First, last, and only argument needed on the 2nd amendment

The issue of the 2nd amendment is simple.

No one denies evey person has a right to life. You cannot have a right to life without the right to protect that life. You cannot protect your life without the proper tool to do it. The only tool that is effective against an assailant with a gun is a gun. Once your right to protect your life is removed by outlawing guns, then you no longer have a right to life. It is that simple.

 

Guns result in many Americans losing their right to life every single day. Are you proud to support that?

 

There are over 100 million known gun owners. That count doesnt include most criminals or people who didnt go through a NICS check to get a gun.

There are 11k gun homicides per year, roughly.


Tell the class what 11k/100m is.


If us law abiding folks were the rabid animals you make gun owners out to be, I sort of doubt wed be taking a whole lot of **** from you

 

Factually incorrect. The majority of firearm-related deaths in the united states are a matter of suicide. These are individuals who have chosen to exercise their right to life, by determining that they no longer wish to go on living and thus have ended their own existence as they see fit. A right to life entails a right to end that life if an individual so chooses.

Of those remaining firearm-related deaths that are not suicides but rather homicides, the majority are committed by those who do not have a legal firearm to firearms ownership or use, and the majority of the victims are fellow such individuals with no firearm-related rights either.

Very few of the unjustified firearm-related killings in the united states are committed by those who legally can own firearms.

 

No, they don't. Stop pushing falsehoods.

Most Americans who die from gunshot wounds are actually people surrendering their own right to life willingly by actively terminating it... and far more end their lives by using tools other than guns.

If more Americans accepted responsibility for their own security even fewer would lose their lives.

 

Some lives need to be lost, as the individuals simply have no desire in abiding by the rules of society, or conducting themselves in an acceptable manner.

 

It really is.

Pro-abortion people deny that, given what I consider to be a person. But yes, beyond that, many people do assert this.

Correct.

You can, but it doesn't work nearly as well as having a proper tool.

Well, the most efficient (given practicality) tool against a gun is another gun.

Correct.

Also, the 2nd Amendment is quite clear in its reiteration of the right to bear arms.

 

No, they don't. Guns don't kill people. This is quite clear given the various cases of many Americans losing their right to life every single day by means of various other tools, such as fists, knives, blunt objects, etc...

I don't support homicide. Neither does the OP.

 

Don't move the goal posts. How does having a much higher gun homicide rate than other developed nations show that guns protect the right to life? What about gun suicides and gun accidents?

 

Most homicides in the US are committed with guns. Guns make it easy to kill. The type of tool does make a big difference.

Do you support lax gun laws which result in more people being murdered?

 

Many people who survive a suicide attempt realize that they made a big mistake and never attempt it again. Guns, however, make it much more likely that a suicide attempt will be successful. So most people attempting suicide with a gun won't get a second chance.

"Controlling for the effects of these six covariates revealed that keeping one or more firearms was strongly associated with an increased risk of suicide in the home (adjusted odds ratio, 4.8; 95 percent confidence interval, 2.7 to 8.5). Stratified analyses using the same model demonstrated that the presence of guns in the home was associated with an increased risk of suicide among women as well as men, across all age strata, and among whites (Table 5)."
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199208133270705

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/06/14/the-toll-of-americas-gun-violence-really-is-comparable-to-war

That is very disturbing.

 

I didn't move the goalposts: I pointed out the number of known legal gun owners and divided that by the number of gun homicides, while also pointing out that crime is most often committed by a group of criminals who are barred from buying guns with a NICS check and thus wouldn't even be part of the 100m rough total. If this highlights the extreme remoteness of what you are gibbering with fear over IE that the average gun owner is just a massacre or suicide or accidental death waiting in the wings, that's hardly my fault. Instead it is the fault of your rather weak argument.

Suicides are not preventable by removing firearms generally nor are they the fault of anyone else but the person who commits suicide. Therefore it is unreasonable, arbitrary and capricious, to remove rights preemptively from those without some form of positive adjudication of mental incompetency for which there is an existing process and for which no new laws need issue. If someone wants to kill themselves they don't need a gun to do it. You never had to work a suicide watch before? No sharp objects, no ropes or string etc. Why do you think that is? Because when someone is that low, they'll pretty much take what they can get.

If you know someone who is mentally unstable there is an existing process to adjudicate them mentally unfit and have them committed. If you find yourself convinced they are going to end their own life, seek help for them through the existing process.
If its hard to take their rights away with the evidence you have: That is not a bug, its a feature. You're taking their clean record of mental health status from them, and substituting your judgment for their own, its supposed to be difficult. Even if they are eventually adjudicated competent, that record will haunt them for the rest of their days, there is a good reason its hard to stick it on them if all you've got is "well I'm uncomfortable" and not real evidence.

Accidents: Hence why we wish you'd let us teach basic gun safety and familiarity in schools again. Also not the fault of anyone but the person who had the accident who should be CHARGED with negligent discharge, if someone is killed that's neg hom at the very least. Therefore it is unreasonable, arbitrary and capricious, to remove rights preemptively from those who there is no evidence of an actual negligent or reckless act for.

You're attempting to punish people for things they have not done and statistically speaking absolutely will not do.

And if you think you're salty now, wait until I point out that if you want to tout homicides you'll need to tout defensive uses as well and there is a .gov study on that and the range of DGUs is not in your favor

 

So? And once guns are banned, the 2nd best tool wouldn't take it's place? Would you ban that tool too??, and so on and so forth until fists are used to commit homicides? No ban of any tool is going to reduce homicides in any way... People will find other means, as people's intent is the fuel, not the gun itself...

In terms of ease, sure... In terms of reducing homicide numbers? No...

Begging The Question Fallacy.

 

He didn't.

Apples to oranges comparison. The USA is not England, which is not Australia, which is not Russia, etc. etc...

Even one single example in which a person is openly carrying (even concealed carrying) and a would-be assailant runs away for fear of being shot shows that guns do indeed protect the right to life. Even examples which a concealed carry person shoots a mass murderer is such an example.

Irrelevant to gun homicide numbers.

 

The problem is people possessing guns therefore I must possess one. Isn't that an example of circular reasoning?

 

The obvious question of "so what?" must be asked with regard to the above. What ultimate, meaningful difference does such actually make?

If someone wishes to go about ending their own existence, that is ultimately their decision, and their decision alone, to be making. It is not for yourself, myself, or any other individual to get directly involved in a matter that does not involve them.

 

And there are firearm-related restrictions in place to make such illegal under all circumstances. Yet they keep getting committed, often by those who simply do not care about the law. More laws will not address this matter.

Irrelevant.

The firearm-related restrictions in the nation of Venezuela are quite strict compared to the united states, and the government does not hesitate to enforce them against the people, but their homicide rate eclipses most other locations in the entire world.

 

Except for the fact that such is not the case.

 

So many Americans hang themselves I am shocked the Democrats allow rope to be sold with no background checks of any sort.

Suicide by hanging is the act of intentionally killing oneself via suspension from an anchor-point or ligature point (e.g. an overhead beam or hook) by a ligature or by jumping from a height with a noose around the neck.

Hanging is often considered to be a simple suicide method that does not require complicated techniques; however, a study of people who attempted suicide by hanging and lived suggests that this perception may not be accurate.[1] It is one of the most commonly used suicide methods and has a high mortality rate; Gunnell et al. gives a figure of at least 70 percent.[2] The materials required are easily available, and a wide range of ligatures can be used. Therefore, it is considered a difficult method to prevent.[2] In the International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, suicides by hanging are classified under the code X70: "Intentional self-harm by hanging, strangulation, and suffocation."[3][4]

Hanging is divided into suspension hanging and the much rarer drop hanging⁠ ⁠— this last can kill in various ways. Suicide attempters who survive either because the cord or ligature point breaks or because they are discovered and cut down, can face a range of serious injuries, including cerebral anoxia (which can lead to permanent brain damage), laryngeal fracture, cervical spine fracture, tracheal fracture, pharyngeal laceration, and cartoid artery injury.[5] Ron M. Brown writes that hanging has a "fairly imperspicuous and complicated symbolic history".[6] There are commentaries on hanging in antiquity, and it has various cultural interpretations. Throughout history, numerous famous people have committed suicide by hanging.

 

Simply because there is no way for them to exploit such deaths for political gains. Even if such was attempted, they would be swiftly rebuked by the public, with experts on suicides pointing out just how many everyday implements can be utilized for the purpose of hanging oneself.

 

This is an oversimplification. The more legal guns there are in circulation the more opportunities there are for the bad guys to get them. That's why you see so much more gun crime in the US compared to other developed nations.

So you're just going to conveniently ignore the study I quoted from which proves you wrong....

You're attempting to punish innocent people with gun violence.

It is in my favor. I know far more about that subject than most.

You might want to go back and read the OP to remind yourself of what the goal posts are. Australia, despite having fewer guns, does a better job of protecting its citizens' right to life. So it appears that the claim that gun ownership is justified because it's necessary to protect the right to life is false.

 

More good guys owning guns results in the bad guys being more motivated to own them too. So you end up with an arms race and everyone being less safe..

 

A suicide attempt by gun is much more likely to be fatal. That's a fact.


https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/means-matter/means-matter/case-fatality/