, I could point to school shootings, shopping mall shootings, domestic murders, accidental shootings and firearm suicides that are far more common in the United States than in comparable developed countries.

The issue isn't whether individual tragedies occur. They do, everywhere.

The issue is that the US experiences dramatically higher firearm death rates than its peer nations, and there is no way to explain that away with anecdotes.

No, the question is whether American have the right to own firearms.

7 minutes ago, NewGuy87 said:

1 hour ago, richard_smith237 said:

Why do you think you're going to end up in a "combat situation" in the first place?

Are you really that unpopular in person?

Since you seem to have missed his point about being old and frail, let me explain: weapons, such as guns, level the playing field for old, frail, weak, small people, and women or men who are out numbered or outmatched.

It allows everyone to have a better chance to defend themselves, including easy targets (no, not unpopular people; now you are being obtuse)

No, I didn't miss the point. I rejected it because it's based on a fantasy.

You're imagining a world where every old, frail person is the hero of their own action movie: instantly recognising danger, drawing flawlessly under pressure and neutralising the threat.

Meanwhile, you've conveniently ignored the fact that the criminal gets a vote too.

If we're talking about a heavily armed society, why are you assuming the attacker isn't armed? Why are you assuming the attacker doesn't shoot first? Why are you assuming the old, frail person isn't slower to react, slower to draw and slower to make decisions under stress?

The entire argument rests on giving every advantage to the victim and every disadvantage to the aggressor.

Reality doesn't work like that.

The uncomfortable truth is that if you're genuinely old, frail and physically vulnerable, a gun does not magically transform you into John Wick. In many situations, it simply means there's now a second gun at the scene.

And that's the part gun enthusiasts constantly gloss over. They obsess over the handful of successful defensive-use stories while ignoring the far larger societal reality: more guns also mean more suicides, more accidents, more domestic murders, more stolen firearms, more impulsive killings and more gun deaths.

So no, the question isn't whether a gun can help a vulnerable person. Of course it can.

The question is whether building an entire society around that hypothetical produces better outcomes overall.

That's why the relevant comparison isn't a frail person versus an attacker. It's one society with widespread firearm ownership versus another without it.

And on that measure, the US gun death statistics are absolutely brutal. There is simply no way to polish them.

3 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

No, the question is whether American have the right to own firearms.

Which is a valid point, because that right can be amended. The clue is in the name of the very Second Amendment we're discussing.

The Constitution has been amended 27 times already. The Founders didn't create a sacred, untouchable document. They created a framework that future generations could modify when circumstances changed.

The real question isn't whether Americans currently have the right to own firearms. They clearly do under the Second Amendment

So.. the question is whether a constitutional provision written in the late 18th century still produces the best outcomes in a 21st-century society of 340 million people, modern cities, and firearms that bear little resemblance to those available when the amendment was written.

Simply saying "it's a right" doesn't end the debate. If it did, there would never have been a need for amendments in the first place.

We want to pretend the problem is guns, not people's behavior.

When we take the guns away, I'm sure the burning, looting and rioting will stop, as will pushing people in front of trains.

Taking guns away to eliminate crime, is like taking forks away to eliminate obesity.

PS if you are old and frail you don't need a gun let them kill you are going to die soon anyway no big deal if you're not prepared to meet your maker you probably should get 'er done already besides you don't carry around big money anyway give them whatever in your pocket live to see another day what the hell are you doing trying to fight back against some young thug anyway delusional if they're trying to attack you after you opened your big mouth learn how to shut it leaving your mouth open only lets the flies in ride off into the sunset with grace you old coot 😜

10 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

You do not understand the concept of rights, do you?

Exactly.

They are are quoting statistics to make their argument, but that's all we are to most governments: statistics.

I think it's great that America allows their citizens the basic right of self defence.

We want to pretend the problem is guns, not people's behavior.

When we take the guns away, I'm sure the burning, looting and rioting will stop, as will pushing people in front of trains.

Taking guns away to eliminate crime, is like taking forks away to eliminate obesity.

1 minute ago, richard_smith237 said:

Which is a valid point, because that right can be amended. The clue is in the name of the very Second Amendment we're discussing.

The Constitution has been amended 27 times already. The Founders didn't create a sacred, untouchable document. They created a framework that future generations could modify when circumstances changed.

The real question isn't whether Americans currently have the right to own firearms. They clearly do under the Second Amendment

So.. the question is whether a constitutional provision written in the late 18th century still produces the best outcomes in a 21st-century society of 340 million people, modern cities, and firearms that bear little resemblance to those available when the amendment was written.

Simply saying "it's a right" doesn't end the debate. If it did, there would never have been a need for amendments in the first place.

I have said any number of times that the people that want to take the guns away can do so.

The same people that want to take the guns, want to take away free speech right, elimionate the Senate and pack the court.

10 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

You're imagining a world where every old, frail person is the hero of their own action movie: instantly recognising danger, drawing flawlessly under pressure and neutralising the threat.

Nobody is suggesting that, lol.

But they should have the right to carry a weapon for self defense at least then they would stand a better chance.

And in America they do have have that right

1 minute ago, Yellowtail said:

We want to pretend the problem is guns, not people's behavior.

When we take the guns away, I'm sure the burning, looting and rioting will stop, as will pushing people in front of trains.

In my view, the "people's behaviour" argument is perfectly valid, but it cannot be examined in isolation.

It ignores the reality that firearms amplify the consequences of that behaviour, increasing both the frequency and lethality of violence. The issue isn't just the people. It's the combination of people and easy access to highly effective weapons.

1 minute ago, Yellowtail said:

Taking guns away to eliminate crime, is like taking forks away to eliminate obesity.

False equivalence. Again.

That that you think you've made a profound point rather than exposed a catastrophic failure in basic reasoning is genuinely astonishing.

A fork is designed to move food from a plate to your mouth. A firearm is designed to project lethal force.

By your logical standards, taking rocket launchers away from terrorists is like taking teaspoons away from diabetics.

32 minutes ago, unblocktheplanet said:

These things don't happen to normal people!

Oh, but lemme guess: gun crime happens to normal people though, right? 😆 🤣 🤡

Do you really read the news and not see all the innocent people affected by (non gun) violence? Stabbings, beatings, rapes, etc. etc.

Or do you think, "They arent normal people?"

1 minute ago, richard_smith237 said:

In my view, the "people's behaviour" argument is perfectly valid, but it cannot be examined in isolation.

It ignores the reality that firearms amplify the consequences of that behaviour, increasing both the frequency and lethality of violence. The issue isn't just the people. It's the combination of people and easy access to highly effective weapons.

False equivalence. Again.

You howl "false equivalence" but you ignore the reality that alcohol also amplifies the consequences of poor behavior, increasing both the frequency and lethality of any number of things.

The issue isn't just the people. It's the combination of people and easy access to alcohol which results in hundreds of thousands of needless deaths.

False equivalence, false equivalence, false equivalence, false equivalence, false equivalence, false equivalence...

1 minute ago, richard_smith237 said:

That that you think you've made a profound point rather than exposed a catastrophic failure in basic reasoning is genuinely astonishing.

A fork is designed to move food from a plate to your mouth. A firearm is designed to project lethal force.

By your logical standards, taking rocket launchers away from terrorists is like taking teaspoons away from diabetics

False equivalence, false equivalence, false equivalence, false equivalence, false equivalence, false equivalence...

11 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

A fork is designed to move food from a plate to your mouth. A firearm is designed to project lethal force.

I should bloody hope so.

I wouldn't want to be armed with a fork if I needed to defend myself, lol.

What part of self defence do you fail to understand?

29 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

There are 4-5 million guns in the US, and about 45,000 gun deaths per year.

There are about 3 million cars in the US, and about 42,000 car deaths per year.

So, there are significantly more deaths per car than per gun, so to claim that the primary purpose of guns it to kill is ridiculous.

This once again highlights the fundamental flaw in your reasoning and your continued inability to grasp equivalence.

Cars are an essential component of a modern economy. They transport people, goods, emergency services, food and commerce. Society would be severely impaired without them.

Society, on the other hand, functions perfectly well without widespread civilian gun ownership. Most developed countries prove that every day.

So the comparison fails before it even starts.

The more interesting question is this: if guns are not a significant factor, why does the United States suffer firearm death rates many times higher than every comparable G7/G8 nation?

That's the question gun advocates continually avoid because the answer is an uncomfortable truth.

29 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

You don't like guns, and you want them taken from the people that do like guns.

Quite the contrary. I like guns.

I've enjoyed target shooting with rifles, firing pump-action shotguns, shooting handguns and scoped rifles at ranges, pheasant hunting in the UK with a 12-bore shotgun.

Guns are remarkable pieces of engineering and craftsmanship.

But "I like them" is not, by itself, a compelling public policy argument.

The fact that something is enjoyable, interesting or mechanically impressive does not automatically justify keeping it at home, carrying it in public, or making it widely available throughout society.

The societal costs of widespread ownership outweigh the benefits.

And no amount of admiration for their engineering or enjoyment changes that calculation.

29 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

You do not understand the concept of rights, do you?

On the contrary, I understand rights perfectly well.

What you seem to struggle with is the fact that rights are not absolute, immutable or beyond debate.

Every right in every democratic society comes with limits, responsibilities and trade-offs. Free speech, property rights, privacy rights and freedom of movement are all subject to restrictions.

And the Second Amendment is no exception. It's called an amendment for a reason (as I keep repeating).

Simply repeating "it's a right" is not an argument. It's an observation about the current legal framework.

Does the current framework produce the best outcomes for society? The evidence strongly suggests it does not.

Unless we're expected to believe that the United States is somehow uniquely different from every other developed nation on Earth, the statistics are difficult to ignore.

The US consistently experiences firearm death rates far in excess of its peers. At some point, insisting the system is working perfectly requires explaining why every other comparable country achieves dramatically better outcomes.

14 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

You howl "false equivalence" but you ignore the reality that alcohol also amplifies the consequences of poor behavior, increasing both the frequency and lethality of any number of things.

The issue isn't just the people. It's the combination of people and easy access to alcohol which results in hundreds of thousands of needless deaths.

No disagreement from me there - Alcohol also places a huge burden on society - again, none of which justifies guns.

14 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

False equivalence, false equivalence, false equivalence, false equivalence, false equivalence, false equivalence...

False equivalence, false equivalence, false equivalence, false equivalence, false equivalence, false equivalence...

We'll at least I know your copy and paste function works - but you're still not presenting a strong justification for the second amendment and individual gun ownership.

21 minutes ago, NewGuy87 said:

I should bloody hope so.

I wouldn't want to be armed with a fork if I needed to defend myself, lol.

What part of self defence do you fail to understand?

I understand self-defence perfectly.

What I don't understand is why gun advocates keep acting as though uttering the words "self-defence" magically ends the discussion.

Nobody is confused that a gun 'can' help someone defend themselves.

The problem is that you've taken a single potential benefit and elevated it above every associated cost.

By that logic, we'd evaluate pharmaceuticals solely by the patients they help and ignore the side effects. We'd evaluate cars solely by their convenience and ignore road deaths.

Adults don't assess policy that way.

The United States has had generations to test the "more guns equals more safety" theory. The results are in, and compared to its peer nations, they are dreadful.

Repeating "self-defence" doesn't change the statistics.

Edited June 8Jun 8 by richard_smith237

3 hours ago, BritManToo said:

The obvious answer is to require all citizens to be armed with open carry 24/7.

Not necessary, as most citizens will never see violence, let alone gun violence living there. Most of it is suicides and gang related. I lived there 62 years and the only shots I heard were while hunting and target ranges, and i sold guns for years. There are cities that have the majority of gun violence, while suburban and country rarely ever see any.

58 minutes ago, NewGuy87 said:

Exactly.

They are are quoting statistics to make their argument, but that's all we are to most governments: statistics.

I think it's great that America allows their citizens the basic right of self defence.

Of course we're quoting statistics. That's how serious public policy decisions are made.

Anecdotes tell stories. Statistics tell us whether a policy works.

And America doesn't have a monopoly on the right of self-defence. Every developed country recognises self-defence as a legal right.

The difference is that most developed countries manage to recognise that right while also experiencing a fraction of the firearm deaths seen in the United States.

That's precisely why the statistics matter.

3 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

Of course we're quoting statistics. That's how serious public policy decisions are made.

Anecdotes tell stories. Statistics tell us whether a policy works.

And America doesn't have a monopoly on the right of self-defence. Every developed country recognises self-defence as a legal right.

The difference is that most developed countries manage to recognise that right while also experiencing a fraction of the firearm deaths seen in the United States.

That's precisely why the statistics matter:

We just have different views. Thanks for killing an hour of my time (no pun intended)

Hope you don't become a statistic while unable to defend yourself.

12 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

No disagreement from me there - Alcohol also places a huge burden on society - again, none of which justifies guns.

We have a RIGHT to own guns, just as we have the RIGHT to consume alcohol.

I have never used alcohol to justify gun ownership; I have only used it as a comparison and to point out the hypocrisy.

If the concern is to save lives, banning alcohol would save many more lives.

18 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

We'll at least I know your copy and paste function works - but you're still not presenting a strong justification for the second amendment and individual gun ownership.

Except that the justification is needed to remove a right, not to keep one. You have presented no compelling justification to strip Americans of their right.

A lot of Americans believe that the fact that over a hundred million people want them is a compelling reason. Or that rape victim that sleeps better with a gun in her nightstand, is a compelling reason. Or that many families that enjoy shooting and or hunting together is a compelling reason.

That it will "save lives" is not a compelling argument. Many more things are ignored that would save more lives, and it seems little attempt is made to enforce existing laws, which would save lives, but we want to make new laws to punish the law abiding.

Once guns are taken, you know who will still have guns? Every elected official, criminals, and the rich.

Law abiding citizens are the only people that will go without.

7 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

Of course we're quoting statistics. That's how serious public policy decisions are made.

Anecdotes tell stories. Statistics tell us whether a policy works.

And America doesn't have a monopoly on the right of self-defence. Every developed country recognises self-defence as a legal right.

The difference is that most developed countries manage to recognise that right while also experiencing a fraction of the firearm deaths seen in the United States.

That's precisely why the statistics matter.

Since 1900, has there ever been a time when the homicide rate was lower in the US than in Europe?

3 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

We have a RIGHT to own guns, just as we have the RIGHT to consume alcohol.

That particular right exists in the United States because of the Second Amendment. It is not a universal right recognised in the same form by most other developed nations, which is precisely why its existence and scope are central to this debate.

If the discussion is simply whether Americans currently have that right under the Constitution, there is no disagreement. They do.

The debate is whether that constitutional provision continues to serve society well in its current form.

And it's worth remembering that the Second Amendment is itself one of 27 amendments to the Constitution. By definition, amendments can be amended. The US constitutional framework was designed to evolve if lawmakers and citizens decide that circumstances have changed.

3 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

I have never used alcohol to justify gun ownership; I have only used it as a comparison and to point out the hypocrisy.

If the concern is to save lives, banning alcohol would save many more lives.

No disagreement from me there.

3 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Except that the justification is needed to remove a right, not to keep one. You have presented no compelling justification to strip Americans of their right.

Except I have.

The justification is the United States' firearm mortality rate, which is dramatically higher than that of every comparable developed nation.

You may disagree with the proposed solution, but pretending there is no justification is simply ignoring the evidence.

And by the same logic, you have presented no compelling justification for why the Second Amendment, written in the 18th century and amended into the Constitution over 200 years ago, should remain unchanged despite producing outcomes that are markedly worse than those seen in peer countries.

Rights are not self-justifying. They exist to serve society. When the outcomes are poor, it is entirely reasonable to question whether the framework should be revised.

3 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

A lot of Americans believe that the fact that over a hundred million people want them is a compelling reason. Or that rape victim that sleeps better with a gun in her nightstand, is a compelling reason. Or that many families that enjoy shooting and or hunting together is a compelling reason.

That it will "save lives" is not a compelling argument. Many more things are ignored that would save more lives, and it seems little attempt is made to enforce existing laws, which would save lives, but we want to make new laws to punish the law abiding.

Once guns are taken, you know who will still have guns? Every elected official, criminals, and the rich.

Law abiding citizens are the only people that will go without.

You're mixing personal preferences, individual anecdotes and public policy outcomes as though they're interchangeable.

The fact that millions of people want something is not, by itself, a compelling argument for it. Millions of people have wanted all sorts of things throughout history. Popularity is not evidence of wisdom.

Nor does the existence of defensive gun uses settle the debate. For every person who feels safer with a firearm, there are firearm suicides, accidental shootings, domestic homicides and gun crimes that would not have occurred without easy access to firearms.

And "other things kill more people" is not a serious argument. We regulate dangerous things all the time without first solving every other problem in society.

Most importantly, you're arguing from hypotheticals while ignoring outcomes.

The United States has widespread civilian gun ownership. Other developed nations largely do not. The US also experiences firearm death rates far above its peers (this fact seems to elude you repeatedly).

You can argue about causes, solutions and trade-offs, but you can't pretend the outcomes aren't real.

And no serious proposal involves magically removing every gun overnight. The real debate is whether the current framework serves the public interest better than the alternatives. On that question, the US statistics are a very uncomfortable place to start.

7 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Since 1900, has there ever been a time when the homicide rate was lower in the US than in Europe?

WW1 and WW2.

7 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Since 1900, has there ever been a time when the homicide rate was lower in the US than in Europe?

Excluding wartime periods, and certainly since 1945, the United States has almost never had a lower homicide rate than Western Europe's developed nations. The US has been a persistent outlier for well over a century.

17 minutes ago, NewGuy87 said:

We just have different views. Thanks for killing an hour of my time (no pun intended)

Hope you don't become a statistic while unable to defend yourself.

It's an interesting debate, and one where I'm still trying to understand a mindset that appears so polarised and so fundamentally at odds with what most developed countries regard as common-sense public policy.

I've never really understood the fascination that some Americans have with firearms, which is precisely why I find this discussion interesting.

As for that last attempt at a "gotcha" moment, it wasn't particularly persuasive.

Statistically speaking, if you're American you are far more likely to become firearm statistic than citizens of almost any other developed democracy. That's precisely why the rest of the world keeps looking at the US gun debate with bewilderment.

Edited June 8Jun 8 by richard_smith237