When your fellow Americans mean more to you than some hunk of metal and plastic, then have at it. Until then, you're part of the problem.

I should think a person with Neil DeGrasse Tyson in their .sig would have recognized the
OP's fallacy...

And it is a hypothetical, anyway; that does not prevent an answer.

You are presented with a choice. If you knew that circumscribing the right to bear arms might reduce the chances of a person - any person - being shot, what would your stance on that be?

Present an argument why or why not.

Consider some variants to your question to me, and what they sound like:

"If you knew that circumscribing the right to freedom of religion might reduce the chances of a person - any person - being shot, what would your stance on that be?"

"If you knew that circumscribing the right to due process of law might reduce the chances of a person - any person - being shot, what would your stance on that be?"

"If you knew that circumscribing the right to remain silent might reduce the chances of a person - any person - being shot, what would your stance on that be?"

Those last two are not mere theory- google "Jon Burge" and "Homan Square"

1) You're using circular logic. essentially your argument is "it's my right, because it's my right!" It's self-refernecing and assumes its own rightness without solid basis.

2) You throw out a red herring with the reference to 9/11. 9/11 is irrelevant to the discussion.

3) You present the assumption that the right to free exercise of religion or the right to due process under the law are eminently comparable to the right to bear arms. As these are obviously different rights, this doesn't hold true. Reference #1.

4) Also you try to imply that restricting religion or restricting due process might result in fewer people geting shot, as a supposed counter to the argument that restricting access to arms might do the same. Given that you cannot shoot someone without a weapon, this is just a silly argument.

Understand that your right to bear arms is already strongly curtailed. You basically only have legal access to some guns. And you're required to have a permit. And to register. This right then, is already heavily abrogated to exclude the overwhelming majority of weapons humankind has developed since cracking a sharp edge on a rock. And yeah, you'll get in trouble for carrying around a sharp rock. or any rock, really.

This being the case, and with numerous studies pointing to lowered number of handguns per capita correlating with lowered gun deaths and injuries per capita, then is there actually a problem with further abrogation on this particualr right/ And yes, I am aware that correlation does not equate causation, but we're looking at "number of bullet-deliverers vs. number of bullets received," not "number of pirates vs number of degree increase in temperature globally."

...as the Supreme Court has held that is an individual right. You are free to disagree with
that holding, but is the law of the land unless and until it is overturned.

It must be pointed out that most shootings, unlike the one in the OP, are committed by persons with previous criminal histories.

You could make quite a dent in those numbers by forgoing the rights of defendants to
protections enumerated in the Fifth and Sixth Amendments.

However 'safer' that might make us, I'd prefer that not to happen in any country I live in.

I feel 'progressives' that treat the Second Amendment is fungible help give top cover
to those that wish to treat the rest of the Constitution the same way...

"X and Y are both laws. Therefore X is the same as Y."

Yes, all three are individual rights. However they remain distinct, and very different rights, with distinct and very different scopes and intents and applications. Just because a number of things fall under a certain category does not mean they are the same thing. apples and kiwis are both fruit, apples and infants are both carbon, and free jazz and Beethoven's Fifth are both music.



The discussion is about changing the particulars of the second amendment. This would obviously require a change in the current state of the law, would it not? So... that's kind of hte point. Laws are mutable and clearly not inalenable, a fact which you seem to readily accept.



This is simply a diversion tactic. We're talking about the second amendment, not the fifth, and not the twentieth.



Here we have a no true scotsman (people who do not share your views are not actually progressives) and an appeal to emotion (with the constitution in place of a seven year old)

C'mon, I thought you were all about avoiding obviousl ogical fallacies?

Even if it did, why shouldn't restrictions or curtailments on rights enumerated in other parts
of the Constitution be under discussion?

This whole thread was started with an appeal to save lives by restricting rights.
Why should the Second Amendment be treated differently than the others mentioned, if public safety is the metric?

And no, those that treat the Constitution as a cafeteria are not progressives, no
matter how they present themselves.

I don't see your approach to the Second Amendment as all that different from
Donald Trump's approach to the First Amendment. He, too, promotes
restricting Constitutionally protected practices for 'safety' reasons...

It doesn't matter how insane the violence gets. Their answer is always Moah Gunz.

It's called "eye dialect." It reeks of classist elitism.

and they will kill anyone who tries to take away their toys.

That a hobby - a goddamn HOBBY - is more important than people's lives. It is a sickness. These people are absolutely deranged.

I'm sure you can quote and cite someone making that particular threat, right? Would you be willing to post it here?

Or would you rather just call me names?

And this thread proves it

If someone came into my home and made such a demand, I would use my own gun and blow them away.

If you would not defend your children, your mother and your father, your grandmother,
you are not only a dick, you are a cowherd.

The baddies kick in your door and have a gun to your head before you can do shit other than open your eyes and piss yourself. Then the question is asked.

Whatcha gonna do? Call Batman?

and do not associate with criminals, your scenario is not going to happen. I have a locked gun avalable at lose hand, not because of fear, but because it is he best way to keep a locked handgun at hand.

Do you routinely associate with criminals who may break into your home?

No.
I don't believe in whiny emotion based reasoning.

But you have a kitty avatar... So if it was a trade for your guns or your pussycat....

I don't believe in a no win scenario.

I, unlike you, live in the real world.

Spare me your sanctimonious sniveling.

Hard?

Did enjoy the alliteration though.

I live in a place where real people don't hyperventilate about things they know nothing, unlike people on the Internet.

I know, you just want people to love one another and perhaps, love you a little, too?

Don't care.

(redacted)

I would never love someone who doesn't love themselves.
Snively weakness is not endearing either.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10141279957



Source: Raw Story

7-year-old girl killed at MI soccer practice after ‘paranoid’ man with concealed carry license opens fire
Bethania Palma Markus
04 Dec 2015 at 16:00 ET

7-year-old girl died at soccer practice Thursday night and a family friend who had been experiencing paranoia is accused of shooting her in the head before taking his own life.

Emma Nowling and her mother, Sharon Watson, were shot after the little girl’s soccer practice session at the Taylor Sportsplex in Michigan. Watson is listed in serious but stable condition, while Nowling died Thursday night after suffering head injuries, MLive.com reports. Authorities describe the suspect, Timothy Nelson Obeshaw, as a family friend who had a concealed carry permit and a legally-purchased gun.

life of that innocent little girl! How dare she get in the way of their hobby!!

their fear and paranoia TRUMPS ALL

over the lives of 20 kindergartners killed at school, or 14 co-workers shot to death while enjoying a Christmas get-together at work, or 9 churchgoers gunned down at a worship service is the lowest of the low. n/t

That's a fucked up question, the little girl just died today. D:

If I refused to give up my hearing for the left rear brake hub from a 1970 Maverick, would you think me less of a person?

ANY genius could answer those questions for you. I'ma ask 'em anyway, OUT LOUD. Care to answer?

And in case you were wondering, I ask because the question you posed in your OP is just about the stupidest one I've ever read here at DU.

The gun(s) in my safe would impact the life of a seven year old female soccer player HOW? FUCKING how, exactly?

My Mother and Father live in IDAHO, and I live in CALIFORNIA. How the fuck could any gun in my possession impact their life in the SLIGHTEST?

My Children aren't infants; they're grown and gone.

I'm a dick? I don't think so, dick. Oops, I'm sorry... Richard.

I could give up my guns and swear never to own another one. And that would save not a single life: not a one. Because, you see, I'm not doing the killing. It's really as simple as that.

I'll tell you what: I'm sure you can find someone who is dying for lack of medical care and health insurance. Sell everything you own and give the money to that person. You will quite possibly save a life.

Or you could just make empty promises and meaningless affirmations on the Internet.