You can say that, but you have not shown it to be true. And even if it was true, that would not trump the Constitution.
I see your problem. Buying (owning) a gun does not make you do anything. Statistics are very subject to abuse. Statistically you are more likely to drown if you have a swimming pool. Statistically, you are more likely to die in a car accident if you own a car. Statistically you are more likely to be hit by a car if you ride a bike or jog. The old adage “figures lie and liars figure” was coined because of the abuse of statistics by people with agendas.
So even if it were true you don’t care.
No, I care very deeply about our Constitutional Rights.
Even if its bad for our society.
Gun rights activists simply don’t care about probability. Many have mentioned that they need to use a gun to stop an active shooter or to protect themselves from government tyranny, even though the actual probability that they will ever use a gun for such a purpose is next to nil.
I understand that the constitution gives you a right to own a gun. That doesn’t mean gun ownership doesn’t cause a lot of harm in society.
The absurdity of the argument because a group of men in the past plucked out a set of rights from the ether that are sacrosanct and should not be challenged and questioned based on the ACTUAL reality of contemporary society is self-evident.
I say hog wash.
I grow up with young men and woman that brought guns to school. Sometimes just to show off a new purchase. Sometimes because they were going hunting after school. Almost every car or pickup in the school parking lot had a gun in it. No one killed themselves or anyone else.
No one I went to school with or any of the nearby towns had anyone end up in jail or killed because they owned a gun. And all the boys that had fights after school or on Saturday night did not end up in jail or killed. So, your I think your little story is a fantasy.
Your more likely to get killed or end up in jail for drug use than owning a gun as an adult or a child.
And I see that you are into brain washing. Maybe if we could just lock all those law abiding future gun owners up we could just brain wash them into thinking guns are bad. And than you start with the religion hate and the rural people hate. You all are just so much smarter than those stupid Christian rural people.
I have lived for a lot of years with gun owners and not one person I know has killed themselves or killed a loved one in a fit of rage or had it used against them.
Maybe there’s something in the water in cities that is causing people there to go crazy. Because there are very few gun deaths in the rural area’s.
Quite clearly there is a lot of harm done. Almost 40,000 gun related deaths in 2018 in the USA. 580,000 students not able to attend school or college because an 18 year old posed a very real threat to those students. A percentage of those 580,000 will have psychological problems as a consequence.
Two students who were at Marjory Stoneman Douglas HS at the time of that school shooting committed suicide in recent months and the suicide of a father whose child died in the Sandy Hook school shooting are examples of the long term devastating consequences.
The Constitution is not bad for our society. In fact, our society would not exist as it is without it.
Probability has no place in this conversation. Our Constitutional Rights are not based on the probability of something bad happening because of them, they are based on the probability of bad things happening without the Constitution.
Any constitution should be a living document. It should, and must, be able to be modified due to changing circumstances.
You are beginning to sound like a broken record. Repeating the same emotional nonsense over and over does not make your discredited point any more valid.
It can be modified. The mechanism to do that is built right in to the document. So quit advocating that it be violated and change it.
This is precisely the point I was trying to get at earlier in the thread but you have done a much better job of expressing it. Thanks.
Quite clearly a patently nonsensical suggestion and you know why it is nonsense.
No, the nonsensical suggestion is that we should pass legislation that violates the Constitution.
“Look on my Works, ye Mighty, and despair!” so decrees Samm. You don’t choose whether I post on this topic and you most assuredly don’t determine what I post.
It is not “emotional nonsense” to point out examples of the ongoing and devastating consequences of gun related deaths in the USA society. Nor is it discredited to point out that countries like Australia and New Zealand made positive changes in the aftermath of one mass shooting. Neither country needed to wait for more mass shooting attacked to understand that changes were required and implement those changes.
Who has suggested that and I quote “we should pass legislation that violates the Constitution”?
No, the stats do not create a “problem” for this argument. In fact your examples only illustrate the argument perfectly -
If your goal is to reduce the probability of drowning in a swimming pool, should you own a pool? The statistics tell you no, you should not.
If your goal is to reduce the probability of dying in a car accident, should you own a car? The statistics tell you no, you should not.
If your goal is to reduce the probability you will be hit by a car, should you ride a bike or jog? The statistics tell you no, you should not.
If your goal is to reduce the probability of dying by a gun shot wound, should you own a gun? The statistics (cited by the other poster) tell you no, you should not.
Considering the only point the poster was trying to make was that, statistically, you are less likely to be shot if you do not own a gun…What, again, is the problem with the statistics?
