Rebuttal to the argument about gun deaths annually

[RPRNY]

...Feinstein has made it abundantly clear that she believes restricting gun rights will reduce murders and feels that justifies further gun control. What evidence do you have that such is not her real motive? .

If her lips were moving, then she was lying.


The only motive she, or any other serial politician, has is power.

 

[jerkface11]

Whoa someone thinks DiFi's motivations are pure? LOL

 

[JRH6856]

The only motive she, or any other serial politician, has is power.

We have created a governing class in this country, or at least, allowed one to form. Rather than elect members of the polity to serve short terms as representatives, we elect political carreerists who make governing their primary profession. Those professional governors who don't run for office, serve as appointed beaureaucrats. Their interest in governing is for their own ends, and their efforts are spent representing and furthering their own interests and the interests of their class. They have been with us always, as Daniel Webster said:

"There are men, in all ages, who mean to exercise power usefully; but who mean to exercise it. They mean to govern well; but they mean to govern. They promise to be kind masters; but they mean to be masters."​

We have allowed them to become a class apart of which we are rapidly losing control (if we have not already lost it), and we are suffering for it.

 

[GEM]

I think the deep driving factor for Feinstein is the SF murders of Harvey Milk and George Moscone. That is the emotional engine that flavors all her attitudes.

She sees no good from guns after those. One can suggest all kinds of political theories of control but you miss her core. The same goes for Rep. McCarthy out of NY and the LIRR rampage.

 

[happygeek]

She sees no good from guns after those.

I don't know about that, when she felt personally threatened she saw that guns can be useful for defense: http://www.ijreview.com/2013/01/325...n-discusses-why-she-concealed-carry-firearms/

This is I think a big part of the reason why so many see her as the epitome of the elitist gun controller, she had a carry permit in SF and now that she's a Sen she gets her own armed security detail. Yet she fights against average joes' ability to carry for self defense.

 

[JRH6856]

If the Milk and Moscone murders made her feel vulnerable and fearful of her own safety, she could very well have the irrational reaction of feeling the need for guns for her own protection while seeking to keep them out of the hands of others who might be a threat. But I see that as just adding a personal motivation to further a Progressive political agenda.

From the beginning of the movement, the Progressive goal has been the social engineering of a peaceful and ordered society grounded in solid Middle Class values. Over the last 130 years, the Middle Class and its values have undergone significant change, but the Pogressive goal of engineering a peaceful, ordered society has not. In order to acheive that goal, they see two things as immediatley obvious: Guns, as intruments of violence, have no place in a peaceful society, and individual natural rights, as instruments of unregulated liberty have no place in an ordered society. And since personal arms are primary instrumets in the defenst of personal liberty, removing the right to arms hastens the removal of the rest of those undesirable rights. But make no mistake, all rights—whether protected by the Constitution or not—have been gradually disappearing under the Progressive attack, as more and more restrictions are laid on to impose the desired order.

 

[GEM]

While I agree somewhat, there are quite a few 'conservatives' who disagree with the armed populace as a protector of liberty. Simple google searches will bring up many. Check out Warren Berger for instance. If he was Chief justice, you could have kissed Heller good bye.

It is particular mindset that sees the armed citizen as a bulwark against tyranny. That does not necessarily exist for a conservative or liberal or libertarian or whatever. It might be more likely in one orientation but I wouldn't trust anyone unless they explicitly state that they support the RKBA for such.

 

[JRH6856]

Yes, there are statists of every color. The governing class crosses party lines. Progressives see no need for individual liberties, while Conservatives would conserve those liberties that don''t throeatn their power. The spectrum runs from "what is not allowed by government is denied" to "what is not denied by government is allowed with restrictions". But government always controls the people and the governing class controls the government.

Among the governed classes, a significant portion has already been succesfully reingineered and desires nothing more than to be a part of a peaceful, ordered society. They truly believe that what government does not allow should be denied. Most of the governed believe that liberty should be limited to protect peace and order (ie. government). They only disagree as to the extent of the limitations. A small (but perhaps growing) minority actualy believe in limiting government and protecting indiviudal liberty.

 

[JustinJ]

A politically motivated goal rarely accrues much direct benefit to the individual pursuing it. That would make it a personally motivated goal.

DiFi is a member of the governing class, and one of the prime benefits that class derives from civilian disarmament is that it makes the governed classes less resistant to coercive government. Civilian disarmament is a Progressive political goal because Progressives do not recognize the concept of the natural rights of individuals. For the governed classes, rights are what government allows, and what is not allowed is denied.

So you're contention is that Feinstein wants to disarm Americans so that in the future she can impose further restrictions to liberties? Again, I ask to what end? Why would one seek political goals if there is no personal advantage unless they believe said goal is for the greater good? If one actually speaks to those who support gun control, as restrictive or even more so than Feinstein, it is apparent that they believe such regulation make society safer. Countless people outside of politics hold such views so why its implausible that elected officials don't is beyond me. Might Feinstein and her ilk see political advantage in gun control measures? Sure. Anytime a politician gets signature legislation passed which his or her constituents value it helps to ensure retention of elected position. That however, does not exclude believing in said legislation or indicate intent to seize power.

Further, the idea that the other side of the political spectrum from progressives values liberty on principle is utterly laughable. One can't seriously complain about infringement of liberties from the left while no making no mention of it from the right.

 

[jerkface11]

Yeah they probably have good reasons for restricting our first and second amendment rights while eliminating the 4th 5th 9th and 10th amendments altogether.

 

[Spats McGee]

I just found something that could easily be used as a rebuttal to the anti's arguments that firearms deaths could be reduced by banning firearms. They repeatedly quote the 30,000 annual deaths figure, but it's interesting to note that today the CDC released through JAMA the story that 75,000 patients in US hospitals die from hospital acquired infections. Quote from a story appearing on MSM page this afternoon: "People who are hospitalized in the United States risk acquiring healthcare-associated infections, which kill 75,000 patients per year, US health authorities said Wednesday."

Suppose we started using this figure to show that the firearms deaths aren't really that many in the USA since more people are killed in traffic accidents and hospitalizations, and there's no outcry to reduce those deaths, so where's the basis for eliminating a constitutional guarantee to try to make any difference in firearms fatalities? Further, when you eliminate the suicide and gang related deaths, the actual number is pretty low.

To be honest, I'm not interested in using statistics to fight the 2A fight. If you engage in that debate, at some level, you concede that if the statistics came up "right for the antis," those statistics would form a valid basis for restricting the 2A rights of lawful gun owners.

We're talking about a fundamental, indiviudal right here. It doesn't matter what the statistics show. I don't have any responsibility to protect US citizens, generally, from violence. I do have a responsibility to ensure the safety of my wife and child. In other words, when an anti-gunner starts spouting off statistics, my response is often along the lines of "So what? I didn't kill or maim any of those folks."

 

[GEM]

To follow up on Spats. The dramatic drop in crime in NYC and other metropolitian areas is probably caused by stop and frisk practices by police.

However, many and some court decisions see the practice as unconstitutional. Also the high false positive rates in the stops are problematic.

Do we curtail a basic right based on statistics - I wouldn't think so.

Again the comparison really doesn't aid us.

 

[gym]

It's really this simple, "the bad guys don't want the good guys to have guns". The good guys may wake up one day and get rid of the bad guys, they won't be much of a threat if they don't have guns, now would they.
One day the sleeping majority will wake up to see they have nothing left, maybe then they will get mad enough to actually do something other than just flap their jaws
Why do you think they are so afraid, it's not about an occasional shooting that gets blown up in the press. When Obama puts a Muslim Surgeon General who is anti gun, in office on top of all the taxes, that Obama Care will inflict on the middle class. it's not going to end well, they know it's just a matter of when, not if. He's such a hypocrite, he still smokes cigarettes.
These varying amounts of deaths mean absolutely nothing, we have too many statistics that are useless in this country, it depends on who's doing the counting.

 

[Pizzapinochle]

To be honest, I'm not interested in using statistics to fight the 2A fight. If you engage in that debate, at some level, you concede that if the statistics came up "right for the antis," those statistics would form a valid basis for restricting the 2A rights of lawful gun owners.

Spats nailed it.

If you want to use the OPs argument, then when the number of deaths becomes even, you would have to concede that NOW their arguments are valid, which you do not believe.

Attack with something you believe in (Spats provides an excellent example, "fundamental rights") , not contrived attempts to portray your opponent as immoral because they are focusing on the wrong kinds of deaths.

 

[JRH6856]

IIRC, there have now been more innocent U.S. citizens killed here by LEOs, than U.S. soldiers killed in middle east since war began in 03/2003. Innocent civilians killed by the ONLY people the antis WANT to have firearms legally.

I would really like to see some data to support that. Sometimes, statistics can be useful.

 

[Pizzapinochle]

I would really like to see some data to support that. Sometimes, statistics can be useful.

If they are true.... kind of doubting this one.

 

[Potatohead]

A politically motivated goal rarely accrues much direct benefit to the individual pursuing it. That would make it a personally motivated goal.

DiFi is a member of the governing class, and one of the prime benefits that class derives from civilian disarmament is that it makes the governed classes less resistant to coercive government. Civilian disarmament is a Progressive political goal because Progressives do not recognize the concept of the natural rights of individuals. For the governed classes, rights are what government allows, and what is not allowed is denied.

Im with Walkalong on the above, very well said.


And for post #92, what in the world is all that about?

 

[easyg]

To be honest, I'm not interested in using statistics to fight the 2A fight. If you engage in that debate, at some level, you concede that if the statistics came up "right for the antis," those statistics would form a valid basis for restricting the 2A rights of lawful gun owners.

We're talking about a fundamental, indiviudal right here. It doesn't matter what the statistics show. I don't have any responsibility to protect US citizens, generally, from violence. I do have a responsibility to ensure the safety of my wife and child. In other words, when an anti-gunner starts spouting off statistics, my response is often along the lines of "So what? I didn't kill or maim any of those folks."

YES!!!

Taking away the right to keep and bear arms, in an effort to prevent an unlawful shooting, is like taking away the right to free speech in an effort to prevent someone from shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater.

 

[DHJenkins]

I almost wish I knew some anti-gun people so I could get in on discussions like this.

 

[JustinJ]

When Obama puts a Muslim Surgeon General who is anti gun, in office on top of all the taxes, that Obama Care will inflict on the middle class.

While I realize to the ignorant "they're all the same", the fact that he's Indian and has a name like "Dr. Vivek Hallagere Murthy" means that in all likelihood he's actually a Hindu, not a Muslim, if he's religious at all. However, given medicine is about science rather than superstition, i'm not sure what his religious beliefs have to do with anything? Oh! Now I remember! Pointing out that somebody is the "wrong religion" is a great way for certain individuals to rile up bigoted rubes for political and/or monetary advantage. Unbelievable.

 

[Walkalong]

We've drifted off topic and had to delete some posts, so instead of continued cleanup, I'm calling this one done. It was a good debate there for a bit.