Invasion of US Capitol building

[D_W]

I think you know that's a weak argument.

It's an illustration of actual numbers showing up on an anecdotal level.

we know the actual numbers, I posted them. It's interesting when anecdotal and actual universal levels agree (the greatest chance is this is the case).

Other than that, guns are a legal/constitutional issue here. Everyone can whine and complain all they want, but there's a legal process to change the right. My point is that it seems to worry a lot of people (and the same is true here) due to skewed perception of likelihood from news. Just as I mentioned with my cousins BFF, when someone is erased by a drunk driver, the outrage is short, and nobody says "we should eliminate alcohol", they want to eliminate drunk driving. Drunk driving and guns are a lot alike in that there is no human survival need for alcohol, and in general across the board, the effect is detrimental, but far greater than just the number of deaths.

I can't justify one person shooting another without imminent threat to their life in the first place, that's not the point. I can't justify it when it's stabbing, I can't justify someone refusing medical care or any of those things. The point is that there is a grandiose fixation on one thing, but another is more deadly, and another yet is more deadly on top of that but they're afterthoughts to people because even though they're far more likely (and most people will know it just by counting their acquaintances), they just don't get "advertised" by the news and turned into scary pictures.

 

[D_W]

.. that's sole purpose is to kill ..

I think we covered already in this thread that the bulk of the guns owned in the united states are more or less for leisure or sport. Assault rifle is just branded terminology.

But, yes, I prefer to live somewhere you have the right, even though I'm not exercising it. If I were going to scare myself with stories, I'd look at the CDC death list or drive a motorcycle in the rain. Branding and imagery create the scare. By legal process, most of this country prefers to have the right, too - or there would be a large public demand to add another amendment to the constitution. It's that simple. The reason most compensated advocates for limiting rights don't advocate pushing for a new amendment is because they know there's no support for it. There is minority support to try to do something legally unethical (coerce local governments or other more easily manipulated groups to implement unconstitutional laws).

If there was support in this country for a constitutional amendment, I'd be perfectly fine with it. That's the process. We're a society. I'd prefer if we followed processes and laws regardless of the outcome rather than changing processes on a whim.

 

[Jonm]

I don't think you have a concept of what some of the rural ranch or mountain areas are like in the US and canada. You live in a country where the most dangerous animal is a cow and rural areas are similar to our suburbs.

But it doesn't matter what your wants are, it's an amendment here. If you want to overturn it, you issue another amendment.

If it's really about numbers of deaths of undeserving victims, maybe we should amend the speed limits, as the number of lives lost to traffic accidents each year is still about 4-6 times higher than the non-gang/non-drug gun homicides.

I'll bet if we implemented a 35 mile an hour speed limit, we could halve or third that, or maybe 1/10th.

(most large game hunting in the US legally requires centerfire rifles- some can be done in other seasons with archery, but the bulk of wild prey animal population control is done by hunters with center fire rifles).

Presumably you are talking about the Second Amendment to the US Constitution which states that “a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

I know this is very contentious but there is more to it than the constitution saying “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” I thought that America spent 719 billion U.S. dollars per annum on the military to ensure its security.

 

[D_W]

I stand by what I said....how many people would die without guns?

You are talking about rural areas with few people.

Rural areas in the united states probably make up about the same population as the UK. I have no idea what the answer to your question would be if the entire population here had no self defense. Certainly, the number of deaths by animals would go up, but it would be a small fraction of the number of homicides.

There was a point here about 240 years ago that we used them to get away from a crooked government, though. Quite effective.

 

[D_W]

Presumably you are talking about the Second Amendment to the US Constitution which states that “a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

I know this is very contentious but there is more to it than the constitution saying “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” I thought that America spent 719 billion U.S. dollars per annum on the military to ensure its security.

This issue was settled several times, but most recently by the supreme court. The right is determined based on the law and the context provided with it to be an individual right, not a state militia right, but not an unlimited right (as in, it doesn't guarantee that you can just have any firearm you want, large scale weapons or war, nor can you legally own firearms if you're of a class of criminals disallowed). Pretty simple. The meaning of the amendment is apparently that the ownership as drafted was necessary for a free state. The military spending is necessary for the security of a state, but not necessarily a free one.

 

[D_W]

I use to describe Wales as that bit stuck on the west side of England in an attempt to explain where it was.

I only know where wales is from looking at maps of sharpening stone origins

I would imagine the percentage of folks in the US who would point to wales on a map is less than 25%.

Then again, how may people could point to manitoba, saskatchewan and alberta and get them in the right order? I doubt more than half of the population in the US could do that, either.

 

[D_W]

If you look at my avatar that Grizzly photo was taken by me in Canada.

Probably ill advised. Yes on the infrequency of need for any kind of defense, though firearms are the only realistically useful defense. Some of the people mauled to death by bears tried using bear sprays, etc.

Bears are fairly common here - i'm guessing when they're troll through the neighborhood, they're looking for fawns and not much else, but who knows. They don't stop and converse.

Interestingly, a friend of mine here (from england, but who lived in south africa due to some class/caste system stuff in the UK long ago - his dad was a laborer and he wanted to be an engineer and could find no job. He found one instantly in south africa)....at any rate, that friend totaled a mercedes on a cow late at night in south africa driving drunk with a car full of "big boys" as he called he and his buddies. He explained it as drunk driving at that time (probably 45 years ago now) being not that uncommon or having the same social stigma that it does now.

He didn't relay the part about the cows being loose on purpose, just that they were in the middle of the road and they blasted one. Now I know the rest of the story thanks to your post - that they probably weren't escapees.

 

[Trainee neophyte]

There is still only one argument for guns: "I like guns" that's it.

Unfortunately that turns out not to be the case (which is a marvelously polite way of saying "you're wrong"). A gun is a tool, and does a particular task - normally killing something. Sometimes there are things that need killing, and a gun is the most efficient way of doing it. At the risk of conflating guns and stabbing, there is no way I am going to slaughter my pigs with a knife. It can be done, but it's bloody dangerous, pardon the pun. I will choose a quick , clean death for the pig over chaos, suffering and injury, and and an unhappy time for the pig, too.

As you refused to accept earlier, this is a nuanced subject. You don't have to own own a gun if you don't want to.

 

[Trainee neophyte]

I thought that America spent 719 billion U.S. dollars per annum on the military to ensure its security.

The point the revolutionaries were making is that all governments will always exceed their boundaries, so the people need to protect themselves from the despotism and tyranny of their own government and it's standing army (the constitution expressly forbids a standing army, I believe). To be fair to the authors, they had just fought and won a revolution, which had concentrated their thinking somewhat.

 

[D_W]

(I noticed the passing of the inauguration without incident wasn't as interesting as the soap opera stories that preceded it. Despite all of the admonitions from everyone on here about how terrible things must be in the states and the unlikely talk of a coup - now walked back by the media and federal prosecutors as having no evidence of such a thing - almost entirely a disorganized mob that was egged on just prior).

This wasn't very difficult to predict, but it's not that entertaining to the rest of the world, I suppose. As far as the national guardsmen - two things:
1) they weren't needed ,but better to have them and not need them than the converse
2) they would've been kept off screen, anyway. The inauguration was more or less a made for TV production without a crowd, meaning you can control what's on the set pretty easily.

There's not much tolerance here for military or paramilitary types running around with the public unless it's absolutely necessary.

 

[TRITON]

I noticed the passing of the inauguration without incident wasn't as interesting as the soap opera stories that preceded it.

Probably more down to the arrests and talk of federal charges, and thoughts of serious sentencing,throw the book at them level and most thought...

"Sod this for a game of soldiers" and just stayed away.

 

[Jacob]

...

As you refused to accept earlier, this is a nuanced subject. You don't have to own own a gun if you don't want to.

And you shouldn't be allowed to own one if you have no legitimate use for it.
Possibly a bit too nuanced fo some!
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/slaughter-poultry-livestock-and-rabbits-for-home-consumptionn.b. The American Constitution can be altered - it's not holy writ. This can be done by agreeing to an amendment. Some may not have noticed that 2nd amendment is an amendment itself! How nuanced is that?
It doesn't preclude a 3rd amendment. Hear's hoping Biden has it on his agenda!

 

[D_W]

Probably more down to the arrests and talk of federal charges, and thoughts of serious sentencing,throw the book at them level and most thought...

"Sod this for a game of soldiers" and just stayed away.

I think they handled the small group of nutballs pretty well - most of them never made it inside of the building (I don't think you can get away with too much in the digital age, and this isn't a bad thing).

Some of the other folks who went in because they didn't have a better hobby at the time are going to end up with charges and will be made an example of.

TS as we say here.

 

[D_W]

And you shouldn't be allowed to own one if you have no legitimate use for it.
Possibly a bit too nuanced fo some!
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/slaughter-poultry-livestock-and-rabbits-for-home-consumption

Going back to my comment about alcohol - I'd like to see the same standard applied (actually, I'd like to see it applied to neither). Guns are generally a leisure and hunting object here, but that's not what our second amendment provides. Alcohol is generally a leisure item here, too, until it becomes more than that due to addiction. I can't see your defense ("having a legitimate use for it") holding up very well. Can you?

It's intertwined in our society, too - a huge source of revenue. I'd bet it is there, also. The damage from it is far greater than guns, leaving dead, disabled and then a trail of screwed up family members in the wake of a single abuser.

 

[TRITON]

I think they handled the small group of nutballs pretty well - most of them never made it inside of the building (I don't think you can get away with too much in the digital age, and this isn't a bad thing).

Some of the other folks who went in because they didn't have a better hobby at the time are going to end up with charges and will be made an example of.

TS as we say here.

The vast majority were standard 'Normal' Republican supporters. Only as you say a small band of nutters who did the invading, the rest went along for the ride but were no real harm to anyone.

The weirdos like the Horned guy play to the crowd, maybe more to do with personality there and lack of proper understanding than the nutters who shout violence and wave their guns about.
And the saddo type as in the judges son, who himself dressed in furs , in an attempt to steal some of the popularity of the horned guy. the judges son of all of them rings of a total sad case.
He'd go along with it all, but I think he's mostly harmless. He even came across as that, sitting on a bench all forlorn by himself.
Maybe thats more to do with his Dad than Trump.

 

[Trainee neophyte]

And you shouldn't be allowed to own one if you have no legitimate use for it.

Ah, yes - and you are just the man to make the judgement, too. What, exactly, is "legitimate"?

It's yet another of those pointless internet arguments that go nowhere. No purpose to it. You do you, as they say.

More on topic - have any of the terrorists been charged with treason or sedition yet? This was a pretty serious attempted coup - I am waiting to hear about all the death sentences that will be handed out.

 

[Jacob]

The vast majority were standard 'Normal' Republican supporters. Only as you say a small band of nutters who did the invading, the rest went along for the ride but were no real harm to anyone.
.......

Yes these things get so exaggerated. Always have - only one person shot JFK but remember all the fuss they made?
In fact only 6 american presidents have ever been shot (4 dead, two injured). 6 is statistically very insignificant in a population of millions.
I expect they thought it was worth it for the 2nd amendment and the right of all Americans to shoot at paper targets and rabbits.

 

[D_W]

The vast majority were standard 'Normal' Republican supporters. Only as you say a small band of nutters who did the invading, the rest went along for the ride but were no real harm to anyone.

The weirdos like the Horned guy play to the crowd, maybe more to do with personality there and lack of proper understanding than the nutters who shout violence and wave their guns about.
And the saddo type as in the judges son, who himself dressed in furs , in an attempt to steal some of the popularity of the horned guy. the judges son of all of them rings of a total sad case.
He'd go along with it all, but I think he's mostly harmless. He even came across as that, sitting on a bench all forlorn by himself.
Maybe thats more to do with his Dad than Trump.

That guy was a fascination with the odd. But you're right, the news just loves something odd and brandable. First reports of him were "neonazi violent racist" all the way back to "navy veteran who didn't do more than talk".

But what people will remember is the initial accusations of "racist tattoos on Qanon leader?!?"

There's quite a lot of that.

 

[D_W]

Yes these things get so exaggerated. Always have - the fuss they made but only one person shot JFK.

Except the guy you're referring to was fond of your political beliefs and would be less enamored with the "election fraud" movement.

 

[D_W]

And you shouldn't be allowed to own one if you have no legitimate use for it.
Possibly a bit too nuanced fo some!
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/slaughter-poultry-livestock-and-rabbits-for-home-consumptionn.b. The American Constitution can be altered - it's not holy writ. This can be done by agreeing to an amendment. Some may not have noticed that 2nd amendment is an amendment itself! How nuanced is that?
It doesn't preclude a 3rd amendment. Hear's hoping Biden has it on his agenda!

The first ten amendments aren't willy nilly amendments - they're the granting of rights to individuals, with the 10th declaring that rights not enumerated to the government are granted to states and individuals. It's not like an insurance rider that was added 60 years later by a bunch of fundamentalists.