politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
Citation: Needed.
According to Gun Violence Archive in 2023 so far there have been 888 deaths due to defensive use of firearms, out of a total of 31,900 deaths from firearms from all causes. That's 2.78%, which is about a 36:1 ratio.
So yeah- most firearm-caused deaths in the US are not from self-defense, and it's not even close either.
That's a nice figure you have there. Would be a shame if somebody thought about the context of those numbers....
Like how many defensive gun uses occur where nobody is killed because the attacker was deterred without the necessity of violence. You don't have numbers for that because they only count deaths.
Bro just stop already. You like guns, it's a neat little hobby, and you're getting angry because people want to end it. I get that. My hobby is retro video games/consoles, and if it turned out that they were a threat to society and people wanted to take them away, I probably wouldn't do the sane/rational/adult thing and accept it. I'd fight to defend my god given right to own a Wii, and I'd get into angry bad faith arguments on the internet in a desperate attempt to protect my cherished pastime.
...but I'd be wrong, I'd be an asshole, and I probably wouldn't realize it. I like to think that I'd have the self-awareness to not fall into that trap, since I generally consider myself to be self-aware, but also I really love this hobby and it's a big part of my life, so it could go either way.
Nope, I will never stop. It's not about "a hobby" it's about the rights of all Americans.
If any of you had any fucking perspective, you'd realize that our rights are something that millions have died to obtain and it's absolutely moronic to give any of them up.
I would definitely say something very similar if the guberment went after ma 'tendos.
Your perspective is based on lies though.
NO U
We'll see I went to law school and was a law review editor and passed a couple bar exams and practiced for years and years.
You read a blog post and watched some YouTube videos made by other people with no relevant education or experience.
Find me one usage of the phrase "bear arms" prior to 1776 outside of a clearly military context, that refers instead of an individual right, and I'll drop it right now and forever.
There's plenty of historical context to support the citizen's right to bear arms in the Federalist Papers from the 1780s, but that doesn't meet your arbitrary criteria of the year of Independence.
You make a lot of assumptions about the knowledge of others. That's usually not wise.
This is lame and a waste of my time, so I will conclude by saying the Supreme Court has spoken on this matter and their opinions outrank everyone else's. Nothing you can do about your dumb opinion that our Rights are based on "lies" but continue to be mad about their existence I reckon.
Maybe I'll argue the appeal of the one that gets the Court to throw out Heller and Bruen, or some other case to hold you numbnutses responsible.
I agree the date I chose is arbitrary. However, it is the date from which all originalism and textualism springs, as far as substantive constitutional rights. It is the originalists and textualists that read an individual right into a sentence that does not clearly have one.