GUNS

No mike, it’s not good that ALL have guns. What I meant is that it’s good the gunman was stopped before they could do anymore harm.

Well thank goodness you’re here to explain everything Doom this thread would be lost without you.

Pretty much everything.  That should be self-explanatory.

I'm an unapologetic pacifist. It's my feeling that the proliferation of guns is more an evil than a solution. I'm completely unconvinced by any arguments I've heard that the authors of the U.S. Constitution ever foresaw or intended the 2nd amendment to be perverted by such a carelessly loose interpretation.

That said, I do feel that guns will never be eradicated, especially in the US, and that there are 2 categories of gun owners: the responsible and the irresponsible. Unfortunately, guns have no say-so in who owns them and the government doesn't seem to either. That's why the often-trotted-out trope "Guns don't kill; people kill" is so preposterously self-serving.  While almost anything can be turned into a weapon, guns are the one of the few products whose main purpose is to be a weapon although it's quite true that people use them otherwise; just as a paring knife's main purpose is to be a kitchen tool, though people may use it as a weapon.

I'm one of those odd people who reads views opposing my own because my agenda is never to advance my own beliefs (since no one can change anyone else's beliefs - only they can do that) but rather to understand things holistically and adjust my views accordingly. I read https://www.nap.edu/read/10881/chapter/7 published by the highly regarded NAP. Oddly, the studies cited were rather uncertain about the ability to garner (and interpret) reliable statistics though the methods used and the conclusion held by several of the cited studies indicated that "there were nearly 5 times as many homicides and 37 times as many suicides as perpetrators killed in self-defense" and they go on to conclude, 'The advisability of keeping a firearm in the home for protection must be questioned.'” Other studies weren't as blatant, allowing for more generous interpretations. At any rate, this chapter on the use of firearms for defense wasn't convincing as an argument for such a thing --and in fact reinforced the idea that firearms in the home to be more problematic than a kind of solution.  However, this article in the also respected Scientific American - https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/more-guns-do-not-stop-more-crimes-evidence-shows/ - indicates that "More than 30 peer-reviewed studies, focusing on individuals as well as populations, have been published that confirm what Kellermann's studies suggested: that guns are associated with an increased risk for violence and homicide. “

This is a complex (and emotional) issue and one that I certainly have no answers for, as I suspected no one else does either. But I do think it's important for both sides of this issue to listen to the other side since both sides must have valid arguments worth considering, even if we end up dismissing them after careful scrutiny.  

I do believe that since (I believe that) guns will never be eradicated, some sort of great compromise must be seriously persued as our country becomes more divisive and random acts of violence, especially mass violence, become so common place, we scarcely take notice of them anymore.

That is well said Batgirl.

Batgirl:

You wouldn’t get away with this at university level. You many times added words to qualify your statements and make them sound true and relevant.

The most obvious being:

"there were nearly 5 times as many homicides and 37 times as many suicides as perpetrators killed in self-defense"

…is there nobody here who sees how basic this mistake is?

You DO NOT NEED TO KILL SOMEONE FOR A GUN TO BE USED IN SELF DEFENSE.

I can’t believe I have to explain this.

So a gun drawing a shotgun B and chasing gone invaders off his property wasn’t using his shotgun in self defense…if he would have went outside with a balloon they would have RAN AWAY!

YAY!

Some of you ppl have never lived in a crime I infested area. It is so obvious to someone like me(who has) that you may as well be carrying a sign.

Just remember not everyone has as much PRIVILEGE as you living in your ivory tower.

While I do hate violence, it is my considered opinion that pacifism is what led to WW2.

Putting that aside, we do not live in a perfect world. There will unfortunately be violence in it until the end of time. That is just human nature. There will always be common criminals of the lower sort, and there will always be criminals of the more powerful sort: tyrants, evil men and women of all kinds who seek to gain power and control over the people of the various countries in the world. We see them throughout history, and we even see them in our current day and age. And that is why we have the Second Amendment. It's primary purpose is to secure all of the other rights. The right to self-defense, or hunting, is only a byproduct of it. In order for a people to remain free, they must have the means of defending that freedom, by force if necessary. And before you say that civilians with rifles are no match for trained soldiers with planes, tanks, etc. think about this: there are over a 100 million people who own guns. Assuming only half of them stood up and fought in the case of an attempted takeover by a despotic tyrant, that is still 50 million people! What could the government do against that? Bomb their own cities? No. Send in the military? No, they would be easily overwhelmed by numbers. Do you see my point?

The US was founded on the principle of government of the People, by the People, and for the People. The People are the sole source of government. To maintain that, and their freedom, a free People must be armed.

Side note, the Second Amendment self defines the word "militia" as meaning the whole of the civilian population.

I just quoted the article you provided. 

      "I can’t believe I have to explain this"......... Yhere's your problem right there.   You feel the NEED to posts in a lot of threads. Thank God Chess.com created a sandbox for you to play in.

I grew up -my first 17 years- up in an inner-city housing project.  It was on the second floor but not I never saw any ivory.

Also @batgirl, why does your description say "carrying a knife in my back"?

You quoted the article I provided and then purposely focused on what I CLEARLY demonstrated:

YOU DO NOT NEED TO KILL SOMEONE FOR A GUN TO BE USED IN SWKF DEFENSE.

Because I don't believe in guns.

It’s ok complaining about high crime areas. You say you need a gun to protect yourself in places like that. You do not seem to realise it was the gun that caused it to become a high crime area in the first place. It’s sad to hear that America is such a dangerous place to live. The gun laws obviously have not achieved the objective. Now the country is stuck in a downward spiral it cannot escape.

Well you sure a HELL don’t live there now. I raised little kids in the MS13 capital of the entire country it was s nightmare.

Illegals flooding the place and abs declaring it a sanctuary country so you couldn’t get rid of them.

I’ve been shot in my left bicep.

When my son was 3 we had to turn around because on our usual walk these animals had MACHETE a body and left in on the raid and Suffolk PD were there.

The town was national news.

You’re an IDIOT if you’re a pacifist while forced to live there.

Uh no doom MS13 notoriously did not use guns. They use brutal weapons like machetes and ice picks and hammers.

And it’s a lie the country is stuck in some downward spiral. Some of the most ‘gun nut’ towns here have a murder rate on par with Belgium.

the argument the article presented had nothing to do with deaths/no-deaths/threats by the person holding a gun in self-defense, but rather that the existence of a gun in the home made society less safe, not more safe.  Whether this is true or not, I don't know.  I just found it ironic to quote an article that pretty much concludes that guns for defense isn't necessarily beneficial.